Official Languages Committee on June 1st, 2017

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

I request a recorded division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Ms. Boucher has requested a recorded division.

The question concerns the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I don't understand Ms. Lapointe's about-face.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Sorry, but we mustn't make comments.

We're back to the main motion. Mr. Lefebvre has the floor.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the start of the process, when we discussed Ms. Meilleur's appearance before the committee, we wondered what powers we had and what we would do. According to our discussion with the clerk and with you, Mr. Chair, our responsibility was to verify her skills.

When we met with Ms. Meilleur, even Mr. Mulcair said the issue wasn't Ms. Meilleur herself. For the opposition, the issue was related to the process. From what I understood, he wanted to say that she had the skills and that he wasn't worried about her skills.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages' role is to review skills. We each have a decision to make, and we must say whether Ms. Meilleur or the candidate submitted for the position has the skills. I want to play my role as a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. That's why I'll vote against the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Généreux has the floor.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Yesterday, we heard Minister Joly say, in the House of Commons, that the committee is independent. If the committee is independent, it can make the decisions that concern it. I agree with Mr. Lefebvre that our analysis must cover the skills of the person to be appointed to the commissioner position. However, I think the Standing Committee on Official Languages must also play the perfectly legitimate role of ensuring the government's process is actually open, transparent and respectful, and any other adjectives you want to use. The Standing Committee on Official Languages must also be able to ensure the commissioner's independence in relation to the current government. I'm thinking not only of the current government, but of future governments that must appoint someone later to replace the selected person.

In the past, the Conservative Party has been rightly or wrongly accused of different things that may seem somewhat similar to what's happening now. However, it seems that you, the Liberals, said during your election campaign that you wanted to do politics differently.

You wanted to do things more openly and transparently. However, based on Ms. Meilleur's appointment process and the information received by parliamentarians and journalists, in the end, the candidate is very close to the party, and she is supposed to be independent and apolitical. The reality is that this person will need to judge the government's actions with regard to official languages.

Ms. Meilleur is a human being like I am and like we all are. Undoubtedly, Ms. Meilleur's very close ties to the government are, from our perspective, completely unacceptable. Close ties to the Liberal Party are unacceptable when it comes to the role of Commissioner of Official Languages, which we're asking Ms. Meilleur to play.

I don't think we, as members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, can refrain from questioning the process.

We must also analyze the process, given what we're going through now. In retrospect, I would like to have evaluated the process and its context before meeting with Ms. Meilleur to assess her skills.

When Minister Joly told the House of Commons that she herself conducted the last interview with Ms. Meilleur, red and yellow lights appeared on my radar. There was no green light. I don't understand why Ms. Joly interfered with an appointment process for a position that we want to be independent from the government.

You said you wanted the process to be open, transparent, respectful, and so on. Your use of this terminology doesn't make sense to me. The mere fact that Ms. Joly conducted the last interview with Ms. Meilleur, to determine whether she or another candidate was the better choice for the position, is unacceptable. It's even more unacceptable since we want the position to be independent from the government.

I think the committee must follow up on Mr. Choquette's motion so that we can assess the process. We must do so, not only to resolve the current situation, but for the future. We need to be able to actually implement, or at least suggest to the government, a truly independent process.

Suppose that the roles of the Liberals and Conservatives were reversed. You would say exactly what I'm saying. You wouldn't accept the appointment of a person who has donated to the Liberal Party.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

If we reversed the roles, it would be the Conservative Party.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Moreover, Minister Joly said yesterday in the House that she had interviewed Ms. Meilleur and that there was a short list. She keeps saying that she held a consultation. In my mind, the word “consult” doesn't mean calling you to announce that Ms. Meilleur has been selected and that she will be the best candidate. I don't call that a consultation.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Indeed.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

It's crystal clear in my mind. I don't know how you interpret this. However, if someone calls to say that, in the end, Ms. Meilleur has been selected and that she has a good track record, I wouldn't consider that a consultation.

