Bill C-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to include, in the Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship, a solemn promise to respect the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, in order to respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 94.

[Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux, Chair, Governing Circle, National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation]

Thank you.

Ahneen. Good evening. My name is Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux. I am the chair of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation governing circle and an honorary witness for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I'm also a proud member and resident of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation in Lake Simcoe, Ontario. Together with the Chippewas of Beausoleil and Rama and the Mississaugas of Alderville, Curve Lake, Hiawatha and Scugog Island, we are signatories to the pre-Confederation 1923 Williams Treaties, signed throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, which covered lands in different parts of south central Ontario.

First, I would like to acknowledge that I am also speaking to you from the original lands of the Chippewa. I want to thank the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for inviting the centre to appear in order to contribute to your study of Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This is an important initiative, one that will breathe life into one of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada as set out in its call to action number 94.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation would like to thank the Honourable Ahmed Hussen for sponsoring Bill C-99 on this matter and the Honourable Marco Mendicino for sponsoring Bill C-8 and its predecessor, Bill C-6. We encourage all parliamentarians to ensure that Bill C-8 receives royal assent during this parliamentary session. We applaud the effort to be more inclusive as a society, as part of the very act of welcoming people to become citizens of our country. This addition to the citizenship oath, one which “recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples”, is in the true spirit of reconciliation.

At second reading of this bill, Minister Mendicino stated that at the time of the publication of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, too few Canadians knew about the tragedy of residential schools. He also noted, “Our government firmly believes that we must acknowledge the injustices of the past and envision a new relationship based on the inherent rights of indigenous peoples.” We agree, and note that considerable progress has been made towards creating awareness, developing a new relationship, and recognizing the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples as contained in section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. Indeed, much progress has been made in recognizing and upholding the international human rights of indigenous peoples.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission called the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples the “framework for reconciliation”, as it supports the development of new relationships as described by Minister Mendicino, relationships based on co-operation and mutual understanding, as well as recognition and respect for the human rights of indigenous peoples.

In this regard, we would like to express to the federal government our support and appreciation for the introduction of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was co-developed with first nations, Inuit and the Métis nation. Bill C-15 is itself a symbol of reconciliation and a new approach to the relationship. It is complementary to the aim of Bill C-8, to recognize and affirm “the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples”.

There is so much that we hope new citizens and all Canadians will understand about the history and relationship with indigenous peoples. This is why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended that the information kit for newcomers and the citizenship test be amended to reflect a more inclusive history of the indigenous peoples of Canada, including information about aboriginal rights, treaties and the history of residential schools. Although Bill C-8 does not address needed changes to the information kit, we do hope this complementary policy action to support the intent of call to action number 94 will be undertaken by the Government of Canada. This type of education and awareness building is important work, as has already been stated.

It is important for newcomers to have an understanding of the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. We need to build societal understanding about the rich, diverse and vibrant cultures and histories of the indigenous peoples in Canada. I myself have dedicated my life to building bridges of understanding among individuals and peoples. I see endless merit in bringing people from diverse cultures, ages and backgrounds together to engage in practical dialogue. I remain deeply committed to public education and youth engagement from all cultures and backgrounds, and spend a considerable amount of time throughout the year delivering those kinds of educational processes to people across the country.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation was established because of a shared vision held by those affected by the residential school system in Canada to create a safe place of learning and dialogue where the truths of their experiences are honoured and kept safe for future generations. They wanted their families, communities and all of Canada to learn from these hard lessons so that they would not be repeated. They wanted to share the wisdom of the elders and traditional knowledge-keepers on how to create just and peaceful relationships amongst diverse peoples. They knew that reconciliation is not only about the past; it is also about the future that all Canadians will forge together.

Bill C-8 is an important part of this journey we take together to create a brighter future for all Canadians.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation and its governing circle stand ready to support the government's reconciliation [Technical difficulty—Editor].

Meegwetch.

Citizenship Act

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her time with me and giving me this opportunity to debate Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act with regard to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, which was introduced by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

The bill amends the Citizenship Act to include, in the oath or affirmation of citizenship, a solemn promise to respect the aboriginal or treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, in order to respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94.

My colleague already said the things I am about to say, but sometimes this government needs to hear things more than once. With respect to this bill, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said that, beginning in 2016, his department consulted the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council and the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, which represents indigenous signatories to Canada's 24 modern treaties.

As we can see, the wording of the oath in the bill is different from that suggested by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. The minister's reason for this is that the stakeholders did not agree on the wording and therefore the minister chose a text that better reflected, from the government's standpoint, the experience of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples.

