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.
