Bill C-8 (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.

Citizenship Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul has about eight and a half minutes remaining for her remarks. Then she will have the usual 10 minutes for questions and comments thereafter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we proceed, I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 45 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to continue my remarks on Bill C-8.

In the beginning of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s process, on June 11, 2008, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister, made a historic and symbolic statement of apology to former students of residential schools, on behalf of the Government of Canada. On that day back in 2008, I would have been in the midst of finishing my grade 12 exams, excitedly preparing to graduate from high school. Little did I know that I would be revisiting the wise words of Canada’s former prime minister in my very own speech on the House of Commons floor, albeit virtually, 12 and a half years later.

Given that today’s debate centres on call to action number 94 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action, I feel it is prudent to recognize and reaffirm some of the remarks of Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister. He said:

Two primary objectives of the Residential Schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child”.

The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on Aboriginal culture, heritage and language.

The Government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the Aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly.

We are sorry

This Commission presents a unique opportunity to educate all Canadians on the Indian Residential Schools system. It will be a positive step in forging a new relationship between Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians, a relationship based on the knowledge of our shared history, a respect for each other and a desire to move forward together with a renewed understanding that strong families, strong communities and vibrant cultures and traditions will contribute to a stronger Canada for all of us.

On the apology, Senator Murray Sinclair said, “The apology was a momentous moment in the lives of the survivors...and the Aboriginal community and Canadians as well. It was a recognition of the wrongs of the past. The fact that what was done and intended to be done was unacceptable.... The apology was for [survivors of Residential Schools] finally a recognition that what they had been saying was right, it was finally a sense of validation about it.”

The Conservatives believe that the fundamental obligation of the federal government is to improve the living conditions of aboriginal Canadians, including the Inuit, in terms of economic opportunity, health, education and community safety. Within that belief, the Conservative Party fully supports the treaty rights and process of reconciliation with indigenous people, as well as real action to support clean water, safe housing, education, access to health care and equitable economic opportunities. The Conservatives understand the power of treaties among Canada’s body of laws, and we support the resolution of unfulfilled treaty obligations in the process of reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people.

Historically, it was the government of former Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker that was responsible for passing legislation that granted first nations people the right to vote in Canada. Nearly 60 years later, our new Conservative leader made very clear his commitment to indigenous peoples during his campaign for the leadership of our party. Specifically, our leader pledged that should he become Canada’s Prime Minister, his government “will contribute to reconciliation based on respect and the recognition that when Indigenous communities rise economically, all of Canada rises.” He also said, “Improving the relationship between the government and Indigenous communities must be a top priority. The future of our country depends on successful reconciliation and meaningful trust-building.”

Related to the oath of citizenship, the Conservatives have several guiding principles in our party’s constitutional framework that support the basis for all of our policy positions. One of these guiding principles is “A belief in our constitutional monarchy, the institutions of Parliament and the democratic process”. With that guiding principle, we are pledging our support to the monarch of Canada, Queen Elizabeth II, and the Westminster style of democracy that governs our great country. As a result, we support the words affirming our allegiance to the Queen and her heirs and successors in our country’s oath of citizenship.

In the context of our discussion today, it should be noted that there were several attempts in the 1990s by Liberal MPs, including cabinet ministers, to do away with centuries of historical tradition and development of our customs in our oath of citizenship. Thankfully, none of those attempts were successful.

Further, the Liberals' record of reconciliation with indigenous peoples does not match their rhetoric during their time in government. During former prime minister Stephen Harper’s tenure, the Liberals voted against legislation to improve divorce and separation rights on reserves for indigenous women. Three and a half years ago, our current Liberal Prime Minister said, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples”, and that his government was “reviewing all federal laws and policies that concern Indigenous Peoples and making progress on the Calls to Action outlined in the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.”

However, in the five years since the Liberals formed government, if Bill C-8 passes into law, it will represent only the sixth call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission fulfilled by the Prime Minister, and only the 10th overall in Canada. Although symbolic gestures such as changing the oath of citizenship are important, an argument could be made that with this bill the Liberals are showing Canadians that they are choosing to focus on low-hanging fruit and avoiding the calls to action that may be more challenging to implement.

Moreover, the pandemic aside, 2020 has been a dismal year for the Liberal government’s relationship with indigenous peoples. This year, 2020, began with an eruption across the country over the Coastal GasLink pipeline. Canadians experienced obstructive rail blockades that severely disrupted the flow of goods and people across our country. These events revealed cracks in the Liberal government's ability to mediate and support the economic development and success of indigenous peoples.

This weak approach has been witnessed more recently during the fisheries crisis in Nova Scotia, which has seen violent protests erupt between commercial fish harvesters and first nations. The safety of all Canadians must be the government’s top priority. It is clear that the Prime Minister and his government have failed to lead and take the necessary action to prevent this eruption, nor have they taken the long-overdue mediation steps or ordered the RCMP to support the community in order to keep all Nova Scotians safe, to the best of their ability, in their communities and to peacefully resolve the situation.

