Actually, you may be surprised to hear that we don't disagree as much as you think we do. I actually agree with your perspective in terms of routes where there's only one service provider. To borrow the Quebec Sept-Îles example, you mentioned that if there's only one carrier flying in there, there's a lot of concern about whether the right level of service is being provided and whether the fares are too high relative to other routes. I guess the question to ask is what you ultimately think is the best way to ensure that the fares aren't too high, to ensure that the service levels in fact reflect the actual demand.
I would suggest to you that the history of this industry in this country shows that the market is really the best way to do it. If you make it cheaper for someone to start an airline, they will. Warren Buffett had the famous line that someone should have shot down the Wright brothers, because this industry just has a history of losing money.
People start businesses in this industry even when there are minimal prospects of making money, so I would suggest to you that if you want to improve choice and service in Quebec's Sept-Îles, irrespective of the fact that it's actually probably pretty good compared to where it is in other comparable markets, I would suggest to you that the best way to do so is to make the industry a lot more affordable to operate.
I'm not trying to be disingenuous in terms of the merits of the legislation, I'm just trying to say that if we want to address these issues, we need to be courageous and really deal with the cost drivers in this industry: the cost of the airports there and the cost of the fuel excise tax every time a person fills up their plane. If you make it cheap for someone to start an airline, they will, and then your issues will be addressed.
To your concern about the ability to review mergers, people have a genuine and reasonable right to understand what the effect of a proposed merger is going to be on fees and fares. I think that's absolutely right, but the question I again ask you is one of efficiency. Doesn't that already exist? We have a competition bureau in this country. Certainly, if there is a merger that is proposed that will have a dramatic serious and negative effect on the level of competition in this sector, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will be commenting on that.
I just come back to the efficiency of this measure. Is this something that really adds any new value? Really, is it something that empowers consumers to a level at which they don't currently already have it?
These are things that I would suggest are window dressing elements that look good on the surface of it, and that's why I understand why some people are very much in favour of them. But the more you peel away the layers of the onion, the more you realize there really isn't that much there.