Debates of June 4th, 2024

Report Stage

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the very beginning of my speech, I do not think that this type of bill is a very big priority for the government. This is the third Parliament. This is the third try. I hope the third time is the charm.

The government's neglect explains the delays in studying this bill. However, as I also mentioned before, the Conservatives deserve their share of the blame. We lost many hours of debate in committee. We lost weeks and even months because the Conservative Party wanted us to examine a motion on the transfer of an inmate from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison. That is a very important subject, but we were studying Bill C‑20, and this bill stalled because of those delays and the Conservatives' infamous filibustering.

Yes, I would like to say that it is the government's fault that this bill has not yet been passed, but I think that the Conservatives are also to blame.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, knowing that receiving abusive behaviours from law enforcement can be quite traumatizing, sometimes it could take courage and a very long time to be able to submit a complaint. I wonder if the member can share with us the NDP's amendment that was passed, which amended the time to be able submit a complaint from one year to two years and how important that is for those complainants who need to build up the courage to do so.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an extremely important amendment. Interestingly enough, the Bloc Québécois had drafted the exact same amendment, but the NDP's amendment came up first, so we supported it.

Our intention was to provide the time required, obviously, as well as ensure that victims receive a response within a reasonable timeframe. We can assume that these experiences are trying. That also leads me to mention the fact that the people who sit on the commission must reflect the diversity of society, which could also help them to better understand various situations.

Yes, this is an extremely important amendment that the Bloc Québécois was proud to support. If the NDP had not proposed it, our party would have. We had more or less the same intention here.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the shout-out; the chair of the mighty OGGO is here to witness this.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, which would establish a public complaints and review commission for the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Both the RCMP and the CBSA are critical organizations that protect the security of Canadians. While carrying out their mandates, employees of both organizations are quite literally on the front lines.

The employees work around the clock to ensure Canada's security each and every day, and to achieve this mammoth task, they are entrusted with significant powers. Among others, these powers include the ability to use force, to search and to detain individuals. They are essential to the safety and security of the public. That said, equally essential is the need for independent review of these activities to ensure that the RCMP and the CBSA are transparent, and accountable to the population they serve and to Parliament.

The adoption of Bill C-20 would provide for increased accountability and transparency of the RCMP and the CBSA. This would be done through the establishment of an enhanced mechanism for independent review of these organizations. The RCMP already has an external review body in the form of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, CRCC. Bill C-20 would build on the CRCC through the establishment of the public complaints and review commission, PCRC.

The PCRC would serve as the external review body for the RCMP, but would have enhanced power to fulfill this mandate. The bill would, at long last, also provide for independent review for the CBSA, which currently does not have an independent review mechanism. It would do so by giving the PCRC an additional mandate to serve as the review body for the CBSA. The PCRC would do that using the existing knowledge, processes and expertise of the CRCC, and expand them to include the CBSA.

We have been talking about evidence-based steps to get here since 2015. We established the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians that reviews the work of national security and intelligence agencies. As part of that consultation, we examined how well existing oversight and review bodies function. We also sought answers about what sort of independent review would be needed for agencies that do not currently have an independent review, such as the CBSA.

As we know, effective civilian review is central to the rule of law and maintaining public confidence and trust. Bill C-20 embodies that concept. It would respond to a long-lasting need for independent review of the CBSA and improve RCMP review. It seeks to ensure that both the RCMP and the CBSA continue the work to transform their culture, and to enhance transparency and accountability, as well as equity, diversity and inclusivity.

Bill C-20 would provide an avenue to ensure the public is able to have its complaints about the conduct and level of service of RCMP and CBSA employees reviewed by an external body. It would also provide an avenue to identify and investigate systemic issues within Canadian law enforcement.

