Official Languages Committee on June 6th, 2017

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

Or the abilities. I have not heard anyone say that.

The leader of the opposition party clearly said that she was competent. The leader of the NDP clearly said that she was competent. The critics also said that she was competent. And we were going to evaluate her ability and her skills!

Our work was done. Ms. Meilleur came to meet with us. She was questioned. Our responsibility is to ensure that she has the skills we want. Everyone is in agreement. Our work is done. I think we have to move on to the next step. We make our recommendation that she is competent and we move on. We are not here to do assessments, nor do we have the ability to do so. We will not ask Peter to do something that Paul cannot do. That is not how it works. We can bring all sorts of strategies to the table, but our role is simple and clear.

I'm in favour of a process that allows all Canadians to apply to become an officer of Parliament. The process includes an analysis of the candidates carried out by an independent group. You cannot ask for better. The process was followed. For these reasons, I cannot support the motion. We do not have the ability to conduct those assessments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

We are going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes. However, when we return, Mrs. Boucher, Mr. Choquette, Mr. Généreux, Mr. Arseneault and Mr. Nater respectively will have the floor as per their request.

We will suspend for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mrs. Boucher, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair, I will repeat what I said, and what everyone has been saying, from the outset. We have had a committee that considers itself non-partisan all along. Today, I would recall that, contrary to what Mr. Samson stated before the cameras, Ms. Meilleur may have had a fine résumé, but the other candidates may also have had fine résumés. Ms. Meilleur's problem is that she is 100% Liberal. This is one of the first times that an appointment has not been unanimous in Parliament or in the Senate. We must stop hiding behind grand principles, because this is really what the problem is here.

It goes even further. Ms. Meilleur says one thing to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and another to the Senate. I think that is unacceptable. She misled the Standing Committee on Official Languages and the Senate on the same issue. On May 18, when Mr. Mulcair asked her whether she had talked to Graham Fraser, she said that he had told her to apply. And where did he meet her? In the street. Yesterday, in the Senate, she said that she had a telephone conversation with Mr. Fraser, and that she had gone to a restaurant with him. So we have two completely different versions of the story.

Every time a senator asked her about the anglophone community in Quebec, she was not able to answer. She knows nothing about the reality of this community, and she does not even know its name. Does that sound smart to you? We are talking about the Commissioner of Official Languages. She even ended up saying that she would be the commissioner of the francophonie. Listen, as much as we want to be nice and not get into it, it does not make sense, and we're not the ones saying it. She was the one who said it, to this committee and to the Senate. She did not say the same thing in both places. If that's what transparency means to you, we'll have to talk about it because I do not agree.

This is about the appointment of a senior official of Parliament, who should not have any political stripe. Just because someone was in politics in the past does not mean that they cannot aspire to become a commissioner some day. That does not preclude anything.

However, last June, she resigned from her position as a minister in Ontario, saying that she had to take time for her family because her husband was very ill. Two months later, in August, she met everyone in the Liberal Party, and now she wants to become the Commissioner of Official Languages. This is not a part-time position! If her husband was very ill, his condition could not have improved in a month. Read the “blues” of her appearance before both Houses, and you might realize that what we are saying is true. What we want to know—

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I'm sorry, but the bells are ringing, calling us to a vote in the House. I need the unanimous consent of the committee so that we can continue the meeting for a few minutes.

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

Yes, a few minutes. No problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Does everybody agree? Very well.

Mrs. Boucher, you can continue.

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

You have to realize what's going on. It is unfortunate for everyone and it is unfortunate for you, because you are caught up in this process and we are attacking you.

However, this is affecting all the members of the committee. All members have to go through that at some point. We are getting appointments shoved down our throats, because we are not in favour of them. If at least people say the same thing in the same places and to the same people, that's fine, but she appeared before both Houses and she said two completely different things. The minister told us in the House that Ms. Meilleur had never spoken to Mr. Butts and Ms. Telford. Yesterday, she said verbatim to the Senate that she had called them and they told her about the process. I want to be nice and stop asking questions, but the further we go, the more reasons you give us to ask them.

