Debates of Feb. 24th, 2020

Citizenship Act

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from North Island—Powell River and I sat on the indigenous and northern affairs committee in the last mandate. Her commitment to indigenous peoples across Canada is to be commended.

I appreciate that the question is coming from a place of urgency. That urgency is absolutely well placed. In my estimation, our government has done nothing but act on an urgent basis.

The reality is there are also challenges around timing. The House of Commons is a very crowded place in terms of moving forward with legislation that is absolutely in the public interest. This is one piece of legislation that is in the public interest. Our government is only too proud to be moving forward.

I think the member and I share the view that we need to push and push some more. Our government has indicated that it will move forward with legislation to advance the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We supported her colleague Romeo Saganash's bill that was advanced in the last Parliament.

We have demonstrated on a number of fronts that we are willing to move forward in order to address that urgent priority that is reconciliation.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite spoke of urgency and the need for us to make sure we embrace some of the important things that are necessary for our first nations people. I think back to some of the ways they have been treated in the past.

Over 100 years ago, they were prohibited to sell agricultural products that were grown on reserves in the territories except in accordance with government regulations, because they were actually doing a better job than some of the other farmers were. That is the same sort of thing we are talking about today when we look at all of the bands and band councils that are saying that they need to have an opportunity, because they do not want to stay in this environmental colonialism where they do not have an opportunity to look after their people.

That is something we should recognize. There are a lot of things that could be done to help the native population, but the ones I know are saying they want the chance to do those things that are important so they can look after their own people.

I wonder if the member could comment on the urgency of being able to help those folks who really want to get involved, especially with the oil and gas industry.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, the riding of the member for Red Deer—Mountain View is one that is near and dear to my heart. My great-uncle, Roland Michener, was from Red Deer. This is a special part of the country.

I appreciate the member's question, because it goes to the issue of self-determination. It goes to the issue of ensuring that the Canadian state is no longer an impediment to the fulfilment of indigenous people's dreams, that it is, in fact, the opposite, that it is working in partnership, working in the spirit of reconciliation.

That is exactly what our government is doing right now, discussion after discussion, nation by nation. They will all take on different flavours. They will all take on different tenors based on history, the level of dialogue and the nature of the community that is engaged. That is something our government takes very seriously, from our Prime Minister all the way through to the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation. As my colleagues have pointed out, indigenous people have played a fundamental role in Canadian history and continue to do so today.

A few years ago, we began a significant process of reconciliation with indigenous peoples, recognizing that Canada has failed in its duties towards those communities. Our government also offered an apology, as a first step. However, a number of other measures must be implemented to ensure the success of that first step. In order for reconciliation to succeed, we all need to be active participants, since the process will not happen on its own and it is far from over.

Advancing reconciliation is a Canadian imperative, and we will need partners at all levels to make real progress. We know that much more needs to be done and that we must continue to work together. To achieve it, we need to take meaningful action. Canada is firmly committed to implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Our government is working very hard to implement these calls to action, and the proposed amendments to the citizenship oath are evidence of that commitment. This bill would renew the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples in order to move forward together as true partners. One of the most important ways we can show support is by highlighting these relationships in the citizenship ceremonies that are held across the country.

The citizenship oath is a meaningful commitment. The proposed new oath is more representative of our shared history. Recognizing the role that indigenous peoples have played in this country is a fundamental aspect of each citizenship ceremony.

In addition, the judges and those presiding over these ceremonies systematically acknowledge the indigenous territory on which each ceremony is taking place and also allude to the history of indigenous peoples in Canada in their welcome speech to new Canadians. The history of the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples is a fundamental part of Canadian history, and indigenous peoples continue to play an important role in the development and future of this country.

The citizenship oath is a public declaration that a person is joining the Canadian family and is committed to Canadian values and traditions. Participants who swear the oath during citizenship ceremonies accept the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

Swearing the oath is an important part of an immigrant's journey. I know this first-hand because I was with my mother when she swore the oath. It is a solemn moment, a commitment, a recognition of the history of one's new homeland. It is the final step to becoming Canadian. The oath is not something to be taken lightly, and I am proud that our government wants to change it to reflect all our country's values.

Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act with regard to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, acts on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action about changing the oath of citizenship to include a clear reference to the aboriginal rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis.

The proposed amendments to the oath demonstrate the government's commitment to implementing the commission's calls to action. They also signal a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on a recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. Reconciliation is important not only to indigenous peoples but also to all Canadians.

The proposed changes to the oath are a step toward advancing Canada's broader agenda for reconciliation with indigenous peoples and strengthening its relationship with them. The proposed new oath reflects our history and our identity.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member was speaking, I was thinking about the things that were done in the words of the Crown. As we developed our country the indigenous people were often placed subservient to the Crown. Recommendation 94 would actually bring indigenous people to the same level as the Crown in terms of prominence, and for newcomers to Canada to know that the indigenous peoples are prominent in our history.

Could the hon. member expand on the importance of recognizing indigenous peoples, in terms of the relationship we have with the Crown and with indigenous people?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I just reiterated, we should remember that taking the oath is the last thing people do before becoming a Canadian citizen. This oath must reflect the Canadian values of social cohesion, openness and transparency in a Canada that is open, free, democratic and diverse.

With the proposed changes to the oath, new Canadians will be able to understand the importance of indigenous peoples to the Canadian identity. This includes taking an oath that they will respect these aboriginal rights.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

I rise today to debate Bill C-6, a bill which must be the Liberal government's most awaited piece of legislation. We heard from the Liberals throughout the election campaign that they were ready. They boasted that their legislative agenda was strong. Here we are debating Bill C-6, their sixth piece of government legislation, and the Liberals have already resorted to what they must surely consider to be time-filler legislation intended to pay lip service and give virtue signalling to the biggest problems facing our country today.

I do not know what I was thinking. I, too, must have fallen for the Liberal rhetoric in the last election, because even I expected that the Liberals would have more meaningful legislation to put forward for Canadians than this bill. However, this is clearly the same old Liberal party that would prefer to pander than to deal with the national crisis at hand, but it is not too surprising. This is actually straight out of the Liberals' playbook. In fact, the Liberals have discussed and/or attempted to change the citizenship oath seven times since their successful change in 1977: in 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2019. Each time they were unsuccessful, and each time they were pandering to the problem of the day.

The Liberal legislation drafters seem to be churning out bills like poorly written songs. They lay new words over the same three notes and expect people to enjoy it in the moment, knowing full well that it will never stand the test of time. On the other hand, the citizenship oath dates back to January 1, 1947, on the heels of Canada defining itself as a nation following the end of the Second World War. It has a special purpose in our history, as it solidified our nation by uniting us in allegiance to Canada as Canadians, not British subjects.

Aside from my wedding day and the days my two sons were born, the day I took the Canadian citizenship oath and became a Canadian myself marks one of the proudest moments of my life. I was born in Lebanon. Canada is the country that I chose, not the country I was born in. I came from a war-torn country, splintered by the infighting of various sects, to Canada seeking a better life. I played by the rules. I followed the traditional immigration process. I was proud to affirm the citizenship oath in 1994. My oath affirmed that I would faithfully uphold the laws of Canada, and then, now and in the future, I have upheld and I will uphold that oath.

The amendment we are debating today belittles the oath that I and many other Canadians have taken. The Liberals make it seem like, without explicitly spelling it out, new citizens would not recognize indigenous treaty rights. The Liberals make it seem like before today, new Canadians did not even have to respect indigenous rights, or that they have found a glaring oversight of our forefathers. However, new citizens who have completed residency requirements for this country have studied the handbook of history, responsibilities and obligations, and are expected to be fully aware of the rights entrenched in our Constitution.

New citizens are expected to have at least a broad view of the resolved and unresolved treaty rights in different parts of the country, and to be aware of the history of residential schools and other reconciliation-related issues. However, what is sad is that, after watching the debate today, it has become clear that this is nothing more than Liberal lip service.