Today, I wish to concentrate on how this bill would help us as parliamentarians contribute to enhanced accountability and transparency of the RCMP and the CBSA. Bill C-20 does that through the establishment of a series of additional and enhanced reporting requirements, and accountability measures for the PCRC, the RCMP and the CBSA. These measures would ensure that parliamentarians in both chambers are equipped to monitor the state of the complaint and review process, and to hold the Minister of Public Safety to account in relation to complaints and systemic review.

Bill C-20 would do so by enhancing PCRC recommendation-making powers of the PCRC, as well as establishing annual reporting requirements for the RCMP and the CBSA. By clearly showing parliamentarians which PCRC recommendations have and have not been implemented by the RCMP and the CBSA, this would strengthen the accountability to Parliament of the minister, and through the minister, of the RCMP's and CBSA's deputy heads.

As mentioned by my colleagues, the bill would also establish defined timelines to ensure swift responses and decisions throughout the review process. These include codified timelines for the RCMP and the CBSA to respond to PCRC reports, systemic review and recommendations. The PCRC would receive the information it needs promptly and include it in its annual report to Parliament.

The bill would also equip Parliament with an ability to identify allegations of systemic racism and other systemic discrimination in policing by requiring the PCRC to collect and publish demographic and race-based data on complainants. Stakeholders, including police chiefs, have long called for such information to be collected as it is essential to the development of responses to systemic issues in the criminal justice system.

Bill C-20 would also establish a statutory framework for CBSA responses to serious incidents currently provided for in an internal policy only, so that the PCRC would be informed on the nature and responses to serious incidents involving the CBSA, such as death in custody. This would take place through a requirement for the PCRC to report on the number, types and outcomes of serious incidents as part of its annual reporting.

For the first time, parliamentarians and the Canadian public would be informed of serious incidents that involve CBSA officers, including incidents involving immigration and detainees. The PCRC would retrieve this information through requirements for the CBSA to notify and provide information to the PCRC when serious incidents take place and permit the PCRC to send an observer to assess the impartiality of the CBSA's investigations.

Through enhanced reporting to Parliament, Bill C-20 would help to ensure our border services and national law enforcement agencies remain world class and are worthy of the trust of Canadians.

On this note, I also want to thank the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for its important study of the bill. Its amendments have served to reinforce the reporting requirements I just noted. Among others, I would want to highlight a government-introduced amendment that would set the time period allowed for the PCRC to submit its annual report to Parliament. The extension of this timeline would give the PCRC sufficient time to analyze the annual reports of the RCMP and the CBSA and give the commission the ability to comment on these reports as part of its own annual reporting to Parliament.

SECU also made an amendment that would ensure the PCRC would include the number of complainants it refers to NSIRA in its annual report. This would give parliamentarians and the Canadian public a look into how the work of these two reviewing bodies intertwine. I encourage all members to join me in supporting Bill C-20 today.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the colleague and I worked together on the mighty OGGO, and we were doing a study on the CBSA and also on the whistle-blower act, Bill C-290, which was brought in by the Bloc colleague from Mirabel. We heard from witnesses from the CBSA who were basically persecuted by the management of the CBSA, even to the point of employees being poisoned by their co-workers when they brought issues forward as whistle-blowers.

I want to ask my colleague if he will push for his government to bring in and enact the whistle-blowing legislation and changes that OGGO had recommended.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard witness testimony, quite frankly, that was very hard to hear. I commit myself to encourage moving forward as quickly as we can on those recommendations and bringing that forward.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one aspect we can talk about in relation to the bill is the issue of transparency, which is a problem right now with the CBSA. We keep hearing about it. There is the ArriveCAN app, but there is also the lack of surveillance at the port of Montreal, which is a hub for vehicle theft. Canadians are asking questions about these files and really demanding answers.

Many whistle-blowers have raised this issue. I would therefore like to hear the member's comments on how important it is that this bill address those issues and the question of transparency at the CBSA.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, and other members have spoken about, the CBSA was never included in this type of a review, and we are encouraged to see that this transparency will now be brought forward. The CBSA will be included and will have to answer to any incidents that do occur.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret when it comes to law enforcement in the country that there is a disturbing pattern that is particularly identified by those who suffer discrimination, whether it is indigenous or Black Canadians, at a disproportionate rate. We know this from several reports, including Auditor General reports.

