Evidence of meeting #65 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 process.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

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

I agree, but the motion refers to our duty as the Standing Committee on Official Languages to find out who this person is who will represent us. We are the Standing Committee on Official Languages; we are the ones who are most often required to work with the person who will be appointed Commissioner of Official Languages, and with all of the other organizations. These files will always find their way to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

There is no reason for partisanship to prevent us from finding out who told her that she had passed her language test, and why.

Even if I speak English a little, and even if I passed the language test, I can guarantee you that I could not be Commissioner of Official Languages, first, because I donated money to my party, and second because I helped my party. I would not want to occupy that position either, for those reasons.

We are not trying to find the reasons behind this nomination here. What we are trying to find out is entirely relevant, since we are the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

If such a motion were tabled at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I think that it would be out of order, but this is the Standing Committee on Official Languages. If we cannot examine the language skills of the commissioner who will represent us, we have a big problem.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Mr. Choquette, you have the floor.

11:15 a.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go back to Mr. Arseneault's comment. If you read the motion, you can see that it is very simple, and does not talk about the process:

That the committee ask Madeleine Meilleur for her language skills qualifications as required by the Language Skills Act.

Let's read Standing Order 111(2), from chapter 13 of the Standing Orders. It is the same paragraph our chair read to us several times to explain the role of the Committee on Official Languages. It says:

(2) The committee, if it should call an appointee or nominee to appear pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, can examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.

The Standing Order does not refer to the process, but it does refer to our role. The Standing Committee on Official Languages has the duty to examine the qualifications and competence of the nominee.

Further, in Standing Order 111(4), the candidate's curriculum vitae is also mentioned. I can read it to you:

(4) the office of the minister who recommended the appointment shall provide the curriculum vitae of such an appointee or nominee to the committee upon written application from the clerk of the committee.

As you can see, it does not talk about the process, but about our role as a committee. I don't know if, or when, and I don't know how it will be done, but I think it would be preferable that we not grant a certificate of nomination. In my opinion we should abstain. It would be the best thing to do.

If we must provide a notice of motion ratifying the nomination, we must get to that point by using all of our skills and using all the time we have. Considering all of the controversy around Ms. Meilleur's nomination, and since complaints were tabled with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages with regard to this file, and given also that groups from official language minority communities will also be taking legal action, we have to use all of the resources we have, that is to say our abilities and our time.

We may discuss this again when we get to the next motion, but in my opinion this motion is completely in line with the responsibilities of our committee. Now that there is this new law that was enacted in 2013—the Language Skills Act, which requires that officers of Parliament be bilingual—the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada must be bilingual. How did the government in power, the Liberal government, decide to assess that? By administering language tests, which it is fully entitled to do.

We know that other candidates were given language tests because they told us, and they probably told you as well. The “E” rating means an exemption. It is a rating indicating that one is bilingual and that one does not have to take any additional second language courses. That mark is required for the process to continue. Consequently, it is certain that Ms. Meilleur got the “E” mark, since she went to the end of the process.

Just like we asked for her curriculum vitae, we must also ask for her language skills test results. It's really a routine question. “Can you send us your CV?” “Yes, of course!” “Can you send us proof of your language skills qualifications?” “Yes, of course!”

That is all we are asking for. It's a new way of doing things, because that act did not exist before 2013. The government put in place a system which is entirely legitimate, and requires that candidates obtain an “E” in order to be able to be Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada.

I don't know if that answers Mr. Arseneault's questions. Does the motion refer to the process? The answer is no. It refers to qualifications and requirements. We aren't involved in the process, but we are asking for required qualifications. Validating Ms. Meilleur's skills is the duty of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

I have no other names on my list. If there are no other speakers, we are going to vote on Mr. Choquette's motion.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

I ask for a recorded division.

(Motion negatived; nays 5, yays 4.)

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

The next motion is also from Mr. Choquette. I will read it again:

That the committee invite witnesses in order to assess Madeleine Meilleur's ability to perform the duties of Commissioner of Official Languages before it reports to the House on her appointment.

We were going to hear from Mr. Choquette.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

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

He is over there.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

He isn't far.

In the meantime, does someone else want to speak?

Mrs. Boucher, you have the floor.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you.

I agree entirely with the motion to invite witnesses. That is exactly what we need to do. There are more and more dissenting opinions being heard, and we should hear what those people have to say, as well as those who agree with the nomination. Let's be very clear: we have to consider both sides of the coin. That is what our committee has always done. We can invite people who agree with Ms. Meilleur's nomination, and those who do not.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you.

Mr. Choquette, you have the floor.

11:25 a.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Chair, with your permission, first I would like to go back briefly to the defeated motion.

