Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2020

Citizenship Act

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague listened so intently to my speech. I do try to make them engaging, and I appreciate when I can see the engagement is working.

On the commitment, many Canadians disagreed with the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That said, there was a process put in place whereby 10 of the provinces representing 80% of the population needed to adopt it for it to be the Canadian Constitution. Quebec did not sign on to it, but that does not change the fact that since 1982, if my memory serves me well, we have lived under this Constitution. It has worked for us, and I do not hear anybody calling for the Constitution to be removed. If that is what the member is advocating for, I would be pleased to hear about it.

I also ask for his commitment to help us with the commemoration of Tommy Prince, an indigenous warrior, on the five-dollar bill.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my colleague from Peace River—Westlock will be supporting Bill C-8.

I have a comment first. Before European colonization of North America, first nations and Inuit people all had very distinct legal customs and norms pre-contact. They had fully functioning societies with their own laws and rules. Then of course after contact, many of those were subsided under European contact.

If we are truly to acknowledge a nation-to-nation relationship, there has to be an acknowledgement of what existed pre-contact. With this new affirmation, we are recognizing the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. I am glad to hear his acknowledgement and support of that.

How does that stance jibe with his vote in the previous Parliament against Bill C-262, which affirmed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? How does he differentiate between those two sets of rights? I would like the member to comment on that.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this question is very similar to the one I was asked by the Bloc about who the charter applies to. I addressed it a bit in my speech. Not all Canadians signed on to the charter when it was brought into place, but it has now existed for 30-some years. This speaks to the fact that it does not matter where someone lives in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to them and that those rights and freedoms can be used in relation to any government.

As for the UN declaration, there are UN declarations on multiple things. One of the UN declarations I am working hard to advocate for in Canada is the Palermo protocol. This is a UN declaration that gives us the ability to identify whether somebody is being trafficked in Canada. This is not something we would just write into Canadian law. Instead, we would make Canadian law jibe with the Palermo protocol. I think the same applies for indigenous rights.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and especially for the comments he made about his riding. I spent several weeks in his riding when I was young and it is one of the best ridings in the country.

I did not hear him talk about francophone towns in his riding. Can the hon. member talk to us about those towns, which were populated by Canadians who came from Quebec to put down roots several years ago? There are francophone communities there now. There are also Métis communities.

Can the hon. member tell us more about that?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people do not know this, but northern Alberta is home to 4,000 French-speaking people. I remember that a couple of years back, a Ms. Bombardier took a swipe at them. She said that outside of Quebec there were no thriving French-speaking communities.

I would tell Ms. Bombardier to come to St. Isidore and check out the festival. It has a thriving French community. She can come to Guy, Marie Reine or Falher. There is “arrêt” on the stop signs and a French radio station everywhere we go. She can come on down and we will show her the French way of life in northern Alberta.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by the member for Peace River—Westlock. I was looking for references to the bill we are debating and found that his remarks did “veersen” around a fair bit before getting to the gist of the matter.

The member and I share a connection to the beautiful Bulkley Valley, in northwest B.C. One of the most impactful parts of my time as mayor was helping tell the story, alongside the Wet'suwet'en people, of the relationship between the early settlers to that area and the Wet'suwet'en Nation.

I wonder if the member is familiar with some of that painful history. If not, maybe I can provide him with the book Shared Histories, which documents it in great detail.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know much at all about the Wet'suwet'en people from the member's riding. However, my family has had a great connection with the Carrier people around Babine Lake. I have holidayed in that area and have many friends from that area.

I recognize that the member and I recently shared the same obituary for a Mr. George from Smithers. I have many connections to that area, but not so much with the Wet'suwet'en.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I would like to inform the House that we have had more than five hours of debate on this motion. Consequently, the maximum time for all subsequent interventions shall be 10 minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real shame because the Bloc Québécois has always stood faithfully by first nations people. We have always defended the rights of first nations peoples, be they treaty rights or rights arising from other agreements or laws.

