Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to continue where my Acadian colleague Darrell Samson left off.
Before we went to vote, we were looking at a letter written by a Jazz union representative. The last sentence in the correspondence you have before you is extremely strong, I would even say humiliating, for a francophone, and I quote:
The Union is in discussions with the company on the effects this will have on the membership and the language training requirements needed to mitigate the negative impact.
That was said after a reference to the need to comply with the Official Languages Act and to the use of French by the company.
It's humiliating, there is no other way of looking at that. When a union representative sends a letter to the members to tell them that complying with a linguistic obligation creates a negative impact and that the union has to hold talks with Air Canada to see how to minimize that impact, there is good reason to find this somewhat bizarre.
First, were you aware of this correspondence? Secondly, what is the negative impact in question? Third, how did the negotiations go, and who took part in them on behalf of Air Canada?