Mr. Speaker, I am rising to address the point of order raised by the House leaders of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party respecting the appointment process for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages. Both these members alleged that one of the two conditions set out in section 49 of the Official Languages Act has not been met. Section 49 provides:
The Governor in Council shall, by commission under the Great Seal, appoint a Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada after consultation with the leader of every recognized party in the Senate and House of Commons and approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons.
On May 8, 2017, the Prime Minister wrote to the leaders of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party pursuant to the requirements in the statute to consult on the proposed appointments of the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada. The Prime Minister requested the views of the two leaders on the proposed appointments.
On May 10, the leader of the Conservative Party responded to the Prime Minister on the proposed appointment, and on May 12, the leader of the New Democratic Party also provided his views. The requirement is to consult, not to abide by the recommendations of the leaders of the two recognized parties. This statutory condition has in fact been met.
I would draw to the attention of the members the situation in the previous Parliament respecting the appointment of the Auditor General. The previous prime minister consulted the then leader of the Liberal Party, Bob Rae, and the leader of the NDP on the proposed appointment of Mr. Ferguson to the position of Auditor General. While I cannot comment on the response of the NDP leader, Mr. Rae raised concerns about the proficiency of Mr. Ferguson to speak French and therefore asked Mr. Harper to restart the selection process to find a bilingual candidate.
Additionally, the NDP House leader raised an argument that there are legal precedents respecting what constitutes consultation. There are clear precedents that the Speaker is not authorized to adjudicate on legal matters.
On November 28, 2002, the Speaker ruled:
This principle is clearly outlined as well as in the fourth edition of Bourinot at page 180, which states:
The Speaker...will not give a decision upon a constitutional question, nor decide a question of law, though the same be arranged on a point of order or privilege.
It is not up to the Speaker to rule on the constitutionality or the legality of measures before the House.
While the opposition parties may not agree with the nominee for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages, that opposition does not constitute a veto over the proposed appointment. We will let the House decide upon the matter.