Today we have to come out against Bill C-8. That is a real shame because all the Liberal government had to do was recognize the traditional treaty rights of first nations peoples, which it could have done any number of ways.

Instead, the government tried to make everyone swallow a poison pill by using first nations rights as a pretext for getting the House to agree that newcomers should swear to faithfully uphold the Canadian Constitution. That is what Bill C-8 is really about.

I am sorry, but the problem is that that is not the case in Quebec. Successive Quebec governments since the 1982 Constitution have always refused to recognize the authority of the Constitution and to sign it. I will give a few examples of unanimous resolutions adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. The first dates back to April 17, 2002, when Bernard Landry was premier of Quebec.

That the National Assembly reaffirm that it has never adhered to the Constitution Act, 1982, the effect of which has been to diminish the powers and rights of Quebec without the consent of the Government of Quebec and the National Assembly, and that it continues to be unacceptable to Quebec.

Here is another one that was adopted on June 14, 2007, when Jean Charest, a good Liberal, was premier of Quebec.

That the National Assembly of Québec recall that, 25 years ago this year, the Constitution Act, 1982 was enacted without Québec's approval, and that it formally reaffirm that it never acceded to this Act, whose effect was to diminish the powers and rights of Québec without its consent, and that the Constitution Act, 1982 still remains unacceptable for Québec.

I assume that my colleagues in the House will always be consistent and act with probity. I would like to mention that, at the time, the Liberal member for Bourassa was the member for Viau in the National Assembly when this resolution was adopted.

On November 16, 2011, the member for Bourassa was still a member of the National Assembly, as was my respected colleague, the House leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who was then the member for Chauveau in the National Assembly. These two members were in the National Assembly on November 16, 2011, when the following resolution was adopted unanimously:

That the National Assembly of Quebec recall that, 30 years ago this year, the Constitution Act, 1982 was enacted without Quebec's approval;

That it formally reaffirm that it never acceded to this Act, whose effect was to diminish the powers and rights of Quebec without its consent, and that the Constitution Act, 1982 still remains unacceptable for Quebec.

Obviously, I believe that my colleagues from Bourassa and Louis-Saint-Laurent will be consistent and not vote in favour of Bill C-8.

I will quote one last resolution, which dates back to April 17, 2012. Once again my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, the current House leader of the Conservative Party, was a member of the National Assembly of Quebec when this unanimous resolution was adopted on April 17, 2012.

THAT the National Assembly recall that, 30 years ago this year, the Constitution Act, 1982, was enacted without Québec's approval;

THAT it formally reaffirm that it never acceded to this act, whose effect was to diminish the powers and rights of Québec without its consent, and that the Constitution Act, 1982, still remains unacceptable for Québec.

Once again, I have too much faith in the integrity and constancy of my colleagues from Bourassa and Louis-Saint-Laurent to believe that they will be voting against Bill C-8, which would require newcomers to swear allegiance to and observe the Canadian Constitution. They used to recognize that Quebec did not accept the Constitution.

These were unanimous resolutions, but several Quebec premiers also made statements.

It will come as no surprise that René Lévesque said in 1978, “Québec will never agree, under the existing system, to the patriation of the Constitution.” He made similar statements on several occasions, but I want to share a quote from Robert Bourassa, who was also a premier of Quebec and a good Liberal.

He said:

Québec must be able to say no to any constitutional amendment affecting the powers of the National Assembly as well as the institutions and main features of the Canadian federation. No Québec government can agree to a constitutional accord that does not include a veto.

On May 9, 1986, during Robert Bourassa's second term as the Liberal premier of Quebec, he said:

No government of Québec of whatever political leaning could sign the Constitution Act, 1982, as it is currently worded. However, if certain changes were made, this constitutional law could be acceptable to Québec.

He then listed the five historical conditions that would have to be met for Quebec to sign the Constitution. That was in 1986.

