I completely agree. That was part of their obligations. The argument was the following: Canadian taxpayers had invested in the creation and maintenance of the infrastructure and the image of that airline over a long period of time. With its purchase, the people had bought a Canadian creation that bore Canada's name. Through the purchase of not only the infrastructure, the physical assets, but also the image and history associated with it, there were very clear obligations. I'm not a lawyer but I believe that when a contract is signed, it cannot be amended without the consent of both signatories. In my opinion, there are very clear obligations.
The problem is that, in the current context, several bills have already been tabled. Every time a bill is tabled, all of a sudden the structure is changed. We see that certain services are transferred from one component of what I call the Air Canada family to another. There are therefore not the same obligations for certain subsidiaries as there are for Air Canada. We are consequently proposing that the obligations be clearly defined for all the entities that are part of the Air Canada family.