Mr. Chair, with your permission, first I would like to go back briefly to the defeated motion.
What we have just done does not help the committee, because it is our duty to examine the competencies and curriculum vitae of Ms. Meilleur. It is our duty. It is mentioned in Standing Orders 111(2) and 111(4) of chapter XIII of the Standing Orders. It is our duty as a committee.
By doing this, all we have done is add to the polemic and raise more questions. What does she have to hide? Did she not undergo the test? Did she not succeed? Was she given preferential treatment? This is what we have been talking about from the beginning. When will this controversy come to an end? It is not dying down, because people are trying to hide things all the time.
It is really disappointing that the motion was rejected. We were simply asking for something that should be a routine matter. We were asking for the curriculum vitae and the language skills qualifications, as for all of the other candidates.
That said, the motion we are going to debate now is the following:
That the committee invite witnesses in order to assess Madeleine Meilleur's ability to perform the duties of Commissioner of Official Languages before it reports to the House on her appointment.
We are now in the fifth week of controversy since this proposed nomination was announced by the Liberal government. Every day, or almost, we discover new information or we hear worrisome things from various interveners.
We don't want to discuss the process, because that is not our role here at the committee. Nevertheless, I think we could have looked at it: it is our right since the committee is free to study whatever it likes.
Be that as it may, I'll come back to chapter XIII of the Standing Orders. As you can see, the motion uses the same words as Standing Order 111(2): “[...] examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee[...]”.
It is almost verbatim, except for the language skills qualifications, which we cannot evaluate. But I don't know why we cannot at least have a look at them.
I'll continue: “[...] to perform the duties of the post[...]”. That is exactly what the motions says, i.e. “to assess Madeleine Meilleur's ability to perform the duties of Commissioner of Official Languages”.
The reason I asked for that is very simple. Currently there are serious doubts about her ability to perform the duties of Commissioner of Official Languages. I spoke about it, and we discussed it together. What can Madeleine Meilleur do for her good friends in the Prime Minister's office if there is a complaint against the Prime Minister's Office or the Privy Council Office?
I myself filed two complaints against the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office. The first complaint was received and analyzed, and the Privy Council Office was found guilty of not having complied with the Official Languages Act by holding consultations in English only in Ontario, and in French in Quebec. That had been mentioned by the Commissioner of Official Languages.
How could this be handled? Could she recuse herself and say in certain cases that she cannot conduct such or such a study? She could recuse herself, but will she have to do this frequently, all the time? That is the concern we have, and that is why I suggest that we invite witnesses.
I did not mention any names, because the last time, we had a list. Of course when we have a list, there are always people who will agree to invite this person, but not that person. Some will say that this person will reveal secrets, and that he or she should not be invited, and so on. Currently there is no list. We can decide together and in a consistent way to invite three, six or eight witnesses—the exact number does not matter—to find out what the necessary abilities are to occupy this position.
We could meet with people such as the former Commissioners of Official Languages, for instance Graham Fraser. We could invite the current commissioners of New Brunswick and Ontario. If they are in a conflict of interest, we could invite the deputy commissioners, for instance the deputy commissioners of Ontario and New Brunswick, so that they may outline what is needed to play this role, and what the required abilities are to occupy this position.
I thought there would be a vote last night at the end of Ms. Meilleur's appearance, but there was not. There is something going on that we don't know about.