There was Robert Bourassa, who was a good Liberal, and René Lévesque. There were others who were better known to the House, such as Lucien Bouchard, who was a Quebec premier but who also sat here as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. In 1997, he said:

The government will not be associated with any future multilateral constitutional discussions, based on the lucid observation made by former Premier Robert Bourassa following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord according to which the existing constitutional reform process in Canada has been discredited.

Here is what Jacques Parizeau said in 1994 when he was premier of Quebec:

Twelve years ago, Pierre Trudeau's unilateral patriation dwindled the National Assembly's powers against our will, with a Constitution that Québec has never signed. Four years ago, the death of the Meech Lake Agreement sounded Canada's refusal in recognizing—albeit symbolically—our difference. As of today, the basic law of Canada does not recognize Québec as a nation, a people or even as a distinct society. A sad state of affairs.

There are a lot of quotes like that, but I am going to stop there because I could go on for a long time. I do, however, want to clearly state that all of the Quebec premiers have considered the 1982 Constitution to be odious and felt that it was signed without Quebec's consent. It was never recognized by the Quebec National Assembly or the people of Quebec under any circumstance or any government, no matter how federalist.

I therefore appeal to my colleagues in the House, because I believe in respecting and recognizing the rights of indigenous people in their treaty. I do not think that members can then turn around and deny the Quebec nation's right to be recognized for what it is or to refuse to be bound by contracts it did not sign.

Once again, the Conservative House leader agreed with what I said a few years ago, and so did the member for Bourassa. I imagine that they are serious men and that they do not change their minds on a weekly basis. They will surely vote against this bill.

Given the peace of the braves agreement, which was signed by Quebec and the Cree Nation in 2002, when Bernard Landry was the premier of Quebec, and considering everything I said and the Quebec nation's inalienable right to self-determination, we are going to vote against Bill C-8.

I urge my Conservative colleagues to follow their House leader and also vote against this bill. The same goes for my government colleagues, the members of the Liberal Party. They should talk to my colleague from Bourassa who will surely convince them that he was not crazy when he decided to vote in favour of these resolutions in Quebec City at the time.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say that I am disappointed in the Bloc. I realize that, at times, those members feel they have to play a destructive role here on the floor of the House of Commons, but I think this is the wrong time.

I think that the Bloc members need to realize the many contributions and the history behind indigenous people throughout our great land. By voting against this legislation, they are not recognizing the importance of reconciliation. I believe that a good number of people across this land would want to see the Bloc be a little more constructive and support reconciliation.

Are the member and his party not concerned that they are clearly demonstrating a lack of respect towards reconciliation by voting against this legislation?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to respect, I would say that our Liberal colleagues are in no position to lecture anyone. It is their fault that we are voting against Bill C-8.

They are the ones who did the same thing with Bill C-8 that they do with omnibus bills, meaning that they inserted the infamous poison pill I just mentioned. We are in agreement. The Liberals know very well that the Bloc Québécois has always stood with indigenous nations and we will continue to do so. The Liberals are trying to exploit this to make us swallow the infamous poison pill of recognizing the Canadian Constitution.

I too am disappointed. I am a lot more disappointed in my Liberal colleagues than my Liberal colleague could ever be in the Bloc. I am disappointed in their approach, which is disloyal and could prevent the House from voting in favour of Bill C-8.

I would like to say that, if necessary, if we end up studying Bill C-8 in committee, we will move an amendment to remove that part, which, once again, is shameful, in my opinion.

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

Madam Speaker, I really liked my hon. colleague's speech.

Could he refresh the memories of certain Liberals, and perhaps certain Conservatives, too, and explain why we never signed the Constitution and why not even the federalist Quebec premiers wanted to sign this patriation?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

There are obviously the five historical conditions, set out for the first time in 1986 by Robert Bourassa, who was a Liberal premier. The conditions were the following: an explicit recognition of Quebec as a distinct society; a guarantee of broader powers in the realm of immigration; limitations on federal spending power; the recognition of Quebec's right of veto; and Quebec's participation in the appointment of judges. The topic of judges has come up quite a bit recently.

