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.