What we have just done does not help the committee, because it is our duty to examine the competencies and curriculum vitae of Ms. Meilleur. It is our duty. It is mentioned in Standing Orders 111(2) and 111(4) of chapter XIII of the Standing Orders. It is our duty as a committee.

By doing this, all we have done is add to the polemic and raise more questions. What does she have to hide? Did she not undergo the test? Did she not succeed? Was she given preferential treatment? This is what we have been talking about from the beginning. When will this controversy come to an end? It is not dying down, because people are trying to hide things all the time.

It is really disappointing that the motion was rejected. We were simply asking for something that should be a routine matter. We were asking for the curriculum vitae and the language skills qualifications, as for all of the other candidates.

That said, the motion we are going to debate now is the following:

That the committee invite witnesses in order to assess Madeleine Meilleur's ability to perform the duties of Commissioner of Official Languages before it reports to the House on her appointment.

We are now in the fifth week of controversy since this proposed nomination was announced by the Liberal government. Every day, or almost, we discover new information or we hear worrisome things from various interveners.

We don't want to discuss the process, because that is not our role here at the committee. Nevertheless, I think we could have looked at it: it is our right since the committee is free to study whatever it likes.

Be that as it may, I'll come back to chapter XIII of the Standing Orders. As you can see, the motion uses the same words as Standing Order 111(2): “[...] examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee[...]”.

It is almost verbatim, except for the language skills qualifications, which we cannot evaluate. But I don't know why we cannot at least have a look at them.

I'll continue: “[...] to perform the duties of the post[...]”. That is exactly what the motions says, i.e. “to assess Madeleine Meilleur's ability to perform the duties of Commissioner of Official Languages”.

The reason I asked for that is very simple. Currently there are serious doubts about her ability to perform the duties of Commissioner of Official Languages. I spoke about it, and we discussed it together. What can Madeleine Meilleur do for her good friends in the Prime Minister's office if there is a complaint against the Prime Minister's Office or the Privy Council Office?

I myself filed two complaints against the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office. The first complaint was received and analyzed, and the Privy Council Office was found guilty of not having complied with the Official Languages Act by holding consultations in English only in Ontario, and in French in Quebec. That had been mentioned by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

How could this be handled? Could she recuse herself and say in certain cases that she cannot conduct such or such a study? She could recuse herself, but will she have to do this frequently, all the time? That is the concern we have, and that is why I suggest that we invite witnesses.

I did not mention any names, because the last time, we had a list. Of course when we have a list, there are always people who will agree to invite this person, but not that person. Some will say that this person will reveal secrets, and that he or she should not be invited, and so on. Currently there is no list. We can decide together and in a consistent way to invite three, six or eight witnesses—the exact number does not matter—to find out what the necessary abilities are to occupy this position.

We could meet with people such as the former Commissioners of Official Languages, for instance Graham Fraser. We could invite the current commissioners of New Brunswick and Ontario. If they are in a conflict of interest, we could invite the deputy commissioners, for instance the deputy commissioners of Ontario and New Brunswick, so that they may outline what is needed to play this role, and what the required abilities are to occupy this position.

I thought there would be a vote last night at the end of Ms. Meilleur's appearance, but there was not. There is something going on that we don't know about.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

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

At the Senate.

11:35 a.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Yes, at the Senate, and here as well.

When Ms. Meilleur appeared at the Senate yesterday, Senator Smith put the following question to her:

If you applied for a position as an officer of Parliament and learned that other candidates had met with political contacts from various departments, and that the candidate who was chosen before the recruitment firm the government had hired submitted its final recommendations, would you consider that the process had been equitable?

Ms. Meilleur then answered:

Senator, thank you for your question. As I mentioned, it is possible that that point may raise concerns, but I want to say once again that I knew the persons in question. I met with them to say that I wanted to continue to serve my country.

And so, she knows a lot of people in the Prime Minister's inner circle and in the Liberal Party, which, in my opinion, may have an impact on her ability to discharge her mandate. If that is not the case, I think we should at the very least examine this issue.

I am repeating myself, but if we don't take the time to study the process that was followed carefully, what will we do later? How are we going to be able to issue this famous certificate of nomination? How will we do that, and when will we do so? Will we do so when a complaint is filed with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages? Will we do so when an application for review is submitted to the Federal Court? How are we going to do all that?

I am wondering about this, and I don't get any answer from my government colleagues. In this regard, if we are not going to provide the certificate of nomination immediately, or if the Liberals decide not to provide one at all—I think that is what is going to happen, and that that is the best solution—what are we going to do in the meantime? Are we going to analyze this nomination or not? If we don't want to provide the certificate of nomination, let's say so immediately. We can continue to work on our reports. I would like to know what we are going to do next. That is why I tabled this motion. If we want to issue a certificate of nomination, I think we have to go forward and support the motion. If we all agree to drop the topic, and that we do not have enough information to provide the certificate of nomination, we will simply not provide one. Tell us and we can move on to something else.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First I want to say that I am in favour of Mr. Choquette's motion. What we are going through is extremely deplorable. It is all based on extreme partisanship.

