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.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you are doing good work in the chair today. Thanks again.

Here we go again. I honestly do not know what to say after hearing the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in this chamber. As I said in my question to him, what I heard was a lot of justification with little accountability on why the Liberals are introducing what I would deem a draconian motion, Motion No. 11, today, when there really is no need to do so. There is nothing under this coalition with the NDP, even up to the point and in advance of the coalition being announced, that the Liberals have not been able to put forward as part of their legislative agenda.

So far, of the 18 bills that have been introduced, eight have received royal assent. There is no question that there may be some other outstanding pieces of legislation that the government wants to put forward, but there is no reason why it cannot do that in the time specified in the Standing Orders and the schedule that was agreed to by my predecessor and the other House leaders last year.

The Standing Orders talk about the possibility of extending hours. We have seen that. I have been here for six and a half years, certainly not as long as my hon. colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who has been here for 21 years and I believe is the dean of our caucus. She has seen it all, through government and now through opposition. There has never been an example like this, at least in the history of this Parliament, and I suspect in the history of legislatures across the country in all of the provinces and territories, where on April 28 we are debating a motion that gives the government ultimate power to extend hours at this particular point of this parliamentary session.

I am going to talk later on about the consequences of that, because I think there are significant consequences to the administration of this place, to the lives and the health, mental and physical health, of those who work in this place, but what I want to focus on initially is why we are at this point, a point that I believe we certainly do not need to be at.

I have heard from the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary that they are focusing on Bill C-8 as one of the reasons why they are proposing this ham-fisted Motion No. 11. The reality on Bill C-8 is that, as I said earlier, it was only introduced on December 15. It received second reading in February, went to committee in March and came back to the House at report stage. There were some other issues of debate that were required as a result of its coming out of committee. In fact, I recall having a conversation with you, Mr. Speaker, about Bill C-8 at report stage and that you expressed some concerns, not in your current role as Speaker, but in your role as a member of the Bloc Québécois. Those concerns were certainly moving through the process.

Within that timeline specifically on Bill C-8, there are some important measures, measures that have already been implemented, such as purchasing rapid tests. The government has the authorities, when it issues a ways and means motion, to accelerate the spending within the piece of legislation. When we look back, we have had four weeks where we have been off. I am sure we all agree to that timeline. This is effectively a mismanagement of the legislative agenda as to why Bill C-8 has not been put forward.

As I said in my question to the parliamentary secretary, and this is important to understand because Liberals have been accusing us, the opposition, of obstructing this piece of legislation, it was on April 4 that the government put a notice of time allocation on the Notice Paper. That was the week of the budget. The budget was introduced on April 7. The motion was not moved.

When I asked the government House leader why he did not move the motion, the reason he gave me was that the NDP did not want to move that motion. How are we obstructing that? If the Liberals' coalition partners did not want to move a notice of time allocation, then their issue on Bill C-8 is not with the opposition but with their coalition partners, because they did not want to move the motion. If the parliamentary secretary wants to, he can confirm that with the government House leader. Hopefully he gets the truth, but that was the basis of the conversation that we had. In fact, it was brought up at the House leaders' meeting the next day.

The government suggests, specifically on Bill C-8, that somehow we are obstructing the passage of that piece of legislation. Yes, we had some people who wanted to speak to it when it came out of committee, because there were important issues. However, I would suggest, respectfully, that it was the Liberals' coalition partners who prevented the notice of time allocation from being moved, which, as I said, was introduced on April 4. We could have been dealing with this at third stage even back before the budget in that first week.

We certainly share those concerns, particularly from an agriculture standpoint as it relates to the carbon tax rebate and taxes. I know there are teachers who are waiting for that bill. It is not lost on me, and it should not be lost on anybody in the House, that it is the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners who are stopping this.

The other thing that is concerning, and I know the member brought this up as well, is the issue of medical assistance in dying and the extension within this motion on medical assistance in dying, which would push it to October 17. There was a requirement for a legislative review to be held on this bill. We went to an election in September. We were reconvened around November. However, it was not until the end of March, in the timeline that is required for this legislative review, that the government even started talking about the Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying and the requirement for this legislative review. In fact, this review was required to be done legislatively by May, so we had discussions.

I understand my colleague from the Bloc and I understand as well that there are very serious issues with medical assistance in dying that are required to be looked at, but with regard to the legislative review that was to be done in May, we actually agreed, as the opposition, to extend the timeline by another six weeks. It was not our fault that the government delayed the legislative review. It pushed it off until March, and then we agreed to go beyond the extension. Initially, I was a little concerned about it, but we do not control the legislative agenda in this place. It is not the opposition's job to sit here and determine what is going to happen in this place. It is the government's job. When we were in government, we determined the legislative agenda that was to occur in this place.

The Liberals' failure, not just on Bill C-8 but on medical assistance in dying and the required legislative review and the timeline related to that, is their fault. It is completely on them, and that is why we agreed. I respected the concern of the Bloc House leader, and I know there are very deep and personal issues within the Bloc caucus on the issue of medical assistance in dying. That is why we agreed to extend the timeline by another six weeks and to provide the committee with what we believe was an appropriate amount of time, six weeks extra, to deal with this.

We actually also committed to having the committee sit more than what was regularly scheduled. That would have required moving resources from other committees to this committee, but we were committed to allowing that extended timeline to June 23, which all of us, including me and our party, agreed to.

Again, that is the government's prerogative. We do not control the administration of this place. We do not control committees. We do not control virtual sittings. We do not control translation. We do not control the administrative staff, nor do we control the clerks. It is all the government. We committed, in extending that deadline, to work and to be available during that timeline if extra sittings of the committee on medical assistance in dying were required. We committed to get the job done, yet here we are.

We are seeing now in this motion an extension to October 17. There had been discussions among the parties to extend it, and on behalf of our party, I said “no”. There had to have been unanimous consent, because we had already agreed to extend it by six weeks to June 23. Again, the government wasted time putting the committee in place. It took from the time we started sitting in November to the time it finally got around to talking about it in March, which it did so it would meet the requirements of the legislative timeline.

The other thing the government did was call an election last September. The House could have still been sitting. We were only 18 months into that session of Parliament. We could have still kept going. The Liberals could have dealt with medical assistance in dying, or they could have dealt with other bills, such as Bill C-8, within that timeline, but they chose not to. How is that our fault? How are we obstructing Parliament? How are we stepping in the way of the government's legislative agenda, when its members, time and time again, fail to implement whatever is on their legislative agenda and fail to use the time and resources of the House in a manner that would allow them to get their job done?

That was the issue with medical assistance in dying. That is what happened, in case anyone is wondering why we are seeing that timeline in this motion. I understand, as I said earlier, that it was important to my colleague, the House leader of the Bloc, and to those within the Bloc, to see the October 17 deadline extended beyond what we had all agreed to. Although I am disappointed by that, I certainly understand, based on my discussions with my colleague in the Bloc, why that is important to them.