So many indigenous organizations have called for a particular level of reform that would include indigenous persons in the actual accountability mechanisms. Can the member speak about whether or not the government would be not just consulting indigenous people in this work, but actually moving to find ways to directly incorporate indigenous ways of knowing, indigenous principles, in oversight and accountability mechanisms here?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my comments about the collection of data, which has never been done before, to look at race-based discriminatory incidents that may take place, as it comes back to Parliament, parliamentarians from diverse backgrounds would have an opportunity to address those needs.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

We have been talking a lot about the CBSA here, and I am not sure if my hon. colleague is aware, but the CBSA has a real problem on its hands when it comes to high-risk detainees. This might be an area where there could be some complaints, in that CBSA has no way of dealing with high-risk detainees who might be at risk to flee the country.

I am wondering if my colleague will answer the question, or if he is aware of the issue, wherein there is no maximum security setting, in this area at least, and the federal government is contracting with the provinces to provide detention. Is he aware of the government's response to this very important issue?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, a fellow British Columbian, for the question. Of course, I am happy to always answer questions from the member.

If we look at some of the measures that are being brought in, they would increase transparency. I think the issue at the heart of the matter that the member is questioning is learning about what high-risk detainees there may be. We would now understand what the needs are based on the transparency that is being reported through these measures.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the constituents of Red Deer—Mountain View.

First of all, I would like to simply speak to our RCMP, who have done such a great job. They have been neighbours and fellow coaches. They are the ones who run into emergencies when trouble comes, and I appreciate their commitment to the community. Certainly, as someone who has spent some time working with rural crime in Alberta, as one of the co-chairs of a report that we sent out, it is an honour for me to be able to speak to the other side of the issue.

Those of us who have been in this place for a long time also know that there are many cases that are referred to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, and we always hope that there are solutions that can help in that regard.

With the rise of hate-related incidents in Canada, we are now more in need of a strong police force than we were several years ago. Therefore, the need never faded; it has become much more pronounced. Considering that a rise in crime results in a growing need for police, we must take steps to hold law enforcement bodies to the highest standards while standing up for the security of Canadians. The public complaints and review commission, as it is proposed, is an overdue effort to carry out these objectives.

The commission would investigate complaints made by the public against the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. In fact, this oversight was promised by the Liberals in 2015, and the government is now trying to ram it through one month before Parliament breaks. This comes after nine years in government.

I want to be clear in my support of the bill and its efforts to create the effective oversight of federal law enforcement agencies that Canadians expect, but I am disappointed that it has taken so long for the Liberals to follow through on their initial promise to Canadians. The Conservative Party supported the legislation in its previous iteration at each stage without amendments.

The Conservative Party believes in the dignity of our borders and ensuring that the CBSA is properly resourced in both manpower and equipment. The commission would grant explicit oversight over the Canada Border Service Agency and push the CBSA to be even more effective alongside the RCMP.

The current process by which the RCMP is held accountable to the public, along with the current lack of such a process for the CBSA, presents challenges that may undermine the public's trust in our law enforcement. We often speak of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest when discussing matters of ethics. This matter is no different.

The National Police Federation made a submission to the House on Bill C-20, citing a number of disadvantages with the current way the RCMP is investigated by the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the CRCC, which often refers matters back to the RCMP for internal investigation. Some of these disadvantages include perceived bias of police investigating police, a lack of independence, a lack of transparency and reduced trust in our investigative process. With the lessons learned from the flawed implementation of the CRCC as a means of holding the RCMP accountable to the public, I am glad to see that the proposed legislation would move us in the right direction of a more independent means of oversight.

