I have just a final couple of points.
First of all, I think Madame Folco misstated me when she said I only quoted the employers' position. Obviously I quoted the pilot's union and association, which involved employees as well. I want to get that straight. My argument is not simply for the benefit of labour unions and negotiated contracts. What I stand for is due diligence, fair principle, and reason. It's for the benefit of Mr. Martin, who raised the specific points, and his constituency too would raise those points.
You're saying unions can change and contracts can change. Sure, but when two groups bargain in good faith, they don't expect governments to easily interfere with contracts and what they've agreed to and the give and take and the consideration that go into it. Also, if we're going to change the rules of the game midstream after a contract is put in place, they ask us to give them a coming-into-force provision so they can acclimatize.
You withdrew the first amendment; I suspect, just judging by your demeanour, that you're also going to withdraw your second amendment. How you would justify that, based on everything we've heard, I don't know. You're proceeding without the rationale that was indicated by the others to say that you need a coming-into-force provision if you're going that far, because we don't think it's good to just put it into effect. Why? It's because you're interfering with contractual relationships, bona fide considerations in which there's been a give and take, and it takes time to negotiate something different. Even if you do negotiate something different, you've already affected the rights of some people that can never be changed.
I wonder if you're going to proceed with those coming-into-force provisions. Some said two years, some said one year, but that's beside the point. Proceeding with this bill, as it is now, is not good. This particular section can pass, but the bill should not be reported back to the House. It should be defeated at this time and brought back again with due consideration for coming-into-force provisions, with due consideration to what the pilots association, the Chamber of Commerce, FETCO and others like them have said. We should say that we've considered your amendments; we think three of them are bad and two are maybe acceptable, and here's how we're going to proceed as a point of policy: we're going to change the mandatory retirement laws, but we've considered what you've said and we've taken some into consideration and some not.
This bill doesn't allow for that. If I correctly understand the advice I've got, we can't put any of the amendments the witnesses have put forth under the auspices of a private member's bill--