I do not think we have to put it in an omnibus motion in order to do that. We could have had further discussions, but I guess this was a way of handing some sort of opportunity to the Bloc to understand this motion, and that is okay. I get that those things happen, because as I said, I realize how important this issue is to the Bloc. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wanted an explanation, and I just gave him one. We had all agreed to extend that deadline, and we did not see the reason, especially given the fact that we were willing to work with the committee to extend the hours.

There was some talk that, during the break in May, that week after Victoria Day, we would have eight-hour sittings. I spoke to our shadow minister about that, and it was an impossibility. It would have been eight hours a day sitting in committee dealing with medical assistance in dying when many of those resources could have been moved from other sources to deal with the medical assistance dying committee while the House is sitting. That could have been done, but we thought that eight hours a day of sitting in that break week in May was an unreasonable request, and I think it was, because there were members on our side who had made plans with their families during that week, and because it is Victoria Day weekend here in Ontario, so some plans were already made.

We certainly could have worked together, but we are actually seeing a pattern of this type of activity happen. Members will recall Motion No. 6, which the government introduced at one point. This is very different than that, because at the time there was strong consensus, agreement and alignment among the opposition parties. The Conservative Party, the Bloc and the NDP were in opposition to Motion No. 6, and we fought that vigorously.

However, because there was that alignment, the government eventually did back down from that motion, at least some of the more destructive pieces of that motion. This is different.

Motion No. 11 is different because I suspect the Liberals have the support of the NDP. Of course, the government has thrown a few nuggets to the NDP. We have seen that all that is required for NDP's support in this unholy alliance and collusion, is just need to be thrown a few little nuggets and they will leap, because the Liberal Party effectively has the NDP in its hip pocket, to implement these types of motions. It is quite concerning.

There are extremely concerning aspects of this that really play into a pattern of what I would call a democratic decline in this country. We have seen this pattern over and over. We saw it with Motion No. 6, as I said earlier. In fact, one of the first pieces of legislation introduced after the COVID crisis hit in March 2020 was an absolutely draconian piece of legislation from the government, and I am glad all oppositions fought it. Even the NDP fought it at that time because they had not yet formed this unholy alliance, but it fought this draconian piece of legislation, which would have given the government massive powers and massive overreach to suspend the activities of Parliament and tax Canadians without the approval of Parliament.

Can members imagine a government thinking it could take that on and actually affect that within a democracy like Canada. When I speak about this democratic decline, there are numerous examples over the course of not just during COVID but also prior to that, even with Motion No. 6, where we have seen the government really overreach and overextend its powers and controls over this place, diminishing not just democracy but also our institutions. It is diminishing faith in our institutions and the respect that people have for our institutions, separating our institutions in a way that keeps them away from government politicization and government influence, yet the government continues to do that. The government is certainly doing this with Motion No. 11.

I want to go through and talk about some of the more concerning parts of the motion. It does not just concern me as a parliamentarian seeing this diminishing of democracy happen in this country. There are examples, much like in some of the countries in eastern Europe where we are seeing it on a scale that is being measured, of the decline of democracy in this country. There are measurements, and I will speak about that in a few minutes.

I would suggest that Motion No. 11 adds to that decline in democracy. When we go through the motion, we see some of the things that the government has proposed. The motion reads:

On the day of the adoption of this order, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 a.m., that until Thursday, June 23, 2022, a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, rise from his or her seat at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., and request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the current sitting or a subsequent sitting be 12:00 a.m....

Now let us think about what that means. A minister of the Crown, and it does not have to be the House leader, although the House leader is classified as a minister, but a minister could go to another party at 6:29 p.m. and say, “We want to extend the hours, will you agree with us?”

They need just one party, one recognized House leader, to agree. I wonder who that would be. I know that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said that I could agree to that, but there are certain provisions in this motion that I could never agree to, so why would I agree at 6:29 p.m. to extend the sitting of the House.

The government House leader or a minister of the Crown will walk over to his coalition buddy in the NDP and say, “Look, we are not moving forward on things quick enough.” It would not be up for open, vigorous debate, or for oversight or scrutiny, which is what this place is designed to do. Instead, we can sit here, and they can walk over and talk to their NDP buddy to say “Look, we want to extend the hours until midnight.” I will tell members what is most concerning about that, but the least of it is the impact the lack of planning would have on families in this place.

Here is the scenario: The House is set to adjourn at 6:30 p.m. At 6:29 p.m., the two of them are in cahoots, and they say that they want to extend the sitting until midnight. What does that do to families? What does that do to MPs who perhaps have plans? It is one thing to do it during the normal, set schedule in the Standing Orders, but it is another thing to start doing it on April 28, which is today, because this would take effect if this motion passes.

What does it do to the administration of this place? What does it do to the clerks? They work hard, and they know they have to work hard, but one minute before the House is set to rise, the government and its buddies in the NDP can say that they want to keep everybody here. They would want to keep the clerks here, the administration here and the pages here.

Have people not been through enough throughout the course of this crisis? We have had to go through the extensions of the long hours in this place, the uncertainty and the impact on mental health, on families and on people's lives, yet one minute before the House is scheduled to rise, they can suddenly extend it until midnight, and they can do that every single night if they want to.

How is that fair? How is that fair to a mom who works here who has kids at home who she needs to get home to, or to a father who works here who has kids at home who he needs to get home to? How about a husband and wife who work together, the partners and spouses who work in this place, having to work those long hours because the government is mismanaging its agenda and is not using its time effectively in this House?

What about the mental health impacts this would have? What about the drivers? What about the security guards? They will effectively be given a one-minute notice that they have to stick around this place. Come on. How ridiculous is that? The government can do it, as I said earlier, from the point this motion passes right through until June 23, or earlier if they decide that they are going to adjourn the House.

Of course, another part of the motion is talking about proceedings on any opposition motion. So, when it is government business, it is okay, we will extend the House, but not on opposition motion days. These are very valuable supply days that we get. The official opposition gets five days in the supply period, the Bloc Québécois gets one and the NDP, I believe, gets one as well.

However, on those days, we would rise at the appropriate time. There would not be any opportunity for us to extend beyond the normal sitting time, but there would be for government legislation. Perhaps we have an issue that is important to Canadians. Perhaps it is a geopolitical issue, financial issue or an issue affecting the health of Canadians that we want to bring forward and get consensus on in the House. We would not have an opportunity to extend beyond the normal sitting time, but the government, with a one-minute notice and the help of its coalition buddies in the NDP, could extend the sitting time of the House every single day, including Friday.

On Friday, we do the business of this place for this country and the House adjourns at 2:30 p.m. However, at 2:29 p.m., the two parties can get together and say that we will be extending until midnight.

We can talk about the impact that this can have on families and the family unit, and the impact on the mental health and physical health of those who work to support this place. This includes MPs, many of whom make travel plans on Fridays so they can go home to their constituencies. When they go home to their constituencies, they are going out to events on Saturday and sometimes on Sunday, then working their way back here to Parliament by getting back on an airplane. Now the Liberals are suggesting that members of Parliament have to cancel their travel plans on a whim because they are not good at dealing with their legislative agenda and the schedule of the House, and they are going to keep us here until midnight on Friday.