This is another good example of the government thinking that it knows better than first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. This has been the approach of successive Liberal and Conservative governments over the years. They give out money. They offer programs to first nations and other groups and then dictate what they should do with it. The federal government always thinks that it knows best, it knows everything and it is the best. It thinks it knows the needs of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples better than they do. It thinks it knows their values and customs, but it is wrong every time. We need only think of residential schools, a sad chapter in Canadian history.

On the other hand, I am not surprised. Does this not remind members of something else? We saw the same sort of thing recently with the health transfers for the provinces. The Liberal government thinks it knows the needs of Quebec better than Quebec itself and is trying to tell Quebec how the money should be spent. I think that is basically a joke.

The Prime Minister did not listen when all the provinces called for an immediate, permanent increase in health transfers with no strings attached. Instead, he is persisting with his harmful obsession to interfere and decide how Quebec should spend its own money and with his idea of Canadian standards in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

The federal government needs to give Quebec the health transfers it needs to deal with the worst health crisis of the century without any strings attached. I want to emphasize that. Cuts to health transfers in the midst of a public health crisis make the situation worse and increase needs. Health transfers are essential. It is a matter of good management by the provinces for better quality of care and services.

This is the government's third attempt to respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94. The ideas in Bill C-8 first surfaced in Bill C-99, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, in the 42nd Parliament. That bill was introduced on May 28, 2019 but never got past first reading. In the parliamentary session before this one, the Liberal government introduced bill C-6, which got just one hour of debate before dying on the Order Paper when Parliament prorogued.

That was done to silence parliamentarians and prevent them from getting to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal, an abuse of power on the part of the government as well as an ethical violation. WE Charity paid the Trudeau family, and the government gave WE Charity the contract for the Canada student service grant. What a way to manage things.

We hope the third time will be the charm, considering how long it is taking the Liberals to implement the recommendations of the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

To date, only nine of the 94 calls to action have been acted upon, and this is the 10th. Fortunately, reconciliation with indigenous peoples is a priority for this government. Imagine what would happen if that were not the case.

To prepare to become Canadian citizens, all immigrants to Canada study a guide called “Discover Canada”. The guide ignores the fact that indigenous peoples are a source of law for Canada and states that the Canadian tradition of ordered liberty can be traced back to England, and not at all to the indigenous peoples of Canada who welcomed European explorers, helped them survive in this climate, guided them across the country and signed treaties with them to share their territories with the newcomers from Europe.

Call to action number 94 of the report of Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada states:

We call upon the Government of Canada to replace the Oath of Citizenship with the following:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

As I was saying earlier, the wording we find in the bill we are debating today differs from call to action number 94. The government opted for the following wording:

I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Passage of Bill C-8 would also make a change to the current affirmation and replace the following:

I affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

It will be replaced with the following wording:

I affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-8 because we pledged to be an ally of first nations. This bill is a step toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples. The established relationship of inequality has stripped indigenous people of the means to control their own destiny and fostered distrust for public services and the government.

What is more, the bill responds to call to action number 94 from the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. It is important to note that, of the 94 calls to action, 10 have been completed since last September.

This bill would make newcomers to Canada aware of the reality of first nations and the constitutional nature of their rights when they become citizens. It would also spark a dialogue between newcomers and indigenous peoples on the history of the first nations.

For those reasons, we will vote in favour of Bill C-8.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I am sure my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou will be pleased to be able to speak.

Today, I will be speaking to Bill C-8. Although part of my speech will focus on the substance of the bill, I would also like to talk a little bit about how the bill was introduced and debated, both during this Parliament and the previous one.

To begin, I will give a bit of not so ancient history about the government's desire to modify the oath of citizenship. This is not the first time that this bill has come before the House.

The changes to the citizenship oath, as set out in Bill C-8, were first introduced in Bill C-99 during the previous Parliament, the 42nd Parliament. That bill was introduced on May 28, 2019, shortly before the House closed down. Since Parliament was not set to come back until after the October 2019 election, it was reasonable to expect the bill to die on the Order Paper, which is exactly what happened.

Subsequently, a second version was introduced as Bill C-6 in the first session of the 43rd Parliament. Since the bill was being tabled at the start of the session this time, there was hope that it would not die on the Order Paper. As the ways of the House of Commons and the government are as impenetrable as prorogation is apparently inevitable, Bill C-6 died a premature death.

However, Bill C-6 did get one hour of debate. To ensure that it did not die in vain, I will provide a summary of the key points of said debate.

First, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship stated that in preparing the bill, his department had consulted the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council and the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, an organization that represents indigenous parties in Canada that are signatories to the 24 modern treaties. These consultations had begun in 2016.

Second, to justify the fact that the wording of the oath in the bill was different from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, the minister said that the parties consulted did not agree on wording. The department therefore chose to go with wording that better reflected the experience of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples.