The CBSA is an important part of maintaining the integrity of our borders; however, as with any arm of the government, it must be held accountable to the public in a timely and efficient manner. With that in mind, I want to draw attention to two areas that are significant. I believe that aspects of the bill would lead us in the right direction, but I also believe that aspects of the bill are setting the commission up for failure.

I am happy to know that debate and discussion on the bill will continue as it moves forward. First, I want to go back to my earlier point, in which I illustrated the importance of avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest in matters concerning law enforcement here in Canada. As of right now, it is true that there is no separate or independent apparatus designated to review civilian complaints lodged against the CBSA. This is deeply concerning, as it brings us right back to the same problem.

When border agents must investigate complaints internally, this presents the appearance of a conflict of interest and may undermine Canadians' trust in due process and the accountability of federal agencies. With a commission that will not consist of current CBSA members or agents, we would be able to largely minimize the risk of there appearing to be a conflict of interest when complaints of this nature are being investigated. In this way, we will be doing what we can to ensure Canadians' trust in our federal agencies remains strong. Establishing an independent commission that does not rely on the resources of the RCMP or the CBSA will also reassure taxpayers that the funding for these agencies is not being spent investigating wrongdoings against the public.

Conservative estimates of an average of 1,500 investigations per year, requiring 40 hours each, will cost taxpayers roughly 60,000 work hours, with no cost recovery mechanisms. On that note, I believe that this proposed legislation is taking us in the right direction. However, I also believe that more discussion needs to be had on the nuances around the structure of this commission and the delegation of tasks. Making note of the latter of those two things, I would be interested in seeing discussions around how we can ensure that the resources of the commission are deployed efficiently. I especially wish to highlight this point, as the Canadian Bar Association wrote this in their submission on Bill C-20: “It seems inevitable that as the Commission's workload increases, delays will grow.”

This brings me to my next point, which is around the glaring omission of a maximum delay for the commission to resolve complaints. In its current form, Bill C-20 places the onus to set resolution timelines on the commission itself. While I can understand why this language was chosen, I'm also concerned with the statements raised by the Canadian Bar Association, which I mentioned earlier. It seems like common sense to think that, as we consolidate the duties of investigating both the RCMP and the CBSA into one commission, the workload of the commission will increase. In its submission on Bill C-20, the Customs and Immigration Union said, “we fear an investigation could take years to complete, which is neither fair to the employee under investigation nor to the complainant.”

Ambiguity in the resolution timeline of these cases, especially in the most egregious of complaints, is a disservice not only to Canadians but also to the future commission. Setting out concrete timelines in which every step of the complaint process is accounted for will show that our government is taking our responsibility to Canadian taxpayers seriously. It will also show our commitment to the RCMP and CBSA officers and agents who work tirelessly to serve Canadians by maintaining our domestic security and the integrity of our borders. These are necessary considerations that must be discussed and debated as consideration of the bill continues. While I do support the bill, I believe more work needs to be done to address the matters I have raised so far.

Let me be clear: With the reckless use of time allocation and programming motions by the NDP-Liberal government, the Conservative Party is doing what it can to ensure that proper debate takes place on critical government bills. As we pass legislation to improve the lives of Canadians, we must exercise caution so that we do not make matters even worse. When bills are not afforded adequate time for debate here in the House, we risk missing the observations and voices of Canadians, which may prove to be consequential in our discussions around shaping the federal policies of this nation.

It is our unique responsibility to ensure that the proceedings here are conducive to fostering an environment in which open debate can always be had. Canadians look at us in our roles as members of Parliament and how we navigate discussions in which we may have differing opinions. It is important that we continue to ensure that we have ample debate on proposed legislation, showing Canadians that we take this responsibility seriously.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, surely to goodness members of the Conservative Party would recognize their hypocrisy in dealing with legislation. The member talks about how the Conservatives want to make sure that there is ample debate time, endless debate time on all legislation. However, when they were in government, they brought in time allocation over 125 times. Where were those types of comments back when they had a majority government?

