Official Languages Committee on June 6th, 2017

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

Do not try to tell me that Mr. Doucet is not competent, or potentially competent, to do the job. Is it because he's a man and Ms. Meilleur is a woman? Do we want more women? Yesterday, someone said that the idea was to have more women in the public service. Anyway, I think that was said yesterday in the Senate.

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

When we asked questions, yes.

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

That said, I repeat, the committee is not able to do its job. We have the opportunity to ask candidates to give us the results of language tests and their résumés, among other things, but you have just voted against that motion. This does not allow the committee to do its job. We will be accountable to all the communities. You Liberals are going to be especially accountable to them later on.

Mr. Choquette said it well. Once the Prime Minister refuses to meet with the presidents of the associations of official language minority communities in Canada, whether they are francophone or anglophone, we will have a serious problem, and so will you. We are not asking to meet with the Prime Minister. The communities themselves are asking in order to have their voices heard on what has just happened.

We say that we want to appoint someone neutral. Do you know what the word “neutral” means? If the Conservatives were in power and a Conservative who had made a donation to the Conservative Party were appointed as commissioner, I think the House of Commons would shut down altogether. I think we would come to blows. I can be a true Quebecer when I want to. I can tell you one thing: if you want expressions, I can give you as many as you want. However, honestly, we are in deep doo-doo. That's exactly what it is, and you are in it much deeper than we are.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

You have to understand that what Canadians are saying right now about the nomination flies in the face of the needs of the communities. The communities are telling you that what happened and what is happening now is not right, not because Ms. Meilleur does not have the skills, but because she is a Liberal. It's as simple as that. That's the reality.

Don't tell me that there are no non-partisan people in Canada. Other people have been appointed before her.

That's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

Mr. Arseneault, go ahead.

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

To prevent the committee from going around in circles, I will not repeat everything that was said. We are telling it like it is, and it is important to hear these remarks, especially from our colleagues in the opposition. While it may be difficult, I think it's a good discussion.

In response to Mrs. Boucher, I would say that the committee has been reliable to date and has provided good services to Canadians. In my view, it is doing its job, and I hope it will continue to do so, notwithstanding the commissioner's imminent appointment.

That being said, I have consulted section 88 of the Official Languages Act. In my humble interpretation, there is nothing in this section that indicates, in any way, directly or indirectly, that we can interfere in the appointment process. What you just said is important. As you said, the Senate, one of the two entities that will be deciding on this appointment, heard from Ms. Meilleur yesterday.

If we take everything you have said for granted, if we go by it 100%, we know better what the act says about appointing a commissioner. We are in a better legal position to do that. That's what I'm hearing. The Senate did its job yesterday. When we sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we have two hats: one as members elected by our communities, and another as members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Mrs. Boucher referred to an article in the Acadie Nouvelle. I read it this morning. It was written by Michel Doucet, whom I consider extremely competent. It is indeed a model of language and constitutional competency. In an article where he once again uses a very polite tone, Mr. Doucet criticizes the process.

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We will let Mr. Arseneault continue.

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

Ultimately, he talks about the New Brunswick method for appointing a commissioner of official languages. So it is a criticism of the process. I am always hearing people talk about the process.

To use Mr. Généreux's words, it's not that the opposition wants to “stir up trouble” in the committee. I understand that, but in my opinion—and I'm not speaking on behalf of other committee members—it is not the role of the Standing Committee on Official Languages to interfere in the appointment process.

Mr. Choquette, who appoints the commissioner, under subsection 49(1) of the Official Languages Act?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I don't want any dialogue.

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

I have read and know by heart subsections 49(1), 49(2), 49(3) and 49(4). Once again, as a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I must oppose any interference by the selection committee during the process that led to the impending appointment of the commissioner of official languages.

I want to once again mention section 88 of the Official Languages Act and Mr. Doucet's article that criticizes the process. If the SANB undertook an injunction process or a similar process, it would constitute legal recourse. The government in power will have to deal with the consequences of that process and the court decision. In a judicial process, we cannot do anything right away. The government in power will have to deal with those consequences, be they positive or negative.

I will wrap up by saying the following:

Deliberately shirking or ignoring nuances in the pursuit of truth often leads us down a bad path.