I have sat here for six and a half years and have heard the NDP talk about a family-friendly environment in this place, about attracting more women to Parliament and about making sure that the lives of the people who work here and the lives of MPs are balanced so they can spend time with their families and can spend time in their constituencies. However, if this motion passes today, the Liberals will push to extend the timelines to midnight every single day that the House is sitting with a one-minute notice, just one minute, including on Fridays. I have no problem working Fridays. It is part of my job as the opposition House leader to be here on Fridays. However, I think it is absolutely unreasonable for anyone to expect, with one-minute notice, all of the administration, all of the support staff and the interpreters who work in this place to be here until midnight every single day, when the House starts at 10 o'clock in the morning, because the government mismanages its legislative agenda.

I have not even touched on the interpreters. At the Board of Internal Economy, we have been hearing about the impact that these virtual or hybrid sittings are having on our interpreters. We have seen an increase in injuries. Reports have been published that note a marked increase in the physical injury impact that this hybrid setting has been having on our interpreters. I have also talked about some of the other people who are going to be impacted by this. If the government is that concerned about the health and wellness of the people who work here, including the interpreters, why would it even suggest extending until midnight every single day? It is because of its failure to impose its legislative agenda within the timelines that have been prescribed in the Standing Orders.

This is also going to have an impact on committees, which I am going to touch on a bit later. This will have an impact on the ability of the committees to do their work because of the shuffling of resources that will be required. It stands to reason that if we are going to go to midnight, we will have to take something away from somewhere, and the important work that is being done by committees will suffer. Maybe that is the intent. Maybe that is what the government wants. Maybe it wants to take that work away from committees so it can further avoid accountability and transparency and we can further see the democratic decline that is happening in this country.

This is a beauty. As I said earlier, after 6:30 p.m., with one minute to spare because the House normally adjourns at 6:30 p.m., a member or minister of the government can go to the NDP and say, “We are going to extend.” Here is the impact of that, and it is a joke. It has to be a joke; there is no other way to explain it. The motion states:

the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions, and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties

That is just on unanimous consent. At least they have included the House leaders of recognized parties on some sort of unanimous consent motion that can be passed. However, what is interesting here is the constitutional obligation to have quorum in this place. What Liberals are saying in this motion is that after 6:30 p.m. there will not be a requirement for quorum.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 21, 2021

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Administrator of the Government of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 21st day of June, 2021, at 6:35 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-210, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (organ and tissue donors); Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94); Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; Bill C-33, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022; and Bill C-34, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Absolutely, Jamie. We have a plan for every one of the calls to action that is a federal responsibility or shared responsibility and, as you know, we're either completed or are well under way with 80% of them.

Obviously, with what's happened just now, with Bill C-5 and Bill C-8, as well as Bill C-15, we are making tremendous progress on the calls to action, and we really do believe that calls to action 72 to 76 are well under way.

Indigenous Affairs

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the report card the member has given. The TRC road map for reconciliation is so important to our government, and in objective reviews, 80% of the 76 calls to action under the sole or shared responsibility of the federal government are completed or well under way. The recent passage of Bill C-5 is an example of concrete progress, as are Bill C-8 and Bill C-15, which are coming soon. This work will require sustained and consistent action to advance Canada's shared journey of healing and reconciliation.

Opposition Motion—Housing Policy

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my hon. colleague.

I could not believe it when I saw the news about the 215 children who were found in Kamloops last week. The government's only response was to dust off Bill C-8 and say that it is taking action for indigenous peoples by adding four words to the Canadian oath of citizenship. Meanwhile, there are still indigenous reserves in northern Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that do not yet have drinking water and where there are 25 people living in substandard and unheated one-bedroom homes.

Indigenous Affairs

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to remind the member that over 80% of the 76 calls to action under the sole or shared responsibility of the federal government are completed or well under way; the recent passage of Bill C-5, as an example, Bill C-8, Bill C-15. This will result in sustained and consistent action to advance Canada's shared journey of healing and reconciliation.

Citizenship Act

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

It being 7:55 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 1, the motion is deemed adopted and Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, is deemed read a third time and passed on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I was a bit more cynical about those calls to action, but the more I thought about it, the more I think it is so important to enshrine up front when that important learning is happening about coming to a new country, coming to Canada and what that means. To talk about the original inhabitants right out of the gate leads to what could be a future of reconciliation for all. It is an important step. I do not think we can trivialize it. Bill C-8 is important and I am proud to support it.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is important for me today to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-8 from the unceded territory of the Wolastoqiyik.

What is a nation, and what does it mean to be a Canadian citizen? Bill C-8 is an act to amend the Citizenship Act. The bill would change the oath of citizenship for newcomers to Canada to include recognition and affirmation of the treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

As I have proudly mentioned many times in this House, before I joined federal politics I was a teacher. When I think about this bill and the oath of citizenship, I think about what it teaches us about who we are and who we want to be.

In my time at Fredericton High School as a cultural transition coordinator for indigenous youth, I helped to run a native education centre. My role was to ensure that students were welcomed, supported, empowered and that they had access to the materials and resources they needed for success, often a tall order in a large institution.

I had the pleasure of working closely with the English as a second language department for newcomer students, who were in the same wing. My goal was to facilitate learning about indigenous culture and heritage with my students, but also with the wider school population and staff. I would create bulletin boards with information; spotlight incredible indigenous leaders, actors, artists, language keepers; visit classes or host professional development seminars.

It was not long before the ESL department requested that I come in and speak with their students, who were very curious about my role. I noticed that the “welcome to Canada” curriculum that the ESL teachers had been given represented indigenous peoples with a totem pole, a teepee and an inukshuk. Beyond these superficial symbolic images, there was no substance, no discussion of rights, of the peace and friendship treaties in our territory, of the different Wabanaki nations on the east coast, no highlight of the 15 communities in New Brunswick, nine Mi’kmaq and six Wolastoqiyik.

We started to hold group potlucks with traditional foods, sometimes in our space and sometimes in theirs. Beyond the cultural exchange, I noticed the bonds that the youth were making with one another and I noticed the pride in being a part of Canada's mosaic. We are strengthened by our diversity and it was beautiful to witness an exercise in community building. These students had more in common than they first believed. Many were subjected to prejudice, discrimination and racism. I also noticed that newcomer students began to open up more about their homelands or refugee experiences. They identified with the history of colonialism they were learning and they were excited by the indigenous cultural resurgence happening in local nations because of the hope it offered.

It is a rare opportunity to connect our desire to welcome newcomers with honesty about the sovereignty of indigenous nations. This is important work that we are undertaking.

We cannot ignore the reason why we are here tonight. It is to discuss Bill C-8 and to expedite its passage into Canadian law. However, this urgency comes from the horrific discovery of the remains of 215 children at the former Kamloops residential school. It should not have taken this latest revelation of wrongdoing to prompt action. We have known the impact of residential schools in this country for decades, at least those of us who bothered to listen. The children have pushed the truth to the surface. No one can say they did not know. Newcomers to Canada will have to come to terms with these realizations as well, out of respect to the original inhabitants of this land, the ones who are still here and the ones who never came home.

The oath in call to action 94 is 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.

