We merely discussed it. After reflecting on it and holding meetings in recent days, I reconsidered the matter and the motion that I had introduced. In view of the fact that, as members of this committee, we are not in a position to alter the situation since we do not necessarily have the authority to do so, it would be appropriate to conduct an analysis.
We have just distributed a new version of my motion. I have essentially amended three or four words in the upper portion of the motion and added a paragraph.
Personally, I am not in favour of coercive measures such as fines. I prefer to cooperate with organizations that are found to be at fault so that they can improve their methods. I am not fundamentally opposed to the solutions proposed by the Commissioner of Official Languages, but what I am seeking in this motion, which I am amending, is an evaluation of the feasibility of implementing the four solutions that were outlined in my motion and that are obviously drawn from the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
I think it is important for me to reread the motion. Here it is:
Whereas Air Canada has been subject to the full Official Languages Act for close to 50 years; The committee recommends that the Government of Canada evaluate—