These claims are still relevant today, but the main reason we have never signed that agreement is that it is dishonourable. This agreement was signed at night during a meeting of the first ministers without the premier of Quebec. Former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau managed to convince his provincial counterparts to sign this agreement while René Lévesque was asleep in his hotel room.

That is despicable. It should not happen. It shows an appalling lack of respect. I would never even think of doing something like that.

We have never signed the Constitution Act, 1982, for that reason. Quebec was disrespected, and there has always been an unwillingness to recognize Quebec as a founding nation. Now, the government wants Quebec to recognize the rights of the first nations while simultaneously denying the rights of the Quebec nation. That is obscene.

We agree that we must recognize the rights of the first nations. We will stand up and demand respect for our rights as a co-founding nation of this federation.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to once again stand in this place and enter into debate on Bill C-8, which is an important subject.

Reconciliation affects us all. It is one of those issues that we truly all need to take seriously. I want to start by sharing two stories that are fairly unrelated in one regard, but brought together by what we are debating here today.

I attended university in British Columbia and all the universities in British Columbia took a day off on the day the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was meeting at the Pacific National Exhibition grounds in Vancouver. All the universities in the Lower Mainland, and I think many high schools as well, took that day off so students could attend the culmination of the event that had been taking place over the course of a week. There were buses that were organized and took university students.

My wife and I decided we would go together. My first thought as I boarded the school bus that day was that this effort was being made by the university I attended and many others to ensure there was an opportunity for students to attend the reconciliation event and I was disappointed there were not more students to join, that these buses were not full and that the buses from the other universities were not full. A number of other students and I attended this TRC event, of which I think there were seven if memory serves me, and I may stand to be corrected, across the country.

It was an incredibly powerful opportunity to see the impacts the residential schools had on the lives of Canada's indigenous peoples. As somebody who does not have a personal indigenous history, experiencing the sights and sounds of walking through the halls and various rooms was powerful. I remember there were different stations set up with photos from the different residential schools on the arena floor of one of the event centres of the exhibition grounds. One would walk into this room and hear crying and laughing as the members of these schools had not seen each other for decades and were reliving their pain and experiences. It was an incredibly powerful moment of reconciliation. For somebody who grew up in a small prairie town, it was incredibly enlightening to see it and listen to the various speakers. There was a program that happened that evening and I heard about some of the traumatic experiences the indigenous people faced and learned about this scar on our nation's history. It was an incredibly powerful day for me. It left a lasting impression and it is something I certainly bring to my work now as a member of Parliament. That is the first story.

The second story is that of a citizenship ceremony. My father-in-law came to Canada at a very young age, his parents came to Canada from the United States. I had the opportunity a number of years ago to attend a citizenship ceremony in a library auditorium in Saskatoon where I got to see my father-in-law and about 40 or 50 others stand on that stage and swear an oath of allegiance to this country. This was before I was involved in running for office and whatnot. I greatly appreciated that ceremony. Something that stood out to me specifically was the diversity represented on that stage. It was incredible.

There were people from all over the world, some like my father-in-law who has known nothing but Canada. He moved here too young to remember anything else. Then there were others who had been here for only a number of years, refugees and others who had come from a variety of circumstances. It was incredibly powerful.

The judge who did the swearing-in asked that each person on the stage share a brief moment or, if they had some difficulty with that, a letter that she would read of what Canada means to them. It was incredible to listen to story after story, these brief moments of a connection with Canada. Then when the judge led the oath, she invited every other person in that auditorium to say the oath as well. It was an incredibly powerful moment seeing these soon-to-be Canadians take the oath of citizenship.

I tell those two stories because the bill we have before us today is important in the way that it brings together that Canadian experience while acknowledging the depth of some of our history. It is important to acknowledge these things so that we can move forward as a country.

