Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Personally, I would like this part of the motion to remain as is, because I would like us to take a broader look at what is happening here. Air Canada is certainly one example currently in the news, but other airlines will be renegotiating their collective agreements in the coming months, probably over the holidays or this winter.
In my opinion, this is not just about Air Canada; it is clearly about the use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. This section has been used more frequently in recent years. We have to pay attention not only to cases where the section has been used, but also to the frequency with which it has been used. Beyond that, we are also talking about the definition of work, but there is no such definition in the Canada Labour Code. That is something else that should be added. It's not just part III of the code. There's no definition of work, so you end up with work not being paid. I think that's something that needs to be addressed as well.
In addition, the definition of work concerns not only flight attendants, but all Quebeckers and Canadians.
During a strike, people talk a lot about the economy. My party does, for example. We find ourselves in a situation where people are afraid to. I would therefore like the economic portion of the motion to remain. If we don't travel abroad, at least we'll travel in Canada and Quebec.
There are also all the people who have to travel on business. I think the flight attendants' union members are not the only people affected. I think the definition of work is a very broad and important topic. Since this topic is making headlines right now, I think it's a good time to tackle the problem head-on.