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.