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

[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 second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by acknowledging that the House of Commons is located on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples.

Today, I have the privilege of speaking to Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

If passed, the bill would amend the oath of Canadian citizenship to ensure our indigenous peoples have their right place within the solemn declaration made by newcomers as they are welcomed to the Canadian family.

Allow me to explain the importance of this legislation and why the government is seeking to pass it into law.

This bill continues to fulfill our government's commitment to implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, specifically call to action number 94. The government first proposed this amendment some time ago as part of our overall efforts to significantly advance reconciliation. As member of the House will know, similar legislation was tabled previously in both the last Parliament and last session, and that is why I am so proud to be reintroducing it today.

This is a difficult time for Canadians and for the entire world. Throughout the global pandemic, the government has focused on supporting indigenous communities, working to control the spread of COVID-19 and keeping everyone safe.

That is something the government will continue to do as we walk the shared path of reconciliation with indigenous peoples and remain focused on implementing the commitments made in 2019.

Racism hardly took a pause during this pandemic and, indeed, arguably it has exacerbated it. The government is committed to addressing racism in a way that is informed by the experience of racialized communities and indigenous peoples. This is hard work, not just for Parliament, but for all Canadians. Renewing the relationship with indigenous peoples must be based on a recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

Our laws and policies must foster co-operation with indigenous peoples and reflect how we can all work to protect indigenous languages, traditions and institutions.

As Senator Murray Sinclair has said, “The road we travel is equal in importance to the destination we seek.... When it comes to truth and reconciliation we are forced to go the distance.”

We have made advancements to address reconciliation, but there is clearly more work to be done. I hope we will use this time as an opportunity to have a constructive debate on this bill, starting with an all-party agreement that the amendments it proposes to the Citizenship Act are one more vital step toward reconciliation.

Before discussing the substance of the legislation, allow me to provide some historical context that gave rise to call to action number 94.

As said at the time of the publication of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, too few Canadians know about the tragedy of the residential schools. There was a deficit of public awareness regarding the systemic way in which indigenous children were forcibly torn from their families. Previously shamed into silence about their backgrounds, thousands of survivors shared their painful residential school experiences with the commission, helping to start an important dialogue throughout Canada about what was necessary to recognize and start to heal the trauma.

We all have much to learn from listening to their voices, and it is in the spirit of this sharing of knowledge and learning that we put forward this bill to help new Canadians, at their inception as citizens, begin to understand the history and rights of indigenous peoples as a part of our country's fabric.

The stories of first nations, Inuit and Métis are the story of Canada itself. That is why the approach we are taking with this new oath is so important. We must, as Senator Sinclair has said, demonstrate “action that shows leadership”. With this bill, we are taking a step to change the oath of citizenship to be more inclusive and to take steps to fundamentally transform the nature of our relationship with indigenous peoples.

For hundreds of years, even before the residential schools, indigenous peoples faced discrimination in every aspect of their lives. 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.

The bill we have put forward helps to lay the foundation for that journey. 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 fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

To arrive at this language, the government engaged indigenous leaders, including the national indigenous organizations. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada began consultations in 2016, with the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council. In addition, the department engaged with members of Land Claims Agreements Coalition, an organization that represents indigenous modern treaty organizations and governments in Canada.

To summarize our consultation, I would say that while there was general support for the intent behind the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action, it was clear that further efforts were needed to make the oath as precise and as inclusive as possible. However, it is the government's sincere belief that the wording put forth in this bill is inclusive of first nations, Inuit and Métis experiences, responding not only to call to action number 94, but to the substance of what my department heard throughout our consultations.

The bill we put forward to the House today includes a proposed oath of citizenship that would introduce and, we hope, instill the principle of reconciliation among our new citizens.

Many hon. members would agree that newcomers and prospective citizens represent an ideal group to embrace this principle. Becoming a citizen is a significant milestone, and over the last decade Canada has welcomed nearly 1.7 million new citizens.

In my time as minister, I have already had a number of opportunities to participate in citizenship ceremonies right across Canada, and I can tell hon. members that they are among the most emotional, moving and inspirational functions that I get to participate in. We see the pride on the faces of new citizens and how the oath represents a major commitment as part of their journey to settle in our country. The oath is an integral part of the citizenship process. It expresses a commitment to equality, diversity and respect within an open and free society. By taking the oath, new citizens inherit the legacy of those who have come before them and the values that have defined the character of Canada.

Essentially, our history becomes their history, and their history becomes part of ours.

With this bill, that shared history would also ensure that newcomers recognize and affirm the rights and treaties of indigenous peoples and see them as an integral part of Canada's past, present and future. It is a long road and we still have a long way to go, but our goal is to ensure that new Canadians recognize the significant contributions of indigenous peoples to Canada. In doing so, the government is also reaffirming its commitment to reconciliation and a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples.

However, this transformation will extend far beyond this proposed legislation and will take mutual respect, determination and patience. It will mean listening to and learning from indigenous partners, communities and youth, and acting decisively on what we have heard, which is to build trust and healing. It will also mean doing everything we can to support the inherent right to self-determination of indigenous peoples that will lead us all to a better future. We can and will build a better Canada together, but we can only do this in full, honest partnership with indigenous peoples, who truly know what is best when it comes to their own communities.

I want to end by acknowledging again that this has been a challenging time. However, this legislation represents a significant opportunity for Canada. The oath of citizenship is a time to celebrate our great country and should be an opportunity to recognize that indigenous peoples have been on this land since time immemorial. In doing so, we can work to address racism and its impacts on everyone in Canada, because as active and engaged citizens, we can all be part of the solution.

Let us move forward toward a new and better nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples based on inherent rights, respect and partnership. I look forward to working with all members of the House to support this legislation, which represents yet another step forward on the path to reconciliation.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that this is part of the path to trust and healing. We are talking about a change to the citizenship oath that I think is very appropriate and supportable. We talked about a statutory holiday as well. However, in the meantime, the things that are actually making a difference for indigenous people, such as clean drinking water and an action plan on murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, are missing.

The Liberals have completed 10 calls to action, so this may be a step, but does the minister not believe that trust and healing would come with following through on other commitments, such as clean drinking water?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a part of my hon. colleague's question that I agree with: We must continue to work with indigenous communities right across the country to ensure that every indigenous person has access to clean and safe drinking water. My colleagues, the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, are making good progress on that, and we acknowledge there is still a way to go. It is the same with respect to ensuring that indigenous children get access to health and education. These are all important priorities.

With regard to the MMIWG, I would point out that it was my hon. colleague's party that refused to support proceeding with that inquiry in the last Parliament. I certainly hope there has been an about-face on that.

With regard to this legislation, as I said, it is an important part of the pathway toward reconciliation. We hope both she and her colleagues will support it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I will be voting in favour of Bill C-8. It is a good bill, but I am wondering whether the Liberals are avoiding implementing more practical measures that would do more to improve the lives of indigenous people.

I am thinking of two things in particular. The first is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The fact that we have not yet ratified this declaration is a disgrace to our country internationally. Second, I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and I am wondering when the measures from the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls will be implemented. That is absolutely critical.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her support for Bill C-8. It is so important that all members of the House work together to advance reconciliation. This bill is a step toward this important objective.

As I said earlier, I completely agree that we need to continue to make progress to ensure that our indigenous communities have access to clean drinking water. That will continue with the work of my colleagues.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also will be supporting this bill, and I am happy it is coming forward.

I wanted to thank the member opposite for his comments today and for some of the interventions we have seen from colleagues on both sides of the House. One thing I did want to highlight is that, as we have heard, there have only been 10 of the 94 calls to action implemented so far, and that all happened before 2018. Since 2018, zero have been accomplished.

We should look at the fact that even this small change, which is very important and which I am very supportive of, has taken an astonishing five years to make happen. The government continues to drag out reconciliation efforts. It continues to demonstrate its failure to establish a successful nation-to-nation relationship. I am wondering what the member can say about the fact that it has taken five years to do only this one piece of those 94 recommendations and how he would speak to indigenous populations, who obviously do not see this as a true meaningful relationship.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will get no resistance from me, nor from anybody on this side of the House, saying that there is still a long way to go. As part of my mandate I was asked to contribute to reconciliation by tabling this legislation. As I said, it had been introduced in the last Parliament, it was introduced in the last session and I hope that she will see, by my retabling it at this time, a genuine commitment to do my part, within the context of my portfolio, to take the step that is necessary to educate new Canadians.

I will say, having participated in many citizenship ceremonies, even virtually throughout COVID, that there is a real opportunity there to inculcate and to educate people, as they become part of the Canadian family, about the importance of our relationship with indigenous peoples. This law would achieve that objective.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the original TRC recommendation 94 was worded differently than the recommendation in the bill. Could the hon. member comment on why there is a difference? Why did he not just use the original wording from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report?

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

Mr. Speaker, as my friend will have heard throughout my remarks, we engaged in extensive consultations with indigenous leadership and communities, going back to 2016. We believe that the language that we have put forward in this bill is most inclusive of first nations, Inuit and Métis experiences. Of course, we are looking forward to having the committee study this bill, where I know there will be ongoing debate, but certainly the product of the language that has been put forward is very much consistent with the consultations, which were extensive leading up to this point.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us has been in the making for five years. Back in 2016 the former minister, John McCallum, introduced Bill C-6, and at that point I made an amendment to bring in this change to that act. It did not pass. It did not get through the system, and so here we are, five years later, and it has taken the government this long to get to this place.

So, given this is where we are, there is a real serious question as to how the Canadian public and newcomers can take the government seriously with respect to reconciliation for indigenous peoples. As well, I am wondering what the minister is doing to ensure that newcomers have access to information so that they can learn about the history and internalize that history, so they can fully respect the human rights of indigenous peoples.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. colleague for her advocacy, which I have come to experience on a very frequent basis. I appreciate it very much.

Certainly, with regard to this bill, I agree with my hon. colleague that we hopefully will pass this legislation as quickly as possible. I would encourage her to urge all of her colleagues and all members on the opposite side to support it so that it can become law. We also do need a concurrent strategy to educate and to really create as much transparency about the reason for the change. I think that is work that she will find a willing partner in.

With regard to the other parts of her question, we have made progress with regard to ensuring that indigenous peoples get access to safe water, as well as education and health services, and that work will continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the wording of the new proposed oath. When I was consulting with indigenous leaders in Manitoba, they raised some questions about why the word “aboriginal” was used in the Liberal proposed oath, whereas the Truth and Reconciliation Commission used the word “indigenous”.

I am looking for some clarity there and about the more appropriate terms we use today versus yesterday, so to speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, a variation of the same question was asked earlier. As I mentioned, this language is the product of extensive consultation with indigenous leaders and communities that goes back to 2016. We believe it reflects the spirit of those consultations. This bill will go to committee to be studied, where I am sure it will hear additional evidence, and afterward we will look forward to receiving a report back from committee.

The most important thing is that we pass this legislation into law as quickly as possible. I certainly hope that my colleague posing the question will see fit to support it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul to resume debate, I will let her know there are only about 11 to 12 minutes remaining in the time for Government Orders before we get to the time for members' statements and question period, so I will interrupt her in the usual way. Of course, she will have the remaining time when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by stating I am delivering my remarks on Treaty No. 1 territory and in the homeland of the Métis nation here in Manitoba.

As a Canadian and as a member of Parliament, I deeply respect the oath of citizenship of Canada. The proposed Liberal amendment to the Citizenship Act is something to which Conservatives have given much thought and consideration. The amendment under debate today represents a historic step forward in Canada’s relationship with its indigenous peoples and an important component of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action.

In my remarks, I will discuss my personal experiences with indigenous history and the Canadian oath of citizenship. I will also highlight the profound significance of the purpose of the words in the oath of citizenship and the equally profound significance of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I will also include discussions on the contrasting Conservative and Liberal positions on these important matters. In conclusion, I believe Bill C-8 importantly and necessarily elevates the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and our treaties with them to the institutionally symbolic affirmation of patriotism and loyalty that is our oath of citizenship.

I want to begin by sharing that my personal journey of understanding the realities faced by indigenous peoples and their history in Canada did not really begin in a fulsome way until later in my life, whereas today children are learning about indigenous history much earlier in their education. Frankly, the only learning experience I had before adulthood about indigenous history came in high school when I first learned of Helen Betty Osborne, the 19-year-old Cree woman who lived in The Pas, Manitoba, where she was abducted, beaten, stabbed over 50 times with a screwdriver and killed. It took 16 years to solve her case and it was later found that racism, sexism and indifference from those who had power over her case were the cause of the 16-year delay in justice. The provincial government of Manitoba formally apologized for this injustice in 2000.

Following this experience, I went on to study political science at McGill University and the University of Manitoba. During that time, my understanding of Canadian indigenous history was further expanded. I was fortunate to study under Professor Niigaan Sinclair, who happens to be the son of Senator Murray Sinclair, the chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Although our policies and politics do not always align, I learned a great deal from Professor Sinclair about indigenous history and took advantage of Canada’s largest native studies faculty located at the University of Manitoba.

Shortly before the completion of my undergraduate degree, I realized I had sufficient credits to graduate with a Canadian history minor, save for one issue. The McGill criteria for Canadian history did not permit the inclusion of native studies as part of the Canadian history minor requirements. I felt that this was an injustice considering native studies is, of course, the study of Canadian history. As a result, I made the formal request to McGill University to change its requirements to consider native studies as Canadian history. It agreed, and I graduated with a Canadian history minor, and it is my expectation that McGill students have been permitted to do the same ever since.

I mention these events because they had a profound impact on me as a young woman. They laid bare just how far Canada and its institutions must travel on this journey of reconciliation. The inclusion of 19 additional words through Bill C-8 to our country’s short but profound oath of citizenship is another important step on this important journey.

That is why Conservatives will be supporting this bill. I have had very positive experiences with the oath of citizenship. In fact, those experiences stand out in memory with their deeply historic Canadian traditions and all the pomp and circumstance that comes with them.

I will never forget the first citizenship ceremony I ever witnessed. It was a very hot summer day in Manitoba, and I was attending the ceremony as the head aide for the Manitoba minister of culture. The ceremony was officiated by Dwight MacAulay, the former chief of protocol of the Manitoba legislature. He spoke so eloquently to the soon-to-be Canadian citizens about the significance of Canadian citizenship and the hope it provided to all of them in their new role as citizens of Canada.

The people there were of many different ages, races and religions, and they were absolutely beaming with pride to be there on this very special day. Some even shed tears of joy after they had taken the oath of citizenship. I remember feeling very patriotic in that moment. To that point, citizenship was something I had really taken for granted, having always had it, but I felt very fortunate I was able to witness such a profound moment in the lives of those new Canadian citizens.

As we debate changing the oath of citizenship today, I believe it is important for us to recognize the rich history of Canada’s Westminster-style democracy to provide context to its sanctity of the oath and the profound importance it has on Canadian culture. It is deeply symbolic and rooted in customs and traditions that have evolved since the first English Parliament was convened in 1215 with the creation and signing of the Magna Carta. Canadian democracy and the freedoms and stability we enjoy are a result of over 800 years of development of our governing institutions. As a result, our customs and traditions are deeply embedded in the fabric of what it means to be Canadian.

That is why the second reading debate today on BillC-8,, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, is so important.

The oath of allegiance makes up the first portion of our oath of citizenship. The oath of allegiance is taken by all those who wish to become judges, policemen and women, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, people who have been elected to serve in Parliament and provincial legislatures and others.

What is the oath of allegiance? It is a powerful, historical, solemn declaration of fealty to the Canadian monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, who is the personification of the Canadian state. The oath we use in Canada has roots in the oath taken in the United Kingdom, which was first implemented in 1689 by King William II.

I recently took the oath of allegiance to the Queen as part of the process to be officially sworn in as a Canadian member of Parliament. It was a short, but hugely symbolic phrase that reminded me of the serious obligations and responsibilities I was about to assume. I rested my hand on a bible and swore under my name, “that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.” When Members of Parliament swear these words, we are swearing allegiance to the institutions the Queen represents, which includes our Westminster-style democracy and when we swear the oath, we are pledging to conduct ourselves in the best interests of Canada. Our obligation as MPs to swear this oath of allegiance dates back to the Constitution Act of 1867.

However, the oath of citizenship, which was adapted from the oath of allegiance, came as a mandatory requirement for citizens many years later. It was not until 1946 that Canada’s House of Commons passed the Canadian Citizenship Act, which officially established the creation of Canadian citizenship. Interestingly, the oath of citizenship in Canada only became law when the Citizenship Act was amended in 1977, which was 110 years after Confederation, and it marked the introduction of the symbolic affirmation of patriotism and loyalty into our oath of citizenship.

Bill C-8 represents the first change to our oath of citizenship in over 40 years. Given the history and symbolic significance I have just highlighted, this amendment to the citizenship oath is, to put it plainly, a very big deal. In sum, the oath of citizenship connects new Canadians to our constitutional monarch, who embodies our governing institutions in a timeless way and by doing so, it brings people into the historic Canadian identity.

The oath of citizenship, in its current form, is 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
And fulfil my duties
As a Canadian citizen.

Bill C-8 would add 19 words to our oath. Should the bill pass, the oath of citizenship will be 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.”

By including the historic amendment to include indigenous and treaty rights in our oath of citizenship, it elevates and signifies the inherent dignity of Indigenous peoples and the agreements that were made with them. It informs newcomers of the Canadian commitment to both our national duty and allegiance to the Queen of Canada as well as our commitment to truth and reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

Given our discussion today on Bill C-8, it is of course important that we include mention of the purpose of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, which was activated by former prime minister Stephen Harper and organized by those involved with the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The purpose of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was to document the historical impact and the lasting legacy of the Canadian Indian residential school system on the indigenous peoples of Canada. There were more than 130 residential schools in Canada and 150,000 first nations, Métis and Inuit children were subjected to them. Seven generations of indigenous Canadians were impacted by residential schools.

More than 6000 witnesses were interviewed during the commission. Their stories shared the horrors and abuse, including sexual abuse, that was inflicted on them during their time in residential schools. We have learned that 3,200 children died of tuberculosis, malnutrition and other diseases while attending these schools. Many indigenous parents were never informed of the deaths of their children. For those parents, their children were simply taken from them, never to be seen again. The last residential school in Canada closed in 1996.

The mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was as its name is: telling the truth about what happened to indigenous peoples in Canada, notably the horrific abuse and forced cultural assimilation of indigenous children in residential schools as well as the failure of over 150 years of federal governments to fulfill treaties rights that were agreed to in partnership with indigenous peoples in good faith.

Senator Murray Sinclair has said that the process of reconciliation follows and involves educating the broader Canadian public on that truth and asking the public to accept that there are more things that need to be done to reconcile with Indigenous peoples. Through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we understand that residential schools are one of the defining factors of why indigenous people continue to suffer disproportionately in Canada. One in four indigenous persons lives in poverty and 40% of indigenous children live in poverty.

The 2016 Canadian census found that over 33% of indigenous Canadians did not have a high school education or equivalent certificate compared to 18% of the rest of Canada's population. Further, indigenous people have historically faced much higher unemployment rates than non-indigenous Canadians. Moreover, the number of indigenous people in federal prisons has never been higher, with more than 30% of all federal inmates identifying as indigenous despite making up only 4.3% of the Canadian population.

Tragically, suicide rates are five to seven times higher for first nations youth compared to non-indigenous youth and the situation is even more dire for Inuit youth, who have the highest suicide rates in the world, 11 times higher than the Canadian national average. It is unbelievable, actually. In fact, suicide and self-inflicted injuries are the leading cause of death for first nations youth and adults up to 44 years old. Shamefully, in Canada, women and girls are twelve times more likely to go missing or be murdered than other Canadian women.

When considering these statistics and many others, it is clear that the policies put forth by centuries of governments have failed indigenous Canadians. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a significant, symbolic and historic effort to move past the “Ottawa knows best” approach, to speak and hear directly from survivors of failed government policies and to learn about their experiences and implement their solutions for building a better Canada for all.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will ask for only those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement, since unanimous consent is required.

Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

Since there is no opposition, the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the House to share her time.

[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.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague from the Bloc talked about the government's legislative laziness. Five years after it committed to implementing the 94 calls to action, this bill would add 19 words to a citizenship oath. It is an important bill, but it is a very uncomplicated bill. If it takes six years to implement one reasonably easy call to action, what does she foresee in the future for the remaining 84-plus?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

She echoed the concern I mentioned in my speech. Those actions need to be taken, but I think the actions that the government has chosen to take indicate laziness or a lack of leadership on this issue.

The proposed bill practically copies and pastes the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's recommendation. Steps were taken in 2016 to improve it and reach a consensus. Four years on, we finally have a bill made up of a preamble and two clauses. I am concerned that it might be more complicated to implement.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, putting aside the controversy that the Conservatives tried to manufacture around changing the citizenship oath in the last term, which held things up, my question for the member of the Bloc is very simple.

The member identified the systemic way in which indigenous people have been discriminated against in Canada, which, of course, includes Quebec, yet at the same time the member is part of a party that refuses to acknowledge that there is systemic discrimination and systemic racism at play in Quebec.

How can indigenous people across the country claim that there is systemic discrimination and systemic racism in the way in which they are treated, and yet somehow be exempt from that analysis when in the province of Quebec? Surely they must be subjected to exactly the same sort of racism in that province as they are right across the country. They especially are when you talk to them about it, but some in the Bloc Québécois say that it does not exist in Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the Bloc Québécois was rather clear on the issue of systemic racism well before it became almost popular to talk about it.

During the Wet'suwet'en crisis, we condemned systemic racism. I will never believe that we said that, on this issue, Quebec was unique and systemic racism did not exist.

We said that it does exist. It seems that we must repeat it. Therefore, I will say it again: The Bloc Québécois recognized that systemic racism exists.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made some observations about the slow pace of the implementation of the 94 calls to action and frustration at that slow pace. It is a frustration that I certainly share. The challenge is that it leaves some of the most significant reforms to systems and services yet to be implemented. I am wondering if she could tell me, of those remaining 84 calls to action, which significant ones she feels should be prioritized by the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not claim to be the government, but one thing that I really feel strongly about is the recognition and integration of indigenous laws in the justice system.

In my life, I have had the pleasure of doing some work in the field of prison law and representing indigenous people who were incarcerated. I also had the opportunity to take training on the prison system, the Gladue reports and the possibility of having mixed courts in Canada, like they do in other countries.

In a mixed court system, the administration of criminal justice would mainly be the federal government's responsibility, but there would also be a sort of hybrid jurisdiction, where, for example, the sentences handed down by decision-making circles, by the communities themselves, would also be recognized. That would prevent the imposition of sentences that are completely out of touch with the reality of first nations. It would also prevent situations where individuals are taken from an Inuit community, for example, imprisoned far from home and then relegated to living on the street because they are not sent back to their community when they are released. That is one thing I would like to see covered.

[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.

[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 appreciate the fact that the Bloc will be supporting this bill. For many reasons, the bill is worthy of support from all members of the House, and I am encouraged to hear the support that is there.

I often hear members talking about the calls to action, with which I am somewhat familiar. I have stood on numerous occasions to talk about them. Members need to realize that, of the 96 calls, not all are for the federal government. The member said there are 96 calls and 10 have been responded to, but only 70-plus are under the federal government's jurisdiction. Many of those calls involve the federal government working with other levels of government and other stakeholders.

Would the member not agree that it is important that we continue to work with other jurisdictions to respond to some of the calls that we are not solely responsible for and that, in fact, a number of calls to action have been acted upon by the government in good faith?

I appreciate the support that is coming from the Bloc.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He knows full well that decisions must be made by the government. We can work as hard as we want with the communities and provide support, but it is the government in office that decides what to do with indigenous communities.

The government moves at a snail's pace. If the process keeps going like this, it will take 38 years to implement the 94 calls to action. We are asking the government to support this bill, which eventually will be a big step forward for indigenous communities.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct to say that it has taken the government five years to get us to this stage in the implementation of this important recommendation from the TRC. The reality remains that the government has been slow, at best, in moving this forward. The missing and murdered indigenous women calls for justice have been shelved indefinitely, and the government claims it is because of COVID-19.

I wonder what the member's thoughts are with respect to that and the delay in moving forward on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question.

My colleagues will know that the situation my colleague just mentioned occurred in Val-d'Or in my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, during reconciliation, but nothing was done. I was there and I thought to myself that something was finally happening, that we would do something with our communities and we would help them, but that is all still gathering dust.

After years of testimony about the suffering endured by the witnesses, I find it regrettable that we are not taking action or developing an action plan to address existing needs.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

I would like to know how the indigenous communities in her region see this bill. How is it perceived? Do they see hope in this new version of the legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Communities in my riding and elsewhere have been waiting for this legislation. I often have conversations with community leaders, and they truly anticipate major progress that will meet their needs. These women need us.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Telecommunications; the hon. member for Regina—Wascana, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Kenora, Economic Development.

The hon. member for Don Valley North.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to add my voice to today's debate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. There is another name first, and the way it was highlighted made it hard to see, so I do apologize. The hon. member will have his opportunity when we resume debate next time.

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak in support of Bill C-8 on behalf of the NDP.

The NDP has consistently called for the full implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. In fact, I tabled an amendment to revise the citizenship oath to recognize and affirm the aboriginal and treaty rights of the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples in a previous immigration bill, Bill C-6, back in 2016. Sadly, that amendment was not accepted.

Even though this change was in the former minister's 2017 mandate letter, the Liberals failed to act until the dying days of the last Parliament, just before the 2019 election. As a result, the bill did not even make it to second reading.

The Prime Minister has claimed that the new relationship with indigenous peoples is his most important relationship, yet it has taken the minister three years to act on this priority from his mandate letter. I ask the members to think about it. It is astonishing that it has taken this long for the Liberals to act. There is simply no good reason for this not to be accomplished already.

The Liberals have missed the opportunity to ensure that the many new citizens who took their oaths since 2017 began their journey as Canadian citizens with a full understanding of our collective obligation to honour the rights of indigenous peoples. If it takes the Liberals this long to add a line to the citizenship oath, is it any wonder they are failing on their nation-to-nation relationships with indigenous peoples on so many levels?

In 2017, when the Prime Minister declared, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples”, all of Canada was hopeful. Perhaps we would finally be able to work on redressing this country's historical wrongs and heal the trauma caused by Canada's colonial history. Perhaps we would finally be on the right side of history and move forward with a new relationship that puts the rights of indigenous peoples front and centre. Sadly, the actions of the Prime Minister indicate otherwise.

All we have to do is take a good hard look at the lived experiences of indigenous peoples to know that Canada has failed and is continuing to fail to meet its obligations to indigenous peoples. Look at what is happening with indigenous children. In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found Canada guilty of “wilful and reckless” racial discrimination by knowingly underfunding on-reserve child welfare services.

Why did it take 10 non-compliance orders against the federal government to force it to act? Why did Dr. Cindy Blackstock have to fight for so long and so relentlessly for the government to treat indigenous children fairly and equitably? Why is it that the basic human rights for indigenous peoples are so hard to honour for the Liberal government, and for the Conservative government before it? It is truly hard to comprehend.

Successive governments' foot-dragging in meaningful implementation and in upholding indigenous rights has had devastating impacts on the lives of indigenous communities across the land for generations, from the young to the old and all of those in between. We see the effect of this in our communities every single day. It is in the violence currently being committed against the Mi'kmaq fishers.

As stated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they have the right to self-determination. This right was enshrined in the peace and friendship treaties and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999 by the Marshall decision. The Marshall decision affirmed their treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather in pursuit of a “moderate livelihood” 20 years ago, yet successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have failed to negotiate with indigenous communities to define “moderate livelihood” and pave a path for indigenous fishers to fully exercise their rights, rights which are enshrined in Canada's Constitution.

How is this possible? Would anyone think, even for a minute, that, if this were a Supreme Court ruling for non-indigenous peoples, it would take more than two decades for the government to act? As a result of the inaction, the Mi'kmaq fishers are faced with violence, intimidation and domestic terrorism. Crimes were committed against them. People were injured, and they have suffered property damage.

Two weeks ago, the Liberal ministers agreed with the NDP that this warranted an emergency debate in the House of Commons, yet during the debate Liberal members voted against the NDP's unanimous consent motion to affirm the inherent rights of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people. The Liberals have refused to confirm their rights, which are enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and by the Supreme Court of Canada. They refuse to recognize that the Mi'kmaq nation deserves full and equal protection under the law from violence, intimidation and domestic terrorism.

Now, according to media reports, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs is alleging that the DFO is planning to seize the gear and traps of the Mi'kmaq fishers. Do the Liberals really think this is reconciliation? It is utterly shameful.

The Liberal government must stop making a mockery of the meaning behind this bill and act with integrity by taking real action to affirm the rights of all indigenous peoples. The Prime Minister must also pause and reflect on the message he is sending to young indigenous peoples when they witness the blatant inaction of the RCMP when it comes to ensuring the Mi'kmaq nation is afforded the same protection as everyone else.

This situation is more disturbing when compared to the situation of the Wet'suwet'en land defenders, where an ample number of heavily armed RCMP officers surrounded them as they attempted to assert their rights against the Coastal GasLink pipeline. It was truly shocking to learn that the RCMP officers were instructed to “use as much violence toward the gate as you want.”

It is as though the 1997 landmark decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada found that the rights of the Wet'suwet'en nation had not been extinguished, did not exist. The Liberals are pushing ahead with the Trans Mountain pipeline extension. The voices of the land defenders are being ignored. There is a total disregard for article 10 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which explicitly outlines the need for the government to fully respect the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples when it comes to resource development on their land, including and especially when the answer is “no”.

When the violation of the rights of indigenous peoples are so blatant, how can the Liberals go on pretending that they are affirming the rights of indigenous peoples? Sadly, this kind of injustice is not new, nor is this kind of doublespeak.

My questions for the Prime Minister are theses: What will it take to stop the human rights violations against indigenous peoples? What will it take for him to internalize the fact that the trauma of such human rights abuses is intergenerational?

My colleague, the member for North Island—Powell River, shared the very real lived experiences of her children as indigenous peoples. No parent should have to see their children suffer under the weight of such systemic racism. No parent should have to fear for the safety of their children because they are indigenous, yet this is their everyday reality.

My constituents, who continue to witness this ongoing abuse by the government, are saying that reconciliation is dead. They see an unprecedented number of indigenous children being taken away from their families through the child welfare system. They see police brutality being levied against indigenous peoples. They see racism permeating the health care system. They continue to see indigenous women and girls go missing.

The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls determined that colonial structures and policies, which persist in Canada, constitute a root cause of the violence experienced by indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQ2IA people. This violence, the report concludes, amounts to a race-based genocide against indigenous peoples, especially women, girls and 2SLGBTQ2IA people.

To remedy this and put an end to this Canadian genocide, the final report of the national inquiry put forth 231 calls for justice. When the final report on the national inquiry was released, the federal government promised that a national action plan would be in place on the anniversary of the annual release.

Families, survivors and indigenous organizations have emphasized the need for an indigenous women-led national action plan to implement the 231 calls for justice. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse, the national action plan has been delayed indefinitely. The longer the government stalls, the longer people suffer.

For example, many of the calls for justice include addressing racism in health care settings and hospitals. The disturbing death of Joyce Echaquan, an indigenous mother of seven children, after experiencing racist and derogatory treatment from health care staff in a hospital, is a sharp reminder that it is inexcusable for the Liberal government to delay the implementation of the calls for justice.

While the government is using the pandemic as an excuse for inaction and delays, the community has been advocating for real concrete actions to improve the safety and well-being of indigenous women and girls on the ground for decades. These include access to safe and affordable housing, reforms to the child welfare system, reforms to the justice system and policing, improving health care access for indigenous people as well as providing core funding support for providers of culturally sensitive and trauma-informed support in community services.

The pandemic is not an excuse to delay what should be a top priority for Canada. On the contrary, the pandemic is the reason to accelerate action. In fact, the pandemic has exposed many issues. Imagine what it is like to not have access to clean drinking water in a pandemic, yet the Liberal government has recently backtracked on its promise to end all drinking water advisories in indigenous communities by March 2021, which is only five months away.

Just last month, the Neskantaga First Nation's community was evacuated amidst a global pandemic after high levels of hydrocarbons were discovered in the water supply. While the government is using the pandemic as an excuse for the delays in fulfilling its promise, this situation was not caused by the pandemic. The community of the Neskantaga has been under a boil water advisory for 25 years. With the COVID-19 pandemic, access to safe water to meet hygiene needs is more important than ever. The pandemic should be a catalyst for urgent action rather than an excuse for delays. The health and safety of indigenous peoples matter. The lives of indigenous peoples matter.

Tied to the issue of clean drinking water is access to safe, secure affordable housing. Canada is struggling with a preventable affordable housing and homelessness crisis. The crisis impacts indigenous communities much more acutely due to the historic and ongoing displacement and systemic racism experienced by indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are 10 times more likely to become homeless than non-indigenous Canadians.

