Honourable senators, I rise today to support Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments. Bill C-20, which seeks to establish the Public Complaints and Review Commission, is a major step forward in our pursuit of a transparent and accountable public administration.

As you know, the new Public Complaints and Review Commission will continue to review complaints regarding the RCMP and it will also become the independent review body for complaints regarding the Canada Border Services Agency. Thus, as Senator Omidvar stated on June 18, and I quote:

For the first time in our history, both law enforcement agencies would fall under scrutiny of one external review body.

That is an important and welcome step forward.

However, I would add a word of caution: Bill C-20 does not make any reference to Canada’s two official languages. I would remind senators that the Official Languages Act covers the following institutions:

 . . . any board, commission or council, or other body or office, established to perform a governmental function by or pursuant to an Act of Parliament or by or under the authority of the Governor in Council . . .

Subclause 3(1) of Bill C-20 indicates that the commission consists of a chairperson, a vice-chairperson and not more than three other members, appointed by the Governor-in-Council.

Under the heading “Diversity and other factors,” we are told the following:

In making recommendations for appointments of members of the Commission, the Minister must seek to reflect the diversity of Canadian society and must take into account considerations such as gender equality and the overrepresentation of certain groups in the criminal justice system, including Indigenous peoples and Black persons.

Colleagues, while this principle is unassailable, as an Acadian from Nova Scotia and a francophone senator who has battled for years in support of the language rights of official language minority communities, I would have appreciated some reference to the language skills of this commission’s members. Naturally, I am referring to skills pertaining to Canada’s two official languages.

When I raise this issue under different circumstances, I’m often told that the commission will operate in both official languages. That means that staff will be bilingual, but nothing stops the Governor-in-Council from appointing unilingual members. Why not clearly include language skills in the commission member selection criteria? Canada is a bilingual nation, rich in linguistic and cultural diversity. Our national identity is shaped by two official languages, and it is imperative that all of our institutions and laws reflect this.

The Public Complaints and Review Commission will be responsible for examining complaints from the public from across the country. In order for the commission to fulfill its mandate effectively, its members must be able to speak and understand both of Canada’s official languages.

The members’ ability to communicate in both French and English is a matter of respect not only for official language minority communities, but also for all francophone and anglophone Canadians. It’s also a question of efficiency and inclusiveness, since the commission can convene hearings that may be public.

In these circumstances, it goes without saying that members must be able to understand deliberations and testimony in the official language in which they are presented. A commission made up of bilingual members will be better able to understand the cultural nuances and specific issues facing francophone and anglophone people across Canada. This will enhance the review of complaints, which will lead to more informed decisions. It’s also important to recognize that language conveys an entire culture for Canadians.

I’ll close by saying that it would have been both simple and wise to add the words “the Official Languages Act” to subclause 3(1) of Bill C-20, under the heading “Diversity and other factors,” which reads as follows:

(1.‍1) In making recommendations for appointments of members of the Commission, the Minister must seek to reflect the diversity of Canadian society and must take into account considerations such as gender equality and the overrepresentation of certain groups in the criminal justice system, including Indigenous peoples and Black persons.

The government has chosen not to do so, and has systematically chosen not to do so in most bills involving similar circumstances. When I arrived in the Senate a year ago, I spoke on the amendment to Bill C-35 to ensure that the funding clause would take official language minority communities into account.

I’m not proposing an amendment to add that text to Bill C-20 at this point because the political climate is not conducive to that, and I don’t want to delay the passage of this bill, which is so important to Canadians. A simple reference to the Official Languages Act in the criteria for appointing members would in no way guarantee that appointed members and support staff would be bilingual, since these individuals are appointed by the Minister of Justice. However, it would nonetheless recognize that Canada does have two official languages when the time came to appoint members of the commission. It goes without saying that the minister should appoint members from both of the country’s linguistic communities, since we have two official languages.

Tomorrow is Halloween, but October 31 has special significance for me, since it marks my first anniversary as a senator. I want you to know, colleagues, that the official languages will always be a key issue for me, and I will speak up any time it is not taken into account in any bill that comes to us, regardless of the government in power. For me, it’s a simple question of respect for and recognition of the country’s linguistic duality.

Thank you. Meegwetch.