The members of the committee must work well together. What are we going to do when the commissioner eventually appears and we ask her questions? We are the opposition and she will surely be on your side. We will say so from the outset. She will speak and we will say that the Liberal Party has supported her. That's definitely what we will say because that is what it looks like. In politics, perception is very important. Today even more than ever.

You rejected all the motions that Mr. Choquette has tabled, and yet they were rather tame. You rejected them all. How can we work together and not bear in mind that you have been partisan? We'll no longer ever be able to trust this woman who is going to come to see us because she will not be speaking on behalf of the organizations. She does not even know the organizations in Quebec, she does not even know who they are.

Canada has two official languages, and we keep talking about them here. They are French and English. We talk a lot about the francophone community outside Quebec, but there are also anglophones in Quebec. She does not know who they are and she does not know their reality. Members who have lived in Ontario could say a lot more about Ms. Meilleur. You keep telling us that she is competent. She is competent, but in relation to whom? Do we know who the others were? Do you know their names? There is, of course, Mr. Doucet, who wrote a beautiful letter that appeared today in the Acadie Nouvelle, and who is absolutely right. Did you wonder who the others were? Did they have the required skills?

Don't tell me that this man is stupid, I would not believe you. There were others. Actually, Ms. Joly gave me another name. I'm sure he's competent. I will not provide the name because that information is not public and I have too much respect for the process to disclose it.

You have been playing this game because the government started it, but you are holding us hostage. The Standing Committee on Official Languages could get to the bottom of this, but we will have to work with her. You have just slipped one by us, because we can never have confidence in this committee again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mrs. Boucher.

Mr. Choquette, the floor is yours.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Do we have time? Will there be a vote, after all?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

No, there will be no vote. It was a quorum call and it is done.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we have to ask why we—all the members of the opposition and myself—are asking to study her ability further. I would like to distinguish between ability and skills to clarify what Mr. Samson said.

A person may have all the skills, but they may not have the ability to do their job because they are too close to the people they have to judge. She will not have had time to take enough distance to judge people afterwards. The position of Commissioner of Official Languages is an oversight and watchdog position. You may even have to sue the government if it does not comply with the Official Languages Act.

In that sense, I think sometimes we might not have a good grasp on the committee's role. So it's important to remember what the committee's role is.

Section 88 of the Official Languages Act, which Mr. Arseneault will consult, I am sure—

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

If you ask me to.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Yes, I'm asking you to.

In section 88 of the Official Languages Act, if my information is correct, it says:

The administration of this Act, any regulations and directives made under this Act and the reports of the Commissioner, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage made under this Act shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by such committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established for that purpose.

I would like to follow up on what my colleague Mr. Arseneault said. Earlier, he mentioned the Official Languages Act. The act specifically states that this committee must ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act. In terms of the process, it is not accurate to say that this is not part of our mandate, because it is.

Having said that, my motion was moved and, unfortunately, rejected. I hope it's just because of the list of suggested witnesses, not because of the basis of the motion, but it does not matter. The motion that is now on the table addresses Ms. Meilleur's ability to perform the duties. Does the candidate have the ability to do the job? I think we have to look at that before we issue the certificate of nomination. We must determine whether or not we approve the appointment.

It is important to bear in mind everything that is happening right now. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA) and the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN) requested a meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada. That's serious! Groups are pointing out that there are so many problems, questions, divisions within not only political parties and Parliament, but also communities—which the candidate will have to represent and defend—that they have to meet with not only the Minister of Canadian Heritage Ms. Joly, but the Prime Minister. Is the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which is supposed to defend and represent those communities, going to tell them that the Prime Minister is not available, that he will not meet with them, but that the committee will still be issuing the certificate of nomination, without caring about what they have to say? Is that what we're going to do? I hope not.

You said loud and clear that you are going to vote against my motion, so my question is: what is the next step? When will we issue this certificate of nomination and in what context? In a context where the two largest associations of official language minority communities in the country are denied a meeting with the Prime Minister? That is not on.

Can we, as members of the committee, decide to issue the certificate of nomination when the two largest associations of official language minority communities are asking to meet with the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister may not be available right away. That's normal, but he will have to make himself available to meet with them. That's for sure. We will have to wait for that before we make our decision.