Indigenous communities in rural, urban and northern communities face some of the worst housing conditions in all of Canada. My colleague, the MP for Nunavut, went on a housing tour in her region. All the families she visited were living in overcrowded situations and all had serious problems with mould. Some homes were in such poor condition that beds were frozen to the wall.

Overcrowded homes and lack of housing means that many people are often forced to remain with abusers. Children are removed from their homes and families because there is no safe habitable housing available to families. As my colleague states, “Putting Inuit in situations where they are dying, getting sick or losing their kids because of inadequate housing is modern-day colonization.”

Urban and rural indigenous communities also face unique and drastic housing challenges. My riding of Vancouver East is one of the hardest hit by Canada's ongoing homelessness crisis, a crisis that disproportionately affects indigenous peoples.

Of all the community members currently living in the Strathcona Park tents right now, it is estimated that 40% of the residents are of indigenous ancestry, despite indigenous people only comprising 2.5% of the population of Metro Vancouver.

The lack of access to housing, a basic human right, is a root cause to the disproportionate number of indigenous children in care and removed from their families. It is a root cause of the violence experienced by indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people. It is stressful, trauma-inducing and injurious.

It is simply incredulous that the housing needs for urban, rural and northern indigenous peoples were completely ignored in the national housing strategy. Despite all the talk over the years, there is still no plan for a rural, urban and northern indigenous housing strategy led by indigenous people for indigenous people.

The amended citizenship oath affirms what should have been true all along; that recognizing and affirming indigenous and treaty rights is at the core of fulfilling one's duties and responsibilities as a Canadian citizen. The government must act now to fulfill its own obligations to recognize and affirm indigenous and treaty rights.

While the amended Citizenship Act helps new Canadians better understand, we, at the same time, also have a crucial role to play in ensuring that Canada meets its obligation to indigenous peoples. It is treaties that give settler Canadians the privilege of living on indigenous lands and with that privilege comes the collective responsibility to commit ourselves to recognizing and affirming indigenous and treaty rights.

Justice Murray Sinclair summarized this obligation best, “Reconciliation is not an aboriginal problem—it is a Canadian problem. It involves all of us.” It is incumbent on the federal government to show that leadership every single step of the way. It is incumbent on the Liberal government to do better than what it has done so far.

Having only completed 10 calls for action is not good enough. Indigenous people should not have to continually wait for their rights to be honoured and for their basic human rights to be respected. Incremental reconciliation should not be the path forward. We need to see action and we need to see it now. We cannot allow for the pandemic to be that excuse. We need to accelerate the program and to move forward. Generations have been waiting for it. Indigenous peoples deserve better.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member on the points that the government needs to do more in the days ahead. We know reconciliation is a pathway and we need to continue that work.

She highlighted the moderate livelihood in Nova Scotia. I am the member of Parliament from Nova Scotia and my colleague is from British Columbia. She mentioned the history of the moderate livelihood. She failed to mention the fact that governments have worked to try to ensure that commercial access is available to Mi'kmaq communities. She really zeroed in on the Marshall decision and the definition of a moderate livelihood.

In the member's mind, what is the definition of a moderate livelihood and should the minister responsible have any role in partnering to determine what that is?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is not for me to determine what is a moderate livelihood. It is for the government to negotiate with indigenous people and come to that resolution.

How has it possible that it has been 20 years in the making and we still have not honoured the Supreme Court's decision with respect to this? Surely, the government would realize that it has dropped the ball, not just the Liberals but the Conservatives as well.

We cannot say in the same breath that we honour the rights of indigenous people and support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but still allow for an outstanding Supreme Court decision to hang out without a path forward. This is not good enough.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her inspiring speech.

I would like her thoughts on the fact that the bill would include the existence of indigenous rights in the citizenship oath when we still have not implemented the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

What message does she think it sends to recognize these rights in the oath when we are still not on track to implement UNDRIP?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely dismaying to me that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has not become law. It should be the blueprint for the Canadian government going forward with all our policies and laws, yet that is not the case.

Given the action of the Liberal government, it has demonstrated time and again that it has not put the basic human rights of indigenous peoples at the forefront. Why else would the Liberal government continue to challenge indigenous children in the courts? Why did it take Dr. Cindy Blackstock decades to get the governments to move forward on that? Why did the government not abide by the 10 compliance orders from the Human Rights Tribunal?

All of this tells us that the Liberals have not been focused on doing this work and they are not sincere with what they say to match up with what they actually do.

Going forward, it is essential for all of us to push the government to get the job done. Indigenous peoples, the first peoples of this land, deserve to be recognized, honoured and respected, and their basic human rights must be honoured.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's comments were moving. I thank her for the advocacy she does to help those who are experiencing homelessness. I think all my colleagues in the House would recognize that the member for Vancouver East is the pre-eminent advocate and voice for those experiencing homelessness. I do really appreciate what she does.

The member was a sitting member in the last Parliament when NDP MP Romeo Saganash introduced a bill to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP. The work has been done, the bill has been written, yet the Liberals still have not gotten around to tabling it.

Like my colleague from the Bloc Québécois mentioned, we still have not seen UNDRIP become part of our legislation. Does the member feel that the Liberals are deliberately delaying the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her kind words.

The Liberals have been slow-walking in moving forward with UNDRIP. We saw that in the last Parliament. The government could have moved the bill on UNDRIP forward with a much quicker pace than was done. However, that did not happen and the bill died on the Order Paper. Now, in the new Parliament, we have yet to see the bill introduced. I do not know what the holdup is other than to there is a lack of political will from the government to move forward, to charge ahead so it can finally honour indigenous peoples with respect to their basic rights.

UNDRIP should be the blueprint for the government and for everyone going forward. There is simply no excuse why UNDRIP has not become law already.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that I am on the unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq, the People of the Dawn, in Nova Scotia.

I want to thank the hon. member for her impassioned speech, and I would agree with most of what she said. However, we have already said several times that, as a government, we plan to introduce UNDRIP before Christmas. I hope the member would support it when we do.

When we introduce the legislation, will the member support it?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course the NDP will support UNDRIP. In fact, it was a former NDP member, MP Romeo Saganash, who tabled that bill. He worked and dedicated his life in bringing it forward to the House.

The real question is this. Why is the Liberal government waiting until December or sometime before December to introduce it? Why not introduce now? Why not introduce it yesterday? How much longer do indigenous people have to wait for their rights to be honoured? How much longer do they have to wait to see the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples become law in Canada?

[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 can appreciate some of the comments that the member has put on the record, but where I often have difficulty with some members of the New Democratic Party is that they often believe that we can click our heels, wave a wand and make things happen, just like that, overnight.

I think that we can take a look at the calls for action. There are 94 of them, of which 74 are of a federal nature. Many of those 74 require consultation with other levels of government, for example. I am wondering if the member believes that the Government of Canada has any obligation to work with others, in particular indigenous leaders, to try to resolve some of the other calls for action and that it is not solely the responsibility of the federal government.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is the problem, exactly, with the Liberals. They always think they can delay action. They always think that there is a reason and excuse why they cannot move forward. I think the member has to ask himself why the Liberal government continues to make indigenous people wait for their rights to be respected. Why does the Liberal government have to take indigenous children to court, when the government has to know it is wrong to treat them inequitably?

The government can move forward right now, with respect to article 10 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by absolutely acknowledging their right to free, prior and informed consent. It could, in fact, call off the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline to honour the rights of indigenous people right now, if it wanted to move forward.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the Wet'suwet'en and the police action there. Was she aware that it was the B.C. NDP government that gave the RCMP their orders? Would she like to see that pipeline cancelled as well and put an end to the fracking and the LNG projects the NDP are pushing through Wet'suwet'en territory?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I support the indigenous people and their rights. That is why I am here, and that is what I am fighting for. It is time for us to honour their rights.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Labrador.

I would like to first acknowledge that the House of Commons where this debate is taking place today is on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.

I am pleased to discuss the amendments to Canada's citizenship oath that our government is proposing to Parliament.

The history of first nations, Inuit and Métis is the very history of our country. Indigenous people in Canada are the descendants of the original inhabitants of this land. There are three distinct groups that are recognized in Canada's Constitution: first nations, Inuit and Métis. Indigenous people in Canada are critical in our country's development and our future. Indigenous peoples are very diverse, with many distinct heritages, languages, cultures, practices and spiritual beliefs. Reconciliation with indigenous people remains a central priority of this government, and we will continue to move forward as a committed partner in renewing our relationship with indigenous peoples.

It is important to acknowledge the contributions that indigenous people have continued to make in building a stronger and more inclusive Canada. With strong indigenous institutions, we will begin the important work of closing the socio-economic gap and fostering strong indigenous communities for future generations. All Canadians are responsible for participating in the ongoing process of reconciliation. This brings us to the changes the government has proposed, to change the current wording of the oath of citizenship.

Through these proposals, our government is addressing one of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action that pertains to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's mandate. Call to action 94 calls on the government to amend the oath of citizenship and to add reference to include treaties with indigenous peoples. Our consultation with national indigenous organizations clearly indicated that the phrase “treaties with indigenous peoples”, as recommended by the commission, is not relevant to all indigenous peoples and therefore not inclusive of varied indigenous experiences.

The amendment of the oath in this bill expands the commission's wording to be more inclusive of varied indigenous experiences. This responds to what we heard in the consultations and reflects the spirit of this particular call to action. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has consulted with other government departments and national indigenous organizations on the wording of the oath of citizenship. Therefore, to address the commission's calls to action as well as the commitment made in the 2019 Speech from the Throne, the bill would modify the wording of the oath of citizenship 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 fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The revised text of the oath uses wording that reflects the broader range of rights held by diverse indigenous people. Any change to the oath of citizenship requires amendments to the Citizenship Act and is subject to the parliamentary process. As the minister has often noted, the government is committed to completing legislative work on the changes that reflect the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. This explains the changes we proposed today.

Let me close with these thoughts for my hon. colleagues to consider. The histories of the indigenous peoples in Canada are rich and diverse. They stretch far into the past since time immemorial, before oral and written history. I would impress on my hon. colleagues that we need to take this opportunity to both acknowledge our country's past and to move toward a renewed relationship with the indigenous peoples based on the inherent rights, respect and partnership.

The changes to the citizenship oath would be an important step in this pursuit. Through this and other actions, all Canadians can continue to move forward together on the road to reconciliation so we can leave a proper legacy for our future generations.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we are talking about reconciliation, it is important to talk about all aspects of it and mention some of the things the Liberal government has failed to do. The government has taken some positive steps, which I will acknowledge. All parties have taken some positive steps, and they have all had some missteps and frankly some failures on this file.

Today, earlier in the House, I brought up an issue from my riding with regard to the Neskantaga First Nation. The community is being evacuated because it has no access to water right now and has been on a drinking water advisory for decades. Instead of addressing the situation, the government is choosing to play politics, point fingers and talk about past governments and how much better it believes it is than Stephen Harper, Mulroney, Diefenbaker and Macdonald. The government is doing this instead of taking action right now and recognizing it is the one in power that can address a lot of these concerns.

I am wondering if the member can speak to that and tell us when the government is going to stop playing politics with these issues and is going to take meaningful action in reconciliation.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard many times during question period and other occasions where, for example, the Minister of Indigenous Services responded by saying that the government is looking into this problem or that it is working to make sure the advisory ends as quickly as possible.

We are putting all the resources in place to support Canada's indigenous communities. I welcome the question, will certainly bring this up, and I look forward to more action from this side.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues we heard about today and that is certainly talked about from this side of the House is the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The government, again, has talked about its relationship-to-relationship importance but has shelved this report. It has taken no action. It has provided no action plan.

I would like to hear from the hon. member when we can expect to hear about a missing and murdered indigenous women and girls action plan.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a parent, I can only imagine what a horrific experience it would be for anyone who was affected in this situation. As a former member of the provincial legislature, it was an issue I participated in debates on, as well as pushed more action on.

I agree with the member. This is an important issue facing Canadians, and we have to pull together all the resources and work together to come to a good solution.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech.

When it comes to the indigenous file, I have the impression that the Liberal government tends to take symbolic rather than concrete action. It often drags its feet when it is time to take concrete action. Examples that come to mind are the Wet'suwet'en crisis and the drinking water crisis that is still affecting so many indigenous communities in this country. Apologizing is not always easy, but it is not difficult as long as it does not tarnish the history of the Liberal Party too much.

Does my colleague think it might be time to act faster and dedicate more time to all the recommendations, rather than dealing with them one by one and choosing only those that are more symbolic than concrete?

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, what we are discussing today is a proposed amendment to the oath of citizenship. I was just reading the proposed oath of citizenship, and it still gives me the chills, just as it did 20-plus years ago when I first became a new Canadian.

It is very important for new Canadians to not just understand but also remember what they read, to do so under the witness of fellow new Canadians and judges, and to recognize what it means to them as new Canadians. This is an essential step we have to take so that new Canadians can appreciate the contributions of indigenous peoples.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today. I would like to acknowledge that the House of Commons, where this debate is based today, is on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation. I am speaking today from my riding of Labrador, which is the traditional homeland of Inuit and Innu. We are very proud of the culture that we share together in this big land.

The story of indigenous peoples in Canada is a history that stretches far into the past, before the arrival of the European newcomers to Canada. Indigenous peoples have a fundamental role in Canada's past and are a strong pillar of our society. Those are words people hear at many citizenship ceremonies across Canada. Taking the oath of citizenship is a vital step in the process of becoming a Canadian citizen, and it is recited as the final legal step to becoming a Canadian citizen, which is important to note.

During the ceremony, participants accept the rights and responsibilities of citizenship by taking the oath of citizenship, after which they become Canadian citizens and receive a certificate to mark that particular designation. It is important for both new Canadians and those who are born here to learn about indigenous people and the rich history of indigenous culture. This legislation, an act to amend the citizenship act, proposes to change Canada's oath of citizenship to include clear reference to the constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

The proposed amendment to the oath reflects the Government of Canada's commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. It is part of the government's ongoing response to the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Of the 96 calls to action, 70 are within the Government of Canada's purview. We are working very hard to deliver on those recommendations because we believe that it is the right path and it is the true path to reconciliation.

The changes are an important and necessary step to advance Canada's broader agenda for reconciliation and to strengthen the country's valued relationship with indigenous peoples. The government's proposed amendment to the Citizenship Act would allow new Canadians to fully appreciate and respect how indigenous peoples are a critical part of our country's history and our country's identity. The new citizenship oath will also reflect our expectations that new Canadians demonstrate an understanding of indigenous peoples and their constitutional rights.

Canada must continue to stand up for the values that define this country, whether that is welcoming newcomers, celebrating our LGBTQ2 communities or embracing our two official languages.

Put simply, the walk toward reconciliation includes the need to address systemic racism in Canada. No relationship is more important to our government than the one with indigenous peoples, and we continue to forge a renewed relationship with them based on the recognition of rights, trust, respect and a true spirit of co-operation. That is why across the country we have worked together to close the quality of life gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people. We have made important progress on this. The last three budgets alone provided $16.8 billion in new funding for indigenous peoples, an increase in planned spending for 2021 of 34% over what was budgeted in 2015.

All children in Canada deserve a real and fair chance to reach their full potential, no matter where they live. By continuing to collaborate with first nations and with Inuit partners, the government is working to eliminate barriers to quality health care and to foster the culturally relevant, social supports that children need in order to succeed. Bill C-92 helped reform the indigenous child care and child welfare in this country. We know from our co-operation with indigenous governments, from learning from them and taking their advice that we can lead in a better direction for all indigenous people.

When we look at distinctions-based funding for post-secondary education, we know it is helping first nations, Inuit and Métis students access better education and succeed in their studies. We have seen it over and over again.

In addition, the government has taken action to help communities reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen indigenous languages and to sustain their important cultural traditions and histories. By promoting indigenous entrepreneurship and business, the government will help first nations, Inuit and Métis people. It will help them fully contribute to and share in Canada's economic success. This is a critical part of advancing reconciliation and self-determination.

While the path to reconciliation is long and we know it is challenging and will often be met with difficulty in different aspects, as a government, we will continue to walk that path with all first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and with all Canadians. We will do so in our actions and interactions.

As I mentioned earlier, the proposed changes to the oath that we are talking about today are an important and necessary step to advance Canada's broader agenda for reconciliation with indigenous people in this country. These changes demonstrate to new Canadians and, in fact, all Canadians a deep respect for indigenous peoples, and they recognize that the histories of first nations, Inuit and Métis people are a vital part of Canada's fabric and identity.

Since Liberals became government in 2015, we have invested more money historically than any government before us to address the significant challenges that have faced indigenous peoples in Canada. We are very proud of the reform that we have done around the child welfare act. We are very happy with the progress that we have been able to make in so many different indigenous communities across Canada.

We were the first government to commit to addressing the issues of clean water, housing and so many other pieces of important infrastructure, where we knew there were huge gaps. However, we did not do it alone. We did it with the support, guidance and input of indigenous governments through the Crown-Inuit partnership table and through the partnership tables with first nations and Métis. We heard first-hand from national leaders, band councils and heads of governments in indigenous communities what was important to them, what they wanted from government and how we should move forward in partnership with them.

Out of that, we have seen a lot of investments that were directly needed, important and critical at the time, along with longer-term strategies: strategies to eradicate tuberculosis over a 10-year period, strategies to deal with mental health and addictions in indigenous regions, strategies that looked at their own education systems and how they could play a more critical role in the delivery of health care and social welfare programs on reserve.

We have continued to work with leadership because we know that they know it better. As the Government of Canada, we are here as a true and full partner at the table not only to listen and learn but also to walk the path of reconciliation and make the tough choices that have to be made on that path to reconciliation. The Government of Canada and the Prime Minister have stood up and apologized for the past wrongs that have been done to indigenous peoples in this country, to make amends. It is all part of our walking together in reconciliation as a country.

Reconciliation is not just with indigenous people; it is with all Canadians. I have heard that statement many times. I have heard many members in the House of Commons make that statement, and no words could be truer.

We all have a job to do and a role to play. What members are seeing today with the calls to action under the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is just one other way the Government of Canada is stepping up to do what is right and what should have been done for a long time—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately the hon. member's time is up. I know there is a bit of a delay in the reception at this point.

Obviously, this is an issue that I hear a lot in my riding, the access and reliability of the Internet. I do not know if it is the cold where the member is, but it is freezing quite a bit at this end. The screen is freezing, not the weather. Well, the weather is cold out there today as well, but I know that there is a delay. I just want to ensure that when members are asking their questions they are patient with the answers, because it may come up a little slower than usual.

We will go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-L'Île has the floor.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, in its report, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada appeared to lament the fact that the guide for aspiring Canadian citizens does not mention indigenous peoples and their role as a source of law. The guide, entitled Discover Canada, talks about British laws and the civil code of France, but there is no mention whatsoever of the treaties with indigenous peoples and their inherent rights.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on this. Does she think this should be included in the next guide for new citizens?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, hopefully members can hear me. I think I got most of the question. Unfortunately I do have some Internet issues here in Labrador. In fact, right across the riding we have Internet issues, which are not uncommon in the north, so it is always much more challenging to participate in the parliamentary process.

The proposed amendment to this oath really demonstrates the government's commitment to advancing the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It reflects the commitment to reconciliation and a renewed relationship with indigenous people in Canada, which is a path that we started as a government and one we will continue on.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action. Last year the Yellowhead Institute released a report estimating that, at the current rate of implementation, it will be 2057 before all 94 calls to action are completed. I know that the parliamentary secretary represents a part of our country with a high percentage of indigenous people, as do I in the northwest of B.C., where about a third of constituents are indigenous.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could explain to the House how she explains to her constituents the shockingly, devastatingly slow pace of implementation.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, as members know, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission does call upon the Government of Canada to make changes in terms of its relationship with indigenous people, but it also calls upon other stakeholders, including provinces and territories, religious entities and many, many others across this country. However, as the Government of Canada, what falls within our purview are the issues that we have continued to focus on, but we have also reached out to those external to government to ask them to respect and take responsibility to implement those recommendations of the TRC.

We will continue to do that and, as the government, we will continue to work harder to ensure that the recommendations that fall within the purview of the federal government continue to be implemented.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, my thanks to the member for the work she does each and every day. Reconciliation is the responsibility of everyone in Canada. We all need to recognize the harm, the atrocities of residential schools, and the impact they had on first nations, Inuit and Métis people. We have been given a plan, with the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We cannot ignore what indigenous people have told us. We have to listen. We need to understand in our hearts and understand viscerally what this has done.

What does my colleague think each of us can do in our communities to advance reconciliation?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I think every day in our lives we should practise working at understanding the cultures and the values of all Canadians, including indigenous Canadians. The more we learn of the cultural values of people who make up this country, the stronger we become as a nation and the farther we can walk together on the path toward reconciliation.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

I will start by talking about citizenship and the citizenship process, then I will get into what the bill would do and what it is intended to do.

We have heard a lot about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but it is also important to reflect on becoming a citizen of Canada, what it is and what it means.

As everyone knows, there are only two ways to become a citizen: by birth or by naturalization. In Canada, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship released his new numbers a few days ago for those coming into Canada. Typically, it is in the 300,000 range, plus or minus. Each year, 100,000-plus, or 100,000 to 200,000, of the people who have chosen to come to Canada as permanent residents will decide to take that next step to become Canadian citizens.

There are some criteria in terms of wanting citizenship in our wonderful country. Out of those 350,000 who might come next year with permanent residency, some may choose to return home, as Canada is not where they really want to be, and some will be permanent residents forever. However, to become a citizen one has to be a permanent resident, has to have lived here for three to five years, have filed taxes when necessary and have taken a citizenship test. It would be interesting for Canadians who were born here to take that citizenship test and see how they do. I believe there are about 20 questions, and one has to get 15 out of 20 to pass the test. One also needs to have a degree of proficiency in one of our official languages but, of course, there are some exceptions in terms of older residents and some of our youth.

For those who choose to go through the process to become a Canadian citizen and take the test, the culmination of that process is the citizenship ceremony. Most members of Parliament who have been in the House for a while have had an opportunity to participate in these citizenship ceremonies. There is nothing more profoundly moving than going to these ceremonies. Often large groups of people from around the world go to these citizenship ceremonies, and it is their final step in terms of becoming citizens.

I have been to some ceremonies that were held in schools. These were really fun, because all the students would get to come and watch the process. In one case, students from grades one to six decorated the auditorium and watched the process. I have been to one on Canada Day. What better can a person do than to be outside in a park on Canada Day? In this case, 80 or 90 people from my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo who chose to become citizens of Canada there in the park. They were not only celebrating Canada Day, but also the commitment they had made.

Unfortunately, with COVID, now there are virtual ceremonies. I have not participated in a virtual ceremony, but I would think that it would probably not be as moving as some of the in-person experiences. I remember families: moms, dads and children taking the oath. I remember one lady who had been in Canada for 40 years before she made that decision. For her, it was such a leap that it took her 40 years to decide that she wanted to become a citizen of Canada.

There are people who come to Canada as permanent residents, and their goal is to get their Canadian citizenship as soon as possible. The people who choose to become citizens of Canada, who are not privileged by birth, are perhaps the ones who most appreciate the citizenship they have.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission indicated in its calls to action that, first of all, in the test, there needed to be more work in terms of people understanding Canada's history, understanding Canada's history with indigenous peoples, understanding treaties and, quite frankly, in the case of British Columbia, understanding the lack of treaties. That was a call for action.

It is interesting to see that the oath has not changed in over 40 years. I was looking through the history of our oath. People have often looked at changing it over the years, and there were some very interesting oaths proposed in the early 1990s and 2000s. However, we have had the same oath for 40 years.

The oath is, as members know, the final legal requirement to become a citizen of Canada. I want to say quickly what the oath is currently, and then I will say what the proposed oath is. It is very simple. I was surprised at how short it was.

The current oath is:

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 and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

There was a modification that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission proposed. I understand that what we have in the legislation is not actually what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission proposed, but is a modification made after consultation with indigenous groups and also immigration groups across the country. It will be interesting when this bill gets to committee.

The proposed oath is:

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.

Again, there has been some question as to some of the changes. The TRC just talked about the treaties. I have already noted that in British Columbia there are no treaties; however, there are certainly aboriginal rights, and there is a need to respect those rights.

From listening to the debate today, it sounds like there is general agreement in the House that the bill should move forward to committee and be further reflected upon. I think that is important.

With the time I have left, I want to talk a little more about the report. It was tabled almost six years ago. There were calls to action, and it has been six years. The day the report was tabled, the Prime Minister stood up in the House. At that time, he was the leader of the third party. He said that he would commit to implementing all the calls to action. As we know, in 2015, he became the Prime Minister. He again said that he would commit to implementing all the calls to action.

What we have here is 19 words added to an oath. There are many calls to action, and many are complex. If it has taken the Liberal government six years to add 19 words and, quite frankly, to get a relatively simple piece of legislation through the House, I really have to question the government's commitment to moving forward in the way that the Prime Minister stood up and promised to do.

I am unfortunately out of time, but I could share so many things in terms of how the Liberals have disappointed over the years.

[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 want to touch on how important Canadian citizenship is to a person who receives it. I really enjoy the opportunity, whenever it is afforded to me, to attend citizenship swearing-in ceremonies. It is indeed a very special moment in time to witness new Canadians being sworn in. A few images have stayed with me. I can remember a young lady of Filipino heritage wrapping the Canadian flag around herself, in tears while being sworn in as a Canadian citizen. I remember family units doing likewise. It is nice to encourage members to participate, and I know it is always welcome when members do that.

The member raised this during the debate, and I would like to pose a quick question about it. I know there have been concerns with regard to calls to action. There are 76 calls to action, and the federal government has to play a role in them. Could the member provide her thoughts about how important it is that we work with other stakeholders, indigenous leaders—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow time for other questions.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I again want to reflect on the enormous privilege it is for a member of Parliament to attend citizenship ceremonies. I have not been to one where I have not been incredibly moved. I feel quite emotional as I look at the people who are participating.

More specifically to the member's point, this was a very simple call to action. The government did not even introduce it in the last Parliament until a week before Parliament dissolved. The government knew it was not going to move forward.

We have water systems that we need to deal with. We need an action plan for murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. If it takes the Liberals 6 years to put 19 words in a citizenship oath, I really fear for the things that are going to make a huge impact, such as an action plan for murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her comments on today's debate.

When I was young, we did a field trip every year to the Huron village, near Quebec City, where we were exposed to indigenous culture. It was a picturesque place, but it is not a reflection of the history of indigenous peoples and first nations in Canada and Quebec. I understand that the citizenship oath is very important. Members would all agree that after a newcomer takes the oath and repeats a few lines about the ancestral rights of indigenous peoples, there will not be much left for them.

Would my colleague not agree that, instead of contenting itself with symbolic gestures, the government should be adding indigenous languages and more in-depth learning about indigenous culture into elementary and high school curricula?

What does my colleague think about that?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, we talked about being a Canadian by birth or through naturalization. I know the curriculum has changed since I was a young girl and did not know very much about our history.

I think it was very clear in the feedback received on calls to action number 93 and 94 that as new citizens swear the oath, they really need to understand the history. That is now part of the process. We talked about the booklet and the examination.

Do we have more to do? Absolutely. However, hopefully we have a better process for new citizens and those who are here from birth.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin today by stating it is an honour to speak to Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

The oath of citizenship sworn by all new citizens of our great country is relatively short, compact and simple, but at the same time it is a profound promise to faithfully observe all the laws of Canada. It is an affirmation of patriotism and loyalty.

As we consider Bill C-8 today, the bill itself is quite easy to support in principle. As my colleague from Kildonan—St.Paul said earlier, our party was pleased to support this bill at second reading. It is one of the 94 recommended actions of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that Prime Minister Harper initiated. In fact, it was Prime Minister Harper’s leadership in this area that was directly responsible for all of us having the opportunity to discuss Bill C-8 today and the potential implementation of that bill.

When discussing the merits of this bill it would be easy to digress and get caught up in some of the finer details. For example, the wording in the oath proposed is slightly different from that suggested by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This change in the oath could be considered redundant, as new citizens are already required to swear or affirm that they will observe all of the laws of Canada, which include aboriginal rights already enshrined in our Constitution.

As well, people do not become Canadian citizens overnight. The ceremonial event of declaring an oath includes the accumulation of years of required residency, learning one or both of Canada's official languages and studying the many documents and data contained in the Discover Canada handbook. It contains a detailed look at the history of indigenous people, which are essential learnings before the citizenship test. However, instead of focusing in these details, I would like to speak for a few minutes about some of the more important issues on the ground during these tumultuous times.

The government has expressed in words, many times in the last few weeks, that it does not have time to deal with trivial matters such as ethics, studying its response and learning from the first wave of COVID-19, or even tabling a budget, because its sole focus has to be on helping people through the pandemic. However, it has expressed in its actions in the last few weeks its priorities by tabling bills that have no link to the pandemic.

What we do hear from this Prime Minister is self-righteous indignation, as if his party is the only one that cares about indigenous people in Canada. This leads me to speak for a few moments about the frustration regarding the timing of this bill. At a time where indigenous leaders are asking for actions, we are asked to sit in this House, or attend virtually, and debate a bill that will not resolve anything for indigenous people in Canada in the short term. If it is frustrating to me, imagine the signal it sends to indigenous people and their leaders.

Since being elected a year ago, I have had the privilege of working closely with Chief Ron Mitsuing of Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation. I do not know if the House remembers, but it was his community that declared a state of emergency as it dealt with a suicide crisis late last fall. Under his leadership and his sincere concern for his people, he led them through some very difficult situations, and many since. His leadership and care for his people is a source of inspiration for anybody who has been able to watch that journey.

Very recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with the chief again. He brought with him Elder Morningchild. They came to my office about a month ago. Between the time of his declaration of emergency a year ago and the beginning of the pandemic in March, Chief Mitsuing advised me there were around 40 young people on his suicide watch list. Since COVID-19 and the consequences the pandemic has placed on his community, he is now dealing with over 100 young people on his watch list. This is in a community of about 1,000 people. Imagine being a leader like Chief Mitsuing, having to hear politicians in Ottawa debate the wording of an oath and then pack their bags, turn off Zoom and go home for the evening feeling satisfied they accomplished something significant on behalf of indigenous people. Imagine their frustration or the frustration of the members of Neskantaga, who had to evacuate their community during a pandemic due to a 25-year-long boil water advisory. At a time when federal health officials are asking people to limit their contact by staying home as much as possible, this community was loaded onto airplanes and sent to live in a hotel many miles from home.

One only has to watch the video of the children of Neskantaga put out by their chief, Chris Moonias, where the children are asking questions like “When is the water going to get fixed?”, “Are we going to get help?” and “When are we going home?”. It is heartbreaking. It is devastating. It is shameful.

The committee welcomed the then minister of indigenous and northern affairs in 2016, who made these people a promise that the issue would be fixed by 2018. Now they find themselves sitting in a hotel far away from their community, having to witness the irony of this minister's government putting forward a bill that asks new Canadians to make a promise. The current government cannot even keep its own promises. It is more “do as I say, not as I do”. I can imagine their frustration.

Speaking of water, there is a small community in my riding that provides healthy, clean drinking water and other services to a neighbouring first nations community. Due to an ongoing jurisdictional issue with respect to payment, this small community is owed money and has been carrying the debt of the federal government for years. I am sorry, but a small municipality should never be put in a position where a decision has to be made about turning off water to its neighbours to finally bring attention to the fact that it is owed a very significant amount of money, which, quite honestly, should be allocated to other services its residents need at this difficult time.

Seven months ago, I raised this issue directly with the Minister of Indigenous Services, his chief of staff and the department's western-desk representative. As of last week, the promised meeting between the department, the first nation and the community has yet to take place or even to be scheduled. At a time when neighbours need to work together, the government's inability to act in a reasonable amount of time is divisive and damaging to these communities. I can imagine their frustration.

The leaders of first nations and Métis communities in my riding did an outstanding job managing the first wave of COVID in the spring. They took the required actions to keep their people safe. Their tireless work on the ground allowed for a potential health crisis to be averted in many of these communities. Now, as cases begin to rise again, so does the anxiety of what is ahead for them as leaders. Do they have enough PPE for their communities? How do they acquire the much-needed rapid testing? How are they going to manage checkpoints in winter conditions? Who is going to ensure the safety and health of the elderly and the vulnerable in their communities? When a vaccine is approved, how will they gain access and distribute it among their people?

The leaders of these communities need the government focused on providing the essential supports that they badly need to keep their people safe. They are tired. They are anxious. They deserve more than a symbolic gesture in this trying time. We would have to spend a lot of time searching for a leader in these communities who would suggest to me that changing the wording of the oath of citizenship is a top priority the government should be focusing on right now. It is time to move beyond words. It is time for concrete actions.