To summarize what is going on, let us say that our committee is supposed to defend and represent official languages in the context of minority communities. All of this controversy affecting the committee currently will inevitably leave marks. I believe this situation is totally unprecedented.

The House of Commons and the Senate must approve Ms. Meilleur's nomination, but if that is not unanimous as it always was in the past, the situation will be difficult for all of the committees that will follow in the course of the next seven years.

I want to denounce this situation in the strongest possible terms, because our role is to defend and work to improve the quality of French language services in official language minority communities, and English services in Quebec. For a month and a half, we have been reading all kinds of things about this situation. In addition, some groups—and I am referring here to groups we represent, incidentally—have told us that this situation makes no sense and that the process has to be started over, and an appropriate person found.

I am almost tempted to suggest to Ms. Meilleur that she apply again and go through a second selection process, one that would be totally devoid of partisanship. But clearly, Ms. Meilleur would still be associated with the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, she made donations in the past, particularly to the Prime Minister's campaign. As I said last week, if the roles were reversed, you would no longer have any shirts or ties on.

That said, we have to do our work, and I thank Mr. Choquette for having raised matters related to the Standing Orders. We have work to do and we must do it. Unfortunately, the Liberal members of the committee have just voted against the motion. Simply refusing to ask Ms. Meilleur to provide her linguistic qualifications shows an attitude I would describe as cavalier.

You don't realize what is going to happen. Inevitably, this is going to blow up in your faces. This is what happens when you spit into the wind. Sincerely, I think that is what you are doing. To avoid using overly familiar language, I would say that you are literally derailing the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and that is extremely unfortunate. Moreover, I think it will be derailed not only for one or two weeks, but for several years.

If I am not mistaken, the new provisions were introduced by the NDP in 2013, and were ratified by the Liberals. I was not a member of Parliament at that time, but I know that the House of Commons unanimously approved these new measures. It is incumbent upon the committee to ensure that the skills of the person who will assume the position of Commissioner of Official Languages are satisfactory. The committee has however defeated the motion that we ask that person to provide her language skills qualifications.

One or the other is true: either partisanship is gaining ground here, or Ms. Meilleur simply did not undergo those tests. It would have been interesting to hear the comments of other candidates who took the tests in question.

In conclusion, I will say that I am extremely disappointed with what is happening. I sincerely think that this situation is not to your credit at all, dear members of the committee. Several of you are new today, but be that as it may, I don't think this will be an asset to your resumes.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

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

Especially since you represent linguistic minorities, and I don't.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Mrs. Boucher, Mr. Arseneault has the floor.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to be given the same privilege as my colleague Mr. Choquette and go back to the first motion, the one that was defeated. He went back to that motion and then spoke about the second motion.

However, before discussing those matters, I would like to say that the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which I have had the honour to be a part of since last year, is a very good committee. I consider that it is the best committee. The people who are a part of it are people of good will and good faith.

I understand that the imminent nomination may displease some people and please others, but I must go refer the Official Languages Act, which tells us how the Commissioner of Official Languages is to be appointed, and how long the mandate is to last. At the risk of repeating myself, this is in section 49 of the Official Languages Act.

As for Mr. Choquette's motion, I understand what he is going through. However, the famous Language Skills Act does say that the appointee “at the time of his or her appointment”, must be able to speak and understand both official languages. The appointee must meet those criteria. This was already taken into account by the selection committee. A process was followed which led to this imminent nomination.

This may not be deliberate on the part of Mr. Choquette and Mr. Généreux, but in my opinion, people are trying to go through the back door. Last week, Mr. Choquette told us that we had no business attacking the process and that interfering in it was not a part of our mandate.

The Language Skills Act applies to high level appointments. I will list the positions the act applies to: the Auditor General of Canada; the Chief Electoral Officer; the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada; the Privacy Commissioner; the Information Commissioner; the Senate Ethics Officer; the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; the Commissioner of Lobbying; the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and the President of the Public Service Commission.

In reference to this prior condition regarding language skills, section 2 reads as follows:

The person appointed to any of the following offices must at the time of his or her appointment be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages:

That is what the Language Skills Act says. I am basing my comments on the act, and I remember that Mrs. Boucher said that all candidates had passed the language skills test. The skills assessment has thus been done.