Canadians are in a time of crisis. We have divisions between segments of our country that the Liberal government failed to address over its last term in office. The recently shortened benches of the Liberal Party here today are proving that they have no intention of ever addressing this in a meaningful way. Liberals on the opposite side know this. They know that their fancy speeches, working groups, talk shops, round tables and working lunches, pay-for-play dinners, virtue signalling and heartfelt-sounding press conferences are all smokescreens for their inaction, which has led to the division in our country that has boiled over onto our streets and our train tracks. A great example is what we saw today outside on Wellington Street.

The Liberals know that they are not taking concrete steps, and they know this because they were told that by a member of the chamber who was formerly one of their own. The member for Vancouver Granville, a former member of the Liberal Party and former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, said that:

For Attawapiskat and for all First Nations, the Indian Act is not a suitable system of government, it is not consistent with the rights enshrined in our Constitution, the principles as set out in (UNDRIP) or calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report.

The Conservative Party supports treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people. Conservatives support real action to address reconciliation with the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, but what we are debating here today is simply an interim lip service to the indigenous communities in Canada.

This is the Liberals attempting to distract from the fact that they have been weak on this file for years and have no real plan to move forward. This is yet another empty gesture offered up in place of meaningful and substantive legislative change from the Liberal government. On a fundamental level, Bill C-6 is flawed at its core.

Bill C-6 incorrectly gives the impression that the Inuit and Métis people have their own distinct treaties with the Government of Canada. It is as though the Prime Minister's Office took a virtue-signalling bill proposed by the Minister of Immigration, and then Gerald Butts and Katie Telford insisted on adding the words, “Métis and Inuit”, because their internal studies showed that these buzzwords perform better than the truth in Liberal focus groups.

That must have been what happened, because there is no way that the new Minister of Immigration would willingly put forward his first piece of legislation as a minister with such a glaring oversight.

Besides that unfortunate oversight, Bill C-6 would do nothing to support real action to address reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. Instead, the Liberals brought back this lip service, a continuation of legislative disappointments that we became far too accustomed to in the last Parliament.

In conclusion, it is unfortunate, but it appears that we can expect this Liberal tradition on legislative smokescreens instead of dealing with the real pressing and demanding issues that Canadians need to be addressing here today.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his experience of being an immigrant, coming to this country and going through the citizenship process. Many Canadians like him and indeed just about all Canadians, unless of aboriginal descent, have immigrated here over the last couple of hundred years. My parents came from Italy and Holland when they were young children and their parents were seeking out better lives for them. That is quite the story of Canada to a large part.

I take issue with the fact that he said that this legislation would do a disservice to the oath that he was required to swear, or affirm, when he became a Canadian citizen. I have a simple question. If that oath had been the way that it is proposed in this legislation, would he have turned down the opportunity to become a Canadian citizen?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, many of the 36 million Canadians shared the same experience when they came to this great country and took the oath to commit to their responsibility among the rest of the Canadian fabric.

I see this as a strange way to ask the question. I will respond to that question by asking the hon. member this: What is going to happen to the 36 million Canadians who took the previous oath compared to the new oath?

Are we going to keep having these kinds of debates from members of a party that tried seven times in the past, and failed, to make any meaningful changes, and for the last five years has failed to address reconciliation properly? What we have seen in the last three weeks, and today, is a great example of their failure. I am very surprised to hear a question coming from that side, which is accustomed to what the Liberal government is trying to serve Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for sharing his story about how he came to this country. I am one of those Canadians who was born here. I had the privilege of being born in Victoria, British Columbia. I did take the oath of citizenship at a recent citizenship ceremony, and I recommend to everyone who was born in Canada to do that one day.

I have my criticisms of Liberal policy as well, but those do not take away the fact that Bill C-6 was born out of one of the calls to action. Those calls to action were developed after a prolonged process that involved a lot of heart-wrenching stories. The TRC put a lot of faith in all of those calls to action.