This begins with taking responsibility: responsibility for acting slowly to close down borders in Canada; taking responsibility for sending mixed messages to Canadians regarding masks; taking responsibility for ignoring the need for rapid tests across Canada; taking responsibility for poorly created relief programs that shut out indigenous businesses and many others; and, generationally, taking responsibility for not living up to the promise to end drinking water advisories by the spring.

The government must act. It must act to end drinking water advisories with the same intensity it did when creating and passing the CERB and, dare I say, when covering up its corruption in the WE Charity scandal. The government must support first nations dealing with high rates of youth suicide. It must act to address the issues outlined in the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls report. It must act to show real leadership rather than crisis management in situations such as the Mi'kmaq lobster fishery or land claim disputes in Caledonia.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to try to link together the former speaker's comments with my hon. colleague's comments just now. One of the things the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo mentioned was how moving citizenship ceremonies are, and my hon. colleague just mentioned the record of Stephen Harper.

When I was the mayor of Smithers, I only got to attend one citizenship ceremony because the next year Stephen Harper's government cut small town citizenship ceremonies across the country. I wonder if my hon. colleague would join me in calling for the reinstatement of those citizenship ceremonies so that the change we are debating today, and will hopefully be passed into law, can be made even more significant for people living in rural Canada.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot of talk about going back to Harper and the Conservative days and what they did or did not do. I would remind the member that it was Mr. Harper who issued the original apology for the harm done by residential schools. It was Mr. Harper who initiated the whole process that led to the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I do not think we should undermine the work that was done under the Conservative government on many things. We need to continue to work toward that.

In my comments, I am not undermining the importance of the citizenship oath. What I am saying is that we need to go to the place where we are fixing real problems for real people on the ground in these northern communities.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member from northern Saskatchewan has a very similar riding to mine in northern Ontario and many similar issues. One that he mentioned was the COVID-19 response in northern and indigenous communities.

Could he speak a bit more to that and about where some of the gaps existed and what the government needs to do to ensure that northern communities are prepared for any subsequent wave of the pandemic?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for the work he is doing. He is right that his riding is extremely similar to mine and we face many similar issues. I am sure he would speak to the same things that I might. We dealt with some of the leadership from the first nation communities, Métis communities and the tribal council leaderships when it came to ensuring there was appropriate personal protective equipment for these communities.

As we advanced further through the pandemic and moved on to the need for testing, the awareness of the importance of rapid testing and how we could get it into these remote and northern communities, there were so many things. We had an example in my riding of La Loche and the neighbouring first nation there. The provincial government and leaders came together to institute an incredible testing regime that shut the crisis down very quickly.

I would agree with the member that we need to be aware of all these things in ridings that are similar to his and mine and ensure we keep advocating on behalf of those people.

[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 want to point out the importance and significance of the legislation as one of the calls to action. It goes a long way in demonstrating very clearly that as a government we want to continue to move forward on the issue of reconciliation.

Could the member provide some thoughts with respect to that issue?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I challenge my colleague to ensure that we understand there are some very important components to some of the symbolic gestures by ensuring we work with our indigenous friends and their leadership. I would challenge him to look in the mirror and ask if the government has done enough when it comes to boiled water advisories, or when it comes to the suicide crisis or when it comes to housing and some of the challenges that these communities face.

Instead of the government patting itself on the back for getting some things done, why does it not get on the ground and get working on many things that are more important in these communities?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend, the member of Parliament for Northwest Territories.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak in support of the government's bill that would revise the oath and affirmation of citizenship. I wish to acknowledge that I am speaking to members from Surrey, B.C., on the traditional territory of the Semiahmoo, Katzie, Kwikwetlem, Kwantlen, Qayqayt and Tsawwassen first nations.

This bill continues our government's important work to walk the shared path of reconciliation. It responds to call to action number 94 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report. We know that newcomers to Canada are eager to take on the responsibility of citizenship. In doing so, with the passage of this bill, newcomers would state their commitment to respect the rights and treaties of indigenous peoples. They would recognize the significant contributions of first nations, Inuit and Métis to Canada.

In short, this bill would reaffirm to our newest citizens our shared history with indigenous peoples, and the integral role indigenous peoples have played, and will continue to play, in Canada. This is especially important as we continue to address issues such as systemic racism, which sadly exists even today.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report lists 94 calls to action. The 94th call to action calls on the government to amend the Oath of Citizenship to specifically add a reference to treaties with indigenous peoples.

I want to recognize the comprehensive and thoughtful consultations my colleague has conducted in order to bring this bill here today. The proposed changes to the oath come from the government's consultations with national indigenous organizations on the precise wording of the Oath of Citizenship.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada included the following organizations in its consultations: the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council and members of the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, which represents indigenous modern treaty organizations and governments in Canada.

There was support for the intent of the call to action, but through engagement, the need for a more precise and inclusive oath became clear. A key point raised in this engagement was the term “indigenous”, which does not reflect all preferences of self-identification.

I understand this point deeply because of my many conversations held over the years. I know that many people identify by their home community, homeland or territory, and there are many other ways to identify. The Oath of Citizenship, as well as all Crown-indigenous relations, needs to be based on an understanding and respect for self-identity preferences and, at a broader level, reflect many experiences and histories.

We also heard that the call to specifically include treaties in the Oath of Citizenship was deeply important. Treaties are foundational to the creation and future of Canada; however, through consultations, it became clear that this reference needed to be expanded. We were reminded that the wording “treaties with indigenous peoples” was not relevant to all indigenous peoples, and therefore not inclusive of all indigenous experiences. For example, Inuit peoples generally are not party to existing pre-1975 treaties, or their agreements with the Crown are not characterized as such.

As a result of these consultations, as well as our pre-existing understandings and commitment to respectful relationships, the new oath will read, “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.”

I am proud to support this bill for the revised Oath of Citizenship. This oath is much more than words. It is a public declaration of joining the Canadian family and is a commitment to Canadian values and traditions such as equality, diversity and respect: all things that are vitally important today, tomorrow and always.

The changes to the oath are also an important step in advancing reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous people, in Canada continuing to build Crown-indigenous relations, and in fulfilling the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. It is one step among many.

Over the last five years, significant progress has been made to establish a whole-of-government approach, involving 13 lead federal departments and agencies, with the support of another 25 federal departments and agencies, to implement and advance the 76 calls to action under federal or shared responsibility. To date, nearly 80% of these actions under federal or shared responsibility are complete or well underway. I want to note that the implementation of these calls to action require long-term, ongoing and sustained action, to which we are committed.

This bill is another step toward full implementation of call to action 94, and I am pleased to speak in support of it.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about reconciliation and some of the issues that indigenous and northern communities face, housing is a very big issue. There is overcrowding, and there are structural problems with many housing units across the north.

When the government brought forward its latest housing initiative, I was a bit concerned to see that most of the funding was primarily identified for certain large urban centres, and not for communities across the north and indigenous communities, which have been left to fight for the rest of the funds. I am wondering if the member could speak to that, because I know it is concerning for many people in my riding and across northern Canada.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, housing is a fundamental right. It is a human right, and it is a right this government feels very profoundly about.

We are the first government to make a national housing strategy. We have been committed to building and rebuilding more indigenous housing, and I think the House will hear from my colleague later about the efforts we have made in that regard and the continued efforts. I know here in the Lower Mainland there have been many housing initiatives that have been done, specifically for indigenous communities and specifically designed for them, but there is more work to be done.

Definitely, in the colder northern climate, building is much harder and construction is much harder. However, our duty is to those communities, and I am committed to doing whatever we can as a government, and whatever my colleagues support, to make sure that adequate housing is made available to all indigenous communities in the north.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know there has also been a lot of talk today about boil water advisories. Oneida Nation of the Thames, which is not exactly in my riding, but is very close to it and is certainly an incredible member of our overall community, has been under a boil water advisory since September 2019.

The government talks a lot about how it is making really great strides in terms of removing first nations from boil water advisories, but there are clearly still first nations that are going onto that advisory. I am wondering if the member could talk about what he, specifically, and his government will do for Oneida Nation of the Thames.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of our biggest commitments has been to end boil water advisories. I think 91 have been done, and 63 or so are still out there. Work is being done on them as we speak, or it will be done. There is a strong commitment.

I can look out my window and see the Semiahmoo nation. It is right next door to one of the wealthiest ridings, South Surrey, and for years and years they were under boil water advisories and not allowed to connect to the neighbouring system. I am proud to say that within less than two years of coming into government in 2015, that boil water advisory was eliminated. They were connected to proper water systems and sanitation systems.

We are committed to making sure that every single community in this country has access to adequate drinking water, and we are committed to getting that done.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague.

The government has been in power for more than a year. How is it possible that the government has yet to introduce a bill on implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in that year?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, as members can tell, we are on bill number eight of this Parliament. Shortly after we were elected to government, the world's greatest pandemic hit this country and the globe. This impeded a lot of bills that should have been brought out early and quickly, as we had to make sure that Canadians had food on their table, they were secure, and their mortgages and bills were being paid.

I think that took priority right away. However, that does not diminish the importance of making sure that UNDRIP and other measures that are part of our commitment are addressed. We will continue to get going on that and have that done.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional homeland of the Dene, Métis and Inuvialuit of the Northwest Territories.

I am of Métis descent. I am a member of the Dehcho First Nations. We are known as the “big river” people. I believe I am the only sitting member who attended the residential school program, or the hostel program as we knew it.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in support of the government’s bill that would revise the oath of citizenship. It continues our government’s important work to walk the shared path of reconciliation and the implementation of the TRC's calls to action.

I would like to point to a number of key legislative initiatives that address calls to action and advance reconciliation.

Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act, received royal assent in June 2019. This act supports the Government of Canada’s efforts to reclaim, revitalize, strengthen and maintain indigenous languages in Canada. The act was developed to address calls to action numbers 13, 14 and 15; elements of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP; and the Government of Canada’s commitment to a renewed relationship with indigenous people based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

That same month, in June 2019, royal assent was given to Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. It came into force on January 1, 2020. This act was codeveloped as part of Canada’s efforts to reform indigenous child and family services, which included implementing call to action number 4. It affirms the rights of first nations, Inuit, and Métis to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services and establishes national principles such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality, which help guide the provision of indigenous child and family services.

The act was the result of extensive engagement with first nations, Inuit and Métis, treaty nations, self-governing first nations, provincial and territorial governments, and those with lived experience, including elders, youth and women. It reaffirms the government’s commitment to advancing self-determination and eliminating existing disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous children and youth.

The act also lays out flexible pathways for indigenous governing bodies to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services at a pace they choose. Through the act’s legislative framework, they can move forward with their own service delivery models and laws and choose their own solutions for their children and families. It ensures indigenous children are cared for in the right way, with connections to their communities, cultures and languages. Furthermore, since January 1, 2020, every service provider, province or territory delivering child and family services to indigenous children and families will need to follow the minimum standards found in the act.

Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation, was introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on September 29, 2020. If passed, this bill will be an important step in responding to call to action number 80 by establishing the national day for truth and reconciliation on September 30 as a statutory holiday for federally regulated workers. This national day would honour survivors, their families and communities. It would also remind the public of the tragic and painful history and legacy of residential schools that remains a vital component of the reconciliation process.

The Government of Canada continues to work closely with partners to address the remaining calls to action.

In June 2019, the government received the final report from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, entitled “Reclaiming Power and Place”. It responded to call to action number 41, which called for the launch of a public inquiry into the disproportionate victimization of indigenous women and girls.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada is committed to gender equality and reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and has eliminated all the remaining sex-based inequalities in the Indian Act registration provisions, which go back to its inception 150 years ago. We committed to eliminating all sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act registration, and we delivered on that promise.

Bringing Bill S-3 into force also responds to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls calls to justice and provides justice to women and their descendants, who fought for these changes for decades. We will continue with partners and other levels of government to respond to the findings of the national inquiry and to this national tragedy.

In closing, I reiterate that the government is determined to address the historical, colonial racism and injustice of yesterday, just as we are determined to root out and expose the racism of today. As Canadians have seen all too clearly during this difficult time, racism, both systemic and social, continues to be all too prevalent in our country. It must not and cannot be tolerated, for that, too, is part of the healing process, just as this bill is part of the healing process.

This bill represents progress on the shared path to healing and reconciliation. It responds to concerns expressed in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It points the way to a more inclusive Canada. Moreover, by amending the oath of citizenship, it represents greater awareness and answers call to action 94.

I am pleased to offer my full support of the bill before us.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and to the excellent speeches by my colleagues from Saint-Jean and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I also listened to a question from the deputy government House leader. He said that few of the 94 calls to action are for the federal government and that they also involve other jurisdictions. The government always downloads its own responsibilities onto others. We saw it during the Wet'suwet'en crisis and at the start of the pandemic, when the government did not close the border promptly. However, it is prompt to interfere in the affairs of other levels of government, including Quebec and the provinces. In those cases, it thinks it is valid and expedient to interfere.

My question is very simple. The federal government has constitutional obligations towards first nations. Why are there still first nations that do not have access to clean drinking water?

The government believes it can lecture others on health care even though it does not run any hospitals or long-term care homes. How can it lecture others when it is incapable of providing certain first nations with clean drinking water?

Maybe it should do a good job of handling matters under its own jurisdiction before trying to lecture others.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, for 10 years, when the Conservatives were in power, there was very little hope among the indigenous population of this country. We saw many attempts to muzzle indigenous people. We are now making progress. We are on the right path. Progress is not as fast as we expected it to be, not as fast as we want it to be, but we are heading in the right direction.

It took 150 years to get to this point, and it may take just as long to see reconciliation take place. I am hoping that things will happen more quickly, but I am convinced that it will be many generations before we see true reconciliation, and that means everyone has to do their part.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was endorsed by our government in May 2016, which was after many years of the previous Conservative government not being willing to do so. When we did move forward on this piece of legislation, we did not see strong support from a number of parties, and that included people in the Senate.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Northwest Territories mentioned reconciliation and rooting out racism across Canada. I appreciate his comments on that.

I want to speak about northern Canada. Obviously there are many gaps for indigenous peoples and all people living in northern Canada. I hear a lot from people across the Northwest Territories about transportation and infrastructure. These investments are very important for the north and the government has failed in many aspects to support those projects, which could be a catalyst to development and provide a better way of life for many people across the north.

I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, infrastructure is very important to us, especially in the area of transportation. We have very few roads and most of the airports in our communities are very small. However, there have been some very important investments made by the Liberal government. Over the last fives years, I have made many announcements on behalf of the government and some of them have really taken hold. We are going to see some very good results. We have seen investments in airports, which are now under construction. Within the next year, we will be cutting the ribbon on a road to Whati, a very important road to that community but also to a mine development project that will probably take off once the road is completed.

We could do more, but we have a pretty good track record up until now.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be able to rise today as the member of Parliament for the Kenora riding, rejoin this debate and speak to Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act in accordance with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 94.

I must mention that I am very glad to be sharing my time today with the great member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley. I will add that I appreciate that Elections Canada gave me such an easy riding name compared to that.

This legislation we are debating today will add a new line to the Canadian citizenship oath, where new Canadians will be explicitly noting and making mention of indigenous and treaty rights. I must say this is something I am very happy to see moving forward. It is a topic I have been having many conversations about in my riding. I have spoken with chiefs, community leaders and residents of first nations in my riding to get their thoughts on this. More specifically, I have been asking a lot about what true and meaningful reconciliation should look like and I have been doing a lot of listening.

The Kenora riding is home to many indigenous peoples. There are 42 first nations in my riding. There are many Métis and indigenous people living within the nine municipalities or the rural unincorporated areas of my riding. My riding also encompasses three distinct treaty territories, so reconciliation is definitely an issue that is top of mind for many in my riding, but over and over I hear the same things. People are not looking for platitudes and empty gestures; they are looking for real action. There are obviously a lot of different opinions on what that looks like, but I think it is important to note that each and every one of us in this House all know and should recognize that every party, every government has taken some very positive steps to address the gaps that exist between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. Likewise, every party has had some missteps and frankly some failures on this file.

Under the last Conservative government, the official residential school apology was issued and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was launched. All these years later, I believe it is time that we can all work together to deliver on the intent of that commission. Too often reconciliation is used as a buzzword by politicians for political purposes. Many very serious issues that need to be addressed fall by the wayside in exchange for these platitudes and empty gestures that have no meaningful impact on the everyday lives of indigenous peoples. I note this because it is important we make sure the intent of this bill, which I believe wholeheartedly is positive, is not lost and that we continue to make tangible differences in the lives of indigenous people across the north and across Canada.

As I have noted, I have spoken with many chiefs in my riding about this bill. They are supportive of the bill and of the government fulfilling this aspect of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. However, they have noted to me that if we just simply change the citizenship oath without taking action to improve the social and economic well-being of indigenous peoples it will lose its power and in many ways lose its meaning. That is why we must support economic growth in northern communities, equitable health care options, improved infrastructure and education, and of course we must ensure that clean drinking water is available to each and every person living in Canada.

Right now in my riding the community of Neskantaga has had to evacuate after its water system shut down completely leaving the community without any water. It has been under a drinking water advisory for 25 years. There are people living in that community who have lived their entire lives without any access to clean drinking water. It is something that is unimaginable to most Canadians, yet it is a reality for far too many in the north and across Canada, particularly many in my riding who have been living under drinking water advisories for far too long. I want to note something. I was having a conversation with someone in my riding about the stark differences between some of the communities I represent and being here in this magnificent place.

All we have to do is wave our hands and someone brings us water, or we can go to the lobby behind me and we have our choice between flat or bubbly, a little lime or lemon, and jazz it up however we want, but there are people in the communities I represent who have never had access to clean drinking water. It is important that we all take time to acknowledge that and reflect on the two faces of Canada, if I can use that term.

That is why I was incredibly disappointed that the government walked back from its promise to end all long-term drinking water advisories on reserve by next year. There are recent reports from CBC saying that the government may miss this mark by years. It is unacceptable that people in our country do not have access to clean drinking water and it is unacceptable for the government to push this down the road.

There is a broader lack of infrastructure in many northern communities across my riding, across the territories and across Canada, whether it is housing, road improvements or the Internet. As we have experienced in the debate today, there are problems with the Internet. I make note of all of these because these tremendous gaps exist in my riding and in many others. In communities like Cat Lake, there is a housing shortage, there is overcrowding and many of the homes that are available have structural problems, mould or other long-standing issues.

On the Internet aspect of it, many communities do not have access to the Internet. These residents are not able to potentially attend school or access government services. This pandemic has shown us that Internet access is not a luxury but a necessity. Unfortunately, many indigenous peoples in many indigenous communities have some of the worst Internet connections or lack of connection of anyone else across Canada. These are important things that we must work on as well.

I already mentioned health care gaps. Given the remoteness of many communities in my riding, which are accessible only by flying in or by winter road, there has been chronic underfunding or poorly prioritized funding and mismanagement by the federal government, which has left many with poor health care service options. We must do more to ensure that each and every person living in Canada has access to equitable health care and, of course, that must include the north.

I believe in the importance of economic support as well and the role that economic development and economic diversification of the north can play in providing many opportunities to northern and indigenous communities. By working together to create good jobs and ensuring that revenues stay in the north, everyone can benefit from this responsible development. It is something I have seen in my riding with Grand Council Treaty #3, which signed a historic resource revenue-sharing agreement with the Province of Ontario. We must do more of that collaboration and ensure that economic growth is part of our reconciliation discussion and the process, as I believe it can help us reach many of our other aspirations.

All that being said, I do believe in the spirit of this proposal and that this is a very positive step, so long as concrete actions on the many issues that I have outlined can be addressed. It is important for new Canadians to understand the value of treaty rights and indigenous rights. Perhaps, as many community leaders in my riding have pointed out, this could be an opportunity for further education on the history of Canada, the good and the bad, so that every Canadian, whether new to our country or with a family that has been here for generations, can understand why reconciliation and upholding treaty rights are so vital.

I definitely want to acknowledge that this is one of the most important things. It cannot get lost in this discussion. I urge my colleagues, especially those in government, to work with the opposition and all parties to ensure we do not let politics get in the way of taking true, meaningful actions and bringing forward tangible items that will improve the lives of indigenous peoples across Canada.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I picked up a bit on the member for Kenora's comment about reconciliation being used as a buzzword and the rhetoric of what “reconciliation” is really supposed to mean for a nation-to-nation relationship.

While I agree this bill is important, we have discussed today that this is slow progress. It has taken six years for us to get to a relatively simple recommendation from the TRC. There are huge issues at play. The member talked about water as a human right being an issue that is not being addressed quickly enough. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is lagging behind. The murdered and missing indigenous women and girls action plan is lagging behind.

I would like to hear from the member if he agrees that these are ultimately the actions of a paternalistic government under a highly colonial system.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from London touched on many different aspects. I will try my best to touch on all of them in the time I am permitted.

She noted the buzzwords and the politics around it. While the issue we are debating today is a positive step and a positive symbol, as I am sure she agrees, it is relatively easy and it is definitely not high on the priority list for many communities and many indigenous people in my riding. As I noted in my speech, a community in my riding is evacuating right now because of the lack of clean drinking water.

When I speak to chiefs and indigenous people in my riding, they often tell me that this is a great proposal and a positive step. However, they want to know why we are wasting our time debating this in the House right now when there are much more pressing issues that can be addressed. I hope to see the government take more solid action on many of those areas as well.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that the Liberal government is not doing enough, and I think many people would agree. The government seems to be focusing more on symbolic gestures than on actions. Of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's 94 calls to action, only 10 have been implemented.

I wonder why my colleague's party voted against this bill during the previous parliamentary session. Would we not have made a little more progress had his party voted in favour?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the Bloc Québécois holding the opposition to account. Meanwhile, on this side of the House, closer to the Speaker, we are focused on working with the government and, yes, holding the government to account when we need to.

As I have mentioned many times, I do not think we should be making these issues political. We recognize that every government, every party and every one of us, I am sure, has made some mistakes and some missteps on the path to reconciliation. I am focused on what is happening right now, looking to the future and to how we can support all people and all indigenous people across Canada.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, when my colleague from Kenora started his speech, he made a comment about the name of his riding. As members know, I come from Oshawa, which in Ojibwa means the crossing place. It comes from the term aazhaway. That fact that the bill moves forward so new Canadians understand the importance of our history is extremely important, and I think everybody agrees on that.

My colleague has a great perspective. He comes from the north, with many indigenous people in his community. I wonder if he could comment on what he hears are the greatest priorities of indigenous people in his community; and, specifically, if he could comment on resource development and how the current government's policies affect that. It is important for our future as Canada.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are so many things we could touch on. As I mentioned in my speech, my riding has the historic resource revenue sharing agreement between Grand Council Treaty No. 3 and the Province of Ontario. I know that resource development is very important to many first nations communities across my riding and across the north. It is a catalyst for us to be able to improve the way of life for many people across the north.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, every day I think about how lucky I am to be a Canadian. There is simply no better country in the world. Our nation is seen as a beacon of hope by so many. Whether it is the natural beauty of our environment, the kindness of Canadians, our robust free market economy or the right to live in a free society that seeks to honour and protect the rights of its citizens, we are truly among the most fortunate.

However, Canada has not always been as just as we would like it to be. Certain groups have faced more challenges than others. Indigenous Canadians are one of those groups. The treatment of indigenous peoples is a stain on our history, and we cannot forget about the injustices of the past; we must learn from them.

As a Jewish Canadian, the term “never again” always comes to mind. The commitment of never again is a solemn pledge to never let hatred and injustice take control of our society, to never let genocide take place, to never stand idly by while bad actors motivated by something sinister wipe out those who seem to be getting in their way.

As scholar and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said:

I swore to never be silent.

We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

We are all here as elected officials, 338 out of 38 million Canadians. These 38 million Canadians expect us to get it right. We have no option but to be successful in these efforts.

The process of reconciliation is vital and fundamental to the future of our society. As Canadians, we need to have the difficult conversations necessary to ensure indigenous Canadians can live in a more equitable society for all.

As Senator Murray Sinclair said:

The road we travel is equal in importance to the destination we seek....When it comes to truth and reconciliation we are forced to go the distance.

It is hard to believe the enormous challenges that still exist today for indigenous communities. How is it possible that we live in a country where boil water advisories still exist? It is 2020, and we are witnessing technology development like we have never seen before. We have cellphones that possess 100,000 times more of the computing power than it took to land Neil Armstrong on the moon, and yet we still cannot find a way to get clean running water to indigenous communities.

Before having the honour of serving my community in this place, I was an elected member of Winnipeg City Council. In my time there, we made great progress in advancing initiatives for our city to come together and explore what reconciliation truly means. Just after I was elected to council on January 22, 2015, Maclean's magazine published a story calling my city a place where racism was at its worst.

We could have protested Maclean's assertion, but instead we embraced our own call to action and did what we could do, as Senator Sinclair said, “to go the distance.” That call was to take immediate and proactive steps to make reconciliation more than just a word on a page.

I remember the day vividly. I was driving to city hall when the story came out. Mayor Brian Bowman called an emergency meeting of community stakeholders in both indigenous and non-indigenous communities. I remember partaking in a traditional smudging ceremony that morning in the mayor's office, where we came together with indigenous leaders to express our desire to do better.

As Winnipeggers, we did do better. I want to tell members what we did. In 2015, the year of that article, we held the ONE: The Mayor’s National Summit on Racial Inclusion at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, bringing together many leaders and community members into a think tank of compassion to tackle racism in all its forms.

The following year, the mayor declared 2016 to be the year of reconciliation, and we instituted mandatory indigenous awareness training for all employees and councillors in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 57. I attended those sessions.

That same year, we invested $10 million towards the building of the Freedom Road project, which built an all-weather road, not in Winnipeg, but to Shoal Lake 40 first nation on the Manitoba-Ontario border. It was completed just over one year ago.

This community has supplied fresh water to Winnipeg for over 100 years and yet has spent decades under a boil-water advisory. I was proud to share a small role as the chair of finance in correcting this tragic irony and historic injustice. We took action, Freedom Road was built and a new water treatment plant is well under construction.

In 2017, we unanimously adopted Winnipeg's first indigenous accord and I was proud to be among its first signatories. This accord marked the beginning of new conversations about the future, as well as a commitment to make our community more inclusive. It provided the framework for indigenous and non-indigenous citizens from across Winnipeg to keep moving forward in our reconciliation journey. I worked alongside my council colleagues to look inward and talk about what we could do to be better as a city. We chose unity over division and worked to amend the wrongs of the past. We worked to foster a positive public dialogue about reconciliation with indigenous groups across our communities to ask them how we could do better. I have no doubt that each of my colleagues from here and across Canada share these goals.

If we could do all those things in Winnipeg, we in this place can do so much more. Canada is a nation of immigrants that stands on the traditional territories of and shoulder to shoulder with first nations, Inuit and Métis people. In fact, as many people have acknowledged today, we are gathered right now on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Canada is one of the few countries in the world where indigenous and treaty rights are constitutionally entrenched. I firmly believe that educating all Canadians about these rights is an important step on the path to reconciliation. I am pleased to join my Conservative colleagues in supporting treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples and in supporting this bill. In fact, our party's policy declaration acknowledges this fact where it says that it is a fundamental obligation of the federal government to improve the living conditions of indigenous Canadians, including Inuit, in terms of economic opportunities, health, education and community safety.

I have spoken to countless new Canadians who have become citizens of our great country. The day they get to stand and pledge their allegiance to Canada is the affirmation of many years of hard work and struggle. The oath represents opening the door to new opportunities and new beginnings for many who have escaped war-torn countries, genocide, human rights abuses or were simply looking for a better life for them and their families. As a part of this proposed bill, new Canadians must swear or affirm that they will observe the laws of Canada, including indigenous rights. Becoming a new Canadian involves learning about our constitutional rights and understanding the history of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples and the need for reconciliation.

The changes proposed by this bill to the oath of citizenship, namely the addition of recognizing constitutionally entrenched rights for indigenous Canadians, will be an important lesson for all those looking to make Canada their home. This will signal that reconciliation with indigenous Canadians is among our highest priorities and we welcome new Canadians to become part of this journey.

Our society is plagued by voices who continue to call for hatred and discrimination. As Canadians, we must be better than this. We cannot succumb to these calls. We must respect the truly important work that was done by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and work together to ensure that reconciliation is a part of Canada's present and future.

In closing, we have lots of work to do, not only as legislators but as Canadians. We need to ensure that we do our part in building a better future for all Canadians. We need to build an inclusive society where Canadians from all walks of life can feel safe, secure and be afforded the fundamental rights and freedoms granted to them as citizens of our great nation. We need to continue to have those uncomfortable conversations and remember the dark chapters of our past as we move forward on the path toward reconciliation.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I liked hearing my colleague's words about how important it is that we deal with things like boil-water advisories, and how important it is that we deal with the calls for action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the calls for justice from the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls tribunal. My problem is that sometimes I feel like the Conservatives pick and choose when they want to support indigenous rights and when they do not.

The former leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, said that his primary concern with the bill was that recognizing indigenous rights to free, prior and informed consent would hurt the economy. I wonder if the member could speak about the need to not pick and choose which indigenous rights we fight for and when we stand up for indigenous peoples in our country.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that while members of the NDP want to take partisan political shots at us and want to focus on us, we are focused on Canadians. The things I described that we did in Winnipeg, we did in a year. The government has been in power for six years and only today are we discussing changing the oath.

There is so much more we can do, and I really understand the frustration in indigenous communities about how long things take, because I know we can do things faster.

[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 was literally weeks after the 2015 election that the government, under the Prime Minister, took actions, whether it was the public inquiry or a series of responses to the calls to action, some of which were brought to the House. Others are still ongoing and in discussion because the federal government has an obligation. However, not all the calls to action are purely for the federal government. Seventy-four are directly for us, but some of them require working with other jurisdictions.

Would the member agree that it is important for us to focus not only on the calls to action, but also on the monetary aspect, Freedom Road, systemic racism and so forth? There are other issues, and as a government, as an elected body, we have to deal with a number of fronts to hopefully move the issue of reconciliation forward.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member: I do not think that this is or should be a partisan issue. This should be an issue where we can reach across the aisle and work together. However, the changing of the oath should have been done six years ago. I was just elected a year ago, and I am not sure why, six years after the government was elected, we are finally debating this legislation. As I said, in Winnipeg we did all of the things I described in a year.

As far as the hon. member's question is concerned, I do agree that some calls to action are within the jurisdiction of the federal government and some are within the jurisdiction of other levels of government. As Canadians and legislators, we all need to work together to try to move this file forward.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it seems to me that in the government's approach to indigenous rights, it tries to pick some of the easier-to-solve problems. Maybe it changes the wording of the oath or something like that. However, there are many larger, deeper systemic issues, including creating opportunities for economic development for indigenous Canadians, that the government has not really been moving forward on. It seems to want to identify symbolic issues, but there are many big issues that are top of mind for indigenous Canadians that it has been totally absent on.

I wonder if the member could speak more about the notion that the government needs to focus on large issues, challenging issues, that will concretely, substantially improve the lives of indigenous Canadians.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think it would have been far better to spend this entire day talking about how to bring clean and usable drinking water to indigenous communities or how to bring economic development projects to indigenous communities. As I said, we should have passed this change to the oath years ago. The progress on this file has been very slow, and we can only really lay the blame for that at the feet of the current government.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about truth and reconciliation. While there are many clauses within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action, one of the biggest things is a commitment to education and a commitment to finding out ways in which we as a country can move forward.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission points out that many of the education systems in Canada have not had the same education as those on reserve. They learned about their rights, their history and the legacy of the residential schools. It is important that we look at and focus on ways we can move the bar further on this long journey of reconciliation.

We are talking about immigration and new immigrants to this country. There have been new immigrants welcomed by indigenous people for more than 400 years. For 400 years, we have shared resources, our values and our ways of surviving, and that is an important part of this. We hope that with the passage of the bill, we will be able to look at new ways for new immigrants to hear from indigenous people about how we have kept the country and our resources plentiful for the past seven generations and how we plan to do it for seven more generations.

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

Is the hon. member going to have a full 20-minute speech or a 10-minute speech? You will have either 18 minutes or eight minutes to finish your speech.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, my speech will be 10 minutes. I will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

The House resumed from November 2 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.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to speak today on Bill C-8 from the traditional unceded territory of the Snuneymuxw people. I want to acknowledge that the riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith lies within the territories of the Snuneymuxw, the Snaw-naw-as, the Stz'uminus and the Lyackson first nations.

Huy’chka siem.

I would like the thank the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria for sharing this time with me today so that I could speak to this important bill.

Bill C-8 is an act to amend the Citizenship Act. The bill would change the oath of citizenship so that newcomers to Canada, in addition to pledging allegiance to the Queen, will also faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

The Snuneymuxw people, whose territory I am from speaking today, signed a treaty in 1854. This was the 14th and the last of the so-called Douglas treaties, and it was ignored for over 100 years. It was not until the landmark White and Bob Supreme Court case in 1965 that this treaty was finally recognized by the Government of Canada. This historic case marked the beginning of the modern era of treaty and aboriginal rights and title, advocacy and activism across Canada.