This motion interferes in the process and tries to do better than what is already in place. The process was followed by the selection committee, and we have nothing to say about that. That is not the role of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I am repeating myself, and I understand the frustration of certain members and certain citizens. I also understand the satisfaction or lack of satisfaction people may feel regarding this nomination.

Once again, I think you are trying to use the back door to do what you cannot do through the front door. You want to attack the process, the selection committee or the steps involved in the selection. The selection committee assessed -- I will repeat it -- 72 candidates before it finally made a choice.

Those were my thoughts about the first motion. I wanted to benefit from the same privilege as my colleague Mr. Choquette, that is to say to go back to the first motion, which was defeated.

The purpose of the second motion is again to interfere in the process, since its goal is to invite witnesses to assess Ms. Meilleur's abilities. Did we invite witnesses to assess the abilities of the Auditor General? To my knowledge that was not done. Did we invite witnesses to assess the abilities of the previous Official Languages Commissioners? To my knowledge that was never done. Once again, this would be interfering in the selection process that led to Ms. Meilleur's nomination. For the same reasons as for the first motion, I object to this one.

Mr. Généreux, I understand what you are saying, and I understand what Mr. Choquette and Mrs. Boucher are saying. However, you are trying to use the back door because you could not get through the front door. You want to interfere in the selection process; that is what you want to do.

I did not listen to the Senate debate last evening because I had to be at a committee meeting, but Mrs. Boucher, you were there. Someone who was present during Ms. Meilleur's appearance at the Senate said that everyone without exception—as was the case here as well—recognized that Ms. Meilleur has the necessary qualifications, and that that was not the issue. However, the concerns centre around the process or the way in which the nomination was made. Of course that is only hearsay, and you must take it with a grain of salt. I am simply repeating something that someone who was present during Ms. Meilleur's appearance before the Senate said to me.

The real question is the following: Does Ms. Meilleur have the skills to do this work? Does her appearance before the committee, as well as her curriculum vitae, allow us to believe that she will be able to do this work?

Personally, I am convinced that our committee should not interfere in the process. I am not saying that we do not have a role to play as members of Parliament, since ultimately it is the House of Commons and the Senate that will make the decision. In light of that, we can make our voices heard and express our satisfaction or dissatisfaction with regard to this nomination. However, the Standing Committee on Official Languages as such does not have this role people are trying to give it, to allow it to interfere in the selection process. If that were our role, we would have been in the front row from the beginning of the selection process.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

June 6th, 2017 / 11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I agree entirely with my colleague Mr. Arseneault. We discussed this at our last meeting.

First, it would be important to point out that this is the first time in our history, from what I understand, that a commissioner was selected through an open and transparent process. That never happened before. In the past, leaders of the government appointed the person.

Personally, I find it remarkable that anyone who thought they met the criteria could apply for the position. I think that if I had not been a member of Parliament, I might have applied myself, because I think I meet the criteria. In fact, self-assessment is the very first step. The person must determine if he or she meets the criteria. Once he has done this self-assessment, if he feels that he has all of the necessary skills, he may decide to apply. He does not wait to be called; he simply applies, because he wants to apply for this position, and because according to his own assessment, he has all of the necessary competencies and meets the criteria.

And so, 72 people applied. That in itself is quite impressive. There may have been 200 or 500 people who felt they could do this work, but actually applying is another matter. You have to commit to the position for a seven-year term, which requires that you move to Ottawa, I imagine. This has to fit into the person's career plan.

I am not here to reassess the work that was done by the selection committee, or even before that. In fact, even before the 72 candidacies made it to the selection committee, the process was not tainted by any political influence, since a professional and independent company was hired to analyze the 72 candidacies. Once again, that is very impressive. The selection committee then examined all of these files and selected 12 people who, following the analysis of the dossiers and other elements, clearly met the criteria at a very high level. Afterwards, according to what I understand, 10 people were chosen by the selection committee to undergo a psychometric assessment, as well as a reference check.

No one mentions this, but the selection committee was for the most part made up of public servants.

11:50 a.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

There you go: they were deputy ministers.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

Officials are supposed to be non-partisan. They are responsible for ensuring the quality of those assessments. They have to check the references. To me, it is crystal clear. This was the first time that the process was open, clear, and run by qualified people.

Let me come back to the motion. In my opinion, determining which witnesses will appear in committee to assess a person's skills is not a great idea. So we have a witness coming from somewhere and assessing skills. How will they do it?

11:50 a.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

By ability.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

In terms of ability, a firm had the files of the candidates. A selection committee decided. There were also psychometric assessments and references. All this was done in advance. It's not up to us to do that.

In my opinion, the motion is asking this committee to do something that has already been done. Let me continue. We are talking about skills and how they are assessed. I have not yet heard anybody in this country say that Ms. Meilleur did not have the skills.

11:50 a.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

The abilities.