Lastly, the minister clearly stated the intent of the bill, saying:

The purpose of this bill is twofold. First, our goal is to ensure that new Canadians recognize indigenous peoples' significant contributions to Canada. The government is also reaffirming its commitment to reconciliation and a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples.

Based on how the bill has been managed over time, I do not think the government is in much of a rush to implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. The consultations with first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples began in 2016, so it is a little surprising that the government did not introduce the first version of this bill for first reading until May 2019 and that it chose to do so at the end of the Parliament.

Although the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's report was tabled in June 2015, little has been done so far. Just 10 of the 94 calls to action have been implemented. It makes us wonder how willing the government is to take action on this matter. To ensure that the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's report is not just a cosmetic exercise, we must remember that even though every call to action is necessary, each individual call is not enough if it is implemented on its own.

If this is not due to a lack of haste and willingness on the government's part, we at least have to question the government's efficiency. For instance, why not graft the amendment of the oath of allegiance onto Bill C-5 regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation, the bill we just debated and passed at second reading earlier today?

Why did the government not propose amending the oath of allegiance in the 42nd Parliament, as part of Bill C-6, which also amended the Citizenship Act?

If a separate bill is required to implement each of the remaining calls to action, then we have a long way to go. We have every right to ask ourselves the following question: By addressing each call to action through a separate piece of legislation, in addition to rehashing them, is that also the government's way of trying to cover up the fact that its legislative agenda is pretty meagre, to say the least?

In short, either the government is not being very convincing when it says that first nations issues are a priority, or it is being not terribly effective or deliberately ineffective in order to hide another defect, that is, its legislative laziness.

That concludes the editorial part of my speech, and I will now turn to the substance of the bill.

It should come as no surprise that the Bloc plans to vote in favour of the bill. The Bloc Québécois has already made it very clear that we want to be an ally to first nations. In that regard, it is only natural that we support the implementation of one of the recommendations from the report of Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

As I already mentioned, even though each individual call is not enough when implemented on its own, every call to action is necessary, and I intend to vote in favour of a bill to implement this one.

Amending the oath of citizenship to include a promise to recognize the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples is a step in the right direction toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples. First nations peoples are absolutely right to ask for a reference to indigenous rights in the oath.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports a nation-to-nation approach. That is the approach that Quebec will take when it declares independence. Indigenous peoples will be equal founding peoples with us when we create the new country of Quebec.

In the meantime, we hope that this new version of the oath will raise newcomers' awareness of the reality of first nations and their history, but also their new country's shameful treatment of first nations in the past. This is an opportunity to open a dialogue between newcomers and first nations. They will be able to speak to each other as equal citizens so newcomers can learn more about not only the history of first nations, but also their contribution to society.

To prevent history from repeating itself, as it sometimes tends to do, we hope this knowledge of the past will better prepare us for the future.

I personally hope the government will ramp up its reconciliation efforts. If it does, it can count on the Bloc Québécois' steadfast support.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member was referring to Bill C-8, and I believe it was Bill C-6 in the last session. I am not sure, but I will speak to Bill C-8.

I am very much looking forward to this going to committee and being studied to ensure the wording is accurate and respectful. I mentioned this when I questioned the Minister of Immigration on his remarks earlier today about the use of the word “aboriginal” instead of “indigenous”. I still have not received clarity from the minister as to why specifically the government decided to forgo that word, which was in the TRC recommendations, and use an older term that is no longer as socially acceptable, or at least that is what I was taught, that “indigenous” is more acceptable than “aboriginal”.

I am not sure because I heard that from a grand chief in Manitoba and I want more clarity on that. Those are the types of things that need to be studied in committee that I wish to seek greater clarity on. I am very happy to support the bill as it is today, as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

She and I both sit on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. During the previous Parliament, her colleagues voted against the principle of Bill C-6, the previous version of Bill C-8.

Does she have a crystal ball that is telling her there will be some issues with the next stages of the bill, such as the clause-by-clause study in committee and the final vote, or is it telling her the way ahead is clearer for this bill than for the previous bill?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

No, I don't think that is a fair way to put the question. Given the urgency and the tone with which it was put to me, I would certainly hope that you will encourage your colleagues to support Bill C-6, because it is a call to action and it represents a significant step forward in reconciliation.

I would just say that the process of coming up with that amendment required consultation with—

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of the members of this committee for allowing me my first opportunity to come and address you.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we gather today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.

I'm pleased to make my first appearance before this committee as the Minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

As a result of Canada's history of immigration, today more than one in five Canadians were born outside of Canada. This is a strength for our country and a source of great pride. Canada's commitment to diversity and inclusion is essential to making our nation and this world a better place.

That is why the Government of Canada is focused on building an inclusive society with a sense of belonging, trust, and shared values throughout our country.

We know that immigrants make important contributions to Canada, both economically and through cultural diversity. Our government will continue to defend immigration in this country. Our aim is to further improve Canada's immigration system for the benefit of all Canadians and newcomers. This is no small task.