I want to talk a bit about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I am proud that as a Conservative, it was Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in 2008, stood and apologized for the residential schools. He apologized for the more than 130 residential schools that took the livelihoods of so many indigenous children. I know these statistics have been read before, but I believe they bear repeating.

There were more than 130 residential schools across this country over the course of about 130 years, from shortly after Confederation until the 1990s when the last one closed down. There were 150,000 first nations, Métis and Inuit children who were subjected to them. There were seven generations of Canadians that were impacted.

One of the most impactful statistics is that we have learned since that more than 3,200 children died of tuberculosis, malnutrition and other diseases while attending the schools. As a parent, I cannot even imagine what it would be like to have children taken away and then not even learn that they had passed away. It is unbelievable that it took place in our country.

The name of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is powerful. We are here talking about what is an action and a symbol and how those two things come together. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is finding the truth of what happened. I mentioned my experience at the TRC event that took place in Vancouver back in 2013 and the truth of what was learned. It is important to see the truth and move forward in the reconciliation.

Although Bill C-8 would not necessarily solve the problems created by the lasting impacts faced by our indigenous populations, it takes a step that is a symbol, an acknowledgement and a recognition going forward that as a country, we can learn, grow and move forward as Canadians, acknowledging what happened in our past and building a brighter future together.

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

Madam Speaker, I was not going to bring up Stephen Harper, but since the member did, Stephen Harper had absolutely nothing to say for the Truth and Reconciliation report. He had no desire to implement any of the recommendations and certainly never gave an opinion on it.

Can the member say whether he disagrees with Stephen Harper? I really respect what he had to say. I think he was very genuine in his comments. Would he then agree that Stephen Harper was wrong by basically ignoring the Truth and Reconciliation report?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that politics would be played at a moment such as this, which should be solemn. Although I do not have much good to say about Liberal policy, I plan to vote in favour of the bill. It is a step in the right direction.

That member refuses to acknowledge that the Conservatives took some steps moving forward, such as, I believe, changes to the Divorce Act and to property rights for first nations. There were steps that the Conservatives took. It is unfortunate that there seems to be a blindness in partisanship when it comes to trying to move our country forward together.

I believe that, on an issue like this, Canadians can come together. Canadians can move forward and ensure that we build a Canada that acknowledges the mistakes of our past to a better future.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I really liked the first part of his speech on reconciliation, which is essential. I agree with him on the need to recognize first nations.

Speaking of reconciliation, I do not know if my colleague listened to the presentation by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord earlier. Would he agree with removing the reference to the Constitution in order to make the bill acceptable, at least to francophones and Quebeckers who never signed the Constitution?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question asked by the member, and I find it interesting. Recommendation 94 in the TRC report does not actually reference the Constitution. The wording is a little bit different. I wonder, and consider this a curious musing, if this is an attempt by the government to play politics on this issue: to try to divide Canadians instead of unite them. It is unfortunate if that is the case, because something as serious as this should be an opportunity to unite Canadians so that we can, as I said before, move forward to build a better Canada together.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments, but I have just one correction: It is not “our” indigenous people. We are not people who are owned. We are sovereign and independent people.

The member spoke a lot about the violation of human rights that took place in residential schools. I would like to thank him for acknowledging these human rights abuses, but I would ask him why the Conservative Party continues to vote against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is a minimum human rights document that recognizes the abuses of indigenous peoples around the globe: indigenous brothers and sisters that I will unapologetically always stand up for while we strive to realize these fundamental rights.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague will, in recognition of his deep comments about wanting to change the reality of ongoing human rights violations against indigenous people, vote in favour, if it should happen, of the full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer the question, and I apologize if there was any offence. I talk that way about many people that I come into contact with to be inclusive in that regard, and I apologize if there was any offence.

