Thank you, Mr. Rovinescu.
Let me just say that it is actually more in sadness than in anger that a lot of us are seeing our worst fears realized, those of us who were critical of the original privatization.
We took some comfort in the testimony of your predecessors, Claude Taylor and Pierre Jeanniot, when they sat in your place and assured people not only that maintenance meant more than line maintenance of good-to-go aircraft landing and taking off, but that maintenance meant the service overhaul work we talked about.
We also took some comfort in them saying that their maintenance shop, at least in Winnipeg, made them a net revenue profit of over $10 million a year, which in 1988 may or may not have been a lot of money, but the vertical integration of the company at the time helped them offset other costs with the money they made on maintenance.
If the Ontario Supreme Court found that you were in compliance last year, can you not agree that part of that was because you were giving 95% of your maintenance work to a Canadian company in those three locations? If you intend to farm out and contract out some of this work in the interim to the United States, you're falling out of compliance, surely, by anyone's definition. Is that not a reasonable position?