I learned about this treaty while working on a film about the Nanaimo River, entitled Voices of the River. In my interviews with Snuneymuxw elder Ellen White and with her grandson Doug White, who was the chief of Snuneymuxw First Nation at the time, they both emphasized the importance of this treaty and the rights and title that it enshrines. Most residents of Nanaimo would have no knowledge of this treaty and what it means. It is a constant struggle for the Snuneymuxw people to have their treaty rights recognized.

This is true for first nations across Canada, as we have seen with the Mi'kmaq fishery in Nova Scotia and the Haudenosaunee dispute in Caledonia, Ontario. We are all treaty people in Canada. We have historical treaties that need to be respected, and for those first nations that have never signed treaties, it is incumbent upon the government to go through the modern-day treaty process in a respectful way.

It is important for newcomers to Canada to understand the indigenous and first nations rights enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All Canadians, including new Canadians, need to understand these legal documents. They should understand that if they are not in a region that is covered by a treaty, then they are in a region that has never surrendered and is still legally indigenous territory.

The bill would complete number 94 of the 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That does not mean that the current Parliament has finally gotten to the end of the list and has implemented the previous 93 calls to action, far from it. We have a very poor record of implementing these calls to action. Earlier this year my colleague, the hon. member for Fredericton, presented a scorecard in her speech on this issue. Out of the 52 broader reconciliation recommendations, seven have been completed. Under justice, it is one out of 18; language and culture, one out of five; health, zero; education, zero; and child welfare, zero.

In the first year, five recommendations were completed, 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. This is not reconciliation in action.

Call to action number 94 is important, but there are far more urgent calls to action that we need to turn our attention to. Call to action number one calls upon federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal governments to commit to reducing the number of aboriginal children in care. Right now there are more indigenous children in the child welfare system in this country than there were children in the residential schools at the height of the residential school system. This is an ongoing abuse of human rights and a violation of fundamental social justice.

When I talk to local leaders from first nations and urban indigenous communities in my riding, they tell me the same thing: Children are being apprehended by provincial child welfare agencies, and it is not because the parents have neglected to provide their children with love, care or attention. The majority of child welfare apprehensions are a direct result of poverty and inadequate housing. The Government of Canada could deal with this immediately with a poverty reduction strategy and rapid housing program for first nations and urban indigenous populations.

The missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry recommendations called for a guaranteed livable income to ensure no Canadian needs to live in poverty. A guaranteed livable income would remove the bias inherent in our social welfare programs and would be a step toward ending systemic racism in this country. Indigenous people are overrepresented in our prison system and in our homeless population. This is also a direct result of poverty and the disproportionate number of children pulled from their families and communities by the child welfare system.

We have a long way to go toward true reconciliation with indigenous people in Canada. Under the reconciliation section of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action, the first call to action, number 43, calls upon federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation. This is important and we need to get this done right away. Why are we not debating this right now?

It is a national shame indigenous communities have boil water advisories that go on for years and even decades, that indigenous communities deal with serious and persistent poverty, that indigenous people are overrepresented in our criminal justice system and in our homeless population, that we have such high levels of suicide among indigenous youth and that health outcomes for indigenous people are comparable to those of residents of low-income countries.

It is an international black eye for Canadians that we have encroaching developments and industrial projects forced upon indigenous communities after sham consultations and then have those developments and projects rammed through with enforcement actions by highly armed militarized police forces.

We need economic reconciliation to improve the conditions for economic development and economic sovereignty for first nations. The connection to land is key to the culture of indigenous people in Canada, but as colonizers we have broken that link. The reserve system forced indigenous people off the land and took away those key connections to their culture. Industrialization has destroyed many traditional territories with resource extraction, including excessive logging, mining and oil and gas production, destroying biodiversity and leaving behind toxic messes.

In my riding of Nanaimo Ladysmith, the traditional lands of the Hul'qumi’num-speaking people were stolen out from under them with the E&N land grant 150 years ago. Coal baron and B.C. cabinet minister Robert Dunsmuir was given 8,000 square kilometres of land, or 20% of Vancouver Island, to build the E&N railway from Esquimalt to Nanaimo as part of the deal for B.C. to join Confederation. This corrupt deal and historic wrong need to be corrected. We cannot celebrate 150 years of B.C. joining Confederation next year without reparation for this theft. Reconciliation must be more than words, it must include reparation for historic wrongs.

There is a long list of things we need to do to make things right in our relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis people in this country. If this is indeed our most important relationship, as the Prime Minister has often repeated, then let us get on with it.

I have had the honour and privilege of working with many newcomers to Canada and I know they are keen to be good citizens and become part of our communities. Many of the newcomers arrive from difficult situations and have faced war, poverty, environmental degradation and human rights abuses. Once they learn about our history and fully understand the circumstances many indigenous people live with in Canada, these newcomers are shocked.

Bill C-8 is an acknowledgement of the responsibilities of all Canadians, including new Canadians. It is an important piece of legislation. The Green Party supports this legislation. We support all the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we support the recommendations of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry and we support the full implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I hope to debate much more legislation implementing urgent calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation report soon. I hope this happens in the very near future.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the biggest challenges we face when we look at this piece of legislation is we are still not seeing a government taking an active role and actually implementing the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Here we are again with another small step, but we still do not see substantive support to move forward in a way that is really about reconciliation.

I am wondering if the member could talk about why indigenous communities are being asked to wait, government after government, and when we are going to actually see action, and what would that action look like?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a very good question. I would like to know myself when the government is going to take the appropriate action. When are we going to move on the rest of these calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? When are we going to deal with the recommendations from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, including a guaranteed livable income? When are we going to move indigenous people out of poverty and deal with our child welfare system?

I think that we need to do these things as soon as possible, and I would invite the hon. member to stand with me when I talk about reparation for the E&N land grant. I know that part of her riding is in that E&N land grant, and that is a historic wrong. It was one of the most corrupt deals in this country, which allowed the coal baron, Robert Dunsmuir, to build castles in Victoria based on the wealth he extracted from first nations territories.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech.

For a number of years now, we have been seeing the Liberal government's inaction with respect to the cause of indigenous peoples across Canada and particularly in Quebec. We hear horror stories about reserves that do not even have clean drinking water for children. That is outrageous, and real action needs to be taken.

This bill takes real action and does something worthwhile. I think it is important to amend the oath of citizenship as proposed by adding the words “including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples”.

While we are doing something useful and cleaning up the oath of citizenship to add important elements, we could also remove the unnecessary elements. The first part of the oath states, “I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada”. Does anyone still think that is important? I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his statement. I am sure that if members of the Bloc Québécois have other ideas that they would like to bring forward on changing the oath of citizenship, they can do that in one of their opposition days.

[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, of the 94 resolutions, many do not actually require federal jurisdictional changes. I believe there are about 75 that do. However, not all of the recommendations require legislation in order to deal with the resolution.

Let us take a look at the first resolution that deals with child welfare. Would the member not agree that many of these resolutions and recommendations are, in fact, being acted on, at least in part? We have to work with other stakeholders. The federal government cannot just sweep in and say that it is done. There is an obligation to work with stakeholders. Would the member not at least acknowledge that is, in fact, the case for many of the resolutions?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do agree that we need to work as a country with different levels of government to deal with all of these calls to action. However, there are things that the federal government can do right away. One of those things is to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is something that I would like to see this government push forward right away. Let us get that legislation dropped ASAP. I have heard it—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council.

[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, to pick up on that, when we talk about how important that United Nations resolution is, we recognize that it was actually brought to the floor of the House a number of years ago from a member of the New Democratic Party. The Government of Canada did in fact support that piece of legislation and it passed through the House of Commons. It would have become law and received royal assent had it gone through the Senate, but it did not get through the Senate.

Since the last federal election a number of things have occurred, including, stating the most obvious, the coronavirus. The government's first priority was to deal with the negative impacts of the coronavirus. That does not mean that the government was not acting on all of the different fronts it needed to act on while it focused its attention on the coronavirus. When we hit that reset, we have often been criticized by the Conservatives about the throne speech. Why did we have to bring in another throne speech? In previous speeches that I have delivered on the floor here, I have addressed that issue.

Within the throne speech we find another commitment to bring forward the same legislation that the member from the Green Party just referenced. What I have found is that time passes pretty quickly here in Ottawa. The years go by pretty quickly. Here, once again, we are having to deal with legislation because of things that, in good part, were beyond our control. There was a commitment in the throne speech to deal with that particular call for action regarding the United Nations resolution. I am very confident that it is coming. Hopefully, we will be able to pass it through, just like we had government legislation that was brought in for the education of judges, with respect to sexual assaults. There was other legislation that passed in the previous Parliament, but because it did not pass the Senate, it was never given royal assent.

It is the same thing now where we have brought forward a piece of legislation as a part of the government agenda. We are going to have to deal once again with that other piece of legislation and are very hopeful.

When we take a look there are 94 calls for action. This particular piece of legislation we are dealing with today, Bill C-8 is making change to the oath. I will get to the actual oath and ceremonies at some point, but this is dealing with the last call for action. I have a handy booklet here with all 94 calls for action, something that I always keep at my desk, which highlights the importance of it to me personally. Just as it is so important to me, I know how important it is to our Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, virtually from day one, has talked about the relationship between government and indigenous people and how we need to change that relationship and work hard on that relationship.

What does bill C-8 do? It responds to the 94th call for action and states that we call upon the Government of Canada to replace the oath of citizenship with the following:

I swear... 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.

While it might not be word for word, a great deal of effort was put into that. That call to action and what the department has done to come up with today's wording has included a great deal of consultation with indigenous communities and others.

I constantly hear from members on all sides of the House about the importance of supporting the calls to action in general, maybe not 100% of them. However, we have made that commitment to work toward 100% of those or at least encouraging support for them. This is one of those calls. It as a very positive and fairly straightforward call. It would be nice to see it passed by the House of Commons, sooner as opposed to later. In good part now, it will be in the opposition court. It will determine how long it will be before it gets out of the House of Commons.

As I pointed out, there are 94 calls to action, 76 of which are linked to the federal government responsibilities. Many of those calls incorporate Ottawa working with others to fulfill the commitment. An example of that is the first. Today we are talking about call to action 94. Let us look at the first call to action. I referred to that call to action in my question to the member of the Green Party. It is a fairly length call to action, but it is a very important one. It deals with child welfare.

The significance to the debate on that is to recognize there are different types of calls to action. Today, we are really talking about Ottawa and our responsibility to change the oath. That needs to be done through legislation. This is why the bill is before us. However, not all calls to action are like that.

The first call states:

We call upon the federal, provincial, territorial, and Aboriginal governments to commit to reducing the number of Aboriginal children in care by.

Then it states a number of things we could do.

The significance of this is that unlike this bill, it is not like the federal government could bring in legislation to say that call one is done. It does not work that way for all of the calls to action.

This one is going to require input from indigenous leaders, provincial governments and agencies and even beyond that. When we talk about the child welfare system, as cited in the debate today, I am very much aware of the situation. All one needs to do is look at my riding when we talk about children. If we look at the number of apprehended children, or children who are in the care foster parents, on a per capita basis, I would be surprised if Winnipeg North was not one of the highest, if not the very highest, in our country.

For many years, whether a parliamentarian in Ottawa or a member in the Manitoba legislature, we have had to deal with that. For my New Democratic friends, I would like to let them know that the worst provincial entity I can think of is the 15 years of governance by the provincial NDP in the Province of Manitoba. The problem actually peaked during that time.

As much as the NDP would like to blame the Liberals for not doing enough, there is a great deal of room for improvement within the New Democratic Party in Manitoba. It was one of the last issues I dealt with prior to leaving the Manitoba legislature. I talked about the child advocate, saying that Manitoba was in crisis because of the children in care. The NDP premier was more concerned with where the information came from and that it had been released rather than the facts.

When we talk about these calls for action, we need to get the support and consultations in place and work together with the different stakeholders. When my colleagues and friends from the Green Party or the New Democratic Party in particular say that there are 94 calls and only eight or nine have been dealt with, I do not believe that is the case.

For many of the different calls to action, certain actions have taken more time than others. However, we can be encouraged by the fact that unlike some of the previous reports that came forward, these recommendations are not sitting on a shelf collecting dust. Ministers and members of Parliament from our caucus consistently raise the importance of reconciliation in the calls for action on the floor of the House, or in our caucus or in our communities.

Earlier I cited the little booklet given to me by one of my former colleagues, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, the previous member for Winnipeg Centre. We all remember Robert's personality and miss him dearly. Hopefully, he will return. However, when we look at the 94 calls for action, some of them we can deal with in a timely fashion, where Ottawa gets to play the lead. This is one of them.

When I think about citizenship, one experiences many different feelings. I suspect virtually all members of Parliament have participated in citizenship court ceremonies. What a wonderful opportunity it is to do so. I have been doing it for many years, both as a member of Parliament and as a member of the Manitoba legislative assembly. I have wonderful memories of what I witnessed. They would be held inside the Manitoba legislature in the so-called Manitoba Room, which faces Broadway, with its huge beautiful chandeliers. It was such a wonderful feeling to walk into that room, see the chairs lined up, with a judge standing at the front, and individuals, who were receiving their citizenship, smiling from ear to ear. Seeing them in that beautiful room, in that democratic institution speaks volumes about freedom and democracy.

I remember going to what was the NorWest health centre in the community of Winnipeg North. A room had been set up with many chairs and a judge was present. People were receiving their citizenship. One of the most touching parts of that ceremony was a young woman of Filipino heritage who had taken her oath. When it came time to sing the national anthem, she pulled out a big Canadian flag and wrapped it around herself. We could see tears as we started singing the national anthem. It is a very special moment in time when people receive their citizenship. I have attended many different swearing-in ceremonies to reaffirm my citizenship, because we do live in a great nation, the best country in the world from my perspective.

To recognize the importance of indigenous people is of the utmost importance. For the life of me, I cannot remember his last name, but Winston is a resident of Winnipeg North. I believe he lives on Arrow Street, to be more specific. He is of indigenous background. I attended a special citizenship event in an armoury in Winnipeg. What was nice is that he brought forward a greeting and a blessing. New citizens heard first-hand the words he spoke. It was a rather strong and powerful message on how Canada is open for all.

At these citizenship courts, there has to be a judge, but we will also see an RCMP officer. In recent years, we have also seen someone representing the Canadian Forces. I have been to a couple where an indigenous elder attended. I would encourage indigenous elders to continue to attend to tell story of Canada. It is an important aspect.

In every citizenship ceremony I have had the privilege to attend, I have always walked away feeling very proud to be a Canadian, because people from around the world have chosen Canada to call home. Indigenous people are not getting the recognition they deserve for being there, opening doors and opportunities. A willingness to share is so important, to understand treaties and their relationship. That is why reconciliation is so important. That is why the Prime Minister consistently talks about the relationship between indigenous people and the government and why it is so important for all of us.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission came up with excellent calls to action. Today is all about call to action 94 and I encourage all members to support it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is timely that we are talking today about the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In the Alberni Valley where I live, there is a housing crisis. Over two-thirds of the people living on the street are indigenous. We know the government has promised 3,000 beds next year to address homelessness, which is just not enough.

Last night, I received a call from Martha Martin, the mother of Chantel Moore. Her daughter was shot at the hands of police in New Brunswick. She told me her son, Mike, who had been living in care and aged out of care, took his own life two nights ago by suicide. I believe Mike could be alive today if all the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action were implemented. Numbers 18, 19 and 3 all relate to health. Numbers 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 43 relate to justice.

Our system has taken two of her children's lives. It is killing her family. I know the member wanted to talk a lot about partisan politics but right now, we need to work together. We need to fast track this bill so we can deal with call to action number 94 and move it forward. We need to get to these items and stop the endless deaths happening on the streets of our country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the consequences to our society are significant the more we delay taking the actions necessary to improve living conditions in general. They are horrendous. The member made reference to a couple of examples.

Equally, it is irresponsible for us to try to build an expectation that is very difficult to achieve. We cannot resolve all the problems overnight. The member knows this is the case. It takes time, resources and a great deal of effort from not only the government in Ottawa but all governments, indigenous leaders, community leaders and many others.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is good to see my friend across the way in person. When it comes to debates about indigenous issues, I am always struck by the way members of the government speak as if they have not been in government for the past five years. They talk about all these outstanding problems, which are true, but they are in a position to do things about them. When it comes to the government's legislative agenda with respect to issues impacting indigenous peoples, it focuses on important, but relatively symbolic issues such as this, as opposed to the more concrete issues.

Will the member bluntly tell us why the government has not acted more effectively in the last five years to address and confront some of the problems we have been talking about in the House over that period?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, imagine the effort involved when a member of the New Democratic Party brought forward Bill C-262 and then, with the support of members, we were able to get it passed out of the House of Commons to the Senate. There was much frustration that followed when Conservative senators prevented it from passing.

[An hon. member]

It was a bad bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The member says it was because it was a bad bill. I believe a majority of the House today would probably say the member is wrong and those Conservative senators were wrong in terms of what they did. I suspect we will find that out in time.

We have seen legislation, financial resources and co-operation we have not witnessed in the last many years come from this government, working with the many stakeholders, to make a real impact on the day in and day out of our communities and the people living in them, particularly those of indigenous heritage.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to let the hon. member know that it took two and a half years to get his government to go along with Bill C-262. I was a person who was part of those lobbying efforts, walking and writing because of pressure from Canadians who really cornered his government.

The member talked a lot about recognizing the importance of indigenous people. I want to let him know that the way to recognize indigenous people is by honouring human rights. His government currently is in its ninth non-compliance order to immediately stop racially discriminating against first nations kids. It has spent over $3 million fighting survivors of St. Anne's residential school.

He has used COVID as an excuse for stalling, but I want to speak specifically about one example: clean drinking water. Neskantaga currently has been evacuated because of not having clean drinking water. We know that one of the greatest disease deterrents and safety measures that can be taken during the time of the pandemic is frequent hand washing, so I would think that this should be a top priority, yet he consistently talks about incremental justice when it comes to indigenous people.

I wonder if the member would have the same sort of patience if his riding of Winnipeg North had to evacuate because it did not have clean drinking water, and whether he would be so patient for his own constituents to receive that basic human right. I highly doubt it. Just to let him know, as the representative for Winnipeg North, he actually has the highest child-apprehension rate in the country. That is something that is important for him to be aware of as their political representative.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not need a lesson from the member for Winnipeg Centre with regard to apprehensions in Winnipeg North. I have been there for 30 years, both as an MLA and as a member of Parliament. I can assure the member that not only do I hold this government to account in terms of its involvement in dealing with child apprehension, I did it for many years when the NDP at the provincial level failed the children of Winnipeg North in a very real and tangible way and where that member was absolutely silent, I suspect, during those years.

The member made reference to Bill C-262, and why it took so long. After the calls to action were announced, the current Prime Minister committed to all of them. Supporting Bill C-262 and UNDRIP was within those calls to action. The Liberal members of the caucus supported it. When Bill C-262 was brought in, there was no requirement for the government to bring it in. It was a private member's bill and the Liberal caucus supported it. We assisted in ensuring, along with New Democrats, that it passed through the House of Commons. The member would have to speak to the Conservative senators who determined to hold it up, in terms of why it ultimately did not receive royal assent.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that in September 2019, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found the government wilfully and recklessly discriminated against first nations children by underfunding child and family services. The government has fought the decisions of that tribunal for years, spending time and money in the courts.

Does the hon. member support the call from the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry for a guaranteed livable income to ensure that people are not left in poverty? I would like to know whether he would support a rapid housing initiative to deal with the housing crisis on first nations reserves, including in my communities here, in Snuneymuxw and Stz'uminus, and whether he would approve of a rapid housing program for urban indigenous people. There is a disproportionate number of urban indigenous people who are—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, not that long ago I stood in the chamber speaking to the second and maybe even third reading of Bill C-92 in the previous Parliament. Within that legislation, we allowed for and encouraged the further devolution of childcare to indigenous agencies so that they would be more engaged with respect to children of indigenous backgrounds. I saw that as a positive step. Call to action No. 1 talks about children. Yes, there is still more for us to do and we are committed to doing just that.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Markham—Unionville.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, and I would also like to thank my colleague, the shadow minister on this file, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, for her hard work in the chamber and in committee on this issue. She has a very important job to do in holding the government to account when we begin to reopen the country and welcome immigrants back who will eventually become part of our Canadian family.

I rise today to speak on Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94.

I want to start by saying that I will be voting for the bill. Most of the public know what it is designed to do, which is to change the oath of citizenship. I believe that this is a very important piece of legislation that would put us one step closer to reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people.

Just to be clear, the current oath of citizenship is:

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 and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The version proposed in the bill would change the ending to:

...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.

It is is worth acknowledging that Canada is a nation of immigrants who have come, and continue to come, for better lives. We are also a nation that stands on the traditional territories of, and shoulder to shoulder with, first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

I think we should be proud that Canada is one of only a few countries in the world where indigenous and treaty rights are entrenched in our Constitution. By recognizing and affirming the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis in the oath of citizenship, we are also educating Canadians, especially new Canadians, about these rights.

Our Constitution is one of our most important documents, if not the most important document, and being aware and understanding some of the resolved and unresolved treaty rights in different parts of the country is something we should share with new Canadians. Educating new Canadians on the relationship with indigenous peoples is a key part of the path to reconciliation that is critical to our nation's future.

I am confident my colleagues would agree that a top priority for all of us in this chamber should be to work towards reconciliation with our indigenous peoples. For those at home watching, I was in the House of Commons in Centre Block at the time when Prime Minister Harper offered a full apology on behalf of Canadians for the residential school system. It was a historical moment, and one I will never forget. The treatment of children in Indian residential schools was a sad chapter in our history, and it had to be acknowledged. The government had to apologize for it, and rightfully did so. It was also the previous Conservative government, under Prime Minister Harper, that established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or the TRC, to facilitate reconciliation among former residential school students, their families, communities and all Canadians.

Between 2007 and 2015, the government provided about $72 million to support the commission's work. The TRC spent six years travelling to all parts of Canada and heard more than 6,500 witnesses. It also hosted seven national events across Canada to engage the Canadian public, educate people about the history and legacy of the residential school system and share and honour the experiences of former students and their families.

The TRC created a critical historical record of the residential school system and, as part of the process, the Government of Canada provided over five million records to the TRC. The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation at the University of Manitoba houses all the documents collected by the TRC.

Given the incredible work done by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, many of us in the House are concerned that the government has been slow to respond to the report's calls to action. In fact, a new analysis reveals that “dreadful progress” with disappointing results has been made on the TRC's 94 calls to action. The Prime Minister embraced the calls to action at the 2015 unveiling, describing them all as a blueprint to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. However, it is clear that things are not what they need to be, and the sole reaction to the TRC's calls to action is not the only broken promise from this government.

We also have the promise on boil-water advisories. The Prime Minister recently appeared to walk back his government's promise to end all boil-water advisories in first nation communities by March 2021. He would not commit to meeting the 2021 deadline, and said that the federal government was working to lift the remaining drinking water advisory “as soon as possible”.

When is “as soon as possible”? Is it months from now, years from now or perhaps longer?

Let us take the Neskantaga First Nation as an example, which has been under a boil water advisory for more than 25 years. Officials shut off its water after an oily sheen was found in the water reserve. Tests later showed the water was contaminated with hydrocarbon. Over 200 residents have now been evacuated to Thunder Bay, where they are being housed in hotels.

The Neskantaga chief said that elders, children, infants and people with chronic health conditions were flown out of the community after the water shutdown, which closed the schools and nursing station. With no running water, the remaining residents have had to use buckets to collect water from the lake in freezing temperatures.

The chief said, “I've never had access to clean drinking water and I’m 50 years old. You hate to see your relatives, your children, your future, living in this condition.” The chief goes on to say, “Right now we are being offered band-aid solutions.”

The government originally stated in December 2015 that the community would get a new treatment plant up and running by the spring of 2018. It is November 2020 and it seems like the government has broken its promise.

Also, let us not forget winter is coming. The Prime Minister said his government has lifted many drinking water advisories since 2015, but the Indigenous Services Canada website shows that 61 first nation reserves are still living under long-term drinking water advisories.

Let us also not forget first nations people are going through a housing crisis that the government has not handled very well. Last year, the Cat Lake first nation declared a state of emergency over excessive mould, leaky roofs and other poor housing conditions. Things became worse when a Cat Lake resident died from respiratory issues. Her family was clear the death was caused by extensive mould problems in her home. There is evidence that almost half of the homes on Canadian reserves have enough mould to cause serious respiratory problems and other illnesses.

With respect to Cat Lake, I do have to say the government did provide portable homes and construction material to build new ones. However, everything it does on this file seems to be reactionary. It has to see a major crisis first, and then it acts.

The government should not be complacent. This housing crisis in first nations communities should not be costing people their lives. Indigenous leaders say that an epidemic of mould, undrinkable water and overcrowding in first nations homes remains a nationwide problem that has been largely ignored.

We have another issue in Nova Scotia, where tensions are very high over a long-standing fishery dispute. There has been violence and a lot of heated rhetoric. There have been years of concern about the issue. It is not like the government found out about it when it recently flared up. Once again, the government is being reactionary. There has been years of talks but there has been no solution.

The government has now been in place for five years and little has been done. It needs to do better, and Conservatives are more than willing to help. All this to say that indigenous people deserve government attention and reconciliation should be a top priority for all of all of us in this place. Although more can and should be done, this bill is a step in the right direction for indigenous people, and therefore, I will be supporting it.

It is not often I agree with my colleague the parliamentary secretary, but I cannot have a conversation about an oath of citizenship without talking about the extreme honour of being involved. He was bang on when he talked about what an honour it is, as members of Parliament, to be involved.

In my 16 years, certainly one of the highlights of my job is having the opportunity to attend the citizenship ceremonies. They come in all different shapes and sizes, and I have attended them on July 1, which is absolutely a particularly important and special day. I have also done them in schools, legion halls and all across Niagara.

It is quite an honour to do that, so I want to recognize what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the government in the House of Commons said. As members of Parliament, we have a pretty unique role. Just having the opportunity to hear people's stories of getting to our great country, as well as some of the hardships they have had to endure is completely inspiring.

It has been an honour to talk on this particular bill, Bill C-8. As I mentioned before, one of the amazing privileges we have as members of Parliament is having an opportunity on a fairly regular basis to attend citizenship swearing-in ceremonies, where we have the opportunity to hear great stories from people coming from all around this great world to become citizens of this great country.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I take issue with a couple of things my friend opposite said.

He said the government should be accelerating the calls to action, and I completely agree we need to do more and need to do it faster, but can he explain why in the previous Parliament his party, Conservative members in the Senate, blocked the passage of Bill C-262, even though it was passed in the House of Commons and it passed a resolution asking for the Senate to expedite its passage?

Why did his party block it in the Senate? How does that go with what he is saying about the implementation of these calls to action and the things we need to do in order to attain true reconciliation?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, when legislation is bad, there is always an opportunity not to support it to make it better. One of the things I hear over and over from the government is, “It's not our fault. We didn't do it”.

The government has been in power for six years. I think that most of us are getting a little tired of hearing that it was the previous government's fault. Once again, there is no reason to support bad legislation. We need to improve it, and we need to do a better job when it comes to that in the House.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate working with my friend and colleague on many different things, but I thank him for supporting this bill. We are happy to see that because we had heard from the previous leader of the Conservative Party that they would not be supporting this bill.

He talked about the sense of urgency around issues for indigenous people. I talked earlier about the high number of indigenous people who are homeless right now. I also spoke of my friend Martha Martin sharing with me that her son, Mike Martin, had taken his own life. It was a death by suicide. Mike had been living on the streets and gave up hope.

The current plan of the government is to build 3,000 units next year to deal with the homeless issue. Clearly that is just not adequate. Does the member support New Democrats, and will he work with members in this House and at all levels of government, including indigenous leadership and indigenous communities, to put pressure on the Liberal government to do more to save lives, so that people like Mike do not resort to taking their own life because they have lost hope?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share the pain of my colleague for Courtenay—Alberni in terms of the person he knew, Mike, who lost life to suicide. That is never a good thing, so my thoughts are with them now at this time. Also, it has been a pleasure to work with my colleague on a number of initiatives over the last years.

I think it is important that we always engage, certainly, first nations when there are issues that pertain to them. There should never be a top-down approach from the government, which says we know best and we can figure all of this out. I think if we do not have collaboration with all levels of government and if we do not have collaboration with first nations, then whatever we do as governments, whatever we do as the federal government, is doomed to fail.

It is important and incumbent upon us as legislators to work with all levels of government and first nations when we are looking to implement solutions that we hope will have a long-term effect. We also hope they will be implemented in a way that will make sure things get done the way they should be done the first time around.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would appreciate my colleague's reflection on this point. We often see from the government on these issues, that when it is looking at the TRC recommendations, it seems like it is trying to pick the low-hanging fruit, the recommendations that are maybe the easier ones to implement.

There are a lot of harder ones to implement, which are actually going to have the most critical impact on the quality of life of indigenous people. We see precious little action over there, while we see a picking the low-hanging fruit over here. I would be curious for his take on that.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately this always seems to be the case. It is either a talking point or an announcement of low-hanging fruit. Very rarely do we get the sustained and necessary action, which sometimes involves a lot more heavy lifting.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94).

The bill will change the oath of citizenship. The new oath will now read:

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.

As someone who emigrated to Canada, I know first-hand just how valuable and memorable the experience of taking the oath of Canadian citizenship is. That is why this bill is very close to my heart. When I came to Canada back in 1974, the wait for my citizenship felt like a long time.

The day I went to my ceremony was one of the happiest days of my life. I can still remember the building, the people who were sitting beside me and the colour of the carpet in the room. However, what I remember the most was the moment when I put my hand to the chest and swore the oath. I still think about that to this day, and what it meant to me.

When I speak to other new Canadians, I hear the same thing. The oath is the legal requirement to become a Canadian citizen, but it is much more than that for every newcomer.

To become a Canadian, I had to pass the citizenship test. That test would show I understood the history of Canada and what this country stands for. This was before Canada became one of only a few countries in the world where indigenous and treaty rights were entrenched in our Constitution.

Some of the questions on the citizenship test were things I had picked up over the years, and others were things I needed to study. Canada's relationship with its first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples was not something I was required to know. It was not something that came up often. Back then when people said “Indian”, it was unclear if they were talking about me or Canada's first people.

Let me tell the House about what I did know even back then. I knew about reserves, and I knew about poverty. Many of the homeless I would see in Toronto were, sadly, first nations people. I have learned a lot about Canada's indigenous people since that time, and about the struggles they still face.

For example, reserves to this day have boil water advisories that are decades old. Indigenous people represent only about 5% of the adult population in Canada, but make up 30% of the people behind bars. The lasting impact of residential schools and the mental health crisis has led many indigenous people to take their own lives. The housing crisis on reserves has forced people to live in rundown homes filled with black mould, threatening the lives of those inside.

I have learned much more since being elected. I wish I had known more. I am glad that schools in Ontario are now making sure that students are familiar with these topics. That was not the case when my children were in school.

There is a lot of ignorance about these issues, even though none of these issues are new. They span generations. Where progress has been made, it has come too slowly. Our new leader has said, “....all governments in our history have not lived up to what we owe our Constitution and indigenous Canadians.”

I want to be clear about this. Canada is the best country in the world and I am proud to be a Canadian. One of the things that makes Canada so great is that we consistently acknowledge our mistakes and fix them.

I was not a member of Parliament when it happened, but I remember when Prime Minister Harper offered a full apology on behalf of Canadians for the horrendous residential school system. The Conservative government also created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as part of the 2007 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, which recognized that the Indian residential school system had a profoundly lasting and damaging impact on indigenous culture, heritage and language.

When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action were first released, the member for Papineau, now the Prime Minister, committed to action immediately. He was later given a four-year majority government. When giving some of his first speeches, he talked about how important Canada's relationship with its indigenous people was.

There are 94 calls to action in the TRC report. Although we are implementing call to action 94 today, it is important that Canadians know that the progress the Prime Minister promised has been far from realized.

Four years of a majority government has yielded little progress. A 2019 report by the Yellowhead Institute says that by 2018, only eight calls to action had been implemented. That number increased to nine by the end of 2019.

One of the reasons the progress for Canada's indigenous people has been so slow is they are often treated as an afterthought by the government. It was only at the very end of the majority government that it even put the first version of this bill forward, Bill C-99. After the election, which saw the Prime Minister re-elected, the government put forward a new version of Bill C-6, only to start again. Then the Liberal government chose to prorogue Parliament, killing the bill on the floor of the House before it could come up for a vote.

I recognize that the bill would bring a lot of changes. After four years of the same old, I was pleased to see the bill reintroduced in the current session. However, I cannot stress enough that indigenous people need to see real action on mental health, incarceration rates, housing and much more. That is why it is important that we pass Bill C-8 quickly, as it would affect the lives of those struggling right now.