In conclusion, Conservatives strongly and proudly support Canada’s traditions and institutions developed over centuries in our Westminster-style democracy. We also recognize the importance of the symbolism that represents our unique Canadian culture, which includes the symbolic gesture of the proposed amendment to the oath of citizenship. If passed into law, the new oath of citizenship would elevate and promote indigenous rights, including treaty rights, as well as the inherent dignity of indigenous peoples, a dignity that for so long was denied.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul emphasized some of the other concrete actions we need to take to help support indigenous communities and the everyday lives of indigenous people, beyond the scope of this proposal. I am wondering if she could expand more on that and speak about some of the further actions the government must take in order to make true and meaningful reconciliation a reality.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a lot more the government can do. It also involves encouraging Canadians across the spectrum to learn more about indigenous history and the legacy left by residential schools, as per the leadership of former prime minister Stephen Harper. I also think all of the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission should be studied and implemented accordingly as per the findings of the TRC.

[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, I am inclined to disagree with the member when she tries to play down the importance this government has placed on truth and reconciliation, as it has, over the last number of years, very progressively moved forward on a number of fronts, whether it is language, talking about the statutory holiday the other day or talking about citizenship today. There are a number of calls to action.

I am very familiar with the apology provided by Prime Minister Harper. It was very much appreciated, but the general consensus today is that it means a whole lot more not only to receive the apology but to see things flow out of the apology, something this government has actually been delivering, such as, for example, the advisories for water.

I am wondering if the member would like to revisit some of her thoughts.

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

Madam Speaker, I will remind the member for Winnipeg North that it was, in fact, Prime Minister Harper who commissioned the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so in fact Conservatives have a great record of acting on the need to move forward on indigenous rights. I will also bring to the House's attention the five that his government has thus far implemented. They involved, as he mentioned, sports and support for the North American Indigenous Games, which are both very important; federal support for the TRC, which is also very important; the missing and murdered indigenous women inquiry; and the federal acknowledgement of indigenous language rights.

That is five out of 94, and I will bring the member's attention to number one of the calls to action, which is the legacy of child welfare. Since the member is from Manitoba, as I am, he will know that over 10,000 children are in care in Manitoba, more than anywhere else in the world, and 97% are indigenous. I would draw his attention as a governing MP to number one and number two in the calls to action.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciate the fact that the member expressed support on behalf of the Conservatives for the bill.

The member for Thornhill, speaking in the last round about the proposed citizenship oath amendments, said that if indigenous peoples continue the protest of the Coastal GasLink pipeline, they would lose support for such an amendment. This kind of statement is completely ignorant of the rights of indigenous peoples.

If the Conservatives support the recognition of the inherent rights of indigenous people, as is proposed in the bill, would they also support article 10 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples about free, prior and informed consent?

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Thornhill was referring to the public outcry at the railway blockades, but also referring to the immense support from the Wet'suwet'en elected band council and some of their hereditary chiefs. For example, hereditary chief Helen Michelle mentioned, “A lot of the protestors are not even Wet'suwet'en” and “Our own people said 'go ahead'” with Coastal GasLink. Further, she said that they talked to the elders. They talked and talked, and they kept bringing them back. She said that they walked the very territory where Coastal GasLink was going and they were going to give it the go-ahead.

Further, Chief Larry Nooski of the Nadleh Whut'en said, “Coastal GasLink represents a once in a generation economic development opportunity for Nadleh Whut'en First Nation. We negotiated hard...to guarantee that Nadleh people, including youth, have the opportunity to benefit directly and indirectly from the project, while at the same time, ensuring that the land and the water is protected”. I believe my colleague's response in his speech was regarding those comments.

Further, regarding UNDRIP, Conservatives are supportive of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. That path must be studied and furthered across all levels of government. I am eager to see what, if anything, the government puts forward as soon as possible. It has been four years since it said it would adopt it, yet no action has been brought forward. Again, it is an area that needs study and I look forward to seeing that being studied.

[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?

[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.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on similar comments in speaking about how important it is that this is sent to committee. It is important that parliamentarians are able to do the work we were sent here to do, such as examine legislation and make sure it is executed appropriately.

It is interesting that my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul mentioned consultation with chiefs in Manitoba. I have been doing similar things in Kenora. I have been speaking with the grand chiefs in my riding, as well as chiefs of local communities and residents in local communities, to get a sense of their thoughts on this proposal.

Can the member share some of the thoughts chiefs and community leaders in Manitoba have on this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention several things. What I have heard from my consultations with indigenous leaders specifically in Manitoba is that when they travel abroad, for example, people do not know that indigenous peoples exist in Canada. Amending the citizenship oath to have mention of indigenous peoples and their treaty rights, as well as the Métis and the Inuit, would mean a lot to the indigenous community symbolically. It would say to newcomers that there are indigenous folks here, they are historical, they have dignity and we have respect for them. It would mean a lot in that symbolic sense.

Beyond that, some of the feedback I did get was what I acknowledged in my speech, that this is really great and important and that symbolic gestures are important for moving forward. However, there are a significant number of issues that first nations are facing. Today, the member for Kenora mentioned a reserve in his riding that does not have running water.

We know this is a rampant problem across Canada. We also know that suicide rates are extraordinarily and devastatingly high for first nations on reserves. I have seen and read about that first-hand in Manitoba. There are much greater issues the federal government is dragging its heels on and should focus on.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that, if the House will allow me, I wish to share my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.