Upholding this oath requires a further in-depth conversation about colonialism, the British Crown and its role in the atrocities of residential schools and ongoing oppression, about monies and Crown lands held in trust by Her Majesty the Queen on behalf of indigenous peoples.

As for the faithful observation of laws in Canada, including treaties, we have much work to do. Canadians have very little understanding of our treaty relationship. This became painfully obvious during the Mi’kmaq fishery dispute.

While we stand here today to hopefully unanimously pass Bill C-8, implementing call to action 94 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, call to action 93 has been stalled since June 2018, when the federal government said changes to the information kit for newcomers were close to completion. Can we have an update on this? Can we have a status report on all calls to action? This is what the survivors, those who are descendants of settlers, and certainly newcomers need from the government.

The Liberal government has completed an average of only two TRC calls to action per year since 2015. At this rate, it will take until 2062 to complete all 94. My children will likely have their own children by then. These are steps in the right direction, but I would like to share the reflections of a person from my riding.

This is what they said: “I'm hopeful that people will finally read the recommendations. Maybe finding more human bodies will wake people up to the notion that each of these recommendations addresses a specific concern. The onus should be on our government to explain why they are not adopting specific recommendations versus our current system of applauding them when they pick and choose off the list like it is.”

I appreciate this wisdom. The calls to action represent a package of reforms that create a road map for reconciliation. We must walk that road step by step, recommendation by recommendation. Rather than applause for hand-selecting the 11th and 12th recommendations to enshrine over a six-year period, we need to be seeing status reports on the implementation, demanding more accountability from the government when it falls short, when we all fall short.

I would like to read recommendations 71 to 76 today, as they relate so directly to the lost children in Kamloops and those across the nation who remain invisible. Under “Missing Children and Burial Information”, the calls to action are as follows:

71. We call upon all chief coroners and provincial vital statistics agencies that have not provided to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada their records on the deaths of Aboriginal children in the care of residential school authorities to make these documents available to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.

72. We call upon the federal government to allocate sufficient resources to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation to allow it to develop and maintain the National Residential School Student Death Register established by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

73. We call upon the federal government to work with churches, Aboriginal communities, and former residential school students to establish and maintain an online registry of residential school cemeteries, including, where possible, plot maps showing the location of deceased residential school children.

74. We call upon the federal government to work with the churches and Aboriginal community leaders to inform the families of children who died at residential schools of the child’s burial location, and to respond to families’ wishes for appropriate commemoration ceremonies and markers, and reburial in home communities where requested.

75. We call upon the federal government to work with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, churches, Aboriginal communities, former residential school students, and current landowners to develop and implement strategies and procedures for the ongoing identification, documentation, maintenance, commemoration, and protection of residential school cemeteries or other sites at which residential school children were buried. This is to include the provision of appropriate memorial ceremonies and commemorative markers to honour the deceased children.

76. We call upon the parties engaged in the work of documenting, maintaining, commemorating, and protecting residential school cemeteries to adopt strategies in accordance with the following principles:

i. The Aboriginal community most affected shall lead the development of such strategies.

ii. Information shall be sought from residential school Survivors and other Knowledge Keepers in the development of such strategies.

iii. Aboriginal protocols shall be respected before any potentially invasive technical inspection and investigation of a cemetery site.

We also need to provide the space to grieve. There was a collective sadness being felt across this country. This is the truth that comes before the reconciliation. We had to come to this point of reckoning to wake up those who were still sleeping. Now that we know, we cannot unknow. Enshrining acknowledgement of indigenous peoples into the newcomer citizenship oath asks us to never forget.

I support Bill C-8 and ask my colleagues in the Senate to agree. Let us get this done.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am dismayed that, despite it being six years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action had been tabled, the Liberal government has been exceedingly slow at implementing even the simplest of the calls to action.

According the CBC Beyond 94 tracker, it remains that there are still only 10 out of 94 TRC recommendations completed as of June 1, 2021. Bill C-8 is emblematic of the pace at which the Liberal government has been moving with reconciliation. The concerning rate at which the government has been addressing the calls to action leads me to question the government’s timeline and commitment to fully implement all the calls to action.

During the five-year anniversary on December 15, 2020, the commissioners of the TRC report issued a joint statement to indicate that the government’s process has been too slow. Former TRC commissioner Ms. Marie Wilson highlighted that revising the citizenship guidebook and updating the oath of citizenship to reflect a more inclusive history of indigenous peoples and recognition of their rights was low-hanging fruit among the TRC recommendations.

Yet, this is the third time it has been introduced. In the years that led up to it, of the official list of organizations consulted provided by IRCC, only four were indigenous organizations and the others were six organizations focusing on immigration, including a couple of Catholic organizations, demonstrating that the imprint of colonialism persists to this day.

While the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs heard from a number of witnesses that the wording could have been improved, they were ultimately in favour of passing it so that we could move on to focusing on some of the more major calls to action. Indeed, the Liberals and Conservatives voted down NDP amendments that would address the concerns raised by adding a recognition of inherent rights of first nations as well as aboriginal title rights in the citizenship oath. This is shameful.

The government cannot say it supports the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which explicitly speaks to free, prior and informed consent. Article 10 states:

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.

Yet we continue to see ongoing violations of this very article. This is a clear example of the ongoing colonialism that persists today.

Let us look at what is happening with the Mi’kmaq fishers. DFO has decided that they cannot fish now even though this is a clear violation of their treaty rights to earn a moderate livelihood. UNDRIP stipulates that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, which is what indigenous fishers are trying to do, earn a living, feed their families and, in some cases, work their way out of poverty.

Now, as a result of the failures of the government to live up to its obligations, they are even afraid of violence from non-indigenous fishers. Their property has been burned, they have been threatened and assaulted, and the government has offered no plan to ensure their safety. This is not reconciliation. In fact, this is what systemic racism and discrimination looks like.

Why is the government not doing everything it can to protect the rights and safety of indigenous fishers? Former TRC commissioner Marie Wilson also pointed out that calls to action 53 and 56 call for the creation of a national council for reconciliation. One of its core functions would be to provide oversight and hold the government accountable to the progress on implementing other TRC calls to action.

The fact that these TRC recommendations are missing in action and have not been among the first that were implemented shows a lack of interest by the government in actually implementing these calls to action. It also does not want to be held accountable in an independent, transparent way.

On the five-year anniversary of the TRC report, Murray Sinclair was critical of the slow pace the government has been moving and said:

It is very concerning that the federal government still does not have a tangible plan for how they will work towards implementing the Calls to Action.

This is how the Liberals treat what they say is their most important relationship. The Liberals are abusing the goodwill of indigenous peoples. As they say with a straight face how much they respect indigenous rights, and cry crocodile tears about what indigenous people have always known in light of the findings of the mass grave of indigenous children at the Kamloops residential school site, they continue to take indigenous children to court.

The Liberals cannot claim to honour the spirits of children who died in residential schools while they continue to take indigenous kids to court. The Liberals cannot claim to take their role in reconciliation seriously when they force survivors of residential schools to wage legal battles for recognition and compensation. I am calling for real action, real justice and real reconciliation, not just more words and symbolic gestures. I am calling on the federal government to stop its legal battles against indigenous kids and survivors of residential schools: battles that have cost millions of taxpayer dollars.

