I think it is not a bad idea to include experts, including experts from academia, but that does not mean there cannot also be parliamentarians. It is not really a bad idea for there to be a parliamentary process upstream of the experts being appointed. At the National Assembly of Quebec, there are often appointments approved by a qualified majority, that is, two thirds of the parliamentarians, which means that it very often cuts across party lines. A similar process could be imagined for this committee.
The other possibility I raised is this. Hypothetically, if Quebec had special status and this program could not be used to challenge Quebec legislation, that would have to be taken into account in the appointment method. As I said, ideally, I would like this program to be used more for the defence or broad interpretation of Quebec legislation that grants language rights, such as Bill 101, or that grants fundamental rights, such as the Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms, or the Act respecting the laicity of the State, which grants the right to secular public services. Based on that, certain members of the committee, certain experts, could be appointed by the Government of Quebec. That would be another way to do it.
Ultimately, what is needed is transparency. It is fine to talk about national significance, but we do not know exactly how that criteria is interpreted by the experts. Having a better appointment method does not mean there is no need for transparency downstream.