I understand that Conservatives have some reservations with the bill and that maybe our time could be spent better. However, is there a version of the oath that the member could find himself supporting, if not in the bill as it is currently written, perhaps the version that is recommended by call to action number 94?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, in 2016, the member was one of the supporters of my private member's bill. I do appreciate his work and co-operation.

I do not think we are here to debate what kind of oath is going to be taken. This is bizarre. We want to find a meaningful way to implement reconciliation properly and make sure actions speak louder than words.

This kind of debate is unfortunate coming from my hon. NDP colleague. Our Constitution protects everyone and our Charter of Rights is the envy of the world. Between our Constitution and our charter, every right is protected in this country. I do not see any necessity to change the oath of citizenship rather than doing the real work and talking to the people on the ground, talking to the indigenous community and finding concrete solutions that are going to last for the next 152 years in this great nation.

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

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Foothills, Public Safety; the hon. member for Bow River, Tourism Industry; and the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Public Safety.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House for the first time in debate. I am grateful for the support of my family, friends, volunteers and of course the residents of Calgary Forest Lawn for putting their trust in me to represent them in this great House.

I immigrated to Calgary Forest Lawn when I was five years old and grew up there along with my parents, brother and sister. I am forever grateful to my parents, who sacrificed so much. My mom worked multiple jobs and my dad worked hard as a taxi driver to provide for my siblings and me. We lived through many racist experiences. When I look back to them, rather than being angry, I use them to help me grow and to teach others important lessons. I learned to work through it all.

I went to high school there, where I met my beautiful wife and played many different sports. My wife's dedication to me and our two daughters is the reason I am able to be here. Her endless love and support keep me going every day and remind me of why I am here. She really has three children to put up with, and she does it with a smile.

I am a son of the community and learned many valuable lessons growing up here. This great country provided my family and me the opportunities to succeed, and we are so grateful for that.

I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge the service of the previous member, the late hon. Deepak Obhrai, who served the residents of Calgary for 22 years until his untimely passing last year. Mr. Obhrai saw a lot of changes throughout his years in the House, including four prime ministers. He served in the Harper cabinet and he travelled the world. He is missed by many, and his 22 years have set a standard for me to live up to.

I also want to pay tribute to a mentor of mine who passed away far too young: the late hon. Manmeet Bhullar, an amazing MLA and leader. He taught me that seva, or selfless service to community, was the most important aspect of life. Manmeet died doing what he loved and what he taught, helping someone on the side of the highway on his way back to the legislature in Edmonton. His shoes are very big, both in the northeast and in communities at large. My goal is to continue what he started.

Turning to the topic at hand, the citizenship oath is very close to me and my family and so many of my friends and constituents. There are 108 languages spoken in Calgary Forest Lawn, so one might guess that many immigrants to Canada live in my area. Truly, I am proud to stand today as the member of Parliament for one of Canada's most diverse ridings, a place that people from all over the world call home and that is a success story of Canadian multiculturalism.

For many of those so privileged to recite the oath of citizenship, the moment is the culmination of a long journey. Some may have fled conflict-ridden countries in search of safety. Others may have fled poverty in search of opportunity. Whatever their story, they carry with them their experiences and cultures as they begin a new chapter with a solemn promise to bear allegiance to the Queen, to faithfully observe the laws of Canada and to fulfill their duties as a Canadian citizen.

While short and succinct, the words are not to be taken lightly. I do not believe for a second that any well-intentioned person who recites the oath is taking it lightly. Therefore, when individuals promise to faithfully observe the laws Canada, they are doing just that. They are not promising to obey some laws and not others, as if leisurely browsing a diner's menu for their preferred items. It is implied, indeed obviously understood, that they are promising to obey all laws. This of course includes the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations.

There are also some practical issues with the wording proposed in the bill. A 2017 National Post article anticipating similar changes to the oath remarked, “just as with a peace treaty between nation states, there's no real room for individual citizens to uphold or invalidate them.”