In 2020, Dr. Cindy Blackstock stated that the government had spent at least $9 million fighting against first nations children at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. These children do not get a second childhood. As we are sitting here, the government is still fighting survivors of St. Anne's residential school. This cannot be acceptable to anyone who says they want to honour the lives of indigenous children who were ripped away from their loved ones and were subjected to untold abuse and horror. Too many died alone, too many went missing and too many are still suffering from the effects of colonization.

Make no mistake: Genocide was committed against indigenous peoples, and successive Liberal and Conservative governments have continued a genocide against first nations, Métis and Inuit across the country. These are crimes against humanity and it is time for Canada to take full responsibility. I am calling on the Liberals to end their court challenges, to work with survivors, and to ensure that all resources needed are made available to survivors and their communities.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found Canada's discrimination to be “wilful and reckless” and “a worst-case scenario” resulting in unnecessary family separations for thousands of children, and serious harm and even death for other children. These are facts that the government must accept. In addition, the federal government must work with first nations to fund further investigation into the deaths and disappearances of children at residential schools.

The Harper Conservatives denied the TRC the $1.5 million it requested to get an accurate representation of how many unmarked graves there are. The TRC heard from countless witnesses of their existence, but no national effort was made to identify them. This must be addressed.

As stated by Murray Sinclair, retired senator and chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

We know there are lots of sites similar to Kamloops that are going to come to light in the future. We need to begin to prepare ourselves for that. Those that are survivors and intergenerational survivors need to understand that this information is important for all of Canada to understand the magnitude of the truth of this experience.

I am also calling for full funding of the healing resources that survivors need. The federal government must accelerate its progress to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action and announce a timeline and an independent, publicly accountable mechanism for the fulfillment of the calls to action. We cannot continue to say that we support reconciliation without doing real, meaningful work.

To close, the NDP wants to see the TRC recommendation realized. We want to see this bill come to reality, but we also want to see the new citizenship guidebook, which has been in the making for five years, and we have no information of when it will be available. We want the guidebook to also incorporate that history, and clearly outline that genocide has been committed against indigenous peoples and continues to be. Every newcomer needs to know this history and take it to heart. As indicated, this is not an aboriginal issue: It is an issue for all of Canada. It is a Canadian issue and we need to own up to it. We need to—

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 third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, I will give a two-part answer, as that was a two-part question.

With respect to the first part, obstructing legislation seems to be a much more automatic response for the Liberals than it is for the Bloc Québécois.

That said, with respect to including recognition of the Constitution, we agree that it does exist and we are aware of that. My colleague rightly said that everyone follows the law. Then where is the obligation to include it in the citizenship oath, especially since first nations did not ask for that?

I mentioned at committee that by making that amendment, we would achieve a far greater goal, which is to have the unanimous consent of all parties to pass Bill C-8. I even said in February that it might have made it possible to pass the bill much more quickly. The Bloc Québécois held out this possibility, but no one seized it.

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

Madam Speaker, I was saying that I felt sad and bitter about this bill, which we, the Bloc Québécois members, will soon be voting against. We were going to support it, but we are forced to oppose it. Even today, we are forced to vote against it although we did try to amend it so we could support it.

Why is the Bloc Québécois opposed to this bill, whose commendable intent should be self-evident? What happened to bring us to this point? These are questions that I feel compelled to answer, not only for my colleagues in the House, but also for indigenous peoples across the country and for the sake of history, which I call on today as my witness.

The first thing I would like to say to all first nations in Quebec and Canada and to the Métis and the Inuit peoples is that the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that call to action 94, as well as all the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, must be implemented without delay.

However, we cannot support Bill C-8 as it stands now, for two reasons. Reason one is that the bill seems to disregard the fact that the rights of indigenous peoples are not blessings to be bestowed on them by white people. On the contrary, these are inherent rights connected to their very existence as indigenous peoples. The second reason has to do with Quebec's and Canada's turbulent constitutional history.

Too little has been said about the first reason why my party did not support the bill. That reason has to do with the essence of indigenous rights. The Bloc Québécois believes that indigenous peoples have rights that are inherent to their very existence. These rights were not created by a charter, a royal proclamation, an international agreement or a constitutional act. On the contrary, these documents serve only to recognize and confirm these rights.

The ancestral rights predate the arrival of the Europeans and are connected to the activities of indigenous peoples before colonization. These are sui generis rights, in the sense that they are inherent and not granted by the Crown. These ancestral rights were first recognized in the 1973 decision in Calder, and then defined in the Van der Peet decision in 1996.

However, the Crown recognized indigenous land rights in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grant explicit constitutional recognition of ancestral rights, but do not create the rights themselves. For us, putting that much emphasis on the Canadian Constitution means ignoring the inherent nature of the rights of indigenous peoples.

The second reason is well known, but I want to reiterate it. As it now stands, the bill explicitly refers to the Constitution in the oath of citizenship. I do not think one needs a PhD in history to know how big of a disgrace Quebeckers felt the patriation of the Constitution was. Despite all the successive federalist premiers since 1982, Quebec has never signed the Constitution. Obviously, the Liberals will bring out their old argument about separatists stirring up quarrels of the past to break up our beautiful country. However, are modern-day problems not just problems that went unresolved in the past?

That is why it is worth remembering that, when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982, an event that federalist parties dearly love to celebrate, the draft included an explicit reference to the rights of indigenous peoples. However, during the infamous “night of the long knives”, the federal government and the other nine provinces that abandoned Quebec agreed not only to stab René Lévesque in the back but also to edit out recognition and affirmation of the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. Ottawa was a party to that. That too is part of the history of the Constitution, a living tree whose sap is sometimes poisonous.

As it happened, indigenous militancy and concern that Westminster might reject the proposed Constitution resulted in what is now section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being put back in. However, constitutional malaise is still very real for Quebec. Members of other parties know that because we have told them.

Despite all this, we tried to amend Bill C-8 to bring it closer to the original citizenship oath of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, because we wanted to support it.

I should point out that the oath proposed in call to action 94 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission made no reference to the Constitution. The study of the bill in committee was not able to convince us that this addition was made at the request of indigenous peoples. On two occasions, when I asked the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship if the addition of the word “Constitution” was an explicit request of first nations, he replied that it was a result of the general process. In short, he never did tell me if this came from the government or from the first nations.

When we questioned witnesses in committee, they all told us that adding a reference to the Constitution was not at all essential to them. To the Bloc Québécois this addition is not only unnecessary, since it departs from the oath proposed by the Commission, but it is insulting, disrespectful and a provocative act toward the Quebec nation. It is a show of bad faith by the Liberal government and the uncontrollable desire of the federalist parties to pursue a process of building a national identity that endlessly repeats this fable of a Canada of rights and freedoms founded on a millennium-old Constitution.

The sudden haste with which the Liberal government rushed to bring Bill C-8 back to the House this week is rather troubling. Let us not forget that this bill was stuck in limbo since February. We are now June. Last week there was the tragic discovery that pained us all. Suddenly the government woke up to study Bill C-8. Sometimes I get the impression that governments simply wait for the right time to impose their will instead of negotiating, a bit like the Prime Minister's father did so well one day in November 1981. On that, I must say that the unanimity of the federalist parties against the Bloc Québécois's proposals was striking. Sometimes when you win, you lose.