When it comes to the UNDRIP that the member referenced, many things are said in that document that all nations that are part of the United Nations should aspire to, but the House of Commons and the Senate are the legislative bodies for our nation. Those documents are calling on nations around the world to ensure that there are those minimum standards of human rights and whatnot that she referred to, but it is the job of this place to develop a legislative framework to ensure that those sacred obligations are fulfilled.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to join the debate today and talk about Bill C-8, an act to change the Citizenship Act.

I want to talk a bit about my history. Everyone has to walk their own path of truth and reconciliation and do what they can to make sure they are advocates in supporting truth and reconciliation in their lives.

Growing up in southwest Saskatchewan, there were not a lot of indigenous reserves around. When I turned 18, I moved up to a small northern village in northern Saskatchewan called Air Ronge. I moved up there to play hockey in the SJHL. Being up there for the first time, as a kid from southwest Saskatchewan, the first thing I noticed was there are a lot more trees up in northern Saskatchewan than there are down in the southwest.

The second thing I noticed is that there was a different culture. It was a pleasure for me. My billets were Jimmy and Tina Roberts. Jimmy passed away a few years ago. They were wonderful billets for me. They had two small children, and as an 18-year-old, it was an eye-opening experience to move up north.

I was not there that long, but not because I did not like the community. I just was not a particularly good hockey player, so I did not spend a lot of time in La Ronge, but I have good memories of the time I did spend there. I went through a lot of different cultural experiences. I was only 18-years-old. I am thankful that, up in northern Saskatchewan, I got to know quite a few members of the community up there quite well. I stay in touch with a couple of them.

During this most recent campaign, the husband of someone who I had not connected with for years walked into the campaign office. Her name was Taryn, and she lived up in La Ronge with her family for many years. It just so happened that she and her husband had taken up residence in Regina—Lewvan. They are great people, and it was nice to reconnect with someone I had not seen for a long time.

A few experiences I have had along the path of truth and reconciliation were during my former career as an MLA with the Government of Saskatchewan. In an earlier question to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I said we were the first provincial government to implement treaty education into school curriculums. I believe the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands was on the school board when this process was going forward. The school board trustees across the province and the Ministry of Education all helped out. We took it very seriously.

I believe Russ Marchuk was the minister when this initiative was brought forward. Russ is a valued friend, and he has been an educator in Regina for as long as I can remember. He is a great advocate for ensuring there is indigenous education within our curriculum. As the minister, he did a wonderful job promoting that and pushing it forward. It shows that one person and a group of people can make big changes.

I was born in 1982, and when I went to school, there was not a lot of indigenous curriculum in the education system in Saskatchewan. Being part of a government that brought that initiative forward is going to bode well for future generations to learn. This ties in with Bill C-8 and ensuring we are all doing our part to make sure we walk down the path of truth and reconciliation.

Another thing I was able to be a part of in the Government of Saskatchewan was the apology for the sixties scoop. It was a long process. We reached out to stakeholders across Saskatchewan, Métis and first nation. We did as much as we could to get stakeholders together because we did not want to give a blanket apology. We wanted to make sure the apology was meaningful to the groups who were hurt during the sixties scoop.

We also took the role very seriously as a government. We held sharing circles across the provinces where members across the community had to drive some distance, but not long distances. We were able to come into communities and take part in these sharing circles. The ministers and many people within the government took part and we had six or eight sharing circles across the province.

It took months to get the proper language and lay out how we and the groups we were apologizing to wanted to have the ceremony and apology move forward at the legislative assembly. Before the apology took place, one thing I will remember for a very long time is representatives from the stakeholder groups and affected groups came and spoke to our whole government's caucus, about 48 of us.

They spoke about their experiences and they spoke about what the words were going to mean when the apology came from the premier of the province in recognition of what happened and how the sixties scoop had affected generations of indigenous people in our province and beyond. I believe the Government of Manitoba has given an apology, and the Government of Alberta has also apologized for the sixties scoop. These are very true and meaningful steps towards reconciliation. I had the great privilege to be a part of a few as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan.

