Debates of Feb. 24th, 2020

Citizenship Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little puzzled as to why we cannot do more than one thing at once. I highlighted the investments in education that were not made under the Conservative government. The Conservatives had 10 years to make a difference for indigenous children, and they did not.

We are actually investing in education. We are ensuring that young indigenous people have the best opportunity at life, something that we often take for granted. Certainly in my community, there are are a lot of people who take it for granted that their kids may not have access to education.

I would argue that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations were not ranked in terms of having to address one recommendation before moving on to the next. We need to do all of the recommendations, and we certainly should be doing this one.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to recognize that we are gathered on traditional Algonquin territory here.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak in support of our government's bill to revise the oath of citizenship. As we know, this 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 I want to share my own experience with the House.

I immigrated to Canada when I was 12 years of age. I went through our school system, and what I learned when I was studying for my test of citizenship was not something I learned in my high school classes. It was not something that was part of my formal education.

As a young adult of 18, I did not know about indigenous rights, about our first nations, about the history of the indigenous people here in Canada. I did not know. As I continued throughout my years in life, it was not through schooling but through experiences and interactions with people that I learned about the very historic significance of why this matters.

With regard to multiculturalism, diversity and inclusion, as a first generation immigrant myself, it is fantastic to me that as a country we have adopted the multiculturalism policy. I feel we must include the indigenous lived experience within the way we govern ourselves, not just in this chamber but in all aspects of our lives. We must include it in what we teach to our children so that we can continue to build upon those experiences and continue to develop policy to really intrinsically absorb ourselves in what the history of Canada is really all about and make sure that the wrongs of the past will not be repeated in the future. That is really what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report is all about.

I see a lot of value in what this bill would do for newcomers in their understanding of what indigenous and first nations issues are and how we can be part of that conversation and solution to ensure they are included in everything we are as a nation.

I see a lot of value in this bill for newcomers in stating their commitment to respect the aboriginal and treaty rights for indigenous people and recognizing the significant contributions of Inuit, Métis and first nations to Canada.

Importantly, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report lists 94 calls to action, with number 94 calling on the government to amend the oath to citizenship to specifically add reference to observe the laws of Canada, including treaties with indigenous people. The changes made here ensure this oath is as precise and as inclusive as possible of diverse indigenous identities and experiences.

I will take the time here to focus my remarks on the government's progress on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action provide all Canadians a path forward for Canada's journey to healing and reconciliation of 150 years of continuously building upon these wrongs.

To date, close to 80% of the calls to action have been completed or are well under way. Our government fully understands the importance of the calls to action and will continue to work with our partners to accelerate that progress. This work will require sustained and consistent action to continually make progress on the journey of reconciliation.

To redress the legacy of residential schools and advance reconciliation, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called on the Government of Canada, the provincial and territorial governments, churches, corporations and schools to implement its 94 recommendations or calls to action during the announcement of the commission's final report on June 2, 2015.

During the commission's closing event on December 15, 2015, which included the release of the final report, the Prime Minister committed to implementing the commission's calls to action and reiterated the government's commitment to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

The calls to action provide Canada with a road map to advancing reconciliation. Some 76 calls fall under the responsibility of the federal government alone or a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial, territorial governments, and other key priorities.

Canada has adopted a distinctions-based, whole-of-government approach to implementing the 76 calls to action that fall under federal or shared responsibility. It is a collective commitment involving 13 lead federal departments and agencies with the support of another 25 federal departments and agencies. Given the scope of the task and the wide range of partners involved, implementation requires time, continued substantial investments, sustained partnerships and, in many cases, legislative changes, such as this one.

Permanent bilateral mechanisms are one of the ways we are moving forward with the Assembly of First Nations, self-governing first nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the four Inuit Nunangat regions, and the Métis National Council and its governing members. These groups develop policies on shared priorities, monitor progress going forward, including implementing the calls to action, and meet annually with the Prime Minister.

The calls to action focus primarily on the following: closing socio-economic gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous people, such as calls to action numbers 1 to 5 under child welfare, numbers 6 to 12 under education, and numbers 18 to 24 under health; addressing systemic issues faced by indigenous peoples in Canada, such as call to action number 30, eliminating the overrepresentation of indigenous people in custody; increasing transparency and accountability with respect to renewing the relationship, such as calls to action numbers 43 and 44, implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and calls to action numbers 53 to 67, establishing a national council for reconciliation; and, providing public servants with skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights and anti-racism, such as call to action number 57, professional development and training for public servants.