Canadians can carry on building their country in their own image, without worrying about Quebec. We ourselves continue to do so, without Canadians, as we see fit. Perhaps it is because we sense that one day our paths will finally separate.

As a final point, even though our suggestions will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, since that is the government's way, I would still like to propose a solution for a possible path forward that could suit everyone. Why not simply introduce a new bill with language that all parties can agree on? We could then pass that legislation with a simple unanimous consent motion and send it to the other chamber in one fell swoop, as we do here from time to time.

I am making the suggestion, even though I know it will probably fall on deaf ears. At least we tried.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, to my Bloc colleague, I think it was a summary of what I had illustrated. It has been 2,100 days since the TRC report was released, and it has been 2,100 days of dealing with Bill C-8: call to action 94. As I mentioned, and as the member alluded to, the discovery last week was a wake-up call for millions of Canadians. The families of those impacted are looking for closure and answers.

As Canadians, we are looking for urgent action. We have been calling for exactly his point: In the next couple of weeks, not months or years, let us move forward in making sure that we search every site, and provide closure for every child in this country in an unmarked grave who was mistreated at a residential school and had a terrible ending. Let us provide closure sooner rather than later. Urgency is what Canadians want. We need to do that.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, 13 years ago next week, the chamber of the House of Commons was filled with tears and a lot of raw emotion. Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued the apology for the treatment that residential school survivors experienced at federally funded schools across the country. It marked a milestone in the healing and reconciliation process for former students.

One of those former students is Bill Sunday, a member of Akwesasne, which is in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. At that time, the grand chief of the council, Chief Tim Thompson, brought seven survivors from the community of Akwesasne to hear the words of the Government of Canada that day. I am thinking of Bill tonight and the number of residents of Akwesasne who, over the course of numerous generations, have faced hardship and discrimination.

What came of the apology at that time was the idea of establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. As alluded to in other speeches, its report came out with tangible calls to action back in 2015. To give context, that is six years ago, or 2,100 days that our federal government has had to respond to and enact the change that has been called for.

We are here today with nowhere near the pace and volume of completion and tangible progress that Canadians want us to have. A few more than a handful of calls to action have been marked as completed; others are under way. However, if we were to speak to indigenous Canadians, first nations leadership and any Canadian, they would agree that the pace of change and of enacting reconciliation has not moved in the past six years as fast as it needs to.

On Monday, our leader, the leader of the official opposition, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, and over the course of the last couple of days, after the advancement of Bill C-5 regarding a day for truth and reconciliation, which is positive, all parties have worked together to advance that legislation. It was one of the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Our leader also wrote in that letter that the legislation we are debating here tonight should come back up, be moved forward, as it will be tonight, and eventually be passed. It will pass with support from our caucus and I believe from all of Parliament.

This is an important measure; do not get me wrong. However, and I say this respectfully, when we look at all the measures we need to do, the tangible, real, meaningful reconciliation is yet to come. There are a lot of big items that we as a Parliament and we as a country need to confront and address in a timely manner.

I want to acknowledge the discussions of another piece of legislation, Bill C-15, which has had many hours of debate here and in committee and is now over in the Senate. I had the honour and privilege of speaking to it, and with my perspective as a young Canadian; as somebody who has a first nations community, Akwesasne, in his riding; and as part of our Conservative caucus, I took a look at the details of the legislation. I want to speak about the opposition to Bill C-15, not because of a lack of support for reconciliation, but to illustrate to Canadians that our work as parliamentarians is far from done and we know that. What I took note of today, as we talked about the motion, is that the work we do here needs to be better.

Let us consider Bill C-15, and a lot of the words and descriptions in it, such as the description of free, prior and informed consent and its definition, or lack thereof. The NDP's opposition day motion today is an important one that I am proud to support. The first few parts of the motion speak to ending litigation in courts, where the government, first nations communities and residential school survivors are spending years and years and millions and millions of dollars, with more and more emotion going from there. That has been exacerbated because we are not taking the time for consultation and the details.

I completely support the idea of UNDRIP and the principles behind it. The details matter on that. I think it is important for Canadians, as the NDP motion said today, as Parliament will be calling on when that vote comes up in the coming days, that we see real, meaningful changes in this country, not more lawsuits, more delays, motions and millions of dollars being spent on lawyers, but rather on frontline differences to first nations communities and indigenous Canadians in every part of this country.

I want to focus some of my time tonight on the fact that we are expediting this legislation with all-party co-operation to move forward, because there are other parts of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that need to move forward now, urgently, and Canadians are saying that.

Thinking of the news that every single Canadian has had to take in over the course of the last week, of the discovery of 215 children in unmarked graves at the former Kamloops residential school, I look, from a personal perspective, at my life and my lived experience. I am 33 years old. I have an amazing, loving family that helped raise me. I am so grateful for the opportunity that I received in public education: the teachers, staff and students at Inkerman Public School, Nationview Public School and North Dundas District High School. My family and my experience in public education helped make me who I am today.

I could not imagine being a child torn away from my parents never to see them again, going to a school hundreds of kilometres away and receiving horrific treatment. We have an example that was laid bare before us last week. Children ended up buried in unmarked graves, only recognized recently. These children did not have the opportunities that so many of us were fortunate to have, surrounded by loving and caring parents in an education system and experience that were second to none. To have them deprived of that, to have that ending, is completely unacceptable.

In the letter I referenced, we talk about the work we need to do as a Parliament. We need to address this specific, dark part of our history. I was rightfully corrected after one of my social media posts where I was struggling to come up with the proper thing to say about this news. Somebody said that it is not all history, that there are still residential school survivors here today living the experience each and every day. It is not history to them. It is lived experience that they have to deal with and struggle with each and every day.

I think parliamentarians from all parties in every part of this country will hear that, yes, we need to move forward on Bill C-5. We need to move forward on this piece of legislation and on Bill C-8. We need to fund the investigation of all former residential schools in Canada where unmarked graves may exist, including where the 215 children were already discovered in Kamloops. We need to ensure that proper resources are allocated for reinterment, commemoration and the honour of any individuals discovered at any of those sites, according to the wishes of their family. We also need to develop a detailed, urgent and meaningful way of educating Canadians on the real and lived experiences of those there.

I am going to wrap up my comments tonight by bringing them back to my community in eastern Ontario. As I wrap up, I think of Leona Cook, an elder from Akwesasne. She actually lives on the American side of Akwesasne, but her story goes a long way. She was sent from Massena to western New York in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls area to a residential school. This tragedy goes even beyond borders. They took her shoes away when she went to school. Her brothers also went there, but they were placed on a different side of the campus, and she rarely, if ever, saw them.

I watched a video earlier today as I was preparing my remarks, and Leona was in it. She said, “I don't want their apology. I don't want anything from them. I would hope that they learn to treat people better than they treated us. You can't make people be somebody they don't want to be.”