Also in the article, Michael Coyle, a Western University legal expert on indigenous land claims and treaty rights, is referenced as saying, “Off-hand, I cannot think of how an individual non-Indigenous Canadian could ‘fail to observe’ a treaty unless they were acting as a representative of the federal or provincial government.” If they were, and if I am not mistaken, in this situation indigenous communities can already make a legal claim against the Crown.

Additionally, what about the indigenous communities that never signed a treaty with the Crown? The majority of nations in B.C. are not under a treaty. The proposed wording of the statement would not acknowledge them and may even be perceived as an exclusion. The reality is that the current citizenship oath is fine as is and that this consideration of additional wording only brings up unnecessary issues. Why, then, has the Liberal government moved the bill in the infancy of this parliamentary session when there are more pressing issues facing this country?

The Liberals are wasting time in having the House debate the wording of an already well-worded oath. There are so many nations around the country that need access to fresh water and employment opportunities. There are daily suicides from despair, especially in the north, and the Liberals are focused on meaningless virtue signalling. The Liberals would say this is an important step on the path toward reconciliation, but Canadians see through their endless virtue signalling. Canadians see through the Liberals' desire to mask their inaction, at worst obstruction, by fixing an oath that was never broken in the first place.

The Conservative Party believes in the reconciliation process. After all, it was under a previous Conservative government that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established. Rather than focusing on fixing an unbroken oath, we believe in bringing forward policies that make real and measurable improvements in the lives of Canada's indigenous peoples.

The Liberals have failed to create sustainable, economic opportunities for indigenous people. There can be no lasting reconciliation without economic reconciliation. The Liberals deliberately delayed approval of the Teck project, which was recently pulled by the company due to the Liberal inaction that created regulatory uncertainty. They held a project hostage that had the wide support of the local first nations communities and would have provided their children with jobs and opportunity.

Within the last two weeks, the Liberals' inaction on the blockades has allowed radical protestors, many of whom are not indigenous, to harm the national economy and threaten the LNG project that has the support of the majority of the Wet'suwet'en people. These blockades are an example of the blockades the Liberals have been putting up against the energy industry.

For the Liberals to claim that they are advancing reconciliation by including additional words in the citizenship oath, while hindering legitimate economic projects that provide jobs and opportunity to first nations communities, is ridiculous. We should get the federal government out of the way and allow the first nations that want to get out from under their dependency on the government to succeed on their own.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am an immigrant to this country and am a proud Canadian citizen. I am a little concerned about the member's wording. One of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reports states, “Precisely because ‘we are all Treaty People’, Canada’s Oath of Citizenship must include a solemn promise to respect Aboriginal and Treaty rights,” yet the member is dismissing this as something created by the Liberals.

I find this a little disconcerting, because there is talk about reconciliation and everything else. The Kelowna accord was the best reconciliation effort with aboriginal people, yet the Conservative government destroyed it.

Could the member explain what he means? Why is he speaking from both sides of his mouth?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to focus on reconciliation. The Conservatives know the best way to reconcile is to get indigenous people back to work. We should give them jobs and sovereignty by giving them an economy that can grow, help their kids and help people in trouble.

What we saw recently was inaction by the Liberal government, and it did not help anyone. Fourteen indigenous communities were on board and they were all affected by this decision. It was the inaction and uncertainty by the Liberal government that caused all of this.

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

Madam Speaker, today we have heard the Conservatives say a number of times that there are more pressing matters to discuss, that the House should be engaged in other things and that this debate does not really need to happen. Would the member agree that perhaps it is time we stop discussing the bill and get to a vote on it? In the spirit of not wanting to drag this on and on, because we have other things to do, perhaps it is time that we vote.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, dragging things on and on brings up the Teck project all over again. I thank the member for his comments and question, but we do have more pressing matters.