The Prime Minister has given me a very important mandate, one that is vital to our future economic prosperity and one that is absolutely essential to who we are. I have already begun this work in earnest.

As you know, in recent years our government has moved to a multi-year levels plan. This approach allows us to work more effectively with our partners all across the country as we make responsible increases to immigration. My department will soon table its annual report to Parliament on immigration, which will include Canada's multi-year levels plan for the years 2020 to 2022.

Immigration builds vibrant and dynamic communities. It gives Canadian businesses the skills they need to thrive in global markets and to create good-paying middle-class jobs. Our government is working with our counterparts to ensure that these benefits are distributed right across the country, particularly in this period where several regions have been affected by labour shortages.

We live in an increasingly competitive world and we must seize the opportunity to work together to ensure that Canada remains a world leader.

I've travelled to Geneva and to Germany where Canada has been recognized as a world leader and a shining example for the rest of the world on immigration. In fact, recently Germany invited us to share the lessons we have learned together over many years. These lessons have strengthened our system, which has been hailed by the OECD as the “benchmark for other countries” when it comes to integration.

To seize the opportunity and to stay in that position as a world leader, we are working on various initiatives to enhance economic immigration everywhere in Canada. Let's take the Atlantic immigration pilot for example, which has been a tremendous success. We are building on it to attract even more skilled immigrants to live and work in Atlantic Canada and we are taking the next steps to making this pilot a permanent part of our framework.

In addition, our rural and northern immigration pilot is rolling out in partnership with 11 communities from northern Ontario to British Columbia.

We're also looking at developing a new municipal nominee program to allow local communities, chambers of commerce and labour councils the opportunity to directly sponsor the workers they need.

Similarly, the express entry program is the fast lane for immigrants who have the skills and experience to hit the ground running. It's getting results. Under this stream, 95% of the participants have a job, with 83% of them in their main occupation, and 20% earn more than the principal applicants who are coming in under streams other than the express entry.

We're also maintaining our commitment to family reunification. We will continue to play a leadership role in refugee resettlement by introducing a dedicated refugee stream for journalists and humanitarian workers at risk, with a target of helping to resettle as many as 250 people per year.

To help all newcomers and their families integrate, our government will continue to deliver innovative settlement programming and to further invest in research, support and employment projects for visible minority newcomer women. Newcomers, whether refugees or from family reunification, give back to their host country by participating in the economic development of their communities. I know you will be as familiar with their successes as I am.

Supporting positive outcomes—not only for the newcomers who come to Canada, but for our communities across the country—is critical, and my cabinet colleagues and I are working diligently with partners and stakeholders across the country to achieve this.

A timely and efficient immigration system is of critical importance in attracting the world's most talented individuals. Canadians continue to view immigration as key to filling labour gaps and as a tool for addressing the challenges of an aging working population. But, while Canadians continue to express strong support for immigration, we cannot be complacent. We know that Canadians' continued support for immigration goes hand in hand with our ability to manage the system in an orderly and principled way and one that is beneficial to our country.

While Canada is open and generous towards the world's most vulnerable, we must also remain vigilant in the enforcement of our borders, while ensuring our asylum system remains open for those who truly need it.

To that end, I am working with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, and I will continue to advance reforms and investments in the capacity of the asylum system to ensure it is efficient, while meeting Canada's international legal obligations.

We're also improving our immigration system for all of our clients. This means we must also endeavour to protect them from fraud and from falling prey to immigration and citizenship consultants who are unscrupulous and take advantage of vulnerable people. To that end, my department will implement the new professional governance regime for immigration and citizenship consultants under the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act, which will bring strengthened government oversight and a new and stronger compliance and enforcement regime.

The protection of our official languages is very important and that is why we want to put in place measures to strengthen the capacity of francophone communities across the country.

We want to increase francophone immigration between now and 2023 and support the integration and retention of French-speaking newcomers outside Quebec.

Canadian citizenship is the hallmark of a newcomer's full integration into Canada. I have attended a few citizenship ceremonies since I took office and I can tell you, there is no greater pride than the pride that can be seen on the faces of newcomers on this significant day.

There is nothing like seeing a smile on the face of somebody who has just been welcomed to the family of Canadians.

Becoming a citizen is a key of an immigrant's journey, and 86% of newcomers go on to become Canadians. This is one of the highest naturalization rates in the world and something we should celebrate. In fact, more than 200,000 took the oath of citizenship and became citizens in 2018-19.

Through our shared citizenship, we are building a stronger Canada and promoting equality and diversity. To encourage even more newcomers to take the full path to citizenship, our government will bring forward a plan to eliminate fees for citizenship for those who have fulfilled the requirements to obtain it, and I look forward to advancing that work.