We can take the lessons and the words of Leona Cook, embody them in our work and move forward on major sections of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that will matter to Canadians.

I look forward to the questions and comments and supporting the legislation before us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The wording proposed in Bill C-8 invites new Canadians to faithfully observe the laws of Canada including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

moved that Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94), be read the third time and passed.

Income Tax Act

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

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

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 1, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act with regard to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, at third reading stage.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indigenous Affairs

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

I will be supporting this.

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I call this meeting of the indigenous and northern affairs committee to order. I will start by acknowledging that, when in Ottawa, we meet on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. In my personal case, I am on the traditional territories of the Haudenosaunee, Anishinabe and Chonnonton people.

Pursuant to the order of reference from the House on December 10, 2020, the committee is continuing its study of Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94.

I'd like to welcome officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada who are with us to answer questions members may have about the content of the bill, and perhaps questions from the chair as well.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-8 in this hybrid meeting format. As the name indicates, it's an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, then the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which the clauses they propose to amend appear in the bill or they appear in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that the amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee or by email for members participating virtually.

Since this is the committee's first clause-by-clause consideration of a bill in a hybrid meeting format, I'll be going slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly as well as to accommodate my own procedure through the process. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment is moved, unanimous consent will be needed to withdraw it.

During the debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing or by email for members participating virtually. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first, and then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and then vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at the report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Thank you, all, for your attention, and let's hope for a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-8.

Now I'd like to pose a question for my own enlightenment. With regard to the schedule, on the of the agenda there's a note that if BQ-1 is adopted, then the following two NDP amendments cannot be moved. Could I have an explanation of what that entails?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before we begin, through you, I would ask the witnesses, if it is possible, for those who had any to send their opening statements to the committee so that they can be translated. This would help us in the clause-by-clause debate on the bill. I extend the invitation, if possible, of course. Thank you very much.

During the meeting with the first group of witnesses, I mentioned that the Bloc Québécois really wanted the gist of Bill C-8 to pass, but as you may have understood, there are discussions surrounding the Constitution issue. That's why most of my questions will be directed to Mr. Cardinal.

Mr. Cardinal, since we've talked about it, I'd like you to start by explaining what an inherent right means, in indigenous law, because it's been mentioned, but it hasn't necessarily been explained.

[Éric Cardinal, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify in the context of your work. I am doing so in a personal capacity while wearing several hats.

I wear the indigenous law lecturer's hat first. For the past 15 years, I have had the great pleasure of passing on my passion for indigenous law to university students. Currently, I teach the course entitled Canadian Law and Indigenous Peoples at the University of Montréal.

I am also vice-president of Acosys Consulting Services, an indigenous company that offers training and coaching services in governance for indigenous communities. In this capacity, I participate in negotiation tables with the federal government. In all, I have been working for more than 25 years in the field of indigenous law and policy.

The issue of the recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights is therefore part of my daily life. I am very honoured to be able to speak here today on Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94).

First, let me commend the initiative behind this bill, which responds to the government's commitment to implement the commission's calls for action and foster reconciliation between indigenous people and Canadians. I respectfully submit, however, that the text as proposed in the bill does not truly reflect the intent of the legislation.

The purpose of the bill, as outlined in its accompanying summary, is to include in the Citizenship Act a solemn promise to respect the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

However, the new wordings of the declarations proposed for both the oath and solemn affirmation do not require the person to promise respect for indigenous rights, but rather respect for the Constitution. May I remind you of the text in question:

[…] I swear to faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

We swear to uphold the Constitution, but we do not swear to uphold aboriginal or treaty rights. Some may say it's a theoretical or linguistic nuance, but I don't think so. On the contrary, it is a fundamental nuance, given the principles of nation-to-nation relations between the Canadian Crown and aboriginal peoples.

As you are surely aware, aboriginal rights are known as inherent rights, that is, they exist independently of state recognition, whether by the Constitution or otherwise. The oath should therefore simply lead the person to promise respect for aboriginal and treaty rights, without a reference to the Constitution being necessary.

Moreover, the term Constitution itself is not used in an accurate and correct manner. Now it is the meticulous professor of law speaking. In Canadian law, the Constitution is the body of law that organizes Canada's institutions and determines the fundamental rules that govern society. When we say “the Constitution”, we are not talking about a single document. The Constitution is a mixture of laws, orders in council, court decisions and constitutional conventions.

Finally, let me also point out that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is itself a promise made by the Crown to indigenous peoples. This promise has not been fully kept. On the one hand, there are still many nations that are negotiating or awaiting recognition of their rights by the state. On the other hand, in interpreting section 35, the Supreme Court has limited its scope by allowing the government, in some cases, to infringe upon indigenous and treaty rights.

To be fully consistent with the concept of reconciliation and the principles of nation-to-nation relations, I believe that the reference to the Constitution should be removed and that the declaration should simply, directly, include a solemn promise to respect the indigenous and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

Thank you very much, and congratulations for the work you are doing.

[Lorraine Whitman, President, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Wela'lin, Chair.

Good afternoon. Taluisi Lorraine Whitman, Grandmother White Sea Turtle. I am the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, and I am speaking to you today from unceded traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq Lnu people. Kwe kwe.

I would like to thank the Government of Canada, and the members of the House Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in particular, for inviting me here today to talk about Bill C-8 and the proposal to change the oath of Canadian citizenship to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples.

It has been more than five years since Justice Murray Sinclair released the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission after its multi-year study of the horrors that occurred behind the walls of Canada’s Indian residential schools. I commend the Government of Canada for committing to act upon all of the 94 calls to action contained in that report.

I also understand that in just two days you will be doing your line-by-line review of the proposed Bill C-8 and that I am speaking to you at what can only be described as the last minute. I hope that the members of Parliament sitting around the table will excuse the fact that NWAC seems to be offering an opinion so late in the day. The truth is that it was only last week that we were advised about the contents of Bill C-8 and the committee's work.

If you have further legislation that will affect the lives of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people in Canada, we would be pleased to be part of the discussion right from the start, at the same time as you hear from the male-led indigenous organizations. I urge you to keep in mind that NWAC, which has been in existence since 1974, is the largest organization representing indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people in Canada. When you consult with us, you are consulting with grassroots first nations, Métis and Inuit women in every part of Canada.

Moving on to the matters at hand, we are extremely glad to see that the government is going forward on this recommendation of the TRC. I believe that all of us around the table would agree that far too many Canadians who were actually born in this country lack a basic understanding of the history of colonialization that shaped the relationship between Canada and the indigenous people. Too few Canadians have been taught about the importance of first nations, Métis and Inuit, not just to the history of this country’s formation but to the present-day realities.

Most do not realize that when ore is extracted from the ground, it is being taken from our traditional territory, and that in many cases, it has been extracted based on the agreements we call treaties. They do not know that when trees are cut, it is because we have agreed to share the bounty of our ancestors with settlers. To have that reflected in the oath of citizenship is indeed an important step to righting some of the wrongs and injustices that were revealed by the inquiries of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

We agree with the changes in wording you have made in the original TRC call to action to recognize the three distinctive groups of indigenous peoples who call Canada home. I think it is fair to say that indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, despite their resilience, have suffered exponentially under colonialism. The national inquiry that examined the root causes of why so many of us are murdered or go missing found that there has been nothing short of a genocide. For that reason, we believe the realities of gender must also be reflected in the oath of citizenship and accompanying guidebook and that all new Canadians must affirm that they understand the importance of indigenous women to the land we now call Canada.

