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

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and for sharing that family's story.

Unfortunately, I am unable to comment on that specific situation.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague, as well as those of the other parties, for allowing this debate here this evening so we can move forward with Bill C-8. This will allow us to implement call to action 94, which is very important and will amend the oath of citizenship in this country.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am addressing the House today from my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, situated on land that has a shared history among the Huron-Wendat nation, the Mohawk, the Anishinabe Nation and the Six Nations. I feel it is also important and essential to acknowledge the long-standing heritage of the Métis in my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

I have the privilege today of speaking to Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94).

If this bill is passed, it would change Canada's oath of citizenship to put the presence of indigenous people on this land at the heart of the solemn oath taken by newcomers when they become part of the Canadian family.

June is National Indigenous History Month. It is a time for all Canadians to learn about the history of indigenous peoples in Canada, to recognize and acknowledge past mistakes, and to move towards reconciliation.

However, this month our hearts are heavier than they normally are. Locating the remains of 215 children near the former Kamloops Indian Residential School is a painful reminder of a dark and shameful chapter of our country's recent history. Our hearts are with the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation, as well as with all indigenous communities across the country.

It is our collective responsibility to acknowledge the legacy of residential schools and the devastating effects they have had, and continue to have, on indigenous peoples and their communities. As Canadians, we must commit to understanding the atrocities of residential schools and what we can do to address their legacy, and continue to move towards reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada.

The government is committed to fighting all forms of systemic racism. We have started a dialogue with racialized communities and indigenous people to hear their stories. We recognize that these conversations must inspire laws, policies and collaborative solutions to protect indigenous languages, traditions and institutions.

It is in this spirit that we put forward this bill to help new Canadians at the culmination of their journey to citizenship understand the fundamental, historical truths of their new country, beginning not with Confederation, but with the presence of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

Bill C-8 is one part of the government's comprehensive and ongoing commitment to implement all of the recommendations and calls to action contained in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which marked it sixth anniversary yesterday.

Bill C-8 is a direct response to call to action 94, a call to amend the oath of citizenship. While there is so much more to be done, we hope that Bill C-8 can serve as a unanimous gesture of reconciliation by virtue of an all-party agreement to implement the proposed changes to the oath of citizenship.

While the changes proposed to the oath of citizenship may only amount to a small fragment of text, that text is enormously potent and rich in meaning. If adopted, the new oath of citizenship would read as follows:

I swear (or 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 fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

This wording reflects the input received from national indigenous organizations including the Assembly of First Nations, ITK and the Métis National Council. I want to thank them sincerely on behalf of the House for their contributions.

Thanks to the major contributions of these organizations, we have worked together to ensure that the proposed new oath of citizenship is even more inclusive and represents the rich history of indigenous, Inuit and Métis peoples across Canada.

Thanks to their important contributions, the government believes that the wording put forth in the bill is inclusive of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples' input and experiences. It is, we believe, an authentic response to call to action 94.

The wording proposed in Bill C-8 invites new Canadians to 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.

This is a very important change because it emphasizes the fact that ancestral rights are collective rights that are protected by the Constitution under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. These rights are based on indigenous people's historic occupation and use of the lands now known as Canada.

Furthermore, this reference informs newcomers that these rights predate the Constitution and are reinforced and upheld by the highest law in the land. Henceforth a new Canadian's life as a citizen begins with affirming the principle of reconciliation with Canada's most ancient residents.

While the pandemic has temporarily put a stop to in-person ceremonies, we continue to hold ceremonies virtually. It is truly moving and joyful to know that virtual ceremonies can now be witnessed by families and friends outside of Canada. This means an even wider audience learning about the history of Canada, while putting a spotlight on the important history of indigenous peoples in Canada on the global stage.

Furthermore, the participation of indigenous elders enriches these ceremonies. It is truly remarkable to see the coming together of this land's oldest and newest communities celebrating what it means to live together in equality and harmony. At the very centre of that occasion is indeed the oath of citizenship, a pledge to uphold the values for which we strive as a nation: equality, diversity and respect within an open and free society. This bill ensures that new Canadians now embrace and affirm the rights and treaties of indigenous peoples and know that they are an integral part of Canada's history and future.

