No doubt it is symbolic, but it's more than that. No one is suggesting for a moment that mandatory retirement, as we now know it, needs to remain. In fact, we're on record as saying it needs to go, but it needs to go in a reasoned and logical way. There will be steps taken to make it happen, but the witnesses who appeared before us said that there are some legitimate things we haven't considered in removing mandatory retirement ages, things that provinces have exempted. In the provinces where they've put it forward, they've said they've done it for a reason, because it has consequences. New Brunswick, in particular, has a specific section.
The Air Canada Pilots Association testified before us, and Mr. Martin asked a very particular question that hit the nail on the head. He asked what it is going to do to upward mobility for the younger people in his riding who are pilots or want to be. What it's going to do if we proceed with what we're doing here today is prevent them from going up the chain. If he's going on the record for his constituents and his people that he doesn't care about that--he's heard what they had to say, and it's a legitimate concern, and we haven't taken the time to make an amendment to allow for that to happen--then that's his business, but I think he's not doing what he needs to do.
Second, these young people in his riding who are air pilots have invested their time and efforts on a pre-agreed understood collective bargaining agreement in which perhaps 90% of those who are part of the collective bargaining agreement have said that these are the rules of the game they're going to play by. They're going to be sure that they open up spots so that when you are 60, you will leave, and a young person will progress upward. They have said that they all agree to that and that they also agree that the top echelon of the pilots will be receiving especially good pay and pensions and benefits because they are leaving early.
There are a few who wish to continue after the fact, but they were parties to an agreement that set those rights and they're saying.... The president of the union or association has said that they have voted on this agreement. They all agreed when they started the game that this was how they were going to play it; now you, as Parliament, are going to change those rules, and they're saying you shouldn't do it. You should make some exception.
The labour movement--the unions and the associations--should have the right to bargain for what they feel is right, and that should be accepted.
If Mr. Martin says he doesn't care about that, fair enough, but I'm saying he should care about it. We should care about that. We should give them the respect to look at potential amendments that may address their situation or else say that we've looked at it and we don't agree with you. We haven't done that, and for that reason we can't support this section and we can't support this bill at this time.
That's not saying that at the end of the day we would come up with the same product with the same exceptions, but we'd have given them due consideration. We've done our due diligence. We had legal people look at it and say that this is how you might do it. This is how New Brunswick has done it. This is how Saskatchewan and the other provinces have done it. This is the way you can do it. It still enforces and reinforces the principles of taking away the effects of mandatory retirement while allowing the parties to bargain in good faith and putting good consideration--which includes work time, which includes years under lower pay and lower salaries--to do that if they want to.
For those reasons, I would caution us about proceeding in the fashion we're proposing.