I will also say that I'm pleased to have recently tabled Bill C-6, which will amend the oath of citizenship to reflect reconciliation and to reflect our essential relationship with indigenous peoples in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action.

Madam Chair, in conclusion I believe that Canadians should have the utmost respect for the people who want to rebuild their lives in Canada and make contributions to our country. I know that everyone around this table shares the same goals of seeing how we can depend and rely on immigration not only to improve our country, but to make the world a better place.

For example, I want to commend this committee's study of labour shortages. I look forward to collaborating with you on that important work. Together, I know that we can generate and shape the ideas that will drive Canada's long-term prosperity, and I look forward to that work with you as well.

Thank you very much.

[Marian Campbell Jarvis]

Briefly, I would like to bring to your attention Bill C-6, where we have added requirements to lower the age requirement for this undertaking.

[Dr. Harpreet Kochhar]

Okay.

The answer to that is twofold. One is that with Bill C-6, we have a double cohort of citizenship applications. Secondly, in terms of residency requirements, we have prepared a little card that allows people to self-assess and do that—

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Purves, for your intervention and for being here today.

In his opening remarks, the minister indicated that a $3.8-billion voted allocation was going to reconciliation, armed forces and climate change. I'd like to focus on the reconciliation. I think it was mentioned that around $919 million is going to about three or four initiatives. He quickly highlighted the $588 million for child and family services, about $230 million for first nations children under Jordan’s principle, and another $150 million for first nations emergency management services.

The biggest number in there is the $588 million. It's focused on funding child and family services. As you know, we debated Bill C-6, which talked about changing the oath. We heard that this was a symbolic move and that there were no fundamental and substantive initiatives taken by the government to help the indigenous. Given the fact that there is an investment of almost $1 billion here, can you give me a better understanding of the $588 million that's being spent on child and family services?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the chamber.

I am disappointed in the Conservative Party. Those members have been consistent in terms of not really being genuine with respect to supporting the important issue of reconciliation. It has been interesting throughout the day to listen to members stand up and in essence belittle the legislation or outright oppose it, not really recognizing just how important this is.

I have heard members say it is just one bill, that it just deals with the citizenship oath. The citizenship oath is very important. Every year, more than 100,000 individuals will take the oath of citizenship. I suspect no one would try to underplay the importance of the swearing in of a new citizen.

The debate that we have been hearing today has been about reconciliation. The opposition, particularly Conservative members, have been giving the false impression that Bill C-6 is all we are doing for reconciliation. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

Virtually from day one back in 2015, when our government replaced the Harper regime, Canadians finally had a government that was committed to reconciliation. For many years, indigenous communities in all regions of this country had been calling on the government to do something on reconciliation, and the Conservatives stood by and did virtually nothing.

I remember sitting on the opposition benches and calling for a public inquiry in regard to the murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, well over 1,400 of them, and the Conservatives did absolutely nothing. I had the opportunity to ask that question myself. One of the first things our government did was to establish a public inquiry into that.

It is not just the calls for action. It is things such as our investment of hundreds of millions of dollars into indigenous-related issues, whether it was clean water, whether it was the environment, or whether it was education. The Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations would tell us a long list of actions that have been taken. Bill C-6 today is just one aspect of an ongoing way to deal with reconciliation. The Conservatives say we are taking low-hanging fruit from the trees, or whatever they are implying. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

I spoke inside this chamber not that long ago in regard to other calls for action, such as the preservation of heritage language, such as child and family services, such as foster kids. In my province alone, well over 10,000 children are in foster care. One of the calls for action dealt with that particular issue. We brought in substantial legislation last year to help in ensuring that we are able to assist in foster care and able to provide the necessary care by enabling indigenous communities and leaders to take back more responsibility with regard to their children. That is fairly substantial.

We have taken action on eight or nine calls for action. Many of these recommendations are not even completely under federal jurisdiction.

I will continue my comments at a later point, as it appears my time is running out.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to speak and to represent the people of Fredericton.

Today we debate Bill C-6, a bill to amend the citizenship oath. I wish to provide context for my words today with some of my background. Before being elected in this House, I was a teacher and an advocate for indigenous youth in our public schools. I worked to remove barriers in the New Brunswick education system for indigenous children. I worked to educate the broader population on the true history of Canada and the implications for ignoring it. I remember learning about residential schools on my own time and not as part of my formal education. It took two years to comb through testimonials, letters, documents and photo evidence. It was a roller coaster of emotions as I confronted my identity as a non-indigenous person, and my role and responsibility in repairing the damage that had been done. Understanding that responsibility led to my passion for teaching and it led me into this House where I stand today.

