I mentioned earlier that I worked in the field of labour relations for 40 years. During that time, I represented salaried workers. What Ms. Folco is saying is very true. Next year will mark the 30th anniversary of the adoption of a policy in Quebec to allow people to work beyond the age of 65. As far as I know, this policy has never caused any problems.

I can tell you from experience that there have not been any problems, especially the kind of hypothetical problems mentioned here. Any problems that did arise proved not to be real problems. It was more a matter of making the necessary adjustments to collective agreements.

I have six sisters, one of whom continued to work after the age of 65. She is now 72 years old. She is healthy and still works. Had she been forced to retire at 65, she would have been consigned to a life of poverty. Why? Because like the majority of women, she worked at atypical jobs throughout her life. She would not have been able to retire with a adequate income at 65 years of age. She also wanted to continue working, as it happens.

Today is International Women's Day. This bill affects many older people, men and women alike, but more so women.

In conclusion, I have to say that it all seems rather...I was about to use the word “indecent“, but I won't. I am trying to find the proper qualifier. It's astonishing to see our colleague put so much pressure on Mr. Martin to have him table a motion that he hasn't the courage to table himself.

Like us, Mr. Martin will come to a decision after analyzing the testimony, and after drawing on his personal experience and weighing his party's policies. Far be it for us to tell him what to do. I'm not singling him out in particular. I would say the same thing to any other parliamentarian. It's inappropriate, in my view, to target a person directly in an attempt to have him cave on an issue that he has had time to think about. I don't know how Mr. Martin plans to vote, but I have enough respect for him not to try and put any undue pressure on him.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Mr. Komarnicki, did you have one more thing you wanted to add?

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

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--

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

I have a point of order.

We had a discussion not very long ago at this committee--led by you, I think--about the fact that we weren't going to repeat the same points at this debate over and over and that we were going to try to move things along. I wonder if that would be applicable here.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Thank you, Mr. Komarnicki.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

I'm done. I made my point.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

I think we are ready to proceed and consider clause 3.