Mr. Arseneault, I'm going to answer your question.
I am going to read the letter before you. It refers to the need “to mitigate the negative impact”; that is how the letter is drafted in French. You have to look at the entire letter. Of course I cannot interpret the intention of those who wrote it, since it came from the union. What I can say, however, is that from a union point of view, when you assign bilingual employees to certain routes, you bypass seniority. Some members can see that as being a negative effect. If they don't have the qualifications to be assigned to a bilingual route, they cannot be on that flight.
The letter says that people will be working together to mitigate the impact, that is to say by providing more training to people to bring them up to level and to allow them to work on those flights. We don't leave our employees and the union alone in this. We intend to work with them so that they can be given appropriate training.
The letter talks about mitigating the negative impact. For people who do not speak a second language, of course it is more difficult because they cannot fly certain routes. That is how people perceive this. We work with everyone to improve the provision of bilingual services. That was for your first question.
Secondly, you asked if we had taken part in the negotiations. When we make routes bilingual, it is to comply with the regulations and the law. We don't negotiate that.