The 94 calls to action that came out of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada were designed to be a road map to reconciliation, covering a variety of aspects of life, including business, education, health, youth, women, justice and more. Canadians might be asking where this road has gotten us, and how many calls to action have been completed. In the Prime Minister's words, he made a commitment, in partnership with indigenous communities, the provinces, territories and other vital partners, to fully implement the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That was in 2015.

CBC's Ian Mosby has been tracking the TRC's progress. He commented, “One thing that the calls to action that have been completed have in common, is that they are very simple to complete, or they are calls for things that were already happening to continue.”

Dr. Cindy Blackstock said, “In 2020, it is time to stop feeding the government’s insatiable appetite to be thanked for its inadequate measures and to demand a complete end to the inequality”.

Particularly poignant are the observations of the Yellowhead Institute on assessing progress. It writes:

We have also operated from the assumption that completing any particular Call to Action cannot be solely determined by gestures of process, budgetary promises, or otherwise “recognition of concerns” on the part of Crown-Indigenous Relations (CIR). Rather, we have judged their status based on whether or not specific actions have been taken that are capable of producing the kinds of clear, meaningful, structural changes necessary to improve the lives of Indigenous peoples throughout Canada.

Let us review the scorecard. Out of the 52 broader reconciliation recommendations, seven have been completed; under justice, one out of 18; language and culture, one out of five; health, zero; education, zero; child welfare, zero. Five were completed in the first year, and just four since 2016. At the current rate, it will take approximately 38 more years before all of the calls to action are implemented. We will see reconciliation in the year 2057, just in time for zero emissions.

In the 2019 mandate letters, the Prime Minister reiterated, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous People”. I think it is time to call in the marriage counsellor. Take, for example, Canada's ongoing legal challenges to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's September 2019 ruling that “the Federal government was wilfully and recklessly discriminating against First Nation children in ways that contributed to child deaths and a multitude of unnecessary family separations.” For a government so concerned with appearances, this does not look good.

With no reminder needed, let us look to the current and ongoing Wet'suwet'en crisis in Canada, testing the Prime Minister and his government's commitment to this mandate of reconciliation, as well as the public interest. This could have been a slam dunk, setting the tone for positive, peaceful relationships for years to come. However, due to what I believe to be a catastrophic mishandling of the situation, we are seeing effects like the explicit, overt racism breeding in online comment sections and spilling into the streets and schoolyards.

This is the true barrier to the calls to action, to reconciliation and to the hope of a better tomorrow for indigenous peoples in Canada. We have heard a lot of rhetoric over the last couple of weeks. We had the opposition leader attempt to educate us on privilege. Mind you, he is a white, affluent man who was standing in front of the grand doors of the House of Commons. He should know privilege well, yet somehow he missed the mark.

We have heard a lot of platitudes, punch lines and patriarchy. We have heard promises made and, three days later, promises broken as well as a gross overstating of the role of dialogue.

The exhaustive TRC, the previous Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry were the hard work of dialogue and set a course of action for Canada to take. Dialogue is a conversation among parties, but Canada does not seem to be listening.

In closing, I will change my tone. I will of course support this effort to fulfill one of the 94 recommendations, but I wish to note the timing of this effort as well as question the actual impact in today's Canadian political climate.

Things have changed. We have failed in the bridge building, in the healing that is required of this work, which is embedded in each of the 94 recommendations. Today we address one call to action, the 94th, with 84 incomplete before it. We will potentially move this request to committee stage and in time perhaps we will see our newcomers repeat an oath that acknowledges something the majority of settler Canadians have not.

Having said all this, this change will have a positive impact on the immigration experience in Canada, despite falling flat as a call to action for indigenous peoples so long after it was originally recorded.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fredericton.

As has been said by other speakers today, we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. That is historic. That is something more than just a phrase on paper.

I was born on Treaty 1. I was born in the land of the Anishinabe and Swampy Cree in the city now known as Winnipeg, at the forks of the Red River and the Assiniboine River, all the history for thousands of years of indigenous people living in the area that is Treaty 1.

I now live on Treaty 3, in the city of Guelph, which is on the traditional land of the Mississaugas of the Credit and the Anishinabe and is a land of the Dish with One Spoon Covenant. Having peaceful communication and sharing meals together has been practised for millennia in the area where I now live

It is important to know that it is not just about using words in terms of acknowledging territory, but it is also important to know what territory we are in and what it represented in the past.

The government's commitment to reconciliation really is to bring this renewed relationship forward, the relationship of understanding the people who lived in the areas that we now occupy, sometimes occupying without resolution, looking at recognizing rights, co-operation and partnership and working on the complex relationships that we have now and will have going forward.

Acknowledging call to action number 94 in our oath of citizenship is important today. I have heard members of the House say that this is a minor piece of legislation, that it is just a sleight of hand, that it is just a few words on a page, but there is nothing more important than the oath of citizenship. It really speaks of the land that immigrants are joining and that land having the history of indigenous people as well as the history of the Crown and what that means to us as a country.