It is all well and good for the opposition to move motions, to want to work and to study the situation. I understand that the members of the committee representing the government do not want to do that, but what do they want? I would like to know because I don't get it.

Just recently, yesterday, in fact, we heard that the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, or SANB, was taking the matter to court. This was reported in an article in the Acadie Nouvelle newspaper, Acadians' most read newspaper. Of course, people in Ottawa read it as well.

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

Yes, we get all the newspapers.

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

It's very popular.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Samson, I hope that you read the Acadie Nouvelle from time to time.

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

I read it, but do you read it?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Samson, I can tell you that I read it.

In addition, if you have read it recently, you would have seen quite a fine article on the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges, urging you to vote in favour of the legislation on the bilingualism of judges.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Let me quote from the article. It is important and it provides us with some context.

The article states:

In the next few days, the SANB will be making an application for judicial review to the Federal Court in the matter of Madeleine Meilleur's nomination as Commissioner of Official Languages.

The Court will therefore have to consider the validity of Madeleine Meilleur's appointment process.

Let me reiterate what I said at the outset. First of all, the two largest associations of official language minority communities are asking to meet with the Prime Minister because there are divisions and questions about Madeleine Meilleur's nomination.

Furthermore, complaints were filed with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We will soon know whether one of them is admissible. In all likelihood, it should be, because it refers directly to subsection 49(1) of the Official Languages Act. There is ample evidence of non-compliance with that subsection and a breach of the act.

Official language minority groups will be filing an application for judicial review with respect to this same subsection 49(1). What will the committee do in the meantime? Do we decide not to talk about it until everything is settled? Are we going to wait to issue a certificate of nomination? Are we going to decide to move forward, to look into this, as the motion asks, to understand whether she has the ability or not?

Regardless of what we are going to do, I'd like to hear what the Liberal government has to say because we have been discussing this for the last two or three meetings. This is extremely important. We are talking about the Commissioner of Official Languages, who will be appointed for seven years, not two days. This role is extremely important; she is the watchdog of official languages.

I hear you want to reject this motion and you do not want to try to find out what her ability is. What are the Liberals on this committee planning to do? I do not know and I do not understand where we are headed.

Let me reiterate, because it is important, the two largest associations want to meet with the Prime Minister, a complaint has been filed with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and there is an application for judicial review.

What are we going to do now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Following up on what Mr. Choquette said, I was going to include all the associations in Canada. There are large and small ones. Tomorrow morning, we could ask all the associations representing minority francophones and anglophones in Canada what their opinion is about this nomination and the process.

Earlier, Mr. Samson mentioned that no one in Canada had said that Ms. Meilleur did not have the required qualifications. I agree with him. I must agree with you. In fact, Ms. Meilleur has had an exceptional career. That's not the issue.

The opposition parties are not the ones telling you this now. We are not playing politics by sending you little motions to try to get you into trouble. Mr. Arseneault, you should not be laughing at that, because that's really not it.

Mr. Samson, contrary to what you are saying, all of the communities themselves are telling you that the process was not open and transparent. In addition, you said that, if you had not been elected as an MP, you could have had the skills to apply for this position.

You are doing a self-assessment, you say you have the skills to apply for this position, but you are telling us that you do not have the skills to assess this person's ability? I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Actually, the communities are talking to you today. They will probably be taking you to court because this makes no sense.

Once again, what we are experiencing is unprecedented. We must appoint the watchdog who must hold the government—

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

—responsible.

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

—responsible. Clearly, this person is a very close friend of the government. Under the circumstances, this sentence alone can destroy the whole process, and even Ms. Meilleur's reputation. It's inevitable. She cannot be in that role, under the current circumstances, after all the issues that have been raised.

Once again, we are not playing politics. The communities themselves are telling you that this is unacceptable. If the communities were to say that they supported the government's choice, that there was no problem because Ms. Meilleur is the ideal candidate, that would be one thing. However, that is not what I'm seeing from reading a few articles.

Mr. Arseneault, you who stand up for Acadia and the Acadians come hell or high water, I do not understand that Mr...

What's his name?

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

It is Michel Doucet.