While we are also working in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis nations on many other components of the calls to action, we are also working on call to action 93, which is a new citizenship guide and supporting educational tools that will include more information on indigenous history, something that has been called for now for quite some time.

Once completed, the revised citizenship study guide, the new citizenship test and the oath will be mutually supportive of these lessons. Furthermore, educational resources will be provided to classrooms across Canada so all students can learn these lessons. I hope all members will join us in these steps on the path to reconciliation. We call on all parties to support the historic and symbolic meaning of the new oath of citizenship.

I want to take a moment to thank all parties for agreeing to move this forward as quickly as possible and ensure that we are able to deliver on yet another call to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations.

It is one more step toward transforming a relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples, one of many more important steps to come. We must continue in steadfast determination to move forward in mutual respect and co-operation. This means listening to and learning from indigenous partners, communities and youth, and acting decisively on what we have heard to continue building trust and bring about healing.

I look forward to working with all members in support of this bill.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

moved 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 third time and passed.

Income Tax Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 9, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 1, the House will now proceed to the consideration of 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, at third reading stage.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating you and thanking you for all that you have done. The fact that you have been there for so long attests to your sense of ethics, professionalism and collegiality, among other things. Thank you once again, and congratulations for all that you have done.

In response to my esteemed colleague's question, this afternoon, we will continue the debate on the NDP's opposition motion. This evening, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members' Business, we will have a series of speeches and then proceed to the passage of Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, at third reading.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin with the second reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms, and then, in the afternoon, we will move on to third reading of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy.

As for next week, on Monday, we will resume second reading of Bill C-21. Tuesday will be an allotted day. Wednesday, we will proceed with Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures. Debate on that bill will continue on Thursday and Friday.

Congratulations once again, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleague for her question.

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

Madam Chair, I'll begin by thanking my colleague for his advocacy, and I thank every member of the committee and all members of Parliament for unanimously supporting the passage of Bill C-8 yesterday in the House of Commons through third reading. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the bill becomes law.

I think all of my colleagues would echo the sentiment that, now more than ever, we need to continue to do the hard work of reconciliation. This past week has revealed the horrifying news of the remains of children that were discovered at a residential school in Kamloops. We would be remiss if we didn't point out that this is not just about a shameful chapter in our history, but that indigenous peoples continue to live this reality today. As parliamentarians, and certainly in my capacity as minister, I will do whatever I can to continue the important work of reconciliation by taking call to action 94 that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission had put forward that would allow us to educate new citizens, but also all Canadians, by amending the oath of citizenship to reflect indigenous peoples' traditions, cultures and histories. That is something that I have seen over the course of my tenure as minister in our citizenship ceremonies. This is important work.

Again, we will continue to consult with our colleagues and with indigenous leaders across the country, but it is so important, now more than ever, that we make this bill law.

Indigenous Affairs

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we will continue to move forward on this reconciliation journey in partnership with indigenous peoples. That means, yes, moving forward on Bill C-8, and I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's support on that, but it also means moving forward on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is still problematic for the Conservative Party.

It means continuing to move forward on ending boil water advisories, which we are working hard on and will continue to. It means continuing to respect indigenous languages and indigenous culture and fighting systemic racism right across the country, and doing it at all orders of government.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Prime Minister, we all need to take lessons from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, the recommendations on which, six years ago, the Prime Minister said he would act and deliver. We have, collectively, not done that.

I wrote to him on moving forward on Bill C-8, and I appreciate the effort to move that forward. However, we need to show urgency now to give closure to these families and to indigenous communities. It is not the time for political rhetoric in Ottawa; it is time to come together with a plan.

Will the Prime Minister commit to delivering that plan to Canadians ahead of Canada Day?

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in relation to Bill C-8, , an act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I will be supporting the language as proposed by Bill C-8. I would have preferred that one of my amendments pass. It is important to get on with it. It's only taken five years, and this is the third bill.

I've indicated to Mr. Anandasangaree, on different occasions, that it was always my intention to move forward with the 94 calls to action. That was something that the New Democrats supported long ago. Prior to this, the former member, Romeo Saganash, and I had actually written to the predecessors of the current minister offering our support in moving forward with this.

I will be supporting this.

(Schedule agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Anandasangaree mentioned the consultation process, as did Ms. McLeod. I requested from the officials, through the committee, the list of stakeholders with whom they consulted. I also asked for a list of the groups that led to the difference in the suggested language in the TRC 94 calls for action versus the language proposed under Bill C-8.