The party leaders, through the Prime Minister, should have been consulted. However, this wasn't done. Ms. Joly called Mrs. Boucher and Mr. Choquette, who are both official languages critics for their parties, but she didn't consult them. She told the House that she had consulted them. However, calling someone to say that a person has been selected doesn't in any way constitute a consultation. I'll stop here. I may return to the subject later, depending on what comes next and what I could add.

In conclusion, I think the committee must analyze not only the person's skills, but also the process that leads to the person's appointment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

We'll now move on to Mr. Samson.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to make comments on this motion. Like my colleague, I think the committee's role, at this stage, is to analyze the person's skills. We don't have any control over the decision, the choice. The choice is made by the 338 members from all the regions of Canada, who will vote on the matter in the House of Commons.

The senators will also vote, on the basis of all the information. I think the fact that I'm voting now on the person's skills is very logical, because all the parliamentarians will vote next. It's a personal decision.

In terms of donations, I've just learned that, in Nova Scotia, a candidate who donated to the Liberal Party last year ran as a Conservative candidate and was elected.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

We're not talking about the same thing here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mrs. Boucher, please.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Canadians often make donations to the three parties. I think skills are what matter. Nobody on the committee seems to be questioning this. My colleague, Mrs. Boucher, whom I like very much, even told the House that she was in favour of the candidate when it came to her skills. The same was true for Mr. Choquette, on the NDP side.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

I said that in the House?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

I would like to share a few thoughts on the process. I want to say that I'm rather impressed. A public announcement was made inviting people to apply if they believed they had the necessary skills. The criteria were listed.

Most of the positions advertised, either in Ottawa or elsewhere in Canada, have criteria. People apply. That's the first step, which is crystal clear. I gather that 72 people applied. The fact that 72 people in Canada are qualified and ready to contribute their skills is impressive. The position isn't easy, but it's very important. Seventy-two people came forward.

Who analyzed the files?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

The Office of the Prime Minister.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Absolutely not. An independent firm, Boyden, analyzed the 72 files. I would like to think that an independent and professional company conducted a professional and honest analysis. I gather that the independent firm determined that, at this stage, about 12 candidates were promising. I think 12 is an impressive number.

I gather that the selection committee then analyzed the 12 files and retained 10 candidates. The committee operates by consensus. Everyone had the same weight.

When this stage ended, another stage started. Each candidate had to pass a psychometric assessment, and their references were verified.

I think a very rigorous and open process resulted in the selection of an extremely competent person who could deliver the goods.

That's why I'll vote against this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

Mr. Arseneault, the floor is yours.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I had three points. Regarding the first, Mr. Samson took the words out of my mouth. I will not repeat everything he said.

However, I spent the weekend reading everything ever written on this topic. We learned that an independent recruitment firm—to summarize what Mr. Samson said—contacted people who were invited to submit names, or their own name. So that was done, until they came up with a short list. I don't know how many candidates there were, nor their names, except for those that were mentioned in the papers.

We hear about this process, but in the media they never talk about the mechanics. How did they arrive at 72 candidates? How did they get from 72 candidates to a short list? We don't know. Perhaps the 72 candidates were all excellent, but we wound up with one. I have not heard anyone say that she does not have the skills to do this work. That is all I had to say about Mr. Samson's comments, which I wanted to support and add to.

My second point is the following. I am speaking on my own behalf, because this is my opinion: no one here around this table has political allegiances when we talk about protecting official languages or minority communities. No one here, since I've sat on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, has shown any political colours, really.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

That's true.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

The proof is that we have never really had to vote on reports or recommendations. We are all always on the same wavelength. That is typical of fights for minorities. I live in a small province, the only officially bilingual Canadian province.

We've heard about an appearance of conflict of interest. If we take this to its logical conclusion, any ombudsman at any level of government is paid by the authority he must criticize. Is he in a conflict of interest because of that?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

He was never a member—