Nearly 80% of the calls to action under the responsibility of the federal government alone or the shared responsibility between the federal government, and provincial and territorial governments and other key partners are well under way.

Twelve calls to action have been fully implemented including enacting indigenous child welfare legislation; acknowledging indigenous language rights; enacting an Indigenous Languages Act; developing written policy regarding independence of the RCMP; launching the national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls; funding the Canadian Museums Association; dedicating funding for Canada 150 projects on reconciliation; funding for the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation; funding for the Canada Council for the Arts projects on reconciliation; increased funding for CBC/Radio Canada; providing public education that tells the national story of aboriginal athletes in history; taking action to ensure long-term aboriginal athlete development and growth; and continued support for the North American Indigenous Games.

In April 2019, our government implemented a new co-developed policy and an improved funding approach to better support the needs of first nations students on reserve, addressing call to action number 8.

I could start listing all of the legislation that we have worked on over these past four years to ensure that we are really being that inclusive government that we, in principle, believe that we are. I am more than happy to address them during questions and answers. I believe I am almost out of time.

In closing, I will say that I believe that this bill is significantly important, because it really speaks to the crux, the very depth, of the issue of reconciliation, and that is to raise awareness, to talk about the issues as they happened and to make sure that it does not happen again.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to my hon. colleague's remarks. I find it more than a little ironic that she and other Liberal members today have talked about meaningful reconciliation when it comes to indigenous education and children while the government is still fighting indigenous children in court.

I also believe, and I am somewhat disappointed, that my colleague is unaware of the abundant indigenous history over four centuries in the citizenship handbook and the questions within that handbook, which look at our indigenous peoples over those centuries, both heroic and tragic, and the victimization and cruelty of the residential schools.

I would like to ask my colleague about meaningful reconciliation when it comes to the Prime Minister.

Remember that in his first of three run-ins with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner he said that he sees his job as ceremonial and leaves negotiations to ministers. In light of his late return from his search for UN Security Council votes in Africa, and his refusal over the past two weeks to meet with hereditary or elected chiefs of the band in question in British Columbia, does my colleague think it would be a meaningful gesture of reconciliation for the Prime Minister to actually meet with those leaders, both the hereditary and the elected?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not speak in my remarks about what was in the citizenship handbook. I talked about my own education through the Canadian public school system, what impact that had on me, or lack thereof, and how much I would have wanted to learn more about the struggle of indigenous and first nations communities within Canada.

The member speaks about trying to resolve the issues of reconciliation. Over 150 years of Canada's Confederation, we have seen the challenges that have come about. I must say these are not issues that can be resolved over one conversation, over one day, over one piece of legislation or over one policy; these are challenges that have been brewing. These truth and reconciliation calls to action need time. They need consistent dialogue. When we talk about providing support to indigenous communities and children, we can talk about the end to the long-term boil water advisories or the major investments this Liberal government has made into education for indigenous communities, providing support and making sure that we are continuing that path toward progress. Unfortunately, there is not much the Conservatives can say about their progress when they were in government.

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

Madam Speaker, given the last question that came up from the Conservative member regarding the abundance of information in the immigration handbook about indigenous issues, would my colleague not agree that it supports the case even more, and that changing this oath of citizenship to reflect the fact that relationship exists is even more important now, given that abundance of information that apparently is in the handbook?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, over my tenure here as a member of Parliament, having sat on the international human rights subcommittee, and really delving deep into the issues of indigenous rights across the world, when newcomers come to Canada, we want to ensure that everybody in our country knows that indigenous rights and the indigenous framework are very important issues to be highlighted for newcomers. I completely agree with the member's comments and question that this is substantial. It is very important for newcomers to realize the distinction between the rights that we have here in Canada versus the rights of indigenous communities as they suffer abroad. As Canadians, we must do better.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fredericton.

As has been said by other speakers today, we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. That is historic. That is something more than just a phrase on paper.

