Then through you, Mr. Chair, I will ask Mr. Preuss to table the risk assessment as a formal request of this committee.
You don't need to answer that question, but you have been requested to table that risk assessment. It is this committee's right to know what is in that risk assessment.
It is also this committee's right to convene witnesses, and as a member of this committee, I actually requested that the Canadian Union of Public Employees appear before this committee. On June 20 they did so. On June 20 they came forward and offered very professional testimony, as a result of which the government backed away from what I thought was a very wrong-headed plan to cut the ratio of flight attendants on Canadian airlines. Obviously the government agreed with the testimony provided by CUPE.
What I disagree with is your characterization that your letter to Pamela Sachs was an offer to provide services. It reads, in part, as follows: “I have also directed my officials that future communication between Transport Canada and your organization on this and any other civil aviation issue is to be conducted through my office until such a time as the relationship with your organization is re-established on a professional footing.” Now, they were professional on June 20; there's no doubt about that.
There are some accusations made in your letter, and there is a very clear punishment. CUPE responded, as you well know, on October 18, and stated--