The Teck project needed to be approved and the Liberals dragged their feet on it. They should have voted within their cabinet and it should have been a yes. We would have been able to move the Canadian economy forward. However, we did not because the Liberal government dragged its feet. It is rich that I hear a comment like that from the hon. member across.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the work the previous Conservative government had done on reconciliation and the fact that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was started under the Conservative government. Is he aware that creating the commission was a requirement of a court settlement? It was not done out of the goodwill of the Harper Conservative government.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, it showed we were willing to work with the recommendations. Ninety-four recommendations were brought forward and very slowly we have come to nine. This shows that we were willing to work right away with whatever recommendations we had. It was a big accomplishment for the Conservative government. We proved that we could act on it.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

I would like to start by acknowledging that we stand on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in support of our government's bill that would revise the oath or affirmation of citizenship. I am also extremely happy that Karina Scali has been shadowing me today, on a day when I am speaking on such an important bill.

As we know, the bill responds to call to action number 94 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report. It is important for newcomers to Canada to take on the responsibility of citizenship, and in doing so, with the passage of the bill, newcomers would state their commitment to respect the rights and treaties of indigenous peoples and recognize the significant contributions the Inuit, Métis and first nations have made to Canada. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report lists 94 calls to action, with number 94 calling on the government to amend the oath of citizenship to specifically add a reference to the phrase “observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples”.

In 2017 a few things happened that highlighted the need for the bill. In my riding, I hosted a screening of We Were Children, a film about residential school survivors. The profound impact of the residential school system is seen through the eyes of two children in this movie. It is a profound and disturbing film.

Following the screening, we had a panel discussion with three indigenous residents of Halton. There were two new Canadians in attendance who asked why they had never learned this part of Canada's history when they became Canadian citizens. Even those of us born in Canada have had a lack of education about the impact and trauma caused by the Canadian government's residential school system. It really hit home that we can do better.

That same year, during the summer, I had a young woman working in my Ottawa office as an intern. She decided she wanted to do an e-petition on this very issue. Working with Steven Paquette, an indigenous knowledge-keeper in Oakville, she developed e-petition 1228, which called on the government to continue its consultation with indigenous peoples across our country. It also asked the government to modify the study guide to acknowledge treaty rights. The petition received almost 650 signatures and a response from the government. I am extremely proud of Mariam Manaa, who developed this petition. She made sure it was not developed in a way that came from her knowledge about the past. Rather, she worked with someone from our community who is indigenous and could guide her on the right way to move forward on that petition.

Mariam's petition highlighted the importance of consultation. The government has been conducting full and thoughtful consultation in order to bring the bill here today. It has also been conducting thorough consultation to update the citizenship guide, which should be forthcoming in the coming weeks.

There are those in the official opposition who have called the changes suggested by the bill a token gesture. Given the experience in my riding at the film screening and the conversations I had because I sponsored Mariam's e-petition, I would argue that this change is far from token or a waste of time. It is extremely important as we move along the path to reconciliation.

I have also heard during debate members of the Conservative party talk about the need to do more in indigenous communities. I would like to highlight that the government has made significant new investments of $21 billion through four budgets, which has resulted in the building or renovating of 62 new schools, the completion of 265 water and waste-water infrastructure projects and the approval of more than 508,000 requests for products, services and supports under Jordan's principle. There is also a new funding formula for K-to-12 education, which resulted in regional funding increases of almost 40%. The number of first nation schools offering full-day elementary kindergarten programs has increased from 30% to 59%.

Those are just a few examples of the steps we are taking and the investments we are making in indigenous peoples across the country. There is certainly a need to do more, but we are taking this seriously. We are making the necessary investments and making a commitment to reconciliation, something that is included in the bill.

Only by educating new Canadians and Canadians who have been on this land for generations about treaty rights, indigenous history and the trauma caused by policies like residential schools can we actually make progress on reconciliation. Unlike the Ford Conservative government, which immediately upon election cut mandatory indigenous curriculum from the Ontario high school education system, we firmly believe that education is an important component of reconciliation.

The proposed changes to the oath are the result of the government's consultation with national indigenous organizations on the precise wording of the oath of citizenship. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada included the following organizations in these consultations: the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council, the ITK, and members of the Land Claims Agreement Coalition, which represents indigenous modern treaty organizations in governments in Canada.

There was support for the intent of the call to action, but through engagement, the need for a more precise and inclusive oath also became clear.

