Madam Speaker, this weekend, when I was preparing my speech, I asked myself the following question: what is the significance of a bill such as the one before us this morning?
By definition, a bill is nothing more or less than an instrument of compromise. It is similar to a collective agreement, where the parties have opposing interests.
Before I became an MP, I worked in labour relations for 16 years and I often drew the following comparison. Putting the employer and the union together is like putting two scorpions in the same jar to propagate the race. Ultimately a compromise and an agreement have to be reached.
The bill before us today represents this sort of compromise between diverging interests. It is certainly true, for me as the Bloc Quebecois representative on the Standing Committee on Transport as well as for all the members of my party, that it would have been or would be good to improve some parts later on, because, by definition, a bill is above all an instrument that is perfectible, or capable of improvement.
However, when it is a question of the sort of situation we have had for over a year, with a major carrier experiencing serious financial difficulties, we had to define a new legal framework for the advent of a so-called dominant carrier.
On the one hand, there was Air Canada, which has acquired Canadian International, and on the other a whole gang of others directly or indirectly involved in this restructuring.
There were the regional and local carriers, the employees' unions, the travel agents, and consumer groups. Each of these many groups was profoundly convinced that the situation needed organization and regularization. We ought therefore to have a game plan.
I do not want to just give the speech I intend to give on third reading. I will have an opportunity to come back to that. This morning, what I want to do is comment on the first group of amendments introduced by my NDP colleague for Churchill who is, I might point out in passing, a highly professional colleague who has followed the committee's deliberations most seriously and always comes up with reasonable opinions. Although sometimes the concerns she has expressed differ from ours, I wish to thank her for her contribution.
I do not wish to get off on a diatribe on this, but I do wish to say that my party engaged in a serious exercise around the proposed amendments to Bill C-26. I respectfully submit to my colleague from Churchill that they impose a framework which we consider far too rigid, paralyzing or constraining.
As I said earlier, it is true that we had to set new rules based on the fact that one company, Air Canada, was becoming a dominant carrier. However, we also had to ensure quality services, with the emphasis on frequency of flights, on time departures and arrivals and affordable airfares for people from all regions, particularly those of Quebec.
These people, who have to transit toward major centres, often use small local and regional carriers. One of the main concerns of the Bloc Quebecois members who represent Quebec regions was to ensure that these regional and local carriers could discuss on an equal footing with the new giant created by Air Canada, which accounts for 80% to 85% of the Canadian market.
With all due respect, the amendments proposed by the member for Churchill are much too constraining, rigid and almost impossible to apply. For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose three out of the four motions:
Motion No. 3, with which we agree, would amend clause 4 of the bill, which reads as follows:
(6) The Agency may make a finding...on its own motion within two years after the date this subsection comes into force.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Churchill seeks to remove the two year restriction, by stating that the agency can make a finding immediately. We agree with this motion, which also has the effect of removing the power of the governor in council to extend for two years the period within which the agency may make a finding.
Therefore, with respect to the amendments in Group No. 1, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 proposed by the New Democratic Party, but will vote for Motion No. 3.