I keep those stories very much in mind when we are talking about moving forward and incorporating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 94 into the citizenship oath. I do not think there would be too many people who would see that as a problem. I think everyone sees it as a positive step forward in ensuring there is recognition.

In my former career I had the honour of attending many citizenship ceremonies. When these new Canadians take the oath, we can see the passion and the pride in their eyes that they are now a member of Canadian society. They are so proud to be have the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizens. They take it seriously. I am someone who was born in Canada and never went through that process, yet every time I attend a citizenship ceremony I can see that.

I was able to take part in a practice ceremony a couple of weeks ago. The Open Door Society in Regina does a lot of work with new Canadians. They have practice tests. I gave a practice speech. It is nice to do that sometimes with the new Canadian citizens. Just to see how much time and effort and practice they put in to ensure they pass that test to become Canadian citizens is something we should all have the opportunity to see, and to see what it means for someone to join our country, to join us in trying to ensure that Canada remains the greatest country in the world.

We get strength from those new citizens, and when they do the oath, having it include recognition of the treaties in our country is something that is very important. I am glad it was brought forward. Also, going a bit further, after this there is a lot more work to be done. The Liberals should realize that there is a lot more work to be done.

This is one step that should have been taken sooner, in many people's opinions. Also, we need to start working on reconciliation when it comes to economics and safe drinking water. The fundamental right of having safe drinking water on and off reserve is something that needs to be taken seriously. The Liberal government has not taken it seriously for the last five years. It has failed to move. It moved the goalpost again. I believe it promised safe drinking water on reserves within the next year or so, but the can has been kicked down the road again.

The Liberals cannot fundamentally follow through on a lot of their commitments. We saw it with the promise to plant two billion trees, which they never did. The Liberals promised to balance the budget, and who knows when that might happen.

What we need to focus on when it comes to truth and reconciliation is some of those tougher areas, some of the areas where we need to build partnerships to ensure that our indigenous communities can enjoy economic success as well. There is no reconciliation without economic reconciliation.

The government is not a big fan of our energy sector, and we all know that. We see it in the policies. However, the Teck Frontier would have helped 14 communities in northern Alberta build towards economic freedom and have economic opportunities for a generation. The government basically kicked Teck out of Canada. There is also Coastal GasLink, and we are still not sure where the government is going on that.

The government of the day needs to realize that there is no reconciliation without economic reconciliation. It is something the government should take very seriously to ensure that all Canadians can have success going forward, for generations to come.

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

Madam Speaker, I really liked how the member touched on the fact that we do need to do more in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. I know the member brought up drinking water. This government has made significant progress, although there is still more to be done. There is no doubt about that.

Along those lines, I wonder if the member could fill us in on some other things within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report that he thinks are important for us to implement as well.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of different Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations we should move forward on. As my friend from Saskatoon—Grasswood was saying, there is call to action 81, which is about monuments. I appreciate his intervention, and he will be up on questions sooner rather than later.

We can look at treaty rights and ensure the education of all young Canadians so they know what happened in our country, as well as ensure they have the knowledge of treaties so they are being upheld.

The member for Kingston and the Islands just really bypassed the idea of economic reconciliation, and this is something the Liberals really have not taken seriously enough. I will say it again and again, because without economic prosperity and freedom there will be no reconciliation.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Thanks to bills like Bill C-8 being introduced and my Conservative colleagues' speeches on the matter, I am finding out more about their private lives. I am really pleased because I did not know them.

Despite the fact that he talked about a very interesting experience I wonder if my colleague would have the same sentiment in his presentation if he came to see Trois-Rivières. He may have had a better understanding of why the Bloc is asking that the Quebec nation be recognized in this bill.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, one commitment we all make as members of the legislative assembly is before we make a final decision on bills, we listen to all members in this House and their interventions on why they feel a bill should or should not be passed. On a bill by bill basis, that is what we should all do.

If the Bloc brings forward a motion or a private member's bill that looks at having conversations around changing the citizenship ceremony to include verbiage it would like to have, we should all look at it on its merit.