Of course, the information provided to all committee members came eventually—yesterday—and provided only the list of stakeholder groups. As you can see from that list, after five years of consultation it is a very small list. I was quite taken aback, truth be told, with the level of consultation that the government might have embarked on with this important bill.

On the question that was asked about the groups that led to the differences in the language, there was no answer with respect to that. Then we heard from the committee where the committee took it upon themselves to invite a variety of people to the table. NWAC, for example, indicated that they were never consulted by the government on this. I asked NWAC specifically whether or not they would support language in terms of the amendment, as I indicted earlier, and they said yes. The witnesses all indicated the importance of recognizing inherent rights and title.

That is why I think this amendment is important, in reduced language, as proposed by the AFN. It's simply to acknowledge that inherent rights and titles actually existed with indigenous peoples.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The second amendment is a simpler version, but again it simply acknowledges the inherent rights of first nations and title rights.

The language being added to the proposed Bill C-8 language is this. After the words “that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including”, I'm adding “the inherent rights of first nations, title rights”.

Then it goes on to talk about the Constitution. It simply just acknowledges the fact that they do have inherent rights and title rights.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

I wish to speak to the actual amendment itself, but substantively it's the same issue.

We believe we have consulted extensively on Bill C-8. I appreciate Ms. Kwan bringing the original amendment forward. I do note her concerns about newcomers, especially, understanding treaty rights as already covered in the oath as presented.

Bill C-8 does represent the work of many different stakeholders who have come forward and who have given input. At this stage, we understand the intention, but we believe Ms. Kwan's amendment does not necessarily reflect the consensus that was built throughout the process of developing this legislation.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Madame Normandin for her intervention. I note the work that the Bloc has done on UNDRIP, and we're hoping to get the support of the Bloc as we move Bill C-15 through the House and this committee.

Without getting into a prolonged constitutional discussion, I just want to put on the record the importance of having this work within Bill C-8, the term “Constitution Act, 1982”. It is very important in the sense that it recognizes some very specific rights of indigenous people, defined in section 35.

Bill C-8 is a document that had consultation through a number of different indigenous organizations and peoples, and we believe it's an important outlet to reaffirm the importance of the Constitution and the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples as enshrined therein.

I will probably stop there. We are going to be opposing the amendment, and while we appreciate the suggestions put forward by Ms. Normandin, I do think it's an important element to incorporate into a citizenship oath.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I imagine that you can guess my arguments in support of the Bloc's amendment, but I will take the liberty of reiterating them. I will try to do so in a relatively concise manner, but I would still like to present them in full for those members who did not attend the other meetings.

First, I would like you to remember that the Bloc Québécois is entirely in favour of the spirit of Bill C-8 and its purpose, namely the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and the educational opportunities for new citizens when they take the oath.

As a reminder, the Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of defending the rights of indigenous peoples. It has always presented itself as an ally of indigenous peoples. In fact, I mentioned this in a question I asked at a previous meeting of the committee.

Even before the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was signed, the Bloc Québécois had participated in its development. In 2004, in Geneva, when the working group met on this project, the Bloc Québécois supported the process to have the indigenous peoples' right to self-determination recognized by the United Nations.

In 2006, as the declaration by the United Nations was adopted, the Bloc Québécois once again worked hard alongside indigenous peoples to have their rights recognized by the international community. We went all the way to the floor of the United Nations General Assembly to support the draft declaration. In 2007, when Canada expressed its intention to vote against the declaration, the Bloc Québécois raised the issue and maintained pressure in the House before the Conservative government of the day to ensure that the government signed the declaration, which finally happened in 2010.

Bill C-8 is about new citizens recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples. They are being asked to know not only their history, but also their rights. There is an educational aspect to this. We must remember that among the newcomers to Canada, I would say that some—and I hope most—will be Quebeckers.

The current wording of the oath of citizenship in the bill means that they will be asked to recognize something that Quebec has never recognized, namely the Constitution, or rather the Constitution Act, 1982. In his testimony, Professor Cardinal explained the difference between the Canadian Constitution and the Constitution Act. The Constitution is the set of rules and court decisions that govern Canadian law. The oath of citizenship refers specifically to the Constitution Act, 1982. There is a small typo that needs to be corrected.