I was born on Treaty 1. I was born in the land of the Anishinabe and Swampy Cree in the city now known as Winnipeg, at the forks of the Red River and the Assiniboine River, all the history for thousands of years of indigenous people living in the area that is Treaty 1.

I now live on Treaty 3, in the city of Guelph, which is on the traditional land of the Mississaugas of the Credit and the Anishinabe and is a land of the Dish with One Spoon Covenant. Having peaceful communication and sharing meals together has been practised for millennia in the area where I now live

It is important to know that it is not just about using words in terms of acknowledging territory, but it is also important to know what territory we are in and what it represented in the past.

The government's commitment to reconciliation really is to bring this renewed relationship forward, the relationship of understanding the people who lived in the areas that we now occupy, sometimes occupying without resolution, looking at recognizing rights, co-operation and partnership and working on the complex relationships that we have now and will have going forward.

Acknowledging call to action number 94 in our oath of citizenship is important today. I have heard members of the House say that this is a minor piece of legislation, that it is just a sleight of hand, that it is just a few words on a page, but there is nothing more important than the oath of citizenship. It really speaks of the land that immigrants are joining and that land having the history of indigenous people as well as the history of the Crown and what that means to us as a country.

My hon. colleague from Sydney—Victoria last week gave a very powerful speech during the midnight emergency debate. He looked at the ongoing protests and acts of civil disobedience. We saw some of that as we were coming into work today. He made the important point that reconciliation is not a destination, that it is a journey.

The 94 calls to action put out by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada are part of that journey, but it is a shared journey. It is a journey involving working on solutions with indigenous people, first nations, Métis and Inuit. Each community will have its own way of interpreting what that journey means.

The 94 calls to action mean working together to change policies and programs in a concerted effort to repair the harm that had been caused over a few hundred years, harm such as residential schools, harm such as the abduction of children in hospitals before they could be united with their parents, things that we are working on today and things that we will be working on tomorrow.

The amendments to Bill C-6 to bring our Citizenship Act in line with call to action number 94 urge us to replace our oath, but it really is what it means to be a Canadian citizen in terms of our relationship with the people who were here before the colonial settlement of Canada.

When I thought of speaking today about the oath of citizenship, I was thinking of the years I have spent working in the Institute for Canadian Citizenship. This institute was founded by former governor general Adrienne Clarkson as an outgoing gift to Canada. It involves bringing people who want to join the Canadian family together, to have conversations with them, to have round table meetings with dignitaries and with people from service organizations in the community, so they can tell us their stories. Why did they choose Canada? How has it been since they arrived here? What are they hoping for their future and for the future of their children?

It is always emotional and poignant. When one sees the pride on the faces of the family members who are joining the Canadian family before taking the citizenship oath, and knows the struggles they have gone through to get to the point of affirming their oath of citizenship, working with the planning committee to figure out how to create a festive atmosphere but also give it the dignity that oaths of citizenship really require is important. This is because citizenship, especially citizenship in Canada, is something that comes with a great value.

When we look at the citizenship language used in the oath right now, what are we talking about changing? It is something very similar to a debate we had a few years ago in the House of making our national anthem more gender-inclusive. It changed “in all our sons command” to “in all of us command”, which leaves open the question of gender definition.

This now opens up the door to reconciliation by including our Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people. That is precisely the phrase we are asking to be put into our citizenship oath. Personally, I hope this is not going to meet with the type of partisan struggle we had in the Senate and the House around changing words, because words do matter. Our citizenship oath was last amended in 1977, and I think we can all agree that the world has moved on greatly since then.

I attend citizenship ceremonies. We have discussions beforehand, and then go to Riverside Park in Guelph. On July 1, 10,000 people are in the park and 30, or 40 or 45, people stand on a stage and declare their new allegiance to Canada. The Rotary Club organizes Canada Day celebrations and other people from the community are around. The chief of police is always there, as are the mayor and the member of provincial parliament. We celebrate together to say that leadership comes from each individual, and that the responsibility of citizenship is not just with elected officials. In particular, it is the citizens of our country who build our country. We simply serve them.