My hon. colleague from Sydney—Victoria last week gave a very powerful speech during the midnight emergency debate. He looked at the ongoing protests and acts of civil disobedience. We saw some of that as we were coming into work today. He made the important point that reconciliation is not a destination, that it is a journey.

The 94 calls to action put out by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada are part of that journey, but it is a shared journey. It is a journey involving working on solutions with indigenous people, first nations, Métis and Inuit. Each community will have its own way of interpreting what that journey means.

The 94 calls to action mean working together to change policies and programs in a concerted effort to repair the harm that had been caused over a few hundred years, harm such as residential schools, harm such as the abduction of children in hospitals before they could be united with their parents, things that we are working on today and things that we will be working on tomorrow.

The amendments to Bill C-6 to bring our Citizenship Act in line with call to action number 94 urge us to replace our oath, but it really is what it means to be a Canadian citizen in terms of our relationship with the people who were here before the colonial settlement of Canada.

When I thought of speaking today about the oath of citizenship, I was thinking of the years I have spent working in the Institute for Canadian Citizenship. This institute was founded by former governor general Adrienne Clarkson as an outgoing gift to Canada. It involves bringing people who want to join the Canadian family together, to have conversations with them, to have round table meetings with dignitaries and with people from service organizations in the community, so they can tell us their stories. Why did they choose Canada? How has it been since they arrived here? What are they hoping for their future and for the future of their children?

It is always emotional and poignant. When one sees the pride on the faces of the family members who are joining the Canadian family before taking the citizenship oath, and knows the struggles they have gone through to get to the point of affirming their oath of citizenship, working with the planning committee to figure out how to create a festive atmosphere but also give it the dignity that oaths of citizenship really require is important. This is because citizenship, especially citizenship in Canada, is something that comes with a great value.

When we look at the citizenship language used in the oath right now, what are we talking about changing? It is something very similar to a debate we had a few years ago in the House of making our national anthem more gender-inclusive. It changed “in all our sons command” to “in all of us command”, which leaves open the question of gender definition.

This now opens up the door to reconciliation by including our Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people. That is precisely the phrase we are asking to be put into our citizenship oath. Personally, I hope this is not going to meet with the type of partisan struggle we had in the Senate and the House around changing words, because words do matter. Our citizenship oath was last amended in 1977, and I think we can all agree that the world has moved on greatly since then.

I attend citizenship ceremonies. We have discussions beforehand, and then go to Riverside Park in Guelph. On July 1, 10,000 people are in the park and 30, or 40 or 45, people stand on a stage and declare their new allegiance to Canada. The Rotary Club organizes Canada Day celebrations and other people from the community are around. The chief of police is always there, as are the mayor and the member of provincial parliament. We celebrate together to say that leadership comes from each individual, and that the responsibility of citizenship is not just with elected officials. In particular, it is the citizens of our country who build our country. We simply serve them.

It is an important day for these new Canadians. Some of them have come back years after to volunteer on the citizenship committee and help other people understand what the journey was for them and where they now are in terms of their citizenship. In March 2019, at a citizenship ceremony at Bishop Macdonell high school, some of the people there were children of people who had become citizens previously. We had 37 community members become Canadian citizens that day, and to watch them wave their flags and officially become Canadian citizens was like watching a game where somebody had just scored a goal. The cheering and support demonstrated really showed the excitement and joy we have when people become Canadians.

It is just so important they also know that Canadian citizenship comes with a history, and the history is not always great. This change we are looking at today is to try to undo some of the previous history that needs to be reconciled. The Citizenship Act is a reflection of the government's commitment to build a fair, diverse and inclusive country. It is also there for the benefit of newcomers for their overall quality of life and to make a good future for their families. However, it is all based on our having mutual respect, and in particular respect for the indigenous people who were here before we were citizens and to include them in the family we have joined.

I will be supporting this motion going forward. I hope we see it go through the House expeditiously, and I hope we can continue to work with the indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples to build a better Canada in the future.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for sharing his story about how he came to this country. I am one of those Canadians who was born here. I had the privilege of being born in Victoria, British Columbia. I did take the oath of citizenship at a recent citizenship ceremony, and I recommend to everyone who was born in Canada to do that one day.

I have my criticisms of Liberal policy as well, but those do not take away the fact that Bill C-6 was born out of one of the calls to action. Those calls to action were developed after a prolonged process that involved a lot of heart-wrenching stories. The TRC put a lot of faith in all of those calls to action.