Some might say this move is only symbolic. I would say that symbols are incredibly important. There is only a problem if the government continues to deliver lip service to indigenous Canadians and not results.

If there are any concerns about the wording of the bill, I am sure we can come to a consensus at committee. It is very important that indigenous groups from across the country have their say. I recognize the committee has many restraints regarding witnesses, so I hope the Liberal government is engaging in consultations as we speak.

[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, within the Truth and Reconciliation report, there are 94 calls to action. Many of those calls to action do not require legislation. Call to action 94 does, because it would change citizenship. I am glad to hear that the Conservative Party appears to be supporting the legislation.

Would the member not agree that many calls to action do not require legislation, but simply require the Government of Canada to work with other jurisdictions to implement them? In doing this, we could take into consideration a good number of the calls to action.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech by the member for Winnipeg North a couple of minutes ago when he mentioned that what happened was out of his control, that time passes fast in Ottawa and that the Liberals are trying their very best. What nonsense that is.

What is the bottom line? When can indigenous people see real action from the government? Those are my questions for the Liberal government. There are many issues, but we have to do our best to make sure the needs of indigenous people are taken care of regarding housing, suicide issues and their many other issues.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking so much about indigenous homelessness and housing, and the high number of indigenous people who are homeless and the lack of action.

The truth and reconciliation recommendations are calls to action. In this debate, the member for Winnipeg North has continued to say that it is not just legislation but action that is required, but we are not seeing that action. We are seeing a commitment by the government to build 3,000 units for all of Canada, for the 235,000 people who are homeless right now. This is completely inadequate.

Does my colleague believe this is inadequate and that the government needs to accelerate it significantly in the immediate future to save lives, especially given COVID, during which even more people have been marginalized? There is an overrepresentation of indigenous people on the streets dealing with this crisis.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with the hon. member regarding the issues facing indigenous people, such as housing, poverty, suicide, fresh drinking water, mould in housing and the lack of jobs. The list goes on and on. The Liberal government, which has been in power coming up to six years now, keeps on talking but has nothing to show for it.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville came to Canada in 1974. I came here in 1984. I went through the same process as he did and was proud to take the citizenship oath. I still remember that particular day.

The hon. member mentioned that former prime minister Stephen Harper made an apology, but I remind him this was the same Prime Minister who ditched the Kelowna accord, which was going to improve life.

Coming back to the bill, does the hon. member agree the bill is very important for allowing new immigrants to become familiar with the heritage and history of indigenous people in Canada?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely. However, we need to do more for indigenous people. We are not doing enough. We can talk about Stephen Harper or anybody else—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here in the House with so many friends to address this important debate, and to follow my friend, the member for Markham—Unionville, who gave an excellent speech. He said he came to Canada in 1974. I came to Canada in 1987, actually, so he has been here longer than I have.

I want to first set off my debate by talking a bit about the content of the bill. I also want to talk a bit about some of the context around the government's agenda and proposals with respect to indigenous issues.

The bill would amend the citizenship oath to 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.

The reference to first nations, Inuit and Métis people, and the references to aboriginal and treat rights, would be new references the bill proposes to add to the legislation.

The genesis for this discussion of amending the citizenship oath is a recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, specifically call to action number 94. As members have observed, the bill seems to have support from all parties and will pass second reading and go to committee. However, there is an issue we will need to hear about more at committee, which is important to note. We will need to hear from witnesses about the difference between the formulation of the oath in the legislation and the proposal that was in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation 94.

The proposed oath, which I looked up before speaking, from the commission report was as follows:

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.

The formula is slightly different between the proposal in recommendation number 94 and the proposal in the bill. The bill references first nations, Inuit and Métis, and is a bit longer. Regardless, it is important to ensure that as we proceed down this road in the spirit of reconciliation, we hear from indigenous leaders along the way. Again, it will be important to elucidate at committee whether the relevant stakeholders and communities that are particularly invested in this have been consulted with respect to the difference in wording between the TRC recommendation and the bill. That will be an important point for us to follow up on.

Before I reflect on some of the specifics regarding changing the oath, I want to say that the Conservatives support the bill moving forward. We think the aspirations behind it and the substance of it are reasonable and valuable, and we look forward to further discussion and debate.

Right now we have before Parliament, at various stages, three pieces of legislation that in some sense deal with or touch directly on the relationship between the government and indigenous peoples in Canada. We have Bill C-5, Bill C-8 and Bill C-10. We are discussing Bill C-8, which amends the citizenship oath. We have Bill C-10, which is a larger, broader bill with many issues in it that would make changes to the Broadcasting Act, some of which put into the Broadcasting Act the expectation that broadcasters have diverse content reflecting different communities, including indigenous communities. Then we have Bill C-5, which deals with a statutory holiday for recognizing and remembering what happened in the context of indigenous residential schools.

All three of these bills contain important elements. The Conservatives have supported Bill C-5 and Bill C-8. We have some concerns about Bill C-10, although they are not related to the objectives, but are related to other aspects of the bill, as it is a broader bill. Regardless, in the context of the legislative agenda of the government right now, we have these three different bills.

If the Liberals are deciding what kinds of bills they are going to put forward with respect to indigenous issues, members might say they have a few different options in front of them. In considering those options, we can divide the bills they are putting forward into two broad categories. There would be bills that represent acts of recognition and then there would be bills that represent actions that target quality of life improvements.

This is an important distinction to make. Acts of recognition are things like putting in place a statutory holiday, changing wording, changing language, the legislature making statements, expressing its acknowledgement of certain facts and its will for reconciliation. These kinds of acts of recognition are things we do often as a legislature. They are important and have a place, which is why we are supporting this bill.

Other examples of acts of recognition this legislature has taken include motions where we express our appreciation for a certain community or the work done. In the last Parliament, we passed many bills that create heritage months, for example. Heritage months are a way of collectively commemorating and recognizing the contribution of certain communities. These acts of recognition and pieces of legislation that call for wider community recognition are important.

Why are they important? They create opportunities for us to call to mind, recognize and appreciate the valuable contributions made by certain communities. We are shaped by our history. As a legislature, we have a role in encouraging a recognition and awareness of that history. That is important and valuable. We can do those things and there is a legitimate place for us to do those things.

Another category of legislation we have are actions that specifically target quality of life improvements, which seek to make changes to practical circumstances in order to make peoples' lives concretely better.

These actions of recognition, whether changing an oath, commemorative day, representation in broadcasting or heritage month, are important. However, legislation that touches peoples' direct quality of life and deals with their ability to access justice with the recognition of their rights, the delivery of concrete services, whether it is health care or other supports, that deals with economic development, I would think are on balance more important.

To me, it is striking when I look at all the recommendations that have been made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I look at all of the options in front of the government in terms of prioritizing its response. We see more or less exclusively acts of recognition, as opposed to actions that are aimed at concrete quality of life improvements.

If we saw a mix of both, that would be fine. However, we need to start to be critical and ask that question when we are seeing a focus exclusively on the acts of recognition, as opposed to on those kinds of quality of life improvements I talked about earlier.

What are the areas we are missing? Where has the government failed when it comes to making quality of life improvements? There are many areas we need to look at in terms of concrete quality of life improvements. We can talk about justice and health, and many other things.

I want to start by talking about economic development. Talking to indigenous Canadians in my area and across the country, I know there is a real desire for economic development and for people to have jobs and opportunities in their own communities.

There is also a recognition that when there is economic development in different communities, it gives those communities control and ability to invest in programs that reflect the priorities of those communities. We hear calls from communities for funding from the government for programs around health, around language, around infrastructure and these sorts of things, but to the extent that communities are able to have economic development themselves, they are also able to prioritize, and invest in those priority areas without needing to come and ask the government for funding in that specific area. It is not an either-or. It is not as if communities have to choose between accessing government funding and economic development, but when communities are developing economically it gives them a greater degree of autonomy and control and it gives them the opportunity to invest in those priorities right away.

Many indigenous communities have been benefiting from being part of the energy economy, developing natural resources and pursuing other opportunities. In the course of this debate, the parliamentary secretary responded to my question about concrete actions by talking about Bill C-262 from the last Parliament. It is important to address this directly. If we want to give indigenous communities the opportunity to develop economically, they have to be able to do so in a framework that involves reasonable consultation, but ultimately gives them the opportunity to move forward. If they have, for example, an energy development project where the indigenous communities in an area are actually the proponents of that project and there is a minority that is opposing those projects, in a case where there is overwhelming support within local indigenous communities, there has to be a consultation framework that allows that project to move forward.

This is where Conservatives have parted company with other parties, especially around issues like Bill C-262, because if they put in place a framework that effectively means that one community could have a veto over the desire for the economic development of all surrounding communities, that is a problem. There needs to be a meaningful consultation process in which communities are listened to, but there also has to be an opportunity for communities to develop their own resources and the standard for consultation has to stop somewhere short of unanimity. One cannot expect that every person has to agree before we see any kind of economic development.

It has been something that maybe we have discussed less since, because COVID-19 took up all the attention in terms of discussion, but early in the year we were dealing with a situation where all of the elected community leaders wanted a particular project, the Coastal GasLink project, and a minority of hereditary chiefs were against that project going forward. That was the context, and it was debated extensively. Some members of this House behaved as if a case in which a minority within a community objected, that, in and of itself, was sufficient basis for stopping economic development from going forward. We took the view that when there is strong support within indigenous communities for a project to go forward, then that project has to be able to go forward. The consultation has to happen and if people say yes, they have to be able to develop those resources and benefit from them.

We see cases across this country where indigenous people are seeking the opportunity to pursue economic development, to develop resources. There can be debate, there can be tensions, and those debates happen within communities as well as between different communities, but the opportunity for people to pursue economic development is important.

The government members talk about the discussion we are hearing today, separate from the debate on Bill C-8 but about Bill C-262 from the last Parliament. That is concerning for a lot of indigenous Canadians who want to have this opportunity to develop their own resources, to benefit from the opportunities that flow from them, and to use those resources to invest in things like language preservation, health improvement, infrastructure improvements and so forth. They want to be able to use the benefits that flow from economic development for those things.

I want to also just add, in terms of economic development, one of the exciting and interesting opportunities when it comes to the development of things like pipeline infrastructure is that the expansion of infrastructure could also bring in things like better Internet connectivity into some of these communities.

It is not just about opportunities directly in the natural resource sector, it is about the fact that, when we have benefit agreements, we have the building of infrastructure into and around different communities, which gives people the opportunity to have better connectivity, to access different resources and education, or to work in online businesses. There is so much more opportunity that flows from these kinds of developments, which we are just on the cusp of.

This country has so much potential, and a lot of that potential is around resource development. Those who are most likely to benefit to the greatest extent from that development are those who are more likely to be living proximate to those resources.

We could talk about some of the significant issues around justice, around working to ensure our justice system is fair to all people. We are identifying the reasons there may be disproportionate impacts on certain communities and working seriously to counter those impacts. That is the kind of thing that takes hard work.

The government has made statements to recognize the problems that have existed in the way indigenous people have been treated by our justice system. It is one thing to affirm there is an issue here, again, an act of recognition, and is another thing to say we are going to take concrete action and go from that active recognition and really target those quality of life improvements.

As I said earlier during questions and comments, so often when I hear from government members when we are having debates about indigenous issues, there is a tone in the their speeches as if they are still in opposition. They will say that there have been all these problems and that we need to do better and do more.

I look across the way and think that the government has been here for five years, and it is still constantly blaming Stephen Harper and constantly talking about the failures of history that have held it back. Do I think it is possible to change everything and make everything perfect within five years? No, I do not. Do I think it could be focusing on real concrete progress as part of its agenda? Yes, I do.

I hope we do not have the current government for another five years or another 10 years, but I suspect if we did, we would still hear the same speeches. We would still hear the same members saying that we have failed for too long and we need to do better. At what point does this recognition that we need to do better come back on them and lead them to say maybe not just “we” in the abstract, somebody else needs to do better sense, but “we” as in “we as a government” need to do better?

The government here does need to do much better. The Conservative caucus is supportive of Bill C-8. We are going to be supporting it through to committee. We look forward to the committee's study on it, especially delving into some of these questions I mentioned about the distinction between the version in the legislation and the TRC recommendation. However, we want to see the government take seriously the need to advance legislation and policy that concretely improves the quality of life for indigenous Canadians.

Yes, recognition is important, but if we see bill after bill on the issue of recognition but not targeting concrete quality of life improvements, it looks increasingly like the government is trying to avoid delving into these complex policy areas that would really make a difference. If it recognizes there is a need for more resources and need for economic development, when are we going to see the legislation that is going to really support economic development within indigenous communities and make it easier to grab those opportunities? When are we going to see the legislation that seeks to address those long-standing justice issues?

The government talks about doing better. It is time for it to do better so we can see some of these concrete improvements.

[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, the member asks when we are going to see the legislation for this and when we are going to see legislation for that. I know the member is very much aware that there are 94 calls to action. Not all of those calls are under federal responsibility, and many that are under federal responsibility do not necessarily require legislative action. Along with legislative action, this government, over the years, has taken tangible monetary actions that have made a huge difference in the daily lives of people.

I wonder if the member's speech is missing very important content in terms of how it is that the government's responsibility goes beyond just providing legislation. Would he provide his thoughts in terms of why it is he believes that the Conservative Harper regime starved indigenous communities from being able to deal with issues like the boil-water effects and so many other indigenous issues?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, that question was true to form from that member. It was another “blame Stephen Harper” question.

Look at where we have been in 2020 with respect to indigenous issues. We started the year off with a conflict that emanated from one coast and now we are dealing with a conflict on the other coast. We have these cases where indigenous communities want to be involved in the economy, they want to pursue economic opportunity and there are challenges in the process of doing that. The government has been asleep at the switch on all of these fronts.

Yes, of course, not all of the recommendations of the TRC require legislative action, but if we look at the areas the government has picked and the areas the government has ignored, we see that it recognizes the big problems but does not act on them. It is focused on recognition. Acts of recognition are important but they are not the whole picture.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks on this bill.

I agree with what he said about it being easy to summarize the Liberal government's stance on indigenous issues in this country. My colleague recently made an effort to speak French during a debate on another motion, so I too will make an effort by saying that, in English, the Liberal Party's stance on this issue boils down to “words, words, words”.

On the subject of housing, which has gotten a lot of attention lately, the government launched a cross-Canada rapid housing initiative. Unfortunately, Montreal and Quebec City are the only two cities in Quebec that have had the opportunity to get money under that initiative. Mayor Valérie Plante pointed out that the number of homeless people in Montreal has doubled from 3,000 to 6,000 during the pandemic, which is a big problem.

I would like to draw my colleague's attention to the following. The new citizenship oath reads as follows: “I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second”. Obviously that is a problem for us, but all of a sudden it is about the Constitution. I know my colleague is a history buff. As he knows, Quebec did not sign. Is it not a little—

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

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a solution to offer. If Quebec would sign the Constitution, there would be no problem.

That was a joke.

I thank my colleague for his question. It is true that this government is all talk and no action.

My colleague presented us with this example. I serve on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, and I can say that the government talks a lot, but does not walk the talk.

The member spoke about a number of issues with the oath. He is not necessarily enthusiastic about the reference to the Queen or the Constitution.

The general spirit of this is the application of recommendation 94, and it is noteworthy that the reference to the Constitution does not appear in call to action 94. That said, this is an issue that I am sure members will raise in committee. The question for us at second reading is the spirit of the legislation at this stage.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to correct some facts in my hon. colleague's speech. I want to let him know that Bill C-262 was studied in committee. There were 71 witnesses and only one mentioned veto. When he talks about the hysteria of ensuring that indigenous peoples' basic human rights are recognized in this country by adopting and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I am wondering why the Conservatives continue to base their opinion on evidence that is not factual, which has been affirmed by the legal community, and why he feels that providing indigenous peoples with the respect of minimum human rights, something that is afforded to other Canadians, is going to result in the sky falling?

There is this whole bogeyman coming out of the closet when it comes to ensuring that indigenous people have the same rights as all other Canadians. I am wondering why he and his party violently fight against that and if they plan, once again, to vote en bloc against the human rights of indigenous peoples in this country.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I am not sure if her characterization of Conservatives being hysterical about this or violently opposed to the legislation is quite on point. I would simply say that I disagree with former Bill C-262 insofar as I do not think it is an effective mechanism. Yes, it upholds the aspirations that we all have, but the question is not just one of recognition. It is also a question of what the practical implications of the bill will be.

We need to have legislation that recognizes rights and is clear about giving indigenous communities the opportunity to develop their own resources, because we do not want a situation where indigenous communities are prevented from developing their own resources and prospering by the sentiments of minorities within the larger community. There has to be a process of meaningful consultation, a result and an opportunity to develop in cases where it has the support of the majority.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan will forgive me for picking up on one aspect of this notion that the Liberals will forever blame Stephen Harper for everything. I certainly share a lot of sympathies with his point of view, but we did debate in this place, which I know is close to the heart of my friend, the egregious conduct of the People's Republic of China in relation to human rights and their corporations acting here in Canada. I want to point out an aspect of his comments.

The Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement was not only negotiated by Stephen Harper and brought into being and ratified through cabinet, through order in council, but it binds this country legally for 31 years. It is rather hard to get out of it or treat it as something in the past, when it bound us for such a very long time. I wonder if the member would agree with me that it is past time to have a full review of what we are obligated to and how our hands are tied as a result of this Canada-China FIPA.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the relationship between Canada and the PRC is the subject of great interest. I will be forgiven for perhaps not having my notes on that specific topic in front of me as we are debating Bill C-8, dealing with the citizenship oath and indigenous peoples.

I understand the intention that framed the agreement. It was designed to try to provide more protection for Canadian investors that were operating in China. Obviously, it is a very difficult environment for Canadian investors, and it is also fair to acknowledge how even circumstances have changed around that relationship over the last five or six years. Maybe there were expectations of the trajectory of that relationship that existed 10 or 15 years ago that have just not come to fruition.

Maybe at some point, on a Green Party opposition day, we will have an opportunity to debate this in greater depth and I will be fully prepared to give a more detailed response at that time.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the privilege to share my time today with my colleague from Oakville North—Burlington.

I cannot begin this speech without first acknowledging that the House of Commons is situated on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.

The oath of citizenship is very important to me as an immigrant to this country. The day that I was able to recite it in front of the citizenship judge was the day that I truly arrived in this country. It is a moment in time I will never forget. It was 1987, and I was an engineering student at the University of Calgary. For many years, both before and after I arrived here from India, Canada represented two things for me and the dreams that I had for my future: equality for all and opportunity for all.

Even without a firm grasp of English and with very little financial resources, I knew that if I worked hard and embraced everything my new country had to offer me, I would succeed. Therefore, in the weeks leading up to my citizenship ceremony, I recited the oath tirelessly. I worked on absorbing every word to memory. I practised my pronunciation with diligence, so that I could show the respect I held for such a monumental point in my life. Most importantly, I took the time to put into context what it meant to commit to fulfilling my duties as a Canadian citizen.

I read as much as I could to educate myself about the history of Canada. I also read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so that I could fully appreciate the values that united citizens of all backgrounds together. Most importantly, I spoke to people. I found out what it meant to be Canadian through the voices of friends and colleagues that I had met over the years.

I am sharing my own personal experience, because, ultimately, the entire process behind our oath of citizenship boils down to values. These are the tenets that we, as Canadians, want to share with those seeking citizenship. They are also fundamental pillars helping new Canadians embark on their new lives here in Canada. This is why Bill C-8 is so critically important. It is about reaffirming a reconciliation framework that shows respect and deference to the aboriginal and treaty rights of the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

The Canadian story begins with indigenous peoples' heritage in Canada. As part of the Government of Canada's ongoing and ever-evolving commitment to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples, we must enact recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership in action. It is a process that is multi-faceted. This why our Prime Minister committed to national indigenous organizations that he will meet with them annually in order to sustain and advance initiatives that continue to grow shared priorities and progress. It is why every piece of legislation that this government advances is crafted with a lens of reconciliation and respect, and it is why, at the moment of bring granted citizenship, we are proposing a revised text of the oath to contain wording that reflects the broad range of rights held by diverse indigenous peoples.

These are difficult times for Canadians and for the entire world. Throughout the global pandemic, the government has focused on supporting indigenous communities, working to control the spread of COVID-19 and keeping everybody safe.

The government will continue to do that as we walk the shared path of reconciliation with indigenous people and remain focused on implementing the commitments made in 2019.

This has not stopped during this pandemic. If anything, it has gotten worse. The government is committed to addressing racism in a way that is informed by experience of racialized communities and the indigenous people. This is hard work, not just for Parliament but for all Canadians. Renewing the relationship with indigenous peoples must be based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. Our laws and policies must foster co-operation with indigenous peoples and reflect on how we can work to protect indigenous languages, traditions and institutions.

This government continues to advance the belief that Canada's diversity is among its greatest strengths. We are a united country because of, not in spite of, our differences. At the same time, we remain focused on an inclusive society that is bound by a set of shared values. The citizenship oath is much more than a passage of words, it represents a deep appreciation for our open, free, democratic and diverse Canada. We as a government believe strongly that is at the heart of that appreciation and understanding of indigenous peoples, their history and their rights.

The Bill C-8 amendment is intended to contribute to reconciliation with indigenous people.

I want to once again convey the importance that my citizenship ceremony and the oath I recited have had in my life. I was given a answer for my dreams and the way in which I could fully embody becoming Canadian. Today's proposed change in language continues that process for every new Canadian going forward.

Indigenous peoples are at the heart of Canada's history, its identity and, indeed, its future. The legislation would help to continue building trust through stronger, more collaborative and respectful relationships with indigenous peoples across Canada.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speech in support of Bill C-8 was moving and beautiful.

I have a very simple question for him. He spoke passionately about the importance of including the aboriginal peoples of Canada treaty rights in our oath, but I wonder whether he feels it is just one step in many steps in recognizing aboriginal treaty rights in our nation.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is totally true that this is just one step moving forward. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission report has many different aspects.

I know the ministers are working very closely with indigenous leaders across the country to ensure access to clean water and good health and ensure other issues faced by indigenous communities are taken care of as well.

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

The hon. member will have four minutes for questions and comments after the time allocated for Oral Questions.

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 Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we get into debate, I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 34 minutes.

Resuming debate. When this motion was last before the House, the hon. member for Surrey—Newton had four minutes remaining for questions and comments.

We will therefore begin with questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member give a very passionate explanation of his situation and how important it was that we have this legislation before us today. I wanted to thank him for sharing his story with the House and provide him the opportunity to reinforce why this legislation is so important, possibly providing a comment regarding the importance of that swearing-in ceremony.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his question and his inspiration. He asked why this bill is important. I came to Canada as an immigrant and became a Canadian citizen in 1987. At that time, we had very little knowledge of our indigenous people, their culture, their history and their heritage.

This bill moving forward is a very positive step in recognizing the heritage of indigenous people, as well as in reconciliation. Truth and reconciliation have many aspects, and one on them is making sure new Canadian citizens recognize the importance and heritage of our indigenous nations.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am joining the debate today from my home and would like to acknowledge I am on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act to change Canada's oath of citizenship. The bill proposes to insert text into the oath that refers to the rights of indigenous peoples. The new oath would include the following words, “which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.” This change continues to fulfill our government's commitment to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, specifically call to action 94.

Recognizing treaty rights is important not just for new Canadians but for all Canadians.

In March, I attended a wampum belt exchange in Oakville on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the signing of Treaty No. 22. The mayor of Oakville, Rob Burton, and Mississaugas of the Credit chief, Stacey Laforme, led the exchange, with community leaders witnessing the event, one that traditionally marks events, alliances and kinship between different peoples.

At this event, Wendy Rinella, the CEO of the Oakville Community Foundation, commented that most Canadians had the mistaken notion treaties signified surrender by indigenous peoples. In fact, the Two Row Wampum signified a treaty to live in harmony with the people of Canada and their government.

Recognizing the significance of indigenous and treaty rights is an important step as we walk the road to reconciliation. In a letter I send to new Canadians in my riding, I speak about how our nation is a nation of immigrants who have worked hard and sacrificed much to be part of shaping the equitable, diverse and thriving democratic nation we call Canada.

Like many of us in the House, I have attended citizenship ceremonies and have seen the unbridled joy and pride new Canadians show for their chosen country, much like the member for Surrey—Newton described earlier in his speech. I recall in particular my friend Hisham receiving his citizenship and how the citizenship judge had the new citizens wave a Canadian flag at the end. It brought tears to my eyes.

As we welcome those who chose Canada as their country, it is important they learn about the toll colonization has taken on indigenous peoples in Canada.

As we make this change to the oath of citizenship, it is also important to respond to Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 93 to update the information kit for newcomers to reflect a more accurate history of Canada and of the diverse indigenous peoples whose lands on which Canada is now built.

This includes information about treaties and the obligations Canadians have to uphold the agreements that were made to live in harmony. Treaty education needs to include more than just a list of rights and responsibilities. It must also provide potential new Canadians with information about how Canada has failed to live up to its treaty promises, how generations of Canadians have acted in bad faith and legislated harmful and racist policies that have led to great harm, specifically highlighting the intergenerational trauma of residential schools and how it is the responsibility of every Canadian to work toward reconciliation and healing our shared country.

In 2016, I held a screening of the documentary We Were Children about two first nations children's experience at a residential school. During the panel discussion afterward, two new Canadians asked why they never learned about residential schools and the history of indigenous peoples when they became Canadians citizens.

In 2017, I was pleased to support Burlington resident Mariam Manaa, who worked with local indigenous knowledge keeper Steve Paquette on e-petition 1228. I had the privilege to table the petition in the House of Commons on February 13, 2018, which was signed by over 600 Canadians.

The petition called on the government to continue to work in consultation and partnership with indigenous nations located across Canada as well as the Minister of Indigenous Services to redevelop the Discover Canada study guide curriculum and citizenship exam so it would acknowledge indigenous treaty rights, require applicants to answer a question regarding the traditional territories they were currently inhabiting, if applicable, and uphold the spirit of the commitment to educate new Canadians on residential schools and the legacy of colonialism.

It is imperative when crafting policy with regard to indigenous peoples that the government do so in consultation and partnership with indigenous peoples. An updated guide needs to educate new Canadians about residential schools and be transparent with regard to the ongoing legacy of colonialism and racism by the Canadian government. The guide could also address the sixties scoop and shed light on the current crisis in the foster care system today.

It is my belief that new immigrants who make the choice to become citizens deserve to know about the history of this land. That includes the good as well as the bad. People who immigrate to Canada are emigrating from countries that may have thousands of years of recorded history. We do a disservice to those new immigrants when we pretend that the land we inhabit has only been around for 150 years.

We can share stories about Vimy Ridge and the 1972 Summit Series, but if those stories are not accompanied by the lived experience of survivors of residential schools, we are impairing their ability to fully enter the public discourse on what it means to be Canadian. I am of the opinion that once people take their oath of citizenship, they are equally entitled to all the benefits and the baggage that Canadian citizenship entails.

In addition to educating new Canadians on the legacy of residential schools and colonialism, we need to do a better job of educating new Canadians about the traditional territories they currently inhabit when they are studying for their citizenship exam. I understand this recommendation would require curriculum to be different, depending on where the new immigrants were studying for their exam, but if we properly inform newcomers as to the history of the land they occupy, we will better be able to understand the ongoing process of reconciliation and the issues facing indigenous nations today.

Lastly, I feel it is essential that we teach all Canadians, including those who are about to become new citizens, about the history of the influential indigenous peoples who shaped Canada's identity. Too many of us learn only about the pre-Confederation history of indigenous peoples.

While Tecumseh and Joseph Brant were undoubtedly historical figures who shaped the history of Upper Canada, we need to highlight the work of contemporary indigenous leaders, intellectuals, artists and activists of which there are many notable examples.

When this bill was introduced, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said:

The Oath is a solemn declaration that all newcomers recite during the citizenship ceremony. With this amendment, we are changing the Oath of Citizenship to be more inclusive, and taking steps to fundamentally transform the nature of our relationship with Indigenous Peoples by encouraging new Canadians to fully appreciate and respect the significant role of Indigenous Peoples in forming Canada’s fabric and identity.

The change to the citizenship oath is an important step, but only one step that needs to be taken for new Canadian citizens to fully understand and respect our shared past with indigenous peoples. It is my sincere hope that a new study guide will be shared quickly, so we can fulfill both calls to action regarding newcomers to Canada.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, because our party has also committed to being an ally to first nations.

That said, there is something in the Canadian oath of citizenship that fascinates me. The genetic lottery is when someone gets to be head of state based on succession and bloodline. That is essentially how it went for the Queen of England.

I wonder if my hon. colleague agrees with me that, in a country that advocates for equality and equal opportunities for everyone, it does not make sense to pledge allegiance to someone who is head of state by birth alone.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we remain part of the Commonwealth and the Queen remains our head of state. Until that changes, the oath needs to remain as it is.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a teacher by training prior to being elected to the House. I of course took great interest in the member's comments on the role education plays in making this a meaningful reconciliation moment.

Right now, at the University of Alberta, we have a wonderful online course, “Indigenous Canada”. Many people would know that it was recently taken by Daniel Levy. I have also taken the course.

Could the member talk a little about what the Liberal government has done so far in the five years it has been government to increase educational resources around this and make this true reconciliation?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I have not completed it yet, I have signed up for that course. I applaud Daniel Levy for what he has been doing to promote the course to have more Canadians take it.

As the hon. member knows, education curriculum is provincial. We stand ready to assist provinces if they need information. However, I know that in Ontario, changes were made when the government changed to reduce the amount of indigenous education taking place, certainly in my area of Halton. It is critical that this education take place. I encourage all provinces to move forward with better education in the schools.

Having said that, I think young people know far more than I did when I was in elementary school. On Orange Shirt Day, I was delighted to see so many wearing orange shirts in recognition of what the day meant.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague really hit on a number of points. One point that really resonated with me was when she mentioned that there were countries in the world that had 5,000 years of tradition, culture and heritage and that they seemed to embrace, celebrate and reflect on all of it. However, for some reason in Canada we have had a very difficult time seeing further back than a couple of hundreds years.

Could the member provide her insight as to why she thinks that is, but, more important, why it is so important that we change to properly tell the stories of our past that go back much longer than few hundred years.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, basically it comes down to racism and colonialism. As a country, we failed to acknowledge that indigenous peoples were on these lands before we arrived, which has been perpetrated for 150 years. Only now are we starting to try to right those wrongs. Changing the oath of citizenship is a good first step. It is certainly not the only step, but it is an important one and it achieves one of the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the education system and that it was a provincial jurisdiction, but it is not really. Education on reserves is a federal jurisdiction. I wonder if the member would like to comment on that and on what role the federal Liberal government will decide on for reserves in the country going forward.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right that education on reserves is a federal responsibility, except I think the students on-reserve know only too well, sadly, the legacy of residential schools; they live it. They live not just residential schools but colonialism. Therefore, the education piece needs to be for Canadians across the country who have never learned about this. The kids on-reserve, sadly, do not need to learn about it; they live it every single day.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the very hon. and distinguished member for Newmarket—Aurora.

It is an honour for me to speak in this venerable House on behalf of the riding of Davenport. I first want to acknowledge that the House of Commons is on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.

I will be speaking on Bill C-8, an act to amend the citizenship act. It is directly a response to ensure that we implement Truth and Reconciliation Commission call to action number 94, which is one of the recommendations of that study.

As colleagues know, in order to become a citizen of this great nation of ours, all newcomers 14 years and older must take an oath of citizenship. In reciting the oath, these new citizens agree to obey the laws of this country and to fulfill their duties as Canadians. The citizenship oath may only consist of a few words, but its significance is profound. Indeed, the citizenship oath is an important symbol of our values and what we share as citizens of Canada.

When newcomers take the oath, they make a solemn promise to their fellow Canadians. It is a public declaration that they are joining the Canadian family and are committed to Canadian values and traditions. It is an important promise because newcomers are helping to shape Canada.

I am sure that my colleagues have had the chance to visit a number of citizenship ceremonies, as I have. It is very special to hear the just-about-new Canadians take the oath for the first time. It is very moving to them. They practice it and are very thoughtful about how they say it. After they say it, it is very moving not only in terms of them becoming Canadian citizens, but also joining a whole new nation with a new Constitution, new rules, new laws and a new start for their lives.

We currently have citizens representing more than 200 ethnic origins. Thirteen of these groups have Canadian populations of more than one million people. Today, more than one-fifth of Canadians were born outside of Canada. They are people who chose to come to Canada. I am pleased to say that over 40% of my riding of Davenport's constituents were born in another country. They came from many different nations and deliberately selected Canada to be their home. We are absolutely the richer because of it.