It is an important day for these new Canadians. Some of them have come back years after to volunteer on the citizenship committee and help other people understand what the journey was for them and where they now are in terms of their citizenship. In March 2019, at a citizenship ceremony at Bishop Macdonell high school, some of the people there were children of people who had become citizens previously. We had 37 community members become Canadian citizens that day, and to watch them wave their flags and officially become Canadian citizens was like watching a game where somebody had just scored a goal. The cheering and support demonstrated really showed the excitement and joy we have when people become Canadians.

It is just so important they also know that Canadian citizenship comes with a history, and the history is not always great. This change we are looking at today is to try to undo some of the previous history that needs to be reconciled. The Citizenship Act is a reflection of the government's commitment to build a fair, diverse and inclusive country. It is also there for the benefit of newcomers for their overall quality of life and to make a good future for their families. However, it is all based on our having mutual respect, and in particular respect for the indigenous people who were here before we were citizens and to include them in the family we have joined.

I will be supporting this motion going forward. I hope we see it go through the House expeditiously, and I hope we can continue to work with the indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples to build a better Canada in the future.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course we support these changes in terms of the citizenship oath reaffirming aboriginal treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people. That is important symbolism, it is important talk, but the government has been so short on actually walking the talk. I think it came up in debate today that aboriginal kids are being taken to court when trying to maintain their rights. Instead, the government is willing to spend an incredible amount of money on lawyers rather than allowing them to access the services and rights they deserve.

We have also seen with the Wet'suwet'en crisis that the government was directed years ago with the Delgamuukw decision to sit down and negotiate treaty rights around hereditary territory of the Wet'suwet'en. The government has been in power for five years and has done absolutely nothing in this regard. In fact, the Prime Minister refuses to meet with the hereditary chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en.

What gives with the contradiction between the talk that is important in this bill, and actually walking the talk?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a question of whether the glass is half empty or half full. We look at the progress we have made in five years and the discussions we have had. Yes, during the election campaign there was a court order that came forward.

We are now addressing and looking at that, doing things the right way in terms of the settlements that need to be done. However, they cannot be done by forcing a fast solution. It is something that we have to work on together to come to the right solution, and that is reflective of things like the Wet'suwet'en Nation as well.

Some of the chiefs are thinking one thing and some are thinking another. How do we get their governance to discuss, and how do we then discuss as a whole and come to the right solution for all Canadians, including especially our indigenous brothers and sisters?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, a very interesting point that we have been talking about today is reconciliation, and more so the symbolism that we have been seeing today. The symbolism that is being talked about is what I am more concerned about. In the reconciliation report there is just a change of four words to the swearing-in ceremony, yet the Liberals want to do more, which is fine.

The point is that we keep hearing about symbolism and how we are going to address reconciliation, but was there not a protest today out on the front lawn of Parliament? Have there not been blockades these last couple of weeks? When are the Liberals actually going to do something about reconciliation, instead of the symbolism that we keep seeing?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have driven the Yellowhead Highway many times in the past, and when I do I always think of the Métis, the hunters, the people on horseback and the freedom that they had. What we want is for them to live within the freedom context of the nation that we now all are in together.

When we are talking about symbolism, as the member is calling it, there is nothing more fundamental than the oath of citizenship when we are talking about how our country sees itself and how we show it to newcomers. This is far from simple symbolism. This is a fundamental change that was called for in call to action number 94. We need to do it because it is a priority item.

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

Madam Speaker, I will echo what my colleague from the NDP and what my colleague from Yellowhead said. The member said, and I say this respectfully, that words matter, and I agree with that.

However, I would argue that we have the opportunity to say that action matters more. It matters more to do things that are concrete and tangible for improving the quality of life for those who live in first nation communities.

I am fortunate that my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry is home to the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne and the residents who are there. A great point of symbolism would be that actions matter, for example, talking about the joint strategy to eliminate educational and employment gaps and the discrepancy in first nations education.

When we talk about symbolism, I wonder why this was chosen to be a symbolic first. I would argue that there are more tangible things that can make a difference.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are 93 other calls to action, and those are action items. I have visited the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. There are five boil water advisories that we are working on together. The call to do it together is really what we are talking about, not enforcing our actions on them but working on solutions together.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to speak and to represent the people of Fredericton.