We are forgetting something Ms. Meilleur said to us—that the first person who approached her about the position was Graham Fraser.

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

That's not true!

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Just a moment, Mrs. Boucher. I think that your name is on my list and that you will have a chance to comment later.

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

Ms. Meilleur told us in her testimony that her dearest wish was to become a senator, but that she ran into Graham Fraser, who told her—this is what she answered to one of Mr. Mulcair's questions—that the position was vacant, but that he also wanted to solicit other candidates. She alluded to the fact that Mr. Fraser was very neutral. Mr. Mulcair added that Mr. Fraser was not the type of person to play petty politics or seek out party members.

If Mr. Fraser, the outgoing Commissioner of Official Languages, thought that Ms. Meilleur, despite her past and the fact that she was actively involved in politics in Ontario, was a potential candidate, as a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I will refrain from commenting on Ms. Meilleur's qualifications and abilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

Mr. Nater, go ahead.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I wasn't going to speak to this motion, but I have to respond to the comments made by Mr. Samson about the process. He implied that it was an open process, a fair process, because there was an external body that participated in it, because there was a committee of deputy ministers, of public servants, who participated in the process.

Where was Parliament in the process? No one around this table is a member of the government, not one. The Liberals may be members of the governing party, but they are not members of the government. They are members of Parliament who may be sitting as members of the governing party. They are not members of the government. They are not members of the executive branch.

The position of official languages commissioner is that of an officer of Parliament, an officer of both Houses of our Parliament. To hear that there is an external body reviewing candidates and that there are deputy ministers reviewing candidates is not acceptable if Parliament is not involved in the process. These are the same deputy ministers who would be subject to investigations and interrogations by the official languages commissioner, and they are the ones who are determining which name will go forward? It's not acceptable.

Parliament makes this decision. Parliament or a representative of Parliament was never involved in the process for the selection of the short list or the final nominee. In fact, the potential candidate was informed that she would be going forward before the leaders of the official opposition and the third party were even consulted.

Parliament was not at the table as this process was unfolding, and I would say that it's unacceptable for us to go forward with this nomination when the fact is that the very entity to which we are appointing wasn't involved in the process. This isn't even to go on to the conversation, which I think is well-founded, about her independence from the current government. This is talking about the process. Parliament was entirely shut out of the appointment process for an officer of Parliament. This is not a deputy minister. This isn't someone being appointed to implement the will of the government. This is an entity that is mandated to review, examine, and investigate the executive branch of government. Serge Joyal, a long-time Liberal, raised his concerns. If a long-time Liberal cannot find trust in this position, how do we expect Canadians to have trust in this position? How do we expect official languages communities to have respect and trust in this position?

Unfortunately, this has been botched from day one. Had Madeleine Meilleur, when she was a provincial legislator, been in the position we are being placed in today, I don't think she would have gone ahead with this appointment. If she were to review the process that is now unfolding and the concerns that are being raised, I think she would do well to reconsider her eagerness to serve in this position.

I think there are legitimate concerns that have been raised by key stakeholder groups, by members of Parliament from the opposition, and by members of the Senate from the governing party who self-declare as “Senate Liberals”. I think we would do very well to take a second look at this process and to hear witnesses, as this motion states.

I want to end on a final point, as I don't want to take up too much time. In every case where an official languages commissioner has been appointed, it has been done with the consent of each recognized party in the House of Commons. Even in 1999, with five recognized parties, including the Bloc Québécois, they did so with the unanimous consent of every recognized party. This would be breaking that mould.

There is an abundance of people.... We know that 72 people applied for the position. We know that 10 people made it to the short list. We don't know who is on that short list. We are accepting the word of one person, the minister, that they found the best candidate. We have no way to verify that because we were not part of the process. Parliament was not involved.

That's why I will be voting in favour of this motion. I think we need to take a long, hard look at the appointment of Madam Meilleur.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, John.

Mr. Choquette, the floor is yours.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I'm disappointed because I have not gotten a response from my Liberal colleagues. What are we going to do about the FCFA and the QCGN, which are requesting a meeting with the Prime Minister? Does this mean the committee will make a decision without allowing those two groups to meet with the Prime Minister? I didn't get an answer on that. That's disappointing.

I understand that the current government thinks nothing of appointing someone and being subject to a complaint lodged with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and to legal recourse concerning the process.

