Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
First, contrary to his claims, the motion is not redundant, since the current process is not working and we are instituting a new process.
If my colleague acknowledges that it is a decision of Parliament as a whole and there must be consultation, I imagine he is outraged that the leaders of both opposition parties were informed by a letter telling them the name of the next official languages commissioner. I also imagine he would be entirely open to the idea of establishing an all-party subcommittee so there is discussion and consultation, so we can have our say as parliamentarians, and so the process is not simply directed by the Prime Minister’s Office.
Second, I understand the purpose of his question. We were asked the same question yesterday at a press conference.
Is the fact that a person was involved in party politics at some point in their life sufficient to disqualify them from all positions in the public service or from the kinds of key positions that officers of Parliament hold?
The answer is “not necessarily”. There are many factors to consider, which is why a subcommittee would be valuable. The member of the official opposition and the member of the second opposition party who were at the table would be able to determine whether a candidate was eligible. They could assess whether the candidate was in a conflict of interest and whether their partisan work was intense, significant, or recent.
There are rules in other legislation enacted by Parliament and sometimes it takes several years before a person may apply for certain positions after being in government, for example. That is precisely what the subcommittee could work on.
I hope that addresses my colleague’s concerns.
In the case of Ms. Meilleur, if we had been at the table, we would immediately have said that she was frankly too partisan.