The fact that Canada has one of the highest naturalization rates in the world underscores the value of Canadian citizenship. Over the last decade, Canada has welcomed nearly 1.7 million new Canadian citizens. We are looking to increase this in coming years not only because we truly, and from the bottom of our hearts, believe that diversity makes us stronger, but because moving forward the health of our economy will depend on a strong immigration policy so that we can ensure we have the labour, the ideas and the innovation that we need to succeed in the 21st century.

Starting in 2021, we aim to blow past the 1% immigration targets that we had in the past. We are looking to increase the target to 401,000 in 2021, 411,000 in 2022 and 421,000 in 2023. As my colleagues can tell, we very much value our new Canadian citizens. We know how much they contribute to our country.

At the same time, Canada values the important contributions that indigenous peoples have made throughout our history. First nations, Inuit and Métis peoples have all played a role in building a strong Canada, and will continue to do so moving forward.

The federal government is committed to implementing all of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. This particular bill, as I mentioned earlier, aims to fulfill call to action number 94, which calls on the government to amend the oath of citizenship by adding a reference to treaties with indigenous peoples.

The federal government's proposed amendment of the citizenship oath would allow new Canadians to fully appreciate and respect how indigenous peoples are a critical part of Canada's history and identity. The new oath would also reflect an expectation that new Canadians demonstrate an understanding of indigenous peoples and of their constitutional rights.

In addition to fostering better appreciation and recognition among new citizens for the important contributions of indigenous people, the proposed new citizenship oath would reflect our government's commitment to reconciliation. Indeed, the federal government is committed to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on respect, rights, co-operation and partnership. This commitment is absolutely critical, because for too many Canadians of various backgrounds, systemic racism is a lived reality, and we know that it certainly did not take a pause during the pandemic.

The proposed new citizenship oath would respond to a call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and is the result of consultations with national indigenous organizations. I know that those consultations actually go back to 2016. We have been engaged. We have made sure that we have heard and listened, and we have absolutely incorporated their recommendations in addition to ensuring that we follow the spirit of recommendation number 94 of the truth and reconciliation recommendations.

The revised text would also remind all Canadians that recognition of aboriginal treaty rights is not a political or administrative gesture, but is in fact enshrined in our Constitution. While Canada's Constitution recognizes and affirms the rights of indigenous people, our federal government believes that all Canadians should have a deeper appreciation of the role of indigenous peoples in the history and culture of Canada.

Whether we were born here or chose to become citizens, as Canadians it is important to respect fundamental rights and freedoms, value equality for all and celebrate our diverse cultures, traditions and languages. In recognizing these important parts of our Canadian identity, we must always include those of indigenous peoples in Canada, because all Canadians are responsible for participating in the process of reconciliation. That refers to each and every single one of us, and this participation absolutely must include our newest citizens. That way, new Canadians can join all Canadians in moving forward on the road to reconciliation and leaving a proper legacy for future generations.

With these changes to the citizenship oath, let us take this opportunity to both acknowledge our country's past and move forward toward a renewed relationship with indigenous people based on inherent rights, respect and partnership. The federal government is proud to propose these historic changes to the oath of citizenship, so that new Canadians can promise to faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. This would serve to reinforce our indigenous heritage and institutions, contribute to closing the socio-economic gaps in Canada and help to foster strong indigenous communities for future generations.

I would also say that the reality is the oath of citizenship is just one of many, many steps we need to take, but to me it is an important one, because right from the very start we want to mention that the treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of this country are absolutely critical and are important for us to know. I think this will also lend to a lot of the dialogue and the conversation that I believe we need to continue to have, and continue to build, in this country in order to truly have a new nation-to-nation relationship with our first peoples.

I will end off by relating the story of my mother. She came to Canada from Mexico, and I remember her practising for her citizenship test. I remember her memorizing all the provinces and territories, and I remember her memorizing all the prime ministers and preparing for all the questions for the citizenship test. I think it would have been worthwhile and valuable for us to have had something included on the test at that time about the aboriginal peoples of our country. Again, I think it is important for not only all Canadians, but our new Canadians from the very start, to be informed about the aboriginal peoples, their history in our country, how they are helping us to create a great country and how we are working on a new nation-to-nation relationship as we move forward.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the residents of Davenport.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit, I have never had the privilege of attending a citizenship ceremony during my short time as an MP. This is probably because of all the COVID restrictions and things going on. I am looking forward to having that opportunity some day.

I fully agree that it is important for us to build positive relationships with indigenous people across the country. This is a good step toward doing that. Along with doing these types of things, we have to come back to very practical things like the water issue on first nations and some of the serious issues in Neskantaga or in my riding in Fond du Lac this week.

Could the member comment on how important it is for us to get to those solutions beyond these more symbolic ones?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say first that the inclusion of recognizing treaty rights in our oath of citizenship is, to me, more than symbolic. It really is something that is important for people to know about and commit to as they become new Canadians. I agree that there are many other things we need to do in order to build that new nation-to-nation relationship.

We have eliminated 96 long-term boil water advisories. There are about 150 in total, so we still have a way to go, but I am proud of the progress we have made to date. One of the things that traumatized me, when I was running for office, was the fact that we were not giving indigenous children the same amount of money to be educated and receive health care as we were to other Canadians. We have spent over $20 billion over the last five years. Those have been two key things we have worked to address, in addition to proper housing, proper community centres and more money for mental health, so—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today proves that it is possible to change something like the oath that must be taken to become a citizen.

In my view, this bill does not go far enough. There is a first principle that we can only agree with, and that is our recognition of indigenous nations. I think that is essential. Canada is a multiethnic country made up of many ethnicities, but it is also made up of many nations. There are indigenous nations, but there is also the Quebec nation. I do not understand why this bill did not go further when it started off so well.

This bill easily could have recognized that Canada has two founding peoples, namely French Canadians, who are now Quebeckers, and English Canadians, as well as the indigenous nation. At the same time, we could have gotten rid of something that no longer reflects what Canada is today, namely allegiance to the Queen.

Does my colleague agree?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be much shorter in my response this time. There are many conversations around what our oath of citizenship should include. For now, Bill C-8 is very much focused on incorporating one of the key recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is number 94. It is the recommendation to acknowledge the treaty rights of the aboriginal people of our country. In that, this bill absolutely succeeds. That is the focus at this moment, and I encourage all members of the House to support that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was prompted to join in the conversation because I was moved by the member for Davenport's recollection of her mother studying for the citizenship test.

I was also born in another country, and through good fortune, my parents moved the family to Cape Breton Island in the early 1970s. I got my citizenship the earliest moment I could, in 1978. I will never forget my parents teasing me, saying that I would never pass the citizenship exam because I would never remember all the rules of hockey. Fortunately for me, those were not on the citizenship exam.

I welcome this change to include recognition of indigenous inherent rights in our Constitution when new citizens swear their oaths. I want to thank the member for Davenport for reminding us that, unless we are the indigenous people on this land, we have all come from somewhere else.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her comments. She is absolutely right. Part of the reason I wanted to bring my mother into the debate is that I love the thought of her studying for her citizenship exam. I was the big studier in the family and all of a sudden I saw my mom studying as well.

I think including in the oath the treaty rights of our aboriginal people is critical. Right from the start we want new Canadians to know about treaty rights and be part of the broader conversation, dialogue and actions that will move us toward a true, new nation-to-nation relationship in this country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, COVID–19 Emergency Response; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, Indigenous Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that the House of Commons, where this debate is based today, sits on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe.

As my hon. colleagues have noted, indigenous peoples have played a fundamental role in Canada's past and continue to do so today. Canada must continue to stand up for the values that define this country, whether it is in welcoming newcomers, celebrating with pride the contributions of the LGBTQ2 communities or embracing two official languages.

To walk the road of reconciliation, there is still much work to be done, such as the need to address systemic racism and its impact on all communities, including indigenous communities. However, as we have indicated, Canada is firmly committed to implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. The Government of Canada has made significant efforts to implement the calls to action, and these proposed changes regarding the oath of citizenship demonstrate our firm commitment to achieving this goal.

Our goal is to renew the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples. To move forward together, we need to be true partners in this Confederation. Advancing reconciliation remains a Canadian imperative, and it will take partners at all levels to make real progress. We know there is more to do, and we will continue to work together.

One of the most important ways we demonstrate this support is to highlight it at citizenship ceremonies throughout this country, whether they are the virtual ceremonies that have taken place in recent months or the traditional in-person events. Recognizing the role that indigenous peoples have played in this country is a fundamental part of our citizenship ceremony.

To this end, at our in-person ceremonies, judges and those presiding over the ceremonies have traditionally acknowledged the indigenous territory on which the ceremony takes place, and also speak of the history of indigenous peoples in Canada in their welcome remarks to new Canadians. The stories of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples are the stories of Canada itself, and indigenous peoples will continue to play a critical role in Canada's development as we go forward.

During these ceremonies, participants accept the rights and responsibilities of citizenship by taking the oath of citizenship. The oath of citizenship is a public declaration that someone is joining the Canadian family and is committed to Canadian values and traditions.

For this declaration to be truthful and inclusive, it must include the recognition of indigenous peoples in Canada. Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94), proposes to change Canada's oath of citizenship to recognize and affirm the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, as referenced in the Constitution.

The proposed amendment to the oath demonstrates the Canadian government's commitment to responding to the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It also signals a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

Reconciliation is an important thing to all people in Canada. The proposed changes to the oath would help advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada. This would demonstrate support for the diversity that people of all origins contribute to Canada and our country's history, fabric and identity.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's remarks about this important legislation.

One thing we have heard mentioned a fair bit in this debate is the slow progress being made on the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I believe the Yellowhead Institute estimated that at the current pace, it will be 2057 before all of the calls are implemented.

Could the hon. member provide his thoughts on what the federal government could do differently to accelerate the pace of implementation and ensure that indigenous people in this country do not have to wait until 2057 to see these important changes implemented?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question reminds me of something my father always reminded me to do: Act in haste and repent at leisure. This reconciliation needs to have a process that engages all parties, so it is important that we carefully consider the perspectives of the individuals we are working with and build on a partnership that everybody supports. That, unfortunately, does take time. There are a lot of things we would like to go forward with far more quickly, which we heard about earlier, but we need to be very careful that we engage all parties, are sensitive to what is important to them and try to build a collaboration that is long-lasting and not fraught with peril and conflict in the future.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just listened to my hon. colleague's response. He said that we must listen to what first nations want. He is absolutely right.

I fully support Bill C-8. However, I am wondering why the government is prioritizing this type of measure, which is definitely important but rather symbolic, instead of focusing on implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, for example.

Does the member opposite agree with me that that would make a more meaningful difference in the lives of first nations people?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe these things need to be mutually exclusive. Both initiatives are important, so we should be moving forward on the UNDRIP commitments as well. I agree with the member.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, partnerships with indigenous groups are key in my province of Saskatchewan. I have seen this with the Saskatchewan school boards. In Saskatchewan, many of the kids come from the reserves into the city and then go back to the reserves later.

On the citizenship oath aspect of the bill, I note that many of us have attended numerous Canadian citizenship ceremonies. They are always scheduled in advance, by two or three months. I suggest that many of the Canadian citizenship ceremonies should be done now on reserve to show partnership. In the city of Saskatoon, there is the Saskatoon Tribal Council, Dakota Dunes and a number of other organizations, and the hon. member from up north in Saskatchewan has many more.

The bill is good on words, but maybe now, with truth and reconciliation and the citizenship oath, we can take these ceremonies to reserves.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the extent it is possible, I think that is a great recommendation. My daughter teaches in an Ontario school and has actively engaged in many of those experiences. I went through the Canadian citizenship oath with my parents, with 11 kids in tow, and I know how important that ceremony is.

To the extent we are able to do that, it is a great recommendation, and I thank the member for his suggestion.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment from the traditional territory of the Ta’an Kwach’an Council and the Kwanlin Dun, which both have signed modern treaties and self-government agreements.

I want people watching to think about how they would feel if they bought a house and when they went to move into it someone decided the house was not theirs and it was not being given to them. They can imagine how first nations and indigenous people felt when they signed treaties that were not honoured. It would be the same feeling.

This bill would give comfort and acknowledgement to immigrants. As I mentioned in a recent previous debate, we did not learn about this in school in any sufficient amount so this would give recognition of indigenous rights, which is in the Constitution, and the sanctity of the treaties we must abide by and, by the honour of the Crown, we should have been abiding by them from the very beginning. It would be a great recognition of that.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is a question, but if the statement is that we should be committed to and go forward with the commitments from the Crown to indigenous peoples, I fully agree with him.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-8 at second reading. It is a bill that seeks to amend the oath of citizenship to include reference to the aboriginal and treaty rights of indigenous people.

I support the bill, firstly, because it reflects call to action 94 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and, secondly, because in my consultation with indigenous leaders in northwest B.C., the region I am so privileged to represent, it seems to be a welcome step forward.

I want to recognize the leadership of former member of Parliament, Romeo Saganash, and the current member for Vancouver East. Their leadership helped move this change forward as well and they should be recognized.

It has been mentioned by previous speakers that progress on implementing the TRC's calls to action has been far too slow. Five years after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its calls to action, only 10 of the 94 have been implemented, and none since 2018. We are debating this relatively small, relatively symbolic change at a time when our government is still fighting indigenous kids in court, when far too many communities in this country still lack clean drinking water and when we continue to see evidence of systemic racism against indigenous people in our country's institutions.

An oath is a promise. Perhaps as we ponder requiring new Canadians to make a solemn promise to indigenous people, we in this chamber should ask if we are keeping the ones we ourselves have made. This is the third time a version of the bill has been introduced in the House, and it does beg the question of how the more significant calls to action will be legislated when such a simple change has suffered so many false starts. Yet, Bill C-8 does represent a step forward and should be passed into law as quickly as possible.

It has been rightly noted that the true value of the bill will not come through the 19 words to be inserted into the oath but rather if this change creates an educational framework within which new Canadians can learn about and reflect on the rights of indigenous people, which will truly be a step forward.

Northwest British Columbia comprises the unceded lands of the Tahltan, the Tlingit, the Tsimshian, the Haida, the Heiltsuk, the Gitga'at, Gitxaala, Wuikinuxv, Haisla, Nuxalk, Wet'suwet'en, Gitxsan, Carrier Sekani and Kaska nations. It is also the homeland of the Nisga'a people who are so proudly signatory to British Columbia's first modern treaty.

In reflecting on the bill, I asked myself what new Canadians living in Prince Rupert, Terrace, Houston, Smithers and Fraser Lake might learn about the first peoples of their adopted home. Of course, and in light of the bill's origin, new Canadians must learn about the atrocity of residential schools, that such a thing may never happen again in our country. They might also learn about Delgamuukw, the Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en landmark Supreme Court case that affirmed the fact that indigenous title was never extinguished by colonization. They might learn that the indigenous rights referenced in the amended oath of citizenship are still very much contested, and that there is so much work left to be done on the path to a just coexistence. They might learn about the Nisga'a Treaty, which took the Nisga'a people, including leaders such as the late Joseph Gosnell, 113 years to achieve. They might learn about the feast system, a pillar of traditional governance and about Canada's efforts to eliminate it forever in the name of assimilation.

I spoke briefly on the weekend with the Gitxsan hereditary Chief Gwininitxw, Yvonne Lattie, a wonderful woman who shared an hour of her time. I talked to her about this legislation to get her thoughts. She shared her hope that new Canadians will learn about her people's way of life and about how their system still works for them today. New Canadians might learn about indigenous resources stewardship that has been practised for millennia, and how many nations are once again taking a lead role in managing their resources, including wild salmon, which are so important to the region I represent.

They might learn the tragic story of the Lake Babine people's fishing weirs on the Babine River, destroyed by the federal government in 1904, or the fishing site at Hagwilget, destroyed by DFO's blasting of rock in 1959.They might learn about the nation-building efforts of nations that are crafting modern constitutions based on both their traditional governance systems and the contemporary needs of their communities. Similarly they might learn about the many indigenous languages and the fight to revitalize them. Those efforts in communities throughout northwest B.C. have been so inspiring. It is incredible to watch indigenous people, especially young indigenous people, learn these languages from the elders, and it is work we must support and resource, now more than ever.

Most of all, I hope that new Canadians will learn of the incredible resilience of indigenous people in the face of a politics of extinguishment. In the words of Chad Day, the president of the Tahltan central government, “It would be good if they learned that we are still here.”

In consulting indigenous leaders in northwest B.C., a question came up regarding the wording of the amended oath, which we have heard read many times over the course of this debate, but I will read it again. The amended oath would read:

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....

Increasingly, the term “first nation” is used to refer to a band created under the Indian Act, and “indigenous nation” to refer to larger groups of indigenous peoples, and I want to recognize the CBC journalist, Angela Sterritt, for helping me understand this important distinction. For instance, the Gitsxan Nation includes five bands, many of which have changed their names to use the term “first nation” instead of “band”, and members can understand why this might be the case. The word “band”, of course has its origin in the Indian Act, which is so problematic. In the case of the Wet'suwet'en, there now exists both a Wet'suwet'en Nation and a Wet'suwet'en First Nation, the latter of which used to be called the Broman Lake Indian Band.

This may seem like somewhat of a pedantic technical point, but the question of which group is the proper rights holder under section 35 of our Constitution is very much contested. One has only to look at recent conflicts over resource development in northwest British Columbia and across Canada to see how this is playing out and the tensions it is creating.

In northwest B.C. there are many examples where the indigenous group pursuing affirmation of indigenous rights is an indigenous nation, not a band, constituted under the Indian Act. The Haida, the Heiltsuk, the Gitsxan, the Wet'suwet'en and the Nuxalk are all examples of this. It will be important, therefore, for the amended oath to recognize them as the proper holders of those section 35 rights. I would note I recently consulted British Columbia's new declaration act, which brings the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into B.C. law. I did a word search for the term “first nations”, and it does not seem to appear in that legislation, so it is clear that there is an evolution in the words used to describe indigenous groups.

I am certain that the wording of the amended oath has undergone a legal review, however it would be helpful if the government clarified whether the term “first nation” refers to a band or to a larger nation of rights holders.

We have heard from other members in this place of the significance of citizenship ceremonies. There have been some very moving stories. We heard one just a few moments ago, and I would like to share a story of my own.

In 2012, very shortly after being elected the mayor of Smithers, I was invited to a local citizenship ceremony. It was held in the gymnasium of Muheim Elementary School in the community of Smithers. About 20 Smithereens, and yes, that is what residents of Smithers are called, were gathered to complete their journey toward becoming Canadian citizens. Some of these Smithereens were new to Canada and they had worked very hard to get to this point as quickly as possible. Others had lived in our country for decades and were only just then coming to the point of taking their citizenship oath.

A citizenship judge had travelled to Smithers, I believe from Victoria, to deliver a speech and to officiate the taking of the oath. I do not recall the exact content of his speech, but I remember that it was eloquent and inspiring. A group of school kids sang at the ceremony. They sang in English, French and Wet'suwet'en, the language of the place.

What I remember most was the audience of family, friends and community members who had come out that day to watch their loved ones take the oath of citizenship and take this important step. It was really moving and I remember thinking at the time that, as mayor, I should promote this ceremony so that next year the entire community could come out and bear witness to this important event and share in what I had just experienced.

I never got that chance because later that year the federal government cut funding for citizenship ceremonies in small towns across rural Canada. Residents of my home community of Smithers now have to drive four hours in all kinds of weather to take their citizenship oath in Prince George.

I understand that, now, with the circumstances we are living in, people are taking their citizenship oaths virtually. However, even before the pandemic, I do not believe there was a single in-person citizenship ceremony in all of northwest B.C.

The taking of the citizenship oath is a significant moment for many people. All the more significant if it is done in one's home community in front of one's family, friends and loved ones. Let us not only amend the oath of citizenship. Let us also take steps to restore citizenship ceremonies across rural Canada so that new Canadians may take their oath on the lands belonging to the people whose rights they will be pledging to uphold.

I will conclude my remarks with the words of Murray Sinclair from the preface to the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in which he writes, “Reconciliation is not an Aboriginal problem; it is a Canadian one. Virtually all aspects of Canadian society may need to be reconsidered.”

The oath of citizenship is one very small component of Canadian society. Let us make this change swiftly and move on to the most pressing challenges facing our relationship with indigenous people.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my colleague's concerns in relation to where citizenship ceremonies take place. Over the last 30 years, I have had the opportunity to participate in many. What I have found is that the department is exceptionally flexible. In fact, often it is the local citizenship judge who really motivates going out into the communities.

For example, for me they have been in different parts of the riding of Winnipeg North, in downtown Winnipeg, in the legislative building, in armouries and all sorts of different settings. I suspect that if the member was to inquire, he will find there is a great deal of discretion among citizenship judges and the administration to look at different ways.

We can talk about schools. I love the idea of reserves. That would be a wonderful place to witness a citizenship oath, and I suspect that we will, if we already have not. I suspect we probably have already, but it would be nice to reinforce just how wonderful it would be to see more citizenship ceremonies taking place. Maybe even some of the non-profit organizations that are out there—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the parliamentary secretary to familiarize himself with the geography of the region I represent in northwest B.C. The citizenship judges are mostly located in the larger urban centres. If it is at their discretion where they deliver the oaths, I believe there needs to be a more concerted effort on the part of the government to ensure that those ceremonies get delivered in people's home communities.

I believe every region of this country deserves a chance to witness those ceremonies and forcing new Canadians to travel four, six or eight hours by highway to take the oath of citizenship, to me, does not feel like we are doing justice to this important step in their journey to becoming Canadians.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and presentation on Bill C-8. I was fortunate to be a member of the legislative assembly when the Government of Saskatchewan introduced treaty education to the curriculum throughout the province, as a big part of our walk toward truth and reconciliation, to ensure young people and students throughout elementary school were learning about treaty education, what happened and how treaties were signed. It is incumbent on all of us to take up that mantle and be advocates, and talk to our provincial governments.

In B.C., is there a move toward treaty education? I am not quite familiar with it. In the member's own area, has he been a strong advocate for treaty education throughout the curriculum in elementary and high schools?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is familiar, but northwest British Columbia is home to only one treaty. Yes, treaty education is very important. When I talk to the Nisga'a leadership, they would very much like non-indigenous people to become more familiar with the terms of their treaty.

However, the larger importance of education rests with an understanding of unceded indigenous title and indigenous rights, which represent such an important part of our work together in northwest British Columbia. There are many people who do not understand the Supreme Court case law and the evolution of our understanding of indigenous title and rights. That is very much an important part of education, moving forward. I believe that the B.C. government has made some important steps on moving it into the curriculum in British Columbia.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his very heartfelt speech. I would like to tell him that I believe he has hit the nail on the head when it comes to recognition.

Bill C-8 recognizes the fundamental character of indigenous peoples. My colleague used several examples to point this out and spoke of the particular way in which indigenous people identify with nature, and we could learn a lot from that relationship. This also applies to cultural life. Back home, at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, a group known as the Nikanite is trying to revitalize indigenous culture. I believe that is key. I think that the member has clearly identified that recognition is very important. I will now ask my question.

In my opinion, what is missing from this bill is the recognition of the francophone nation. People who take an oath of citizenship should be aware that one of the founding peoples is francophone and that one of the founding peoples has not yet signed the Constitution. It seems to me that there needs to be some education about that as well.

Does my colleague have any thoughts on that?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I believe that warrants discussion. My concern would be that the topic we have in front of us is a very specific one that relates to our relationship with indigenous peoples, which is a fundamental one. This is not to take away from what the hon. member has offered, but I believe that topic is probably best discussed at a separate time. The change we have before us has suffered many false starts. I believe it should be passed into law swiftly so that we can move on to other discussions about citizenship where perhaps the ideas the member presented could be discussed at a later time.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is a very important matter to us. To the NDP, it is a step forward toward many changes that need to be made. Some people might think changing the citizenship oath is symbolic, but it is an important step going forward. However, it has taken the government almost five years to implement this. It is very concerning that with all the other issues there are, such as missing and murdered indigenous girls, access to clean water, the mould they are living with and all kinds of different issues, it has taken the government five years just to do this.

Does my friend feel the government has been procrastinating on these issues and does he see some of the Liberal Party members speaking so positively that they might take a better stance at moving some of these other issues forward at a faster pace?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly this question around the pace of change has been one that has come up several times. Members may have heard me just ask my colleague across the way a similar question. I do not believe the current government is the right party to ask if the pace of change is fast enough. Of course, it is going to defend the glacially slow pace at which these changes are being implemented. The proper people to be asking are the leaders of the indigenous nations within this country. I am almost positive if we ask indigenous leaders if the pace of change on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action has been adequate, they will almost unanimously say it has not been.

Much more needs to be done. This is some of the most important work we can do together as a country. It is time to stop dragging our feet and get on with it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the leadership of the Council of the Haida Nation has always been remarkable to me on the subject of reconciliation. I remember clearly the words of the former president of the Council of the Haida Nation, Miles Richardson, who defined “reconciliation”, something we grapple with, as such: We will have reconciliation when “you can see me as I see myself, and I can see you as you see yourself”.

I want to know how the member feels about how this slow pace of reconciliation from settler culture Canadians can meet the aspirations of indigenous leadership across Canada.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the slow pace of change really can meet the needs of indigenous people. That is why we need to accelerate the pace of change and redouble our efforts in this place and across the country in all our institutions.

Just today we heard the revelations about the interaction that took place in Vancouver at BMO. A member of the Heiltsuk Nation and his granddaughter were arrested for the alleged crime of trying to open a bank account using their status card and the role the federal government may have played in that situation. We are far too far from where we need to be, and we need to accelerate the pace of change in a dramatic way.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that I get to follow the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He just informed us he is from Smithers. The story of Viersens in Canada starts in Smithers.

My grandfather immigrated there as a 21-year-old adventurer from the Netherlands. He made his fortune there logging. He has a lot of great stories of the bush in northern British Columbia, fighting forest fires, building logging camps, a saw mill and looking for timber rights. That was always the big thing. He said that he could build a saw mill every day of the week, but trying to find timber rights was always a big challenge.

I get to follow the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley in talking about the immigration oath, one of the things my grandfather took. He is now a Canadian citizen along with my grandmother. She moved to Telkwa, which is just up the road from Smithers. She was 14 years old when she came to Canada. She worked in the general store there. My grandfather happened to show up there one day to buy some supplies for the logging camp. His English was not very good and neither was her, but they communicated well in Dutch. That is how my family was born. It is how the Viersens ended up in Canada.

Not very many of us have the last name Viersen. My grandparents had 11 children but only two sons. I have a lot of relatives all over, including in Skeena—Bulkley Valley, but the last name Viersen is not found very often, given that I have mostly aunts who married other folks. The Viersen name is a limited edition.

My grandparents are very proud Canadians. They are both still alive and in their 90s now. They survived the Second World War. They both remember Canadians liberating the Netherlands. My grandfather was 14 when that happened and my grandmother was 10. It is a memory that is forever burned in their minds, but has also animated the rest of their lives. My grandfather as a young man seeking adventure came to Canada all by himself. My grandmother came with her family.

Canada was seen as the land of opportunity and the land of saviours. It was seen as the place of boundless opportunities. It was where they chose to raise their family.

The NDP was elected in B.C. just prior to 1976, maybe to the chagrin of my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. In 1976, my grandparents pulled up roots and moved to the promised land of northern Alberta. They said that the NDP had been devastating to the economy in northern B.C., so they moved to Alberta. In more ways than one, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is connected to my heritage, more than he probably even realizes.

My grandparents have been married now for over 60 years. That is a big level of commitment. Taking the oath of citizenship is also a big level of commitment. People swear allegiance to the country and to the Queen and they swear to fulfill their duties in our country. I would like to point out that the Queen has been married for 73 years, a very high level of commitment. We do not hear about that very often anymore. I want to salute that in my speech today.

I am great admirer of the Queen. I inherit that from my mother. She is a big royal watcher and has been for my whole life. She instilled in me a great appreciation for the royals, particularly the Queen.

I understand there is a show on Netflix called The Crown. It does not matter where I go, people tell me about it. I have not watched it yet. The Speaker tells me I have to see it, so it must be really good. I do not have a Netflix subscription yet, so I have not had the opportunity. I suppose I could probably buy it in a boxed set or something like that.

Because I am a born Canadian, I never took the oath of citizenship. However, I remember very distinctly the oath that I took when I was sworn into this place, swearing allegiance to the Queen and upholding all her laws in this place. That was very much a moment of pride in my life. I got to feel a bit of what it must mean when immigrants take their oath, as my grandparents did when they came to this country. I am very excited about that.

The Queen has been on the throne for a very long time. She has been the keeper of the British Empire, the keeper of British common law and she has been a very stabilizing force in the world. For that, I am eternally grateful. She has a great title, the keeper of the Commonwealth and the keeper of the faith. She will be sadly missed. She is growing older every year. Her husband now has quit driving on public roads. I know she still likes to drive her Land Rover around. That is one thing she and I have in common. We both like to drive our 4x4s around, so I appreciate that about her. I am more of a Jeep guy.

I appreciate the fact that we live in the heritage of the British Commonwealth, the heritage of the British common law system and we have that stabilizing force. We have an entity from which comes the authority of this place, recognized here with the mace, the authority of government. There is an identifying area from where the authority flows. We often take that for granted in our country. That is one of the reasons that Canada is a much more stable country than, say, our neighbours to the south. They do not necessarily have that figurehead or authority figure that is a constant in their political and power structure. In Canada, we have the Queen. She has been there for a long time. She is very stable. It is a stable entity and institution that is identified with authority.

I very much appreciate the Queen and I am very glad we swear allegiance to her, not only when sworn into this place but when people become citizens of Canada. They also then recognize the requirements of being a citizen. They must abide by the rules that govern this place, which have been put in place through the authority of the Queen, and the treaties. This bill would recognize the treaties that the Crown, the Queen, has signed, the peace treaties.

I am from Treaty 8 territory. Where I live is Treaty 6 territory, but just across the river, about 10 kilometres away, is Treaty 8 territory. The vast majority of my riding is Treaty 8 territory. That treaty was signed in 1899 in Grouard on the banks of the Lesser Slave Lake, the biggest lake in Alberta. Since that time, there has been peace.

We often say “treaties”, but these were peace treaties. These negotiations happened between different groups of people, saying that we would abide by a common set of rules, that we would not go to war with one another, that justice would be provided to the inhabitants of our country on the basis of British common law, that cows and plows would be supplied, a medicine box would be supplied and a one-room schoolhouse would be supplied. All of these things were in the treaty and it was signed by the Indian agent.

Oftentimes, the treaties were in Alberta. These treaties were helped along by a gentleman named Father Lacombe. A town in Alberta called Lacombe was named after him. He was a great friend of the first nations and somebody who spoke Cree fluently. He could communicate and advocate on behalf of the Cree people. He did a great job in helping to establish these treaties. Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 are represented in Alberta. Ever since, we have lived under these treaties.

I often call my riding the promised land. I do not know if members have heard this before, but the town of Falher is the honey capital of Canada and we also have about 7,500 dairy animals. The town is literally flowing with milk and honey. We also have the municipal districts of Peace and Opportunity. It is all based on a promise called Treaty 8. I always advocate that where I come from is truly the promised land, a land flowing if not with honey, it is peace and opportunity. Everybody should live there. We have a lot of land to go around. My riding of Peace River—Westlock is the size of a mid-sized European country. The Netherlands, where my ancestors come from, is two-and-a-half times smaller than the riding of Peace River—Westlock, just to give some idea of the scale of the riding.

I have the privilege of representing 14 first nations in northern Alberta, all Cree people who speak Cree. They live across the landscape right beside the town of Slave Lake in the Sawridge band to a very remote community on the edge of the Wood Buffalo National Park in Garden Creek or Garden River, depending on who is talking. These communities are vibrant. They are surviving very well in northern Alberta due to natural resource development. Many of them have road construction companies. They have logging companies. They have oil service companies. They have been blessed by the abundance of natural resources.

However, more recently the lack of pipelines being built in the country have led to a reduction in the number of jobs in northern Alberta. Therefore, many of these bands are beginning to struggle. They are laying off their own people, given the fact that they do not have access to markets for our products. Because of that, there is a massive discount for our products. When oil hits all-time lows, Alberta oil goes into negative territory. We need to ensure that we have market access and we need to ensure that our first nation brothers and sisters get to participate in the economy the same as everybody else, such as those from Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. We need to ensure that those living in northern Alberta, those living in Treaty 8 have the opportunities.

While the bill is an important one, it will not necessarily bring the tangible results we are looking for on some of these major issues around employment in first nations, around drinking water on reserve and around whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies on reserves. I bring this up often. The town I live nearest to is the town of Barrhead, Alberta. In about 30 seconds, I can google and find the financial statements of the town. I can see how much the mayor makes. I can see where the money has been spent. It is all publicly disclosed.

Our first nation brothers and sisters do not have the ability to do that. Many times the documentation is not up to date. It is not readily available on the band's website, all those kinds of things. This is part of the First Nations Financial Transparency Act that our former government put in and that the current government is not enforcing. I hear this all the time from the band members who come to see me.