A key point that came up was that the term “indigenous” does not reflect all preferences of self-identification. I understand this point deeply through many conversations held over the years. I know that many people identify by their home community, homeland or territory, and that there are many ways to identify. The oath of citizenship and all Crown-indigenous relations need to be based on an understanding and respect for self-identity preferences, and at a broader level, reflect many experiences and histories.

Another example is the call to specifically include treaties in the oath of citizenship, which is deeply important. Treaties are foundational to the creation and future of Canada, and through consultations it became clear that this reference needed to be expanded. “Treaties with indigenous peoples” was not relevant to all indigenous peoples and therefore not inclusive of all indigenous experiences. For example, Inuit peoples generally are not party to existing pre-1975 treaties or their agreements with the Crown are not characterized as such.

As a result of these consultations, as well as our pre-existing understanding and commitment to respectful relationships, the new oath will read:

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

I am proud to support this bill for the revised oath of citizenship. This oath is much more than just words. It is a public declaration of joining the Canadian family and a commitment to Canadian values and traditions.

On Canada Day, I host a citizenship reaffirmation ceremony. It is my sincere hope that when we affirm aboriginal and treaty rights in the oath of citizenship this year, it will be an important reminder to all Canadians and will also serve to open conversations in my riding and across the country. The changes to the oath are also an important step in advancing reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous people, continuing to build Crown-indigenous relations, and fulfilling the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

This bill is another step forward towards full implementation of call to action 94, and I am pleased to speak in support of it today. As members listen to the speeches and make their own decisions on whether or not to support this bill, I hope they recognize that sometimes it can be small actions that make a big difference in the lives of indigenous peoples, of new Canadians and, in fact, all of us here in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been sitting in my chair here for the last couple of hours listening to the speeches delivered by members opposite, expressing their commitment to truth and reconciliation and to moving forward with positive relationships with our indigenous communities. I appreciate the strong words they have had.

A couple of years ago, a young lady went into a Liberal Party function to protest mercury poisoning in the water in Grassy Narrows. The Prime Minister made a joke at her expense, and she had to be forcibly removed from that event.

My question is this: Do any of them have the courage of their convictions to bring up to their leader and Prime Minister how poorly he treated that individual, and how he did not have any respect for truth and reconciliation on that day?

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

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that on a day when we are talking about reconciliation, the member opposite is trying to make this a partisan issue. This is an important issue and one that should be non-partisan, and it should not matter what party we belong to; we should all be conscious of making sure we are moving on the right path toward reconciliation. I would hope that members opposite would not make this a partisan issue.

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

Madam Speaker, the reality of this situation is that throughout our history we have failed in our responsibility to properly highlight what indigenous communities have contributed to Canadian society. What we are seeing in this piece of legislation is one way to entrench that into a citizenship ceremony. I wonder if the member can speak to the benefits in the long term, in particular in relation to educating new members and new citizens of Canada as to what that relationship really was all about, as opposed to the way that we have, unfortunately, collectively been dealing with it over the last couple of hundred years.

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

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. I mentioned that during the film screening that I did, two new Canadians asked why they did not learn this. I find that when I go to talk to grade 5 students now, and I am sure other hon. members have had the same experience, I actually have young people asking me questions about our very deplorable history with indigenous peoples.

I gave the example of Canada Day. It would be amazing if on Canada Day we affirmed our citizenship and included this in the oath, and it provoked conversations among people in attendance about why we are including that and they asked to be told more about treaties. We could be making sure we are having those broader conversations.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have such limited time in this House to pass important pieces of legislation, and there are many important recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, one of which is:

We call upon the federal government to eliminate the discrepancy in federal education funding for First Nations children being educated on reserves and those First Nations children being educated off reserves.

That is number 8.

The member also just talked about education and how it would be important to educate new Canadians. That is actually recommendation number 93, which would be the educational component.

Why are the Liberals going for the easy recommendation, a couple of lines in the citizenship oath, instead of doing the hard work that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has called on the government to do?