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.