Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2020

Citizenship Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are sorry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It will be replaced with the following wording:

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

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

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

I appreciate the support that is coming from the Bloc.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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