Future Canadian and Quebec citizens will be asked to recognize the Canadian Constitution when no Quebec government, either sovereignist or federalist, has signed the Constitution with honour and enthusiasm. A question arises. Is it necessary to mention the Constitution in the oath of citizenship?

If I refer to the appearance of the various leaders of the indigenous communities, I note that no one mentioned that this addition was absolutely necessary. It was pointed out as a useful addition. Furthermore, it was not in call to action number 94, which is the original call to change the oath of citizenship.

Chief Poitras even mentioned that she would have been comfortable if Bill C-8 had included the text of call to action number 94 as it stands, without reference to the Constitution. At best, a reference to the Constitution is not absolutely necessary in the wording of the oath of citizenship. At worst, I would argue that it is unnecessary, if not downright wrong.

In that respect, let me refer you to the testimony of Professor Cardinal. He reminded us that the text dealing with the oath, as it reads, recognizes the Constitution, but does not specifically recognize rights. The Constitution is what is really being recognized. It recognizes the Constitution, which includes rights, but it does not specifically recognize rights.

I would like to quote Professor Cardinal as follows: To be fully consistent with the concept of reconciliation and the principles of nation-to-nation relations, I believe that the reference to the Constitution should be removed and that the declaration should simply, directly, refer to a solemn promise to respect the indigenous and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

Our proposed amendment is intended to set the record straight by advocating the direct recognition of these rights. We are also making an addition to the first proposed amendment that we submitted to you and that we are currently debating, namely the recognition of inherent rights. Once again, I will take the liberty of quoting Professor Cardinal. I asked him to further explain what inherent rights are. We had talked about them but we did not define them. He said the following:An inherent right is a right that exists independently of state or constitutional recognition. For indigenous peoples, this is very important. As you know, before the Europeans came here and created New France, New England and eventually Canada, there were peoples who had lived on these lands for thousands of years. We're talking about time immemorial. This ancestral occupation was well organized. There were organized societies, what we can call normative orders. When I teach indigenous law, I always describe a circle to represent indigenous normative orders, and this circle is not completely included within the larger framework of what might be called the Canadian Constitution, where the normative order is of a Canadian type. The Supreme Court recognizes that before the assertion of Crown sovereignty, there were pre-existing sovereignties, therefore indigenous sovereignties. Among these are rights that are recognized—not completely yet, but increasingly—by the Canadian state, notably by the Constitution Act, 1982, but also by other laws or provisions, as well as by court judgments. These rights are therefore said to be inherent. It has long been thought that it was the Royal Proclamation that conferred rights on indigenous people. This is not the case. Indigenous people have special rights within Canada because they existed prior to the assertion of Crown sovereignty. These are called inherent rights.

Professor Cardinal also mentioned that the recognition of indigenous rights by the Constitution Act, 1982, is a promise that has not been fully honoured. When I asked him to give me some examples, he said that negotiations were still under way and many indigenous nations were still waiting for the state to recognize their rights. In addition, the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, has limited its scope by allowing governments, in some cases, to infringe on indigenous and treaty rights. In my view, recognizing the Constitution without specifically recognizing indigenous rights is incomplete.

In conclusion, I invite my colleagues to vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois amendment for two main reasons. As I mentioned in my questions, when we defend the rights of indigenous peoples, we are defending the rights of all nations, including those of another minority nation, Quebec. Bill C-8 seeks to recognize the rights of nations because it enshrines the general principle of recognizing the history and rights of nations. However, the current wording of Bill C-8 ignores part of the history of one of the nations, of Quebec. I am afraid that by voting for Bill C-8 as it stands, the guiding principle of recognition of nations and this important message will be somewhat watered down, eroded. It seems to me that the recognition of the rights of nations must be the heart, the cardinal principle, that guides oaths.

I will now talk about the other reason for inviting my colleagues to vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois amendment.

As Chief Poitras mentioned, in the spirit of reconciliation, it is important that the goal of Bill C-8 be affirmed unanimously. This would send a clear message in terms of reconciliation.

I therefore extend a hand to my colleagues. By passing our amendment, they would ensure that we achieve that unanimity. We can even hope to pass this bill more quickly; it has died on the Order Paper a little too often.