Evidence of meeting #64 for Official Languages in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meilleur.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
Ladies and gentlemen, may I please have your attention.
We agreed to continue the committee's work this morning. At the end of the last meeting, we said that we would continue our work starting with the text of Mr. Choquette's motion.
I had to make a decision on the admissibility of Mr. Choquette's motion after hearing from you. I heard from you, and I declare the motion in order.
Having settled that, we'll start discussing the motion. I'll give the floor to Mr. Choquette.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
I just want to start by apologizing to QCGN, Quebec Community Groups Network, because it should have been on the list, and it's my error that it is not there. I just want first to apologize to all the English communities in the province of Quebec.
That's the first thing I wanted to mention.
The motion requires many explanations. I'll share the reasoning, without repeating what I've already said.
Mr. Chair, you determined the motion was admissible. The reason is that the Standing Committee on Official Languages must decide whether to support Ms. Meilleur's certificate of nomination.
As a result, we must take this decision seriously. We must carry out all the work required to make this decision.
A controversy has arisen. As I said, Mr. Chair, contradictory information has been feeding the controversy almost every day for the past four weeks. People seriously doubt that Ms. Meilleur could do her job properly, despite her strong resumé, because she's too close to the Prime Minister's entourage. What will she do if a complaint is made against the Prime Minister? She would need to recuse herself. She wouldn't even be able to investigate a complaint against him because she's too close to him. She may be too biased. She wouldn't be able to do her job properly in all these areas.
I could still speak at length about this, but I already explained my reasoning on Tuesday. That's why I think it's important to hear from a number of people. We can determine together who those people will be. I gave a few names, but I would accept amendments to the list. It's an initial list. We can talk about it in greater detail later.
It would be good to verify, for example, how we chose Ms. Meilleur. Did we consider that she could have had preferential treatment? Given that she must recuse herself for many complaints or studies, what capabilities would she have? How could she do her job properly in this type of situation?
Also, some very worrying remarks have been made. These include Michel Doucet's remarks, which I had already started talking about on Tuesday.
I want to address another aspect. The Deputy Minister of Justice, during the interview, asked her—it's very worrying—what she would do if a complaint were made against the Department of Justice. What answer would a candidate give during an interview before a committee that asks this question? It's very worrying.
We must focus on these types of things if we want to better understand our role and decide whether to support Madeleine Meilleur's appointment.
Liberal
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Choquette for his motion. I think it's very important to hear from experts and from people who participated in the process.
Mr. Choquette mentioned the QCGN.
That is the Quebec Community Groups Network. Perhaps I could amend the motion, if Monsieur Choquette is willing, to add the QCGN to the list in the motion, as well as la Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick and Monsieur François Boileau who is the Ontario French language commissioner, as well as the other candidates who submitted their names for nomination. I believe there's a list of 73 names mentioned, and I would invite any of those candidates who may be willing to attend as well.
My reason for this, and my reason for supporting this motion, is that the process and the person are intrinsically linked on this matter. We've heard from Madame Meilleur. We've heard her commentary. Unfortunately, I think a lot of what she said invited more questions.
Some of those questions were answered in the House yesterday, and unfortunately, I think the answers led to more questions. We don't know a lot of what was involved with the process. We don't know who was involved in determining the short list. We don't know who conducted the interviews. We don't know the names of the 10 finalists. We don't know that the process was fair and open. We've been told by one minister that it has been, but the facts unfortunately lead us otherwise.
For us to fully examine this issue, to fully examine this appointment and the qualifications of the individual, I think we need to look at the process as well. That's why I'm going to be supporting this motion. That's basically all I want to say on the matter. I think it's important that we understand the process before we make a recommendation to the House.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
I support the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
It's not necessary to support the amendment.
We'll discuss the amendment, and then go back to the normal list. For the moment, it's the list of people who want to discuss the amendment.
Ms. Boucher, you have the floor.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
I also had amendments. I wanted to suggest more names for the list.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
We'll talk about the amendment of my colleague, Mr. Nater.
I think it's very important to hear from the people he named. First, they spoke strongly, and they're asking the same questions as we are.
What was the process? Was it transparent? Given what we've been learning each day, we can see that Ms. Meilleur has strong ties to the Liberal Party of Canada. We're learning more each day, and it's looking worse and worse. It's not good for the role of Commissioner of Official Languages.
As I said earlier, when Ms. Meilleur will appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, who will she speak for? Will she speak for organizations, or will she be the Liberal Party of Canada's inner voice?
When we make an appointment as political as this one, we must make sure the person hasn't been in a ministerial position for at least five or six years. In this case, she resigned from her ministerial position less than a year ago. The situation is very worrying. I hope this amendment will count, because these people are involved in organizations and we must hear from them.
Liberal
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I don't have any on the amendment, but I have some on the motion.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
Therefore, we're adding to Mr. Choquette's motion the Quebec Community Groups Network, the Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, François Boileau and the other candidates who submitted their name for the position.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
There were 72, but the short list included the names of 10 candidates.
Liberal
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I was speaking of the list of 73, and inviting them if they chose to attend. Certainly they may not choose to, but certainly it would be the list of 10. Let's do 10 or less.