Mr. Speaker, the first part of the member's question might be a bit unfair.
I do not tend to call myself a specialist on the official languages. I just sat through two committees, so the full scope of the jurisdiction of the Official Language Commissioner, I would say, since it is part of the education system in provinces, is mostly of provincial jurisdiction. We on this side of the House try to make sure we do not overstep the boundaries on those aspects.
I know that during our committee sessions it was interesting, because some of the member's esteemed colleagues from different areas of Canada were reporting such activities in their own areas, one being Vancouver, the east and so on. It is important, because part of the Government of Canada's mission is to make sure bilingualism reaches as far as it will go.
We hear a lot about article 41 and how the government has to encourage bilingualism. It is something in which we strongly believe. The Official Language Commissioner talks about the official plan. It is always an ongoing process. Yes, things can always be improved and, believe me, I am not saying that they do not need to be improved.
Good things are being done as well. My colleague's question reminds me of a question I myself asked the Commissioner of Official Languages. If people are introduced into the official languages system positively, they will have no hesitation accepting it, as my colleague has said. Sometimes repression can come across as one of the worst possible approaches. The commissioner has told me that next year her report is going to include a different approach to the usual success stories, evaluations of the various government bodies, departments, agencies and so on.
In my opinion, it is important to have an overall picture of where things are not going well. Air Canada cannot be the only example, however. The examples I have already given need to be addressed as well.