Most recently I have been dealing with Denise from northern Alberta, and she is very concerned about the fact that there has been a disbursal of funds, known as the cows and plows settlement. There have been multiple bands that have reached agreements with the federal government around cows and plows, yet there has not been a consistent outlay of these funds.

From one band to the next there are discrepancies, and so Denise would like to know where these funds are going and how these funds are being managed. The answers are not forthcoming, so this is another one of the areas where we would like to see some action from the government to ensure that the relationship between Canada and the first nations, given we are all treaty people, is strong.

The other thing I want to point out is around that very issue. Does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply on reserve? That is a question that does not get asked often. Do band leaders owe their band members the same rights and privileges as any other level of government is required to provide?

Under the treaties, particularly where I am from with Treaty 8, I would argue that is the case, and I do argue that is the case. We work hard advocating for individual band members to be given the same rights as Canadians in their relationship to any level of government in Canada, in regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applying to them. We also bring that to the first nations in my riding.

That is an interesting question. I remember in the previous Parliament the member for Winnipeg Centre and I had long discussions about that, and it is something that I think needs a little more work to ensure that is indeed the case. Those living on reserve should be availed with all the rights and privileges that are granted in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution.

When they signed the treaty, they became Canadian. The Charter of Rights, therefore, applies to them. It is a document that they should be able hold their own band leadership to account with, as well as the federal, provincial and municipal governments, depending which government they live under.

Lastly, I want to talk a bit about prorogation and the fact that this bill was here in the beginning of Parliament and now it is back again, but it has a new number, and that just leads to a lot of confusion. I just want to point out that the only reason we had prorogation in this place is that the government is trying to avoid scrutiny on the WE scandal. In fact right now, as we speak, at the ethics committee the Liberals are delaying and ensuring that a study of the WE scandal does not come forward. That, as well, has impacted this bill.

We have seen that this bill now has a new number. It was introduced prior to prorogation. It had a number, and now we have reintroduced it after prorogation. It has caused a delay. This is a bill that has been widely adopted from all sides of the House. It is one that we were ensuring that we would have support for, but the prorogation has definitely stepped in the way and ensured that we are here with a new number and a bit of confusion around which bill we should be supporting and which bill we should not be supporting.

I had advocated for this bill with my own first nations in northern Alberta prior to prorogation. Now I am coming back to them having to explain why there is a new number, that we never passed the last one, there was a prorogation and all of that stuff.

I guess I will mention that the government is definitely ducking and jiving in order to get around having to answer questions around the WE scandal. In fact, they shut this whole place down to ensure that. The improprieties that have happened around the disbursal of the Canadian taxpayers' dollars have come to light.

With that, I would like to put on the record that I will be supporting this bill. I look forward to its passage and I want to thank the House for recognizing me today.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his support for this bill.

He began by speaking about the liberation of Holland, the liberation of the Netherlands, and the significant role the people of Canada had in that liberation. When I toured the sites of the liberation in the Netherlands for the 65th anniversary, I went with an indigenous soldier, who had helped liberate the Netherlands.

I would have much appreciated if the member had talked about the significant role that indigenous Canadians have played in those things, which would be a reason to want to recognize their treaty rights in our citizenship oath.

I want to quote Irene Plante, who said, “Kahgee pohn noten took”, which in Cree means, “the fighting has ended”. That symbolizes why we in this House need to stand, not to talk about prorogation or other things, but about the significant role that indigenous Canadians have played in the history of Canada and the world and make sure we honour them and their treaties.

I am wondering if the hon. member has an understanding of the role of indigenous people in the Canadian armed services and the liberation of the Netherlands.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do in fact have a great appreciation for that. There is a monument in Peace River dedicated to the indigenous soldiers who fought in all of the wars. In particular, there was one very famous sniper who comes from northern Alberta, and I have acknowledged him several times. Every Remembrance Day, we make a statement remembering him in particular.

I would reach out across the aisle to the hon. member and see if he can support an initiative that Conservatives have been pushing to get an indigenous soldier on the $5 bill.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin.

I want to congratulate my colleague on his completely surreal speech. We learned things about his grandparents. I quite like what he had to say about their 60 years of marriage.

We heard about prorogation, oil, the oil sector, and especially the Queen. The part of his speech on the Queen really stood out to me. When talking about the Queen to someone from Quebec, the first thing that comes to mind is conquest and imperialism. The only acceptable Queen in my view is the rock band. Otherwise, we do not see eye to eye.

The only interesting thing to me in this motion is the recognition it offers to first nations, and that gives me pause.

I have a question for my colleague. He said that a commitment is serious. In the oath of citizenship, the commitment is solemn. He referred to his grandparents who have been married for 60 years.

Since we are talking about a serious commitment, I do not think my political party can support this motion since Quebec never signed the Constitution referred to in this document.

If we are serious, we will not support this bill.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague listened so intently to my speech. I do try to make them engaging, and I appreciate when I can see the engagement is working.

On the commitment, many Canadians disagreed with the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That said, there was a process put in place whereby 10 of the provinces representing 80% of the population needed to adopt it for it to be the Canadian Constitution. Quebec did not sign on to it, but that does not change the fact that since 1982, if my memory serves me well, we have lived under this Constitution. It has worked for us, and I do not hear anybody calling for the Constitution to be removed. If that is what the member is advocating for, I would be pleased to hear about it.

I also ask for his commitment to help us with the commemoration of Tommy Prince, an indigenous warrior, on the five-dollar bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my colleague from Peace River—Westlock will be supporting Bill C-8.

I have a comment first. Before European colonization of North America, first nations and Inuit people all had very distinct legal customs and norms pre-contact. They had fully functioning societies with their own laws and rules. Then of course after contact, many of those were subsided under European contact.

If we are truly to acknowledge a nation-to-nation relationship, there has to be an acknowledgement of what existed pre-contact. With this new affirmation, we are recognizing the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. I am glad to hear his acknowledgement and support of that.

How does that stance jibe with his vote in the previous Parliament against Bill C-262, which affirmed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? How does he differentiate between those two sets of rights? I would like the member to comment on that.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this question is very similar to the one I was asked by the Bloc about who the charter applies to. I addressed it a bit in my speech. Not all Canadians signed on to the charter when it was brought into place, but it has now existed for 30-some years. This speaks to the fact that it does not matter where someone lives in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to them and that those rights and freedoms can be used in relation to any government.

As for the UN declaration, there are UN declarations on multiple things. One of the UN declarations I am working hard to advocate for in Canada is the Palermo protocol. This is a UN declaration that gives us the ability to identify whether somebody is being trafficked in Canada. This is not something we would just write into Canadian law. Instead, we would make Canadian law jibe with the Palermo protocol. I think the same applies for indigenous rights.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and especially for the comments he made about his riding. I spent several weeks in his riding when I was young and it is one of the best ridings in the country.

I did not hear him talk about francophone towns in his riding. Can the hon. member talk to us about those towns, which were populated by Canadians who came from Quebec to put down roots several years ago? There are francophone communities there now. There are also Métis communities.

Can the hon. member tell us more about that?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people do not know this, but northern Alberta is home to 4,000 French-speaking people. I remember that a couple of years back, a Ms. Bombardier took a swipe at them. She said that outside of Quebec there were no thriving French-speaking communities.

I would tell Ms. Bombardier to come to St. Isidore and check out the festival. It has a thriving French community. She can come to Guy, Marie Reine or Falher. There is “arrêt” on the stop signs and a French radio station everywhere we go. She can come on down and we will show her the French way of life in northern Alberta.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by the member for Peace River—Westlock. I was looking for references to the bill we are debating and found that his remarks did “veersen” around a fair bit before getting to the gist of the matter.

The member and I share a connection to the beautiful Bulkley Valley, in northwest B.C. One of the most impactful parts of my time as mayor was helping tell the story, alongside the Wet'suwet'en people, of the relationship between the early settlers to that area and the Wet'suwet'en Nation.

I wonder if the member is familiar with some of that painful history. If not, maybe I can provide him with the book Shared Histories, which documents it in great detail.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know much at all about the Wet'suwet'en people from the member's riding. However, my family has had a great connection with the Carrier people around Babine Lake. I have holidayed in that area and have many friends from that area.

I recognize that the member and I recently shared the same obituary for a Mr. George from Smithers. I have many connections to that area, but not so much with the Wet'suwet'en.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I would like to inform the House that we have had more than five hours of debate on this motion. Consequently, the maximum time for all subsequent interventions shall be 10 minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a real shame because the Bloc Québécois has always stood faithfully by first nations people. We have always defended the rights of first nations peoples, be they treaty rights or rights arising from other agreements or laws.

Today we have to come out against Bill C-8. That is a real shame because all the Liberal government had to do was recognize the traditional treaty rights of first nations peoples, which it could have done any number of ways.

Instead, the government tried to make everyone swallow a poison pill by using first nations rights as a pretext for getting the House to agree that newcomers should swear to faithfully uphold the Canadian Constitution. That is what Bill C-8 is really about.

I am sorry, but the problem is that that is not the case in Quebec. Successive Quebec governments since the 1982 Constitution have always refused to recognize the authority of the Constitution and to sign it. I will give a few examples of unanimous resolutions adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. The first dates back to April 17, 2002, when Bernard Landry was premier of Quebec.

That the National Assembly reaffirm that it has never adhered to the Constitution Act, 1982, the effect of which has been to diminish the powers and rights of Quebec without the consent of the Government of Quebec and the National Assembly, and that it continues to be unacceptable to Quebec.

Here is another one that was adopted on June 14, 2007, when Jean Charest, a good Liberal, was premier of Quebec.

That the National Assembly of Québec recall that, 25 years ago this year, the Constitution Act, 1982 was enacted without Québec's approval, and that it formally reaffirm that it never acceded to this Act, whose effect was to diminish the powers and rights of Québec without its consent, and that the Constitution Act, 1982 still remains unacceptable for Québec.

I assume that my colleagues in the House will always be consistent and act with probity. I would like to mention that, at the time, the Liberal member for Bourassa was the member for Viau in the National Assembly when this resolution was adopted.

On November 16, 2011, the member for Bourassa was still a member of the National Assembly, as was my respected colleague, the House leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who was then the member for Chauveau in the National Assembly. These two members were in the National Assembly on November 16, 2011, when the following resolution was adopted unanimously:

That the National Assembly of Quebec recall that, 30 years ago this year, the Constitution Act, 1982 was enacted without Quebec's approval;

That it formally reaffirm that it never acceded to this Act, whose effect was to diminish the powers and rights of Quebec without its consent, and that the Constitution Act, 1982 still remains unacceptable for Quebec.

Obviously, I believe that my colleagues from Bourassa and Louis-Saint-Laurent will be consistent and not vote in favour of Bill C-8.

I will quote one last resolution, which dates back to April 17, 2012. Once again my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, the current House leader of the Conservative Party, was a member of the National Assembly of Quebec when this unanimous resolution was adopted on April 17, 2012.

THAT the National Assembly recall that, 30 years ago this year, the Constitution Act, 1982, was enacted without Québec's approval;

THAT it formally reaffirm that it never acceded to this act, whose effect was to diminish the powers and rights of Québec without its consent, and that the Constitution Act, 1982, still remains unacceptable for Québec.

Once again, I have too much faith in the integrity and constancy of my colleagues from Bourassa and Louis-Saint-Laurent to believe that they will be voting against Bill C-8, which would require newcomers to swear allegiance to and observe the Canadian Constitution. They used to recognize that Quebec did not accept the Constitution.

These were unanimous resolutions, but several Quebec premiers also made statements.

It will come as no surprise that René Lévesque said in 1978, “Québec will never agree, under the existing system, to the patriation of the Constitution.” He made similar statements on several occasions, but I want to share a quote from Robert Bourassa, who was also a premier of Quebec and a good Liberal.

He said:

Québec must be able to say no to any constitutional amendment affecting the powers of the National Assembly as well as the institutions and main features of the Canadian federation. No Québec government can agree to a constitutional accord that does not include a veto.

On May 9, 1986, during Robert Bourassa's second term as the Liberal premier of Quebec, he said:

No government of Québec of whatever political leaning could sign the Constitution Act, 1982, as it is currently worded. However, if certain changes were made, this constitutional law could be acceptable to Québec.

He then listed the five historical conditions that would have to be met for Quebec to sign the Constitution. That was in 1986.

There was Robert Bourassa, who was a good Liberal, and René Lévesque. There were others who were better known to the House, such as Lucien Bouchard, who was a Quebec premier but who also sat here as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. In 1997, he said:

The government will not be associated with any future multilateral constitutional discussions, based on the lucid observation made by former Premier Robert Bourassa following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord according to which the existing constitutional reform process in Canada has been discredited.

Here is what Jacques Parizeau said in 1994 when he was premier of Quebec:

Twelve years ago, Pierre Trudeau's unilateral patriation dwindled the National Assembly's powers against our will, with a Constitution that Québec has never signed. Four years ago, the death of the Meech Lake Agreement sounded Canada's refusal in recognizing—albeit symbolically—our difference. As of today, the basic law of Canada does not recognize Québec as a nation, a people or even as a distinct society. A sad state of affairs.

There are a lot of quotes like that, but I am going to stop there because I could go on for a long time. I do, however, want to clearly state that all of the Quebec premiers have considered the 1982 Constitution to be odious and felt that it was signed without Quebec's consent. It was never recognized by the Quebec National Assembly or the people of Quebec under any circumstance or any government, no matter how federalist.

I therefore appeal to my colleagues in the House, because I believe in respecting and recognizing the rights of indigenous people in their treaty. I do not think that members can then turn around and deny the Quebec nation's right to be recognized for what it is or to refuse to be bound by contracts it did not sign.

Once again, the Conservative House leader agreed with what I said a few years ago, and so did the member for Bourassa. I imagine that they are serious men and that they do not change their minds on a weekly basis. They will surely vote against this bill.

Given the peace of the braves agreement, which was signed by Quebec and the Cree Nation in 2002, when Bernard Landry was the premier of Quebec, and considering everything I said and the Quebec nation's inalienable right to self-determination, we are going to vote against Bill C-8.

I urge my Conservative colleagues to follow their House leader and also vote against this bill. The same goes for my government colleagues, the members of the Liberal Party. They should talk to my colleague from Bourassa who will surely convince them that he was not crazy when he decided to vote in favour of these resolutions in Quebec City at the time.

[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 must say that I am disappointed in the Bloc. I realize that, at times, those members feel they have to play a destructive role here on the floor of the House of Commons, but I think this is the wrong time.

I think that the Bloc members need to realize the many contributions and the history behind indigenous people throughout our great land. By voting against this legislation, they are not recognizing the importance of reconciliation. I believe that a good number of people across this land would want to see the Bloc be a little more constructive and support reconciliation.

Are the member and his party not concerned that they are clearly demonstrating a lack of respect towards reconciliation by voting against this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to respect, I would say that our Liberal colleagues are in no position to lecture anyone. It is their fault that we are voting against Bill C-8.

They are the ones who did the same thing with Bill C-8 that they do with omnibus bills, meaning that they inserted the infamous poison pill I just mentioned. We are in agreement. The Liberals know very well that the Bloc Québécois has always stood with indigenous nations and we will continue to do so. The Liberals are trying to exploit this to make us swallow the infamous poison pill of recognizing the Canadian Constitution.

I too am disappointed. I am a lot more disappointed in my Liberal colleagues than my Liberal colleague could ever be in the Bloc. I am disappointed in their approach, which is disloyal and could prevent the House from voting in favour of Bill C-8.

I would like to say that, if necessary, if we end up studying Bill C-8 in committee, we will move an amendment to remove that part, which, once again, is shameful, in my opinion.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really liked my hon. colleague's speech.

Could he refresh the memories of certain Liberals, and perhaps certain Conservatives, too, and explain why we never signed the Constitution and why not even the federalist Quebec premiers wanted to sign this patriation?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

There are obviously the five historical conditions, set out for the first time in 1986 by Robert Bourassa, who was a Liberal premier. The conditions were the following: an explicit recognition of Quebec as a distinct society; a guarantee of broader powers in the realm of immigration; limitations on federal spending power; the recognition of Quebec's right of veto; and Quebec's participation in the appointment of judges. The topic of judges has come up quite a bit recently.

These claims are still relevant today, but the main reason we have never signed that agreement is that it is dishonourable. This agreement was signed at night during a meeting of the first ministers without the premier of Quebec. Former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau managed to convince his provincial counterparts to sign this agreement while René Lévesque was asleep in his hotel room.

That is despicable. It should not happen. It shows an appalling lack of respect. I would never even think of doing something like that.

We have never signed the Constitution Act, 1982, for that reason. Quebec was disrespected, and there has always been an unwillingness to recognize Quebec as a founding nation. Now, the government wants Quebec to recognize the rights of the first nations while simultaneously denying the rights of the Quebec nation. That is obscene.

We agree that we must recognize the rights of the first nations. We will stand up and demand respect for our rights as a co-founding nation of this federation.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to once again stand in this place and enter into debate on Bill C-8, which is an important subject.

Reconciliation affects us all. It is one of those issues that we truly all need to take seriously. I want to start by sharing two stories that are fairly unrelated in one regard, but brought together by what we are debating here today.

I attended university in British Columbia and all the universities in British Columbia took a day off on the day the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was meeting at the Pacific National Exhibition grounds in Vancouver. All the universities in the Lower Mainland, and I think many high schools as well, took that day off so students could attend the culmination of the event that had been taking place over the course of a week. There were buses that were organized and took university students.

My wife and I decided we would go together. My first thought as I boarded the school bus that day was that this effort was being made by the university I attended and many others to ensure there was an opportunity for students to attend the reconciliation event and I was disappointed there were not more students to join, that these buses were not full and that the buses from the other universities were not full. A number of other students and I attended this TRC event, of which I think there were seven if memory serves me, and I may stand to be corrected, across the country.

It was an incredibly powerful opportunity to see the impacts the residential schools had on the lives of Canada's indigenous peoples. As somebody who does not have a personal indigenous history, experiencing the sights and sounds of walking through the halls and various rooms was powerful. I remember there were different stations set up with photos from the different residential schools on the arena floor of one of the event centres of the exhibition grounds. One would walk into this room and hear crying and laughing as the members of these schools had not seen each other for decades and were reliving their pain and experiences. It was an incredibly powerful moment of reconciliation. For somebody who grew up in a small prairie town, it was incredibly enlightening to see it and listen to the various speakers. There was a program that happened that evening and I heard about some of the traumatic experiences the indigenous people faced and learned about this scar on our nation's history. It was an incredibly powerful day for me. It left a lasting impression and it is something I certainly bring to my work now as a member of Parliament. That is the first story.

The second story is that of a citizenship ceremony. My father-in-law came to Canada at a very young age, his parents came to Canada from the United States. I had the opportunity a number of years ago to attend a citizenship ceremony in a library auditorium in Saskatoon where I got to see my father-in-law and about 40 or 50 others stand on that stage and swear an oath of allegiance to this country. This was before I was involved in running for office and whatnot. I greatly appreciated that ceremony. Something that stood out to me specifically was the diversity represented on that stage. It was incredible.

There were people from all over the world, some like my father-in-law who has known nothing but Canada. He moved here too young to remember anything else. Then there were others who had been here for only a number of years, refugees and others who had come from a variety of circumstances. It was incredibly powerful.

The judge who did the swearing-in asked that each person on the stage share a brief moment or, if they had some difficulty with that, a letter that she would read of what Canada means to them. It was incredible to listen to story after story, these brief moments of a connection with Canada. Then when the judge led the oath, she invited every other person in that auditorium to say the oath as well. It was an incredibly powerful moment seeing these soon-to-be Canadians take the oath of citizenship.

I tell those two stories because the bill we have before us today is important in the way that it brings together that Canadian experience while acknowledging the depth of some of our history. It is important to acknowledge these things so that we can move forward as a country.

I want to talk a bit about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I am proud that as a Conservative, it was Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in 2008, stood and apologized for the residential schools. He apologized for the more than 130 residential schools that took the livelihoods of so many indigenous children. I know these statistics have been read before, but I believe they bear repeating.

There were more than 130 residential schools across this country over the course of about 130 years, from shortly after Confederation until the 1990s when the last one closed down. There were 150,000 first nations, Métis and Inuit children who were subjected to them. There were seven generations of Canadians that were impacted.

One of the most impactful statistics is that we have learned since that more than 3,200 children died of tuberculosis, malnutrition and other diseases while attending the schools. As a parent, I cannot even imagine what it would be like to have children taken away and then not even learn that they had passed away. It is unbelievable that it took place in our country.

The name of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is powerful. We are here talking about what is an action and a symbol and how those two things come together. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is finding the truth of what happened. I mentioned my experience at the TRC event that took place in Vancouver back in 2013 and the truth of what was learned. It is important to see the truth and move forward in the reconciliation.

Although Bill C-8 would not necessarily solve the problems created by the lasting impacts faced by our indigenous populations, it takes a step that is a symbol, an acknowledgement and a recognition going forward that as a country, we can learn, grow and move forward as Canadians, acknowledging what happened in our past and building a brighter future together.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was not going to bring up Stephen Harper, but since the member did, Stephen Harper had absolutely nothing to say for the Truth and Reconciliation report. He had no desire to implement any of the recommendations and certainly never gave an opinion on it.

Can the member say whether he disagrees with Stephen Harper? I really respect what he had to say. I think he was very genuine in his comments. Would he then agree that Stephen Harper was wrong by basically ignoring the Truth and Reconciliation report?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that politics would be played at a moment such as this, which should be solemn. Although I do not have much good to say about Liberal policy, I plan to vote in favour of the bill. It is a step in the right direction.

That member refuses to acknowledge that the Conservatives took some steps moving forward, such as, I believe, changes to the Divorce Act and to property rights for first nations. There were steps that the Conservatives took. It is unfortunate that there seems to be a blindness in partisanship when it comes to trying to move our country forward together.

I believe that, on an issue like this, Canadians can come together. Canadians can move forward and ensure that we build a Canada that acknowledges the mistakes of our past to a better future.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I really liked the first part of his speech on reconciliation, which is essential. I agree with him on the need to recognize first nations.

Speaking of reconciliation, I do not know if my colleague listened to the presentation by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord earlier. Would he agree with removing the reference to the Constitution in order to make the bill acceptable, at least to francophones and Quebeckers who never signed the Constitution?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question asked by the member, and I find it interesting. Recommendation 94 in the TRC report does not actually reference the Constitution. The wording is a little bit different. I wonder, and consider this a curious musing, if this is an attempt by the government to play politics on this issue: to try to divide Canadians instead of unite them. It is unfortunate if that is the case, because something as serious as this should be an opportunity to unite Canadians so that we can, as I said before, move forward to build a better Canada together.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments, but I have just one correction: It is not “our” indigenous people. We are not people who are owned. We are sovereign and independent people.

The member spoke a lot about the violation of human rights that took place in residential schools. I would like to thank him for acknowledging these human rights abuses, but I would ask him why the Conservative Party continues to vote against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is a minimum human rights document that recognizes the abuses of indigenous peoples around the globe: indigenous brothers and sisters that I will unapologetically always stand up for while we strive to realize these fundamental rights.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague will, in recognition of his deep comments about wanting to change the reality of ongoing human rights violations against indigenous people, vote in favour, if it should happen, of the full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer the question, and I apologize if there was any offence. I talk that way about many people that I come into contact with to be inclusive in that regard, and I apologize if there was any offence.

When it comes to the UNDRIP that the member referenced, many things are said in that document that all nations that are part of the United Nations should aspire to, but the House of Commons and the Senate are the legislative bodies for our nation. Those documents are calling on nations around the world to ensure that there are those minimum standards of human rights and whatnot that she referred to, but it is the job of this place to develop a legislative framework to ensure that those sacred obligations are fulfilled.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to join the debate today and talk about Bill C-8, an act to change the Citizenship Act.

I want to talk a bit about my history. Everyone has to walk their own path of truth and reconciliation and do what they can to make sure they are advocates in supporting truth and reconciliation in their lives.

Growing up in southwest Saskatchewan, there were not a lot of indigenous reserves around. When I turned 18, I moved up to a small northern village in northern Saskatchewan called Air Ronge. I moved up there to play hockey in the SJHL. Being up there for the first time, as a kid from southwest Saskatchewan, the first thing I noticed was there are a lot more trees up in northern Saskatchewan than there are down in the southwest.

The second thing I noticed is that there was a different culture. It was a pleasure for me. My billets were Jimmy and Tina Roberts. Jimmy passed away a few years ago. They were wonderful billets for me. They had two small children, and as an 18-year-old, it was an eye-opening experience to move up north.

I was not there that long, but not because I did not like the community. I just was not a particularly good hockey player, so I did not spend a lot of time in La Ronge, but I have good memories of the time I did spend there. I went through a lot of different cultural experiences. I was only 18-years-old. I am thankful that, up in northern Saskatchewan, I got to know quite a few members of the community up there quite well. I stay in touch with a couple of them.

During this most recent campaign, the husband of someone who I had not connected with for years walked into the campaign office. Her name was Taryn, and she lived up in La Ronge with her family for many years. It just so happened that she and her husband had taken up residence in Regina—Lewvan. They are great people, and it was nice to reconnect with someone I had not seen for a long time.

A few experiences I have had along the path of truth and reconciliation were during my former career as an MLA with the Government of Saskatchewan. In an earlier question to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I said we were the first provincial government to implement treaty education into school curriculums. I believe the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands was on the school board when this process was going forward. The school board trustees across the province and the Ministry of Education all helped out. We took it very seriously.

I believe Russ Marchuk was the minister when this initiative was brought forward. Russ is a valued friend, and he has been an educator in Regina for as long as I can remember. He is a great advocate for ensuring there is indigenous education within our curriculum. As the minister, he did a wonderful job promoting that and pushing it forward. It shows that one person and a group of people can make big changes.

I was born in 1982, and when I went to school, there was not a lot of indigenous curriculum in the education system in Saskatchewan. Being part of a government that brought that initiative forward is going to bode well for future generations to learn. This ties in with Bill C-8 and ensuring we are all doing our part to make sure we walk down the path of truth and reconciliation.

Another thing I was able to be a part of in the Government of Saskatchewan was the apology for the sixties scoop. It was a long process. We reached out to stakeholders across Saskatchewan, Métis and first nation. We did as much as we could to get stakeholders together because we did not want to give a blanket apology. We wanted to make sure the apology was meaningful to the groups who were hurt during the sixties scoop.

We also took the role very seriously as a government. We held sharing circles across the provinces where members across the community had to drive some distance, but not long distances. We were able to come into communities and take part in these sharing circles. The ministers and many people within the government took part and we had six or eight sharing circles across the province.

It took months to get the proper language and lay out how we and the groups we were apologizing to wanted to have the ceremony and apology move forward at the legislative assembly. Before the apology took place, one thing I will remember for a very long time is representatives from the stakeholder groups and affected groups came and spoke to our whole government's caucus, about 48 of us.

They spoke about their experiences and they spoke about what the words were going to mean when the apology came from the premier of the province in recognition of what happened and how the sixties scoop had affected generations of indigenous people in our province and beyond. I believe the Government of Manitoba has given an apology, and the Government of Alberta has also apologized for the sixties scoop. These are very true and meaningful steps towards reconciliation. I had the great privilege to be a part of a few as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan.

I keep those stories very much in mind when we are talking about moving forward and incorporating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 94 into the citizenship oath. I do not think there would be too many people who would see that as a problem. I think everyone sees it as a positive step forward in ensuring there is recognition.

In my former career I had the honour of attending many citizenship ceremonies. When these new Canadians take the oath, we can see the passion and the pride in their eyes that they are now a member of Canadian society. They are so proud to be have the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizens. They take it seriously. I am someone who was born in Canada and never went through that process, yet every time I attend a citizenship ceremony I can see that.

I was able to take part in a practice ceremony a couple of weeks ago. The Open Door Society in Regina does a lot of work with new Canadians. They have practice tests. I gave a practice speech. It is nice to do that sometimes with the new Canadian citizens. Just to see how much time and effort and practice they put in to ensure they pass that test to become Canadian citizens is something we should all have the opportunity to see, and to see what it means for someone to join our country, to join us in trying to ensure that Canada remains the greatest country in the world.

We get strength from those new citizens, and when they do the oath, having it include recognition of the treaties in our country is something that is very important. I am glad it was brought forward. Also, going a bit further, after this there is a lot more work to be done. The Liberals should realize that there is a lot more work to be done.

This is one step that should have been taken sooner, in many people's opinions. Also, we need to start working on reconciliation when it comes to economics and safe drinking water. The fundamental right of having safe drinking water on and off reserve is something that needs to be taken seriously. The Liberal government has not taken it seriously for the last five years. It has failed to move. It moved the goalpost again. I believe it promised safe drinking water on reserves within the next year or so, but the can has been kicked down the road again.

The Liberals cannot fundamentally follow through on a lot of their commitments. We saw it with the promise to plant two billion trees, which they never did. The Liberals promised to balance the budget, and who knows when that might happen.

What we need to focus on when it comes to truth and reconciliation is some of those tougher areas, some of the areas where we need to build partnerships to ensure that our indigenous communities can enjoy economic success as well. There is no reconciliation without economic reconciliation.

The government is not a big fan of our energy sector, and we all know that. We see it in the policies. However, the Teck Frontier would have helped 14 communities in northern Alberta build towards economic freedom and have economic opportunities for a generation. The government basically kicked Teck out of Canada. There is also Coastal GasLink, and we are still not sure where the government is going on that.

The government of the day needs to realize that there is no reconciliation without economic reconciliation. It is something the government should take very seriously to ensure that all Canadians can have success going forward, for generations to come.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really liked how the member touched on the fact that we do need to do more in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. I know the member brought up drinking water. This government has made significant progress, although there is still more to be done. There is no doubt about that.

Along those lines, I wonder if the member could fill us in on some other things within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report that he thinks are important for us to implement as well.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of different Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations we should move forward on. As my friend from Saskatoon—Grasswood was saying, there is call to action 81, which is about monuments. I appreciate his intervention, and he will be up on questions sooner rather than later.

We can look at treaty rights and ensure the education of all young Canadians so they know what happened in our country, as well as ensure they have the knowledge of treaties so they are being upheld.

The member for Kingston and the Islands just really bypassed the idea of economic reconciliation, and this is something the Liberals really have not taken seriously enough. I will say it again and again, because without economic prosperity and freedom there will be no reconciliation.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Thanks to bills like Bill C-8 being introduced and my Conservative colleagues' speeches on the matter, I am finding out more about their private lives. I am really pleased because I did not know them.

Despite the fact that he talked about a very interesting experience I wonder if my colleague would have the same sentiment in his presentation if he came to see Trois-Rivières. He may have had a better understanding of why the Bloc is asking that the Quebec nation be recognized in this bill.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, one commitment we all make as members of the legislative assembly is before we make a final decision on bills, we listen to all members in this House and their interventions on why they feel a bill should or should not be passed. On a bill by bill basis, that is what we should all do.

If the Bloc brings forward a motion or a private member's bill that looks at having conversations around changing the citizenship ceremony to include verbiage it would like to have, we should all look at it on its merit.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, I agree with him on many of the things he brought up. One of the things he spoke about that I am quite interested in is his discussion on economic justice. In my province of Alberta, there was a bill brought forward, Bill 1 from the provincial government, and at the time the Alberta justice minister, Doug Schweitzer, said that Albertans would not be held economic hostage to law-breaking extremists.

Many people have called this particular bill very racist because it very much targets indigenous people and interferes with their ability to ensure their own economic justice. I just wonder what the member would say about that and how there are important ways we need to support indigenous rights to economic justice, and I just wonder how that works in Alberta as well.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, on protests in public areas, people should be able to protest, gather and make their opinions known to people they do not agree with as long as it is safe and they are not breaking the law.

I look forward to having the conversation around the member for Foothills' private member's bill about not allowing protests on private property and whether we think people should be able to go on farms and protest, which I am not in favour of. That bill is coming up very soon and we can have a good conversation around that, but people have the right to protest safely on public property.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to debate Bill C-8, an act designed to implement a change in the oath of citizenship, in response to recommendation 94 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a simple amendment to the Citizenship Act to pay lip service to respecting the treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

I find that there is little logic to support this bill when it is so glaringly exclusionary of many Métis, Inuit and B.C. first nations that are not under treaty rights. They have no effective treaties in their respective area.

What purpose does the bill serve beyond virtue signalling to hashtag-loving armchair activists on social media? It is more than mere symbolism to say that our nation is a nation of immigrants that stands on traditional territories of, and shoulder to shoulder with, our first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Canada is one of the few countries in the world where indigenous rights and treaty rights are entrenched and enshrined in our Constitution. I do believe that educating Canadians about these rights is an important part of the path to reconciliation.