The Conservatives also talk about criticizing the legislation because the government is not passing it, even though it is the Conservatives who are preventing it from passing. For example, in the amendment we are talking about today, the Conservatives want to delete the short title, “Public Complaints and Review Commission Act”. That is what we are actually debating today. It is a nonsense amendment meant to prevent the legislation from passing.

Why do members of the Conservative Party continually contradict themselves? They vote in favour of the legislation. They say they want it passed, yet they continue to filibuster endlessly.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here quite some time, as has the member who was speaking, so I have seen the same types of procedures from the members opposite when they were in opposition. I have seen those things even happen with regard to bills. If we recall back in 2018, with regard to Bill C-87, the same type of thing was done. This is not something unique, but it gives us an opportunity to put something on notice. I know that amendments draw criticism from my colleagues across the aisle. It is no different from the novel tactics that the Liberals have used. It is something that I have seen happen very often. I am sure that, if there are people in the House that are left in opposition in a few years' time, they will try the same thing.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though the member intends to support this bill. Although I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, it is my understanding that the Conservatives filibustered during the study of Bill C-20.

That being said, I would like to ask my colleague whether his party really intends to make this issue a priority. If his party does take office in the next election a year and a half from now, can we expect the Conservatives to make this issue a priority? Will they make the proposed amendments to Bill C-20 and will they allocate the necessary funding to ensure that investigations can be conducted and completed in a timely manner?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to a matter of any type of organization that has been tasked with helping the public, it certainly does need to come with the funding that is available. That is the first comment I have. The question of which one of the badger holes we are going to have to fill in the pasture once the time comes that we are in government, I am not sure just exactly how we will be able to manage that. There is going to be a lot of work to do to bring the nation back to its level of greatness.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Conservatives like to pride themselves on being the law and order party, the ones who stand up for police, but I just want to talk about Coutts, Alberta. Two of the four men charged with conspiracy to commit murder at the Coutts border blockade in southern Alberta have now been released from custody. There were arrests, and there were crimes committed.

Can we guess who was supporting the convoy protesters at Coutts? It was members of the Conservative Party. There is heckling, but it is in the news.

When do they decide to support people in positions of authority and when do they not, with freedom for some and not for others?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the situation at Coutts was entirely different from the issues where there were some members of our party who were looking at the freedoms that others have indicated here in Ottawa. I think that is the relationship that the member is trying to portray. Yes, we are a law and order party; we also believe that there needs to be respect all the way through the system.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Still before us we have Bill C‑20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission. As my hon. colleagues know, this bill is of the utmost importance to Canadians. It establishes an independent review body for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, and for the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA.

Members of the public, including members of indigenous and racialized communities, can turn to this body, the public complaints and review commission, if they have comments or complaints about their dealings with the RCMP or the CBSA. A robust civilian review system for both the RCMP and the CBSA is vital to ensure balance in our system between security and equity.

Bill C-20 has been extensively discussed, and relevant recommendations have been made. The government has taken these recommendations into consideration and is grateful for them. Since it was introduced in the House, the bill and the proposed new commission have been considerably improved.

I want to commend the work of my colleagues at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In preparing this bill and adopting the changes contained in the version that is before us, the government and the committee have taken note of the opinions from indigenous organizations, civil liberties associations, police and customs unions, as well as universities.

Although the partners and stakeholders presented different viewpoints in committee, they were united in their desire to strengthen the accountability regime. I thank them all for taking the time to contribute to these important discussions and legislative provisions. Their points of view allowed the committee to build on the solid civilian review and complaints system that Bill C‑20 will create.

The committee adopted 46 amendments to the bill, based on what the committee heard from these stakeholders. These amendments addressed some key priorities for our government, such as diversity and inclusion, accountability, common sense and practical considerations.