Moreover, I have not heard what your plan is. When do you want to issue this certificate of nomination? Is it today? When? We don't know. I don't know either.

On May 30, the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta wrote a letter, which says the following:

Subject: Appointment of the next Commissioner of Official Languages

The Board of Directors of the ACFA, the organization that represents Alberta's francophone community, held a meeting. During that meeting, we discussed at length the appointment of the next Commissioner of Official Languages, an appointment on which much has been written over the past few weeks.

Further on, the association explains subsections 49(1) and 56(1) of the Official Languages Act, which respectively cover the appointment and the mission of the Commissioner of Official Languages—in other words, their qualifications—and the letter concludes with the following:

For those reasons, we are sure that the federal government must immediately play a major leadership role in this important file and do what is necessary to guarantee the credibility, neutrality and integrity of the next Commissioner of Official Languages.

Two recommendations are made:

Therefore, the ACFA is asking the federal government to repeat the process for appointing the Commissioner of Official Languages, including the membership of the selection committee.

The ACFA is also reiterating the request of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada for a meeting to be held as soon as possible, between you an the FCAF, to discuss this issue.

That letter is addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada.

I just want to remind my Liberal colleagues what kind of a situation official language communities are in. We talked earlier about the SANB and we are now talking about the ACFA. Those associations bring up the division within the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. Many groups are asking for the process to be repeated, and that is why the FCFA and the QCGN are requesting a meeting with the Prime Minister.

So here is my question for the Liberals, the people from across the table who are the government spokespersons. What is your plan? According to what you said, you will reject this motion, whose goal is to better understand Madeleine Meilleur's capabilities for the job. What will happen after that? Do you know? What is your plan?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

Mrs. Boucher, go ahead.

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

Mr. Choquette, Mr. Généreux, Mr. Nater, thank you for highlighting our concerns, but also those of the organizations we support. Since I am a Quebecker, we don't have any francophones in minority situations in the province. Our minority is anglophone.

I was shocked yesterday evening, in the Senate. I was sitting next to Mr. Nater, and I asked him at some point whether I was not hearing properly or whether, every time a senator asked Ms. Meilleur what she would do for anglophone minorities, she would actually only talk about the francophonie.

Toward the end, when she said she would be commissioner of the francophonie, I must admit that it disturbed me. In fact, there is no committee on the francophonie; there is only the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Until further notice, there are two official languages: French and English.

In light of what we are learning day after day, it is clear that this is a partisanship issue. This is a truly partisan appointment; and don't try to suggest otherwise. The problem is not that her name is Madeleine Meilleur, but rather that she is highly partisan.

During the latest election, she walked around with Mr. Trudeau practically every time he was in Ontario. She donated a total of $5,500 to the Liberal Party. She was still an Ontario minister less than a year ago. She should take a little a step back. That is actually what most of the senators told her yesterday. They asked her why she did not take some time to distance herself a bit from politics.

For example, Mr. Fraser was not associated with any political party, and that was his strength. He could find fault with us any time. We were on that side of the table, where you now sit, and when we made a mistake, he did not hold back and he let us know. That was to his credit.

Frankly, even if Ms. Meilleur had the nicest résumé in the world or she had all the necessary qualifications, she would not pass muster because she is affiliated with the Liberal Party, which forms the government. In addition, the commissioner's role is that of a watchdog.

All the opposition parties, like organizations, know that no one will believe what she says. She should begin today by doing her homework, including preparing for appearances before a committee. Her statements change from one committee to another, and that misleads us. I think it is becoming problematic.

I know that you will unfortunately vote in favour of Mr. Choquette's motion. It would have been possible to create some distance between partisanship and Ms. Meilleur's appointment. As I said earlier, we could have invited both those who are in favour of her appointment and others who are opposed to it, gotten to the bottom of things and maintained our independence. As Ms. Joly pointed out, our committee is independent.

However, I would say that, based on what I am seeing today, this is anything but the truth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mrs. Boucher.

We have 10 minutes left before the hour is up, and I would like to have a discussion among us. That is why I propose that we end what we are doing next Thursday. I would like us to go in camera for the remaining 10 minutes.

Do you agree?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

So we will continue the meeting in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]