I close today by commending your efforts. I hope that this legislation finally becomes law, five years after the release of the report of the TRC. I look forward to the day when I can congratulate you for fulfilling all the calls to action of the TRC and the calls for justice of the national inquiry.

Wela'lioq.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for listening to my words.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Chief Poitras, thank you for your testimony, which I listened to with great interest. It was well documented, very consistent and very clear.

Before asking my questions, I would like to make a small preamble to explain the position of the Bloc Québécois and its support for first nations' claims.

When the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was being discussed in Geneva, the Bloc Québécois was present. In 2004, it was part of the working group for the development of the declaration. The Bloc Québécois was also in Geneva in 2006 to finalize the process. In 2007, when the agreement was completed, Canada did not ratify it. The Bloc Québécois then lobbied, insisted in the House and asked questions of the Harper government until 2010, when the declaration was finally signed by Canada.

It's one of the things we've been supporting for a long time. We also agree with the recommendations and calls for action contained in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. We strongly support the principle of Bill C-8, which seeks to recognize the rights of first nations in the oath of citizenship.

I'd like you to tell me about the exact wording of the text; you've already touched on it a bit. It may be a very small detail, but what is being recognized is the Constitution in which the indigenous and treaty rights of indigenous people are mentioned. Would you agree that indigenous and treaty rights should be recognized more specifically, rather than specifically referring to the Constitution?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Ladies and gentlemen, guests of the committee, I see that we have quorum. We have our guests in place. Accordingly, I call to order this meeting of the indigenous and northern affairs committee.

We will begin as usual by acknowledging that in Ottawa, when we meet there, we're on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. I'm located on the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, Anishinabe and Chonnonton first nations.

Pursuant to the order of reference from the House on December 10, 2020, the committee is continuing to study Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94.

To ensure the meeting is orderly, especially for our guests just joining us, it's critical that we have a clear and proper translation. That requires you to locate the interpretation icon, which is at the bottom centre of the screen, and select English, which I'm going to do right now, or French, whichever language you wish to speak in and hear.

That being said, the other thing I want to assure you of is that we keep fairly strict on timing in order to get through the complete cycle of questions. It may seem that we are cutting off answers that are important—and they are all important—but we do need to have the timing in place, which is rounds of questions of six minutes, five minutes, two and a half minutes, and so on, so that all of our questioners get in.

With our guests having that information, we're going to open up with six minutes of presentation, starting off with Ms. Poitras.

Please go ahead, for six minutes.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining the committee meeting today and for the very meaningful testimony already.

I'd like to begin by mentioning that I'm streaming from the traditional unceded territory of the Squamish, Musqueam and Tsleil-Waututh nations.

I want to get to a question about education. I apologize for belabouring this initial point that we've been talking about, but there is a big difference between recommendation 94 from the TRC and Bill C-8. That's really with reference to aboriginal rights and having that constitutionally protected.

I know there has been some umbrage taken with the change of wording, including “Constitution”. From someone who's part of my legal practice who has worked for first nations throughout British Columbia on various matters, including rights and title cases.... In B.C., of course, there are almost no treaties. Most nations have given up on the treaty process, but of course the province is covered many times over with claimed but not yet proven rights and title cases, and with very strong claims, of course. I believe the reference to “aboriginal rights”, and indicating that it's constitutionally protected, is a very crucial one to give it relevance in B.C. Saying that it's constitutionally protected elevates this protection to the highest law in the land, which in my opinion is quite meaningful.

With that in mind, I guess this is my question for Ms. Wilson. I was hoping that you could speak to why this wasn't in the original recommendation 94. What type of feedback from consultation with first nations in B.C. was related to that particular recommendation?

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meegwetch.

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

I appreciate that feedback, Mr. Melillo. I know that my colleagues, Minister Bennett and Minister Miller, have been working as hard as they can, particularly on the issue of reducing long-term drinking water advisories. I know that 99 have been lifted since November 2015, but there is still a long way to go.

With regard to what my department and I can contribute to reconciliation, we have invested our energy in Bill C-8. We recognize that it's one step, but it is a significant step, because as has already been articulated by a number of our colleagues, this is about educating new Canadians as they join our family—not just them, but equally everyone—on the role of reconciliation as part of the Canadian experience.

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

Thank you for the question, Mr. van Koeverden.

The most practical implication is that if we amend the oath, it will certainly change the wording of that oath to better reflect reconciliation with the proposed language that has been put forward in Bill C-8.

This allows me to also reaffirm some of the earlier answers that I gave to your first question on why this is important. This is a reflection of our government's commitment to move forward in partnership with rights holders and indigenous leaders on the path to reconciliation. It is directly responsive to call to action 94 and, of course, we look forward to continuing to work with all parliamentarians to achieve that important step as we move forward together.

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.

Citizenship Act

[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, 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.

[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, 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. .

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.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, if the Conservatives stop filibustering and allow a stand-up vote on Bill C-7, then next week the government expects to call the following bills: Bill C-8 on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 94; Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act; Bill C-12, the net-zero legislation; and Bill C-13 on single-event sport betting.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you because December 5, two days from now, marks one year since the House elected you and placed its trust in you. You oversee House proceedings fairly, impartially and with dignity. Thank you on behalf of all members.

Citizenship Act

[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—

[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, 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.

[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—

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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 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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my kind colleague for the extremely important and very useful question he repeats every week on the status of parliamentary business.

This afternoon we will continue debate at second reading of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. Tomorrow we will resume debate at third reading of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act. Monday of next week will be devoted to the study of Bill C-8, on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 94. On Tuesday, we will begin our study of Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, which was introduced earlier this week by my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Tuesday, November 24 for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Thursday, November 26 for the Department of Health.

Lastly, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That a take-note debate on the status of the French language in Montreal be held, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Wednesday, November 25, 2020, and that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House: (a) any member rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member; and (b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Citizenship Act

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It will be replaced with the following wording:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

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

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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am equally happy, pleased and enthusiastic to answer my colleague's question.

This week, we wrapped up debate at second reading of Bill C-6, on conversion therapy, and Bill C-7, on medical assistance in dying. I would like to thank the opposition members for their co-operation on these bills.

This afternoon, we are continuing the debate on the Bloc Québécois opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-5, regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation.

On Monday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-8 concerning the implementation of Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 94.

I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, November 3 and Thursday, November 5 shall be allotted days.

Indigenous Affairs

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her excellent advocacy. From day one, reconciliation has been one of our government's key priorities. To build on these efforts, last week we reintroduced our legislation to amend the citizenship oath. The new oath fulfills the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 94, and ensures that every new Canadian, from day one, will have a greater awareness and understanding of the importance of aboriginal rights and treaties of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples to everyone living in Canada. Bill C-8 is another step forward on our path to reconciliation.

Citizenship Act

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)