I think part of the problem here is an historical one that has to do with funding for language training particularly. It has tended to be one part of the department that has been easiest to cut whenever we've had budget cuts. So it is starved for resources, first of all.
Second, as I think I explained, we are about to review each of these positions abroad to see to what extent the language requirements are still applicable. We may have been a little ambitious in identifying these language positions. They may not all require that. If you're working in a non-anglophone or non-francophone foreign environment, you usually need to have language facilities. But English or French is often well spoken in most capital cities of the world now, and there's not so much a need for the language as there perhaps was in the past. So updating that list of positions is a good first step, and we want to do that.
Third, I absolutely believe and agree with you that where we have language requirements we must make sure we are providing staff with those language skills. That's absolutely essential. You're dead right that we need to be able to field officers who can deal with those languages. It's important when it comes to critical negotiations in dealing with a consular case, and in promoting a trade mission or accompanying a business on a trade call. So we want to ensure, as part of the transformation agenda I described earlier, that we make some big reinvestments in our language training.