Specifically, the committee made changes that respond to the recommendations made in the committee's report on systemic racism in policing. In particular, I would like to point out an amendment adopted to expand the commission's ability to collect demographic and race-based data on complainants so that the commission, and Parliament, more broadly, can identify incidents of systemic racism.

Although the bill already proposed that the commission be authorized to collect race-based data, the committee expanded on this proposal by ensuring that other demographic data would also be collected. This recognizes that the nature of systemic issues can be complex and change over time, and that it can be linked to a wide range of social, cultural and other factors. By gathering additional information on complainants, we will have a more complete picture of any potential systemic issues arising from the public's interaction with the RCMP or the CBSA.

This new power will also enable the commission to identify systemic problems in the application of the act and develop recommendations to respond to them. What is more, one amendment specifies that third parties can file a complaint with the commission on behalf of someone else. Bill C-20 already provided for the possibility of third parties filing complaints with the commission, but additional clarifications were made to eliminate any confusion about the possibility of filing a complaint on behalf of someone else.

This provision will also make it possible to ensure that complainants know that they can get help from people they trust when they have concerns. The RCMP and the CBSA often interact with vulnerable people, particularly people from indigenous or racialized communities, asylum seekers, people with disabilities and 2SLGBTQIA+ people. For reasons that include language barriers and distrust of law enforcement agencies, many of these individuals may be reluctant to file a complaint. In some cases, they may even be unable to proceed with the complaint process. In other words, with the additional clarifications, someone who is reluctant to file a complaint or who encounters problems that prevent them from following through with the process can have a third person file the complaint on their behalf.

Another change to the bill is that stakeholders can now ask the PCRC to conduct a specified activity review, or SAR. Also called systemic investigations, SARs are a second type of activity that the PCRC will undertake as part of its mandate. SARs will allow the PCRC to determine whether RCMP and CBSA policies, procedures and guidelines are adequate and appropriate. They can also help determine whether the agencies are operating in accordance with the legislation or ministerial directions. These reviews are essential because they help address systemic problems within the organization and help make positive changes by contributing to fair and equitable treatment for all.

By specifying that third parties can request SARs from the PCRC, the bill guarantees that the PCRC will be aware of their concerns about systemic problems in law enforcement. The government's goal is always to provide exemplary law enforcement services and border services. It expects all misconduct to be reviewed and handled appropriately by an independent civilian authority in a timely manner.

To sum up, Canada must offer uniform, fair and equitable treatment as well as an effective accountability mechanism, if applicable, for people who interact with the RCMP and the CBSA.

I encourage the House to move this bill through quickly. People need this treatment.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just as many have said before me this evening, this is the third time we have seen this bill. I wonder if my colleague, in her answer to me, could let me know her thoughts as to why the Liberals did not pass it before the 2021 election and why they did not pass it the first time they had it up.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the excellent work of the various parties in this Parliament to bring their ideas forward, to discuss and debate them and to finally come forward with a consensus on this bill, as it is at present, is exactly what Parliament is all about. The committee has also done its work to bring people together to explore challenges and make improvements to the bill, so I am pleased to see it here today.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. She spoke exclusively in French, and I thank her for that. I should mention in passing that her French was excellent. It was very kind of her.

My question is actually about language skills. I would like to know if there were any discussions in committee about the need to ensure that there are bilingual commissioners so that complaints can be received in both languages. We know that the appointment of bilingual judges and commissioners was a challenge for the miscarriage of justice review commission. Was this a discussion that took place in committee? Were any recommendations made on this subject?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I was not on the committee and I am not aware of all the discussions that took place in committee. I can say that Canada is a bilingual country; the work of Parliament must be done in both official languages, and federal organizations that serve the public must be able to serve people in both official languages.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I understand that with Bill C-20, amendments were required to ensure that there were provisions related to the reconciliation process with indigenous peoples. I wonder if the member could respond to why it took amendments and why that process was not there when Bill C-20 was originally introduced. Why did it take NDP amendments to make sure they were included?