I understand that Conservatives have some reservations with the bill and that maybe our time could be spent better. However, is there a version of the oath that the member could find himself supporting, if not in the bill as it is currently written, perhaps the version that is recommended by call to action number 94?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

I rise today to debate Bill C-6, a bill which must be the Liberal government's most awaited piece of legislation. We heard from the Liberals throughout the election campaign that they were ready. They boasted that their legislative agenda was strong. Here we are debating Bill C-6, their sixth piece of government legislation, and the Liberals have already resorted to what they must surely consider to be time-filler legislation intended to pay lip service and give virtue signalling to the biggest problems facing our country today.

I do not know what I was thinking. I, too, must have fallen for the Liberal rhetoric in the last election, because even I expected that the Liberals would have more meaningful legislation to put forward for Canadians than this bill. However, this is clearly the same old Liberal party that would prefer to pander than to deal with the national crisis at hand, but it is not too surprising. This is actually straight out of the Liberals' playbook. In fact, the Liberals have discussed and/or attempted to change the citizenship oath seven times since their successful change in 1977: in 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2019. Each time they were unsuccessful, and each time they were pandering to the problem of the day.

The Liberal legislation drafters seem to be churning out bills like poorly written songs. They lay new words over the same three notes and expect people to enjoy it in the moment, knowing full well that it will never stand the test of time. On the other hand, the citizenship oath dates back to January 1, 1947, on the heels of Canada defining itself as a nation following the end of the Second World War. It has a special purpose in our history, as it solidified our nation by uniting us in allegiance to Canada as Canadians, not British subjects.

Aside from my wedding day and the days my two sons were born, the day I took the Canadian citizenship oath and became a Canadian myself marks one of the proudest moments of my life. I was born in Lebanon. Canada is the country that I chose, not the country I was born in. I came from a war-torn country, splintered by the infighting of various sects, to Canada seeking a better life. I played by the rules. I followed the traditional immigration process. I was proud to affirm the citizenship oath in 1994. My oath affirmed that I would faithfully uphold the laws of Canada, and then, now and in the future, I have upheld and I will uphold that oath.

The amendment we are debating today belittles the oath that I and many other Canadians have taken. The Liberals make it seem like, without explicitly spelling it out, new citizens would not recognize indigenous treaty rights. The Liberals make it seem like before today, new Canadians did not even have to respect indigenous rights, or that they have found a glaring oversight of our forefathers. However, new citizens who have completed residency requirements for this country have studied the handbook of history, responsibilities and obligations, and are expected to be fully aware of the rights entrenched in our Constitution.

New citizens are expected to have at least a broad view of the resolved and unresolved treaty rights in different parts of the country, and to be aware of the history of residential schools and other reconciliation-related issues. However, what is sad is that, after watching the debate today, it has become clear that this is nothing more than Liberal lip service.

Canadians are in a time of crisis. We have divisions between segments of our country that the Liberal government failed to address over its last term in office. The recently shortened benches of the Liberal Party here today are proving that they have no intention of ever addressing this in a meaningful way. Liberals on the opposite side know this. They know that their fancy speeches, working groups, talk shops, round tables and working lunches, pay-for-play dinners, virtue signalling and heartfelt-sounding press conferences are all smokescreens for their inaction, which has led to the division in our country that has boiled over onto our streets and our train tracks. A great example is what we saw today outside on Wellington Street.

The Liberals know that they are not taking concrete steps, and they know this because they were told that by a member of the chamber who was formerly one of their own. The member for Vancouver Granville, a former member of the Liberal Party and former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, said that:

For Attawapiskat and for all First Nations, the Indian Act is not a suitable system of government, it is not consistent with the rights enshrined in our Constitution, the principles as set out in (UNDRIP) or calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report.

The Conservative Party supports treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people. Conservatives support real action to address reconciliation with the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, but what we are debating here today is simply an interim lip service to the indigenous communities in Canada.

This is the Liberals attempting to distract from the fact that they have been weak on this file for years and have no real plan to move forward. This is yet another empty gesture offered up in place of meaningful and substantive legislative change from the Liberal government. On a fundamental level, Bill C-6 is flawed at its core.

Bill C-6 incorrectly gives the impression that the Inuit and Métis people have their own distinct treaties with the Government of Canada. It is as though the Prime Minister's Office took a virtue-signalling bill proposed by the Minister of Immigration, and then Gerald Butts and Katie Telford insisted on adding the words, “Métis and Inuit”, because their internal studies showed that these buzzwords perform better than the truth in Liberal focus groups.

That must have been what happened, because there is no way that the new Minister of Immigration would willingly put forward his first piece of legislation as a minister with such a glaring oversight.

Besides that unfortunate oversight, Bill C-6 would do nothing to support real action to address reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. Instead, the Liberals brought back this lip service, a continuation of legislative disappointments that we became far too accustomed to in the last Parliament.

In conclusion, it is unfortunate, but it appears that we can expect this Liberal tradition on legislative smokescreens instead of dealing with the real pressing and demanding issues that Canadians need to be addressing here today.