Education is about more than platitudes. I am proud to say that in Canada this education is already taking place. New citizens, having completed their residency requirements, and having studied the handbook of history, responsibilities and obligations, are expected to be aware of the rights entrenched within the Constitution. This gives them at least a general view of the spectrum of resolved and unresolved treaty rights in different parts of our country. In learning about our nation's history, new Canadians develop respect for what is among Canada's existing body of laws. They learn to appreciate the need to fulfill the remaining unfulfilled treaty obligations within the process of reconciliation and aspire to see their new home improved for all.

Apparently, the Liberal government believes Canadians are so unsophisticated that they would think this task could be accomplished by merely changing the oath of citizenship. Such empty gestures shows that the leadership of our government is more interested in patronizing minorities and photo ops than substantive policy development.

Over 30 years ago, I came to Canada as an immigrant. Like a few members of this House, I have taken the oath of citizenship of our great nation. The oath is simple. Unlike the government's promises, it is not a word salad. It represents the final step of a journey from the initial entry to planting roots and eventually becoming a citizen. The oath of citizenship need not be and should not be complicated, nor a thorough examination of the rights and obligations of what it is to be Canadian. It is merely an affirmation of loyalty to the Queen of Canada, representing the head of state of our constitutional monarchy, and an affirmation to obey our laws and obligations as Canadians. These laws include the Constitution. The Constitution, in turn, recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. To accept the proposed legislation is, therefore, an unnecessary redundancy.

I ask again: What purpose does this bill serve?

As I have mentioned, along the way to becoming a citizen, a new immigrant must read materials relating to the origins of Canada, including Canadian indigenous people. I believe Canada's indigenous peoples would be better served by emphasizing recommendation number 93, rather than 94, of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, by strengthening this education. This recommendation calls upon the federal government, in collaboration with national aboriginal organizations to revise the information kit for newcomers to Canada and its citizenship tests to reflect a more inclusive history of the diverse aboriginal peoples of Canada, including information about the treaties and histories of residential schools. My alternative to Bill C-8 is just this: implementing recommendation 93 would go further to educating new Canadians about history with our first nations and the obligations the Crown has to them.

Such content can also discuss part II of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 35 states, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” Despite many months and many new ideas being presented, the government continues to retable the bill verbatim. I and many other Canadians continue to have the same reaction now as we did each time the bill was brought forward. It is yet another insubstantial virtue signal by the Liberal government.

Canadians are growing tired of this cliché. The government consistently fumbles through crisis after crisis, desperate to take attention away from its failings when it comes to Canada's indigenous peoples. While the Trudeau government takes pride in this as a form of reconciliation, Canadian indigenous people are still—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is not allowed to mention anyone who sits in the House. He mentioned the Prime Minister by his last name and I would ask him to refrain from doing that in the remainder of his speech.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is yet another substantive virtue signal by the Liberal government. Canadians are growing tired of this cliché. The government consistently fumbles through crisis after crisis, desperate to take attention away from its failings when it comes to Canada. While the government takes pride in this as a form of reconciliation, Canadian indigenous people are still dealing with drinking water and boil water advisories. The government should be putting more time and energy into steps to ensure such advisories are not necessary in the future, that the safety of drinking water is sustainable and that access to basic priorities like clean water is no longer a concern.

For a government to place such emphasis on reconciliation as a core priority, it must be willing to do what is necessary to provide equality of opportunity for all Canadian communities. Like every Canadian hurt throughout the pandemic, first nations people want to work and do what is best. They have had both opportunities denied under the Liberal government. Before the pandemic, Canada's first nations showed that they wanted to work and contribute to Canada. They sought opportunities by supporting the jobs and benefits to the economy that pipeline construction creates.

As the year has progressed, on the opposite side of the country we have seen first nations continue to seek economic advantage by fighting for their moderate livelihood fisheries. In 2020, jobs have been lost and the deficit is skyrocketing. Canada cannot afford more indecision and meaningless gestures. Canadians need to see meaningful actions taken. Canada has a long and complicated relationship with its indigenous peoples, and I readily agree that further steps are required to strengthen our relationship.

Changing the oath of citizenship does not accomplish this great task. Work done should add to strengthening relations within the Canadian social fabric. For failing to act on this, the government will be held to account by the people. Canadians deserve better than another empty promise of sunny ways made by politicians wishing to cater sympathetic favour to reduce proud citizens of this country to tokens cynically used to curry political favour.

As a Conservative member of Parliament, I stand for the improvement of Canada. My party stands for the improvement of this country. We represent many Canadians who want better than a government that consistently failed in its mandates by changing the rules and not providing urgent or transparent actions to address the concerns. No matter the gravity of the issue facing Canada or the concerns of indigenous inhabitants, the government has served the House unappealing word salads in its responses.

Similarly, the bill is but another response devoid of any substance. Perhaps Bill C-6 is something that should be delayed until such time as call to action 93 or more meaningful action, such as ending all boil water advisories and making real, meaningful progress on reconciliation, is accomplished.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, when the member for Battle River—Crowfoot chastised me for being overly partisan, I actually started to feel maybe I was a little tough on him there, and then I heard that speech.

The member said in his speech that a lot of members in the House probably have not given that oath. I actually have. I am not an immigrant. Both of my parents came to Canada in the fifties, and they would have given that oath, but I also gave that oath on a number of occasions when I was a mayor. Before Stephen Harper got rid of all those great citizenship ceremonies in so many parts of the country, as a mayor I had the opportunity every few months to get up and recite the oath with those new citizens. It was quite an experience to see them experiencing that and being a part of that.

Would the member agree that adjusting that to properly reflect what Canada is, is incredibly important for newcomers to this country?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members: there is a lot of back and forth, and I am sure that the member for Steveston—Richmond East is able to answer that question without any help.

The hon. member.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, such is the burden to govern. I imagine the member would also understand that changing the oath is not something that will substantially benefit our first nations people. What I am saying is that if the government is actually genuine about reconciliation and helping improve the lives of our first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, it should actually consider what I recommend. It should either help restore the clean water provision or implement recommendation 93 instead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to what my Liberal colleague just said about an oath that properly reflects what Canada is.

This reminds me that I have often heard the Prime Minister say that Canada was the first post-national country in the world. That means there is no nation in Canada. There is no Quebec nation and no indigenous nations. It is a post-national country.

This brings up two possibilities. Either the Prime Minister is not consistent, or he realizes that there are nations in Canada, including indigenous nations.

I will therefore ask my colleague this question: Does he recognize that Canada is not a post-national country and that there are nations, including the Quebec nation and the indigenous nations?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in its early days the Harper Conservative government actually did recognize Quebec as a nation within a united Canada. That was a very bold step that would actually lead to the united Canada that we are enjoying so much today. What I am trying to say is that when we are facing reconciliation with our first nations peoples in Canada, there are many better things we could do, and more substantive actions we could take, than changing the oath of citizenship, as the Liberal government has proposed.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's remarks. I think I may have heard him describe the amendments before us as a word salad, and the assertion that these are changes brought forward by the government, I believe, is misplaced. These are changes that were recommended to us by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so I am wondering if the hon. member has read through the other 93 calls to action from the TRC and whether there are other calls to action he would describe as a word salad.

Would he like to share those words with the commission itself?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, my speech was addressing a long frustration that I have accumulated and what I have observed in the one year that I have had here in the House. There is a lot of promise here. There are a lot of sunny way promises, except it is still snowing and it is still cloudy out there. I am not directly referring to the current proposal of the oath of citizenship that we are looking at here.

Again, a mere changing of words would not help improve our aboriginal peoples' lives.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this chamber, and for this debate, it is a very big honour for me.

Members have alluded to their experiences with citizenship ceremonies. They are, of course, overwhelmingly emotional. They are, of course, overwhelmingly filled with gratitude by those who are getting their citizenship, as well as those who were born on these shores when we realize the great lottery we won by being born here, the best country in the world.

I have a number of memories, but I will just mention two of them. There is the citizenship ceremony in which my father-in-law, after many years of being a German citizen, received Canadian citizenship, and subsequently my own wife, who received Canadian citizenship. Those were big days.

I also want to recognize a phenomenal citizenship judge who happened to have been the mayor of Hamilton for eight years and then became a citizenship judge for six years. I want to recognize the late Robert Morrow, because he was one of the citizenship judges that I knew who could encapsulate the history of Canada, going from first nations, indigenous and Métis peoples all the way through to modern day. He could capture the entire room for 20 minutes while bringing that whole history to life, and what a beautiful history it is. I thank Bob Morrow very much for his contribution to citizenship.

I would also note what one of my colleagues alluded to earlier, the campaign to make sure that Sergeant Tommy Prince would be pictured on the five-dollar bill. Tommy Prince was the recipient of 11 medals, including battle honours. He served in the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. I will read from a CBC article, which quoted my colleague for Calgary Shepard, who said:

He's a founding member of Canada's elite first Canadian parachute battalion, and the Devil's Brigade during the Second World War.... He was one of the soldiers who defended hill 677 in the battle of Kapyong during the Korean War. He won 11 medals. That makes him the most decorated Indigenous war veteran, combat veteran, in the history of Canada.

I would encourage my colleagues, because we have talked a lot about not only a message in principle but doing the right thing, to support that initiative.

I will read the oath and note the wording that will be changed. It begins, “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,” and then continues with the addition from Bill C-8, which reads, “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.”

One way we can illuminate this is to get to know our first nations brothers and sisters. My best education about indigenous peoples came from all of the indigenous individuals I have known. I had a dark time in my life, which is public knowledge and I do not mind mentioning it. I was institutionalized when I was young, and there were two dozen first nations individuals I knew who were there from all across the country. They generally were there because they were very poor. In those days, one could be incarcerated as a youth if one was incorrigible, so many of them were incarcerated in what they called “training schools” in those days, which I have spoken about before in the House. They were really prison institutions for boys eight to 16 years old, and there were several institutions for girls in that respect as well. I do not want to dwell on that as much as to say that I got to know first nations boys at that time, and I had never met a first nations individual before.

I grew up in Kingston, Ontario, and the member for Kingston and the Islands may be happy about that or he might not, but I grew up on Alfred Street, Earl Street and Frontenac Street. My brothers went to KCVI, LCVI and QECVI. I went to the old Victoria School, which has now been repurposed for Queen's University. However, I had never met anyone from a reserve or an indigenous person who lived off reserve. It was not until I was there at that institution that I began my education about what it meant to be a first nations citizen.

To my great fortune, I met many more. I was on the board of a charity with an individual named Ross Maracle, a Mohawk leader from Tyendinaga. Ross will be happy that I still remember his Mohawk name, Rowedahowe. Another person I met was a Cree leader from Manitoba, Larry Wilson, who I just found out recently is now a chaplain in prisons helping individuals get back on their feet and into a better way of life. I remember meeting Chief David General too, at a very tough time, in Caledonia. I remember touring first nations with Chief Anita Hill.

All of these relationships were profoundly educational for me and made me understand the history. They also made me understand people's desire to be appreciated as individuals and not to be labelled as groups. So often when we try to solve problems, that is what we do.

I am happy for this addition to the oath, as long as we bring it to life.

One of my friends, and I hope he is okay with me calling him a friend, is named Nathan Tidridge. He recently won a Governor General's award for teaching history. He is one of the most significant Canadian citizens I know building bridges for reconciliation with first nations.

I got to know him most intimately after he raised money for a monument. In the riding I represent, there is a town called Waterdown. It is growing in leaps and bounds. That means there is lots of development, but traditional lands of first nations are being gobbled up in it. He wanted to make sure there was a marker there for the Souharissen people.

He raised the money for the monument, and got permission from the city to lay the monument. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario was there, along with me and some others, to make sure there was not only a ceremony but a solemn oath in the community that the Souharissen natural area be remembered. It is the traditional territory for Neutral, Haudenosaunee and Mississaugas of the Credit First Nations peoples.

The more I got to know Nathan Tidridge, the more I admired him. I will quote something he wrote in regard to our stewardship of the promises we have made to our indigenous brothers and sisters:

An Indigenous teaching is that for non-Indigenous People, ceremony often bookends the real work of governments, whereas for Indigenous People, it is interwoven into the entire process. In Canada, the Queen and her representatives sit at the apex of our state and are therefore the keepers of our highest protocols and national ceremony.

The unique relationships between the Queen’s representatives and First Nations provide vehicles for convening community—bringing together diverse stakeholders in a non-partisan way to focus on a particular issue—and fostering communication that are not available to politicians tied to a system dominated by a four-year election cycle.

Invitations from the governor general, an office bound to Indigenous People through Treaty and infused with centuries of history, are more readily accepted than those from a politician or government. This unique power allows members from different communities and perspectives to gather in the apolitical space that is required to reflect the values inherent in Treaty.

The power to convene community in no way interferes with the convention of responsible government. However, it can build on the Crown’s traditional rights to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn, first articulated by the 19th-century British constitutional expert Walter Bagehot. The Crown’s unique ability to convene community above the political fray is even more important in these polarized and volatile times.

It is my hope that not only will this be part of the new oath but the current government and future governments will consider empowering the office of the Governor General, the Queen's representative here, to really deal with the relationship aspect between us and first nations to bring about real change and real reconciliation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a comment more than a question. It is always nice to hear stories from people who once lived in Kingston. The member's elementary school closed, and I regret to inform him that his high school is closing also. This is the last year KCVI will be open.

I was really taken by something the member said at the very beginning of his speech. He said that those who live in Canada have won the lottery, and I could not agree with him more. We live in the best country in the world with an incredible quality of life. Despite the differences we have in this place, I really hope we can all reflect on that comment he made, because it genuinely is the truth of what Canada is and what we are.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was hoping the member was going to call me a Kingstonian because only people from Kingston know that is the real name. I thank him for the kind comments.

This is a really passionate area for me. I think back to the spirit of 1967, our first centennial year, when we celebrated not only the nation but also our first nations people. If we remember that spirit and that time, I think we can have a renaissance and bring about some really powerful change with our first nations sisters and brothers.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-8, and we certainly support a nation-to-nation dialogue with the first nations.

However, we believe the citizenship oath made to the Queen, to the monarchy, must be changed. It is repugnant to Quebeckers. It is a legacy of British colonialism of which Canada is still a part. It is a very questionable legacy right now. The numbers speak for themselves. According to a fairly recent Angus Reid poll conducted in January 2020, over 70% of Quebeckers do not want the country to continue as a constitutional monarchy.

Nearly 45% of Canadians want to withdraw from the constitutional monarchy. It costs over $50 million per year. I think that my Conservative colleagues would agree with me about saving money.

The former finance minister, who was thrown under the bus recently because of the WE Charity scandal, said that the only reason why he wanted to stay in the monarchy was to maintain a good relationship with the Commonwealth. There are 53 countries in the Commonwealth and 21 of them are monarchies, of which 16 fall under the authority of Elizabeth II and five have different monarchs. There are also 32 republics.

When will we stop being a monarchy so that we can finally be free of British neo-colonialism?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with my colleague.

If I have a minute, I will speak to something I wanted to get to. When indigenous nations first encountered Europeans on Turtle Island they began incorporating them into a long-established protocol of treaty making. Treaties created the necessary diplomatic space in which very different societies could communicate and negotiate complex relationships despite radically different world views.

The Crown was a natural vehicle for settlers to enter into long-term relationships with their indigenous partners. A treaty, like the institution of monarchy, is an organic creation that evolves or devolves depending on those who are engaged with it. It is meant to be the best reflection of the constituents. Treaties also requires personal relationships to be effective.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments. I have had the great pleasure of working with him on the international human rights committee, and I greatly respect his work.

One thing I would like to get his comments on is this. Knowing how important true meaningful reconciliation is to him, as the current government brings forward UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, will he be supporting that legislation?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member may have been talking about UNDRIP. I am not entirely certain. The principles in UNDRIP are very good, but there are some aspects that are problematic. We are one of the few countries that has first nations rights in our Constitution. That is my position.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak to any matter in the House, particularly one as important as this.

Today, I am honoured to stand in the House of Commons on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe to speak to Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94.

Despite the fact that Canada is one of the few countries where indigenous rights and treaties are entrenched in our Constitution, our relationship with indigenous people is far from perfect. In many cases, it represents a dark chapter in Canada's history, which has left a damaging impact on the lives of indigenous people across our country. It is truly sad and disgraceful.

The Indian Act, which was introduced in 1876, was a statute through which the government administered Indian status, local indigenous governments and the management of reserve lands and communal money. This is used to this day, but has been amended over the years, most significantly in 1951 and 1985, with changes mainly focusing on the removal of particularly discriminatory sections. In this legislation, the government still holds some control over the indigenous people of Canada and shows how much more we still have to do on the road to reconciliation.

One of the most notable parts of Canada's history with indigenous people was the creation and involvement in the residential school system. This terrible act committed by the government saw thousands of children ripped away from their families and forced to assimilate with what was perceived as Canadian values, which could not be further from the truth.

Between 1831 and 1996, 130 schools were opened and operated. Within their walls, were 150,000 indigenous children who had been removed from their families and forced to live in terrible conditions, while their rich culture and history was stripped from them. As a parent of a five year old and a seven year old, I can only imagine the heartbreak and tragedy of having children ripped from one's home, taken and told that everything they believed and held true was not true. That would be one of my worst nightmares. The fact this happened in Canada and happened to thousands of children is disgraceful.

The abuse endured by these poor children included sexual and physical assault, overcrowding, poor sanitation, lack of medical care and forced labour. We lost over 6,000 indigenous children. One of those children could have grown up and found a cure cancer or a cure for COVID. Instead, we unfortunately and sadly we lost them.

Those who survived were found to have suffered historic trauma, which has left a lasting adverse effect on indigenous cultures for generations to come. This history of abuse is a shameful portion of Canadian history and reminds us of the respect and dignity that should be afforded all people, including indigenous people.

In this modern day and age, indigenous people across Canada continue to face many serious issues. As a country, we have a lot of work ahead of us on the path to reconciliation, to true and meaningful reconciliation.

I have been shocked and disgusted by some recent news articles outlining the way our indigenous people are being treated to this day. Many indigenous communities across Canada still do no have access to clean drinking water. It is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I was trying to get the member's attention. Unfortunately, the time is up, but the hon. member will have six minutes the next time this matter is before the House for his speech and then questions and comments.

The House resumed from November 23 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 Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last debated the motion, there were six and a half minutes remaining in the speech by the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and a bit of a surprise to virtually stand in the House of Commons to continue my speech on Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94).

I want to reiterate that despite the fact that Canada is one of a few countries in the world where indigenous rights and treaties are entrenched in the constitution, our relationship with indigenous people is far from perfect. It represents, unfortunately, a very dark chapter of Canadian history, which has left a damaging impact on the lives of indigenous peoples across our country today.

In the first half of my speech, I talked about the damaging history of residential schools and the impact they have had on indigenous people to this day. This terrible act committed by the Canadian government saw thousands of children ripped away from their families and forced to assimilate with what it perceived as Canadian values, which could not be any more un-Canadian.

In a 100-plus year period, over 150,000 indigenous children were removed from their families and forced to live in terrible conditions. Their rich culture and history was stripped away from them. The abuse endured by these children had an everlasting impact and an adverse effect on indigenous cultures for generations to come.

I really cannot imagine what it would be like, as a father of a five-year-old and a seven-year-old, to have my children taken away from me, along with everything that I hold dear: my personal values, family values and religion. I cannot imagine my children being put into a foreign environment where they are unable to connect with the generations before. I find it deeply troubling that it ever occurred in Canada.

The history of abuse represents a shameful portion of Canadian history and reminds us of the importance of respect and dignity that should be afforded indigenous peoples across Canada. I look forward to a better day when we see the process of reconciliation moving forward and everyone walking strongly together, building a better Canada for everyone, indigenous and non-indigenous. In this modern day and age, however, indigenous people across Canada continue to face many important issues and we, as a country, have a lot of important work ahead of us on the path to true and meaningful reconciliation.

I have been shocked and, quite frankly, disgusted by some of the recent news articles that outline the ways our indigenous people are still being treated to this very day. There are still many indigenous communities that do not have access to clean drinking water. While the government has committed to ending long-term drinking water advisories for all first nations communities, there are still 61 indigenous communities that do not have access to clean drinking water.

As the member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South, I am honoured to be the representative of the Alderville First Nation and Hiawatha First Nation. Both of these first nations are extremely well led by Chief Carr and Chief Mowat, and I have been honoured to have conversations with both.

While Alderville First Nation was connected to clean drinking water in 2017 and Hiawatha First Nation is in the process of this, the fact that both of these great powerful nations have had to endure going without clean drinking water in the 20th and 21st centuries is incredible to me. It is something that should never have happened in Canada. I find this appalling.

Beyond that, indigenous people across Canada are facing a mental health crisis. With a lack of access to mental health services, Statistics Canada found that overall, indigenous people in Canada die by suicide at a rate nearly three times as high as non-indigenous Canadians. There is no doubt that this must be related to the troublesome history indigenous people have had in our country, and we need to do better. We need to make sure indigenous people are not committing suicide, and certainly not at three times the rate of non-indigenous peoples in Canada.

Another huge issue is missing and murdered indigenous women. Between 1980 and 2012, despite the fact that indigenous women make up 4% of the female population, indigenous women and girls represented 16% of all female homicides in Canada. This is shocking.

Bill C-8, which would expand the Canadian oath of citizenship to include recognition of the treaty rights of the first nations, Inuit and Métis people, is an important step toward true and meaningful reconciliation. By including this historic amendment, Canada is taking steps to educate newcomers of Canada and recognize our dark history.

I am proud to support the bill to create a new oath of citizenship, one that would elevate and promote the inherent dignity of indigenous people and their rights, including treaty rights, to new Canadians. It is important that we recognize the first people who called this great land home. .

[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]

Mr. Speaker, one of the commitments that were given many years ago by the Prime Minister and the government was to work toward reconciliation. Here we have yet another piece of legislation that deals with that very important issue, and it is always encouraging when members on all sides of the House recognize the importance of reconciliation. For me, that is what the bill is really about.

I ask my colleague and friend to provide his thoughts on the importance of continuing to strive for reconciliation.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is incredibly important. As I said, I am proud to have the nations of Alderville and Hiawatha as part of my riding. There are so many terrific and great people there. I wonder, though: If indigenous people were given the opportunity they truly deserve, could one of those indigenous children who grew up in residential schools have cured cancer? Could one of those children have led the way to a cure for COVID a bit quicker?

We need to make sure every Canadian child has the opportunity to be successful, and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-8.

I must say that when we first looked at the bill, we found it interesting. The government wanted to reach out to indigenous nations, which is good, considering all the harms inflicted on them in the past.

We are obviously not particularly attached to any oath for new Canadian citizens, given that we want to be independent and have our own oath for Quebec citizenship.

However, after examining the bill more closely, we realized that it contained a poison pill. On the one hand, the government wants to reach out to indigenous peoples, but on the other hand, Quebec gets a slap in the face. In fact, new citizens would have to swear an oath on the Canadian Constitution, which Quebec never signed. It was forced upon us; we never voted on it, either.

I would like to hear my Conservative colleague's thoughts on the fact that the government is trying to surreptitiously slip something past us that is actually quite insulting to Quebec.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I fully respect the people of Quebec and am generally a proponent of provincial jurisdiction and autonomy where it is possible. However, I believe that this legislation is for promoting reconciliation with our indigenous peoples, and for that reason I have to support it as we continue our journey of reconciliation with the indigenous people of our country.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Fort Albany was founded in 1697, over 100 years before Toronto ever came into existence. The Cree were negotiating directly with the Europeans for 200 years before Canada. Of course, Fort Albany is where the notorious St. Anne's residential school was and where the current government continues to spend millions of dollars fighting survivors.

The Liberals are very good at symbols, but they are absolutely vicious when it comes to denying the rights of the survivors of some of the worst abuse. How do we ensure that when we move forward on these important symbols, we are actually holding the government to account to respect the legal rights and historic rights of the people who have been neglected and abused over the years?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, the hon. member brings a passionate eloquence to the chamber. I support what he is saying in that we need action and we need clean drinking water for all first nations people. We need to make sure no indigenous child is left behind. There is so much opportunity, not just for indigenous children, but for what they will bring to Canada, namely the diversity of opinion, thoughts and leadership, which will no doubt come from indigenous communities if they are given the opportunity.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to participate in this debate.

The bill before us, Bill C-8, is essentially about the respect and consideration that we here in the House always owe to first nations. This applies as much to Canadian citizens as it does to those who will one day join our country as citizens. When these new citizens come forward, they will have to swear this oath of allegiance, which, thanks to Bill C-8, now recognizes first nations. This is therefore an important issue, one that calls for reconciliation and consideration and, above all, respect.

We all know that the first nations have been living on the land known as Canada for a very long time. We all know that when the Europeans arrived in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, the first nations were overcome in the events that unfolded. We must, however, always acknowledge their indelible presence on this land and their tremendous contribution to building this great country known as Canada.

This process was not a seamless one. Unfortunately, there was a litany of sad, unfortunate and unjust events that led to what is currently going on in this country. We cannot erase 400 years of difficult relations with the stroke of a pen, but we can learn from our mistakes and never repeat them. We can take a different approach, a different attitude, to see the future from a better perspective, while showing the patience necessary to acknowledge that mistakes were made in the past and to establish trust and reconciliation.

It is an honour and a privilege to have the community of Wendake, previously known as the Huron Village, in my riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent. I was born in Loretteville, right next to Wendake, in 1964, so I grew up very close to the Wendat people. I still have some very dear and very close childhood friends from that community. I am lucky, because I have been around first nations peoples my whole life, which may help me better understand some concerns. Still, who am I to talk about their experience? All I can say is that the Wendat people have made exceptional and extraordinary contributions to the community and in particular to Quebec City.

The Wendat people have lived on this land since the dawn of time, but in a more sedentary way. After being threatened with outright extinction through wars and battles, they went from Île d'Orléans to Sillery to what is now known as L'Ancienne-Lorette, before ultimately settling at the foot of the Kabir-Kouba Falls in 1696.

Of course I have nothing but good to say about them because I know them very well. I have been their neighbour for 56 years. It is a privilege and an honour to represent them in the House of Commons, as it was to represent them some time ago in the National Assembly of Quebec. I have to say that I am the one who is privileged in Canada, and I say it with all due respect. I am tempted to say that it is the best nation in Canada, but other nations might dispute that.

Instead I will say that Wendake and the Wendat people are an inspiration for all Canadians with respect to collaboration and living together harmoniously, and we should look to the Wendat people's relationship with non-indigenous people in the Quebec City area and follow their example everywhere in Canada. They are an inspiration.

The Wendat community I represent is made up of proud, positive and constructive people. They are also business people. In Wendake, in my riding, there are dozens of businesses that hire indigenous and non-indigenous workers. Nearly 400 non-indigenous people work in these businesses located in Wendake territory.

Just recently I had the pleasure of visiting a factory that makes snowshoes. Raquettes GV was established in Wendake in 1959 and employs dozens of people. It sells its products throughout Quebec and Canada and around the world. Naturally, I am very proud of these people, and that is why I am so pleased to represent them in the House of Commons. They are hardworking people who can look to the future while being extraordinarily attached to the heritage of their ancestors and proudly representing it.

Sadly, we were recently called to pay tribute to Max Gros-Louis, who, as hon. members know, was a high-ranking indigenous leader. For more than 50 years, he was committed to defending his nation and the first nations. He did so with the fighting spirit of a proud Huron-Wendat, but also with respect for the people he was dealing with. That is why, when Grand Chief Gros-Louis passed away, everyone unanimously spoke of his extraordinary contribution to the good relationship we need to have.

There was an election in Wendake roughly a month ago. A young man by the name of Rémy Vincent was elected. I congratulate him. He succeeded Konrad Sioui, who held that position for 12 years. I worked with him during the 12 years of his mandate since his term began about a month and a half before I started mine at the provincial level. We always collaborated with respect. We had differing opinions. I could recognize certain things that he could not and vice versa. That is what living together is all about. We can have different points of view and agree to disagree. We must work together to improve the things we do not agree on, and we must work together when we have common views. I know that is the approach that the new chief, Rémy Vincent, is taking as he begins the mandate that his nation has just given him.

I do not claim to be better than anyone else, but it so happens that I have the great privilege of knowing the first nations well, especially the Huron-Wendat people, having grown up alongside them from my earliest days. As I said in my introduction, we have a responsibility to recognize that relations between indigenous and non-indigenous people have been particularly difficult and rocky. I will have the opportunity to talk about a few aspects of that.

On the other hand, we have the responsibility to recognize that some steps have been taken that have had such an important impact on how we live today. Let me remind members that it was the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker who recognized the fact that first nations should have the right to vote.

We must also recognize that on June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered the Canadian government's formal apology to the first nations for the residential school tragedy. For an entire century, residential schools were opened by successive governments, from Sir John A. Macdonald to the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, forcing over 140,000 first nations children to renounce and deny their most precious heritage, the legacy of their ancestors. It is arguably the greatest tragedy in Canadian history.

It took courage and honour to recognize this tragedy. I am proud to know that the Right Honourable Stephen Harper is the one who offered this formal apology to the first nations on the recommendation of the late Jack Layton of the NDP. Yes, we must acknowledge our mistakes, but we must also build on the good things we have done and look to the future.

We salute the government for placing a lot of emphasis on reconciliation with first nations in its statements. We hope that this reconciliation will be based on concrete, positive action that focuses on the future of relations between first nations and non-indigenous peoples. We noted, as did everyone, that the current government made a commitment to first nations that they would have clean drinking water, which seems obvious to those of us who do not have this problem. Unfortunately, the government has failed. We salute the minister for having the honour and dignity to admit it, but we hope that he will redouble his reconciliation efforts and that it will not be just talk.

From our perspective, the fact that the recognition of first nations is included in the oath that will be taken by new Canadians is important, even essential, and it must be perpetuated by this reality.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister, ministers and all members are very much committed to reconciliation. I appreciate many of the remarks made by the opposition House leader.

In fact, one of the documents that I keep around when I am inside the chamber is the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in a mini-report. What we are really talking about is number 94 of its calls for action.

Can the member just reinforce that this is just one of the calls for action and there is always going to be room for us to continue to look at what we can do? Several of those recommendations require us to work with other levels of government and other stakeholders as well.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this report is quite important. It is the basis of the reflections that we should be having. Some of those recommendations are right. Sometimes there is room for discussion. If we are talking about provincial jurisdiction on some issues, then we have to work together with them. We have to put aside our differences on some issues to work toward the best future relationship we can have with first nations.

I do also recognize that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was created under the former Conservative government.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his very interesting speech. I could support most of what he had to say, but there was one thing that disappointed me.

It is important to reach out to indigenous nations and make up for the mistakes made in the past in some small way, even if it is only a very small way, since we are talking about putting a few words in an oath of citizenship. I do not think that is going to solve all the problems. However, there is a negative element in what is proposed in Bill C-8, and yet I did not hear my colleague talk about it. Quebec did not sign the Canadian Constitution, but now new citizens are being asked to take an oath on the Canadian Constitution. There is something wrong with that. It is a disgrace.

Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Mulroney, the former leader of the Conservatives, recognized this at the time. He said that he wanted to bring Quebeckers back in with honour and enthusiasm. Once again, that was a failure in terms of closing the rest of Canada to Quebec.

I would like to know what my colleague, as a member from Quebec, thinks about that. Does he still intend to vote in favour of Bill C-8, or does he intend to support amendments that could be made to it?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment and question from the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. I figured he would ask me that question, which is why I did not address the subject in my speech, since our speaking time is limited.

I agree with what the member is saying about how the 1982 Constitution was never recognized by the Quebec National Assembly. I know what I am talking about, since I used to be a member of the National Assembly. As the member so aptly stated, impressive efforts were made by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and others to get Quebec to sign the Constitution with honour and enthusiasm. Unfortunately, for partisan political reasons, the current governing party disgraced itself by making backroom deals to prevent the historic accord that would have enabled us to carry on.

At the same time, I would like to point out to my colleague that, even though the 1982 Constitution was not signed by Quebec and has not been recognized by the National Assembly for 38 years, it is in effect nevertheless. The proof is that the House of Commons operates under that Constitution. That means that the mandate that my colleague received and the work that he has done for over five years, which I appreciate, is done in a chamber that operates under the Canadian Constitution.

Yes, we need to continue to remind everyone that Quebec did not sign the Constitution. However, we also need to remind them that the Constitution still applies, that this country is still running and that, even though the National Assembly does not recognize the Constitution, as I can personally attest, because I used to be a member of that assembly, the Constitution enables the National Assembly and the provincial jurisdictions to operate.

Yes, let us continue to remind everyone that, unfortunately, because of the federal Liberal Party's base political manoeuvring, the Meech Lake accord fell through, but Canada continues to carry on.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would request that there be a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, September 23, 2020, the recorded division stands deferred until later this day, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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 Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, September 23, 2020, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-8.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #40

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions today, Government Orders will be extended by 73 minutes.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Persons with Disabilities; the hon. member for Kenora, Regional Economic Development; the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Veterans Affairs.