Today we debate Bill C-6, a bill to amend the citizenship oath. I wish to provide context for my words today with some of my background. Before being elected in this House, I was a teacher and an advocate for indigenous youth in our public schools. I worked to remove barriers in the New Brunswick education system for indigenous children. I worked to educate the broader population on the true history of Canada and the implications for ignoring it. I remember learning about residential schools on my own time and not as part of my formal education. It took two years to comb through testimonials, letters, documents and photo evidence. It was a roller coaster of emotions as I confronted my identity as a non-indigenous person, and my role and responsibility in repairing the damage that had been done. Understanding that responsibility led to my passion for teaching and it led me into this House where I stand today.

The 94 calls to action that came out of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada were designed to be a road map to reconciliation, covering a variety of aspects of life, including business, education, health, youth, women, justice and more. Canadians might be asking where this road has gotten us, and how many calls to action have been completed. In the Prime Minister's words, he made a commitment, in partnership with indigenous communities, the provinces, territories and other vital partners, to fully implement the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That was in 2015.

CBC's Ian Mosby has been tracking the TRC's progress. He commented, “One thing that the calls to action that have been completed have in common, is that they are very simple to complete, or they are calls for things that were already happening to continue.”

Dr. Cindy Blackstock said, “In 2020, it is time to stop feeding the government’s insatiable appetite to be thanked for its inadequate measures and to demand a complete end to the inequality”.

Particularly poignant are the observations of the Yellowhead Institute on assessing progress. It writes:

We have also operated from the assumption that completing any particular Call to Action cannot be solely determined by gestures of process, budgetary promises, or otherwise “recognition of concerns” on the part of Crown-Indigenous Relations (CIR). Rather, we have judged their status based on whether or not specific actions have been taken that are capable of producing the kinds of clear, meaningful, structural changes necessary to improve the lives of Indigenous peoples throughout Canada.

Let us review the scorecard. Out of the 52 broader reconciliation recommendations, seven have been completed; under justice, one out of 18; language and culture, one out of five; health, zero; education, zero; child welfare, zero. Five were completed in the first year, and just four since 2016. At the current rate, it will take approximately 38 more years before all of the calls to action are implemented. We will see reconciliation in the year 2057, just in time for zero emissions.

In the 2019 mandate letters, the Prime Minister reiterated, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous People”. I think it is time to call in the marriage counsellor. Take, for example, Canada's ongoing legal challenges to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's September 2019 ruling that “the Federal government was wilfully and recklessly discriminating against First Nation children in ways that contributed to child deaths and a multitude of unnecessary family separations.” For a government so concerned with appearances, this does not look good.

With no reminder needed, let us look to the current and ongoing Wet'suwet'en crisis in Canada, testing the Prime Minister and his government's commitment to this mandate of reconciliation, as well as the public interest. This could have been a slam dunk, setting the tone for positive, peaceful relationships for years to come. However, due to what I believe to be a catastrophic mishandling of the situation, we are seeing effects like the explicit, overt racism breeding in online comment sections and spilling into the streets and schoolyards.

This is the true barrier to the calls to action, to reconciliation and to the hope of a better tomorrow for indigenous peoples in Canada. We have heard a lot of rhetoric over the last couple of weeks. We had the opposition leader attempt to educate us on privilege. Mind you, he is a white, affluent man who was standing in front of the grand doors of the House of Commons. He should know privilege well, yet somehow he missed the mark.

We have heard a lot of platitudes, punch lines and patriarchy. We have heard promises made and, three days later, promises broken as well as a gross overstating of the role of dialogue.

The exhaustive TRC, the previous Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry were the hard work of dialogue and set a course of action for Canada to take. Dialogue is a conversation among parties, but Canada does not seem to be listening.

In closing, I will change my tone. I will of course support this effort to fulfill one of the 94 recommendations, but I wish to note the timing of this effort as well as question the actual impact in today's Canadian political climate.

Things have changed. We have failed in the bridge building, in the healing that is required of this work, which is embedded in each of the 94 recommendations. Today we address one call to action, the 94th, with 84 incomplete before it. We will potentially move this request to committee stage and in time perhaps we will see our newcomers repeat an oath that acknowledges something the majority of settler Canadians have not.

Having said all this, this change will have a positive impact on the immigration experience in Canada, despite falling flat as a call to action for indigenous peoples so long after it was originally recorded.

[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, with respect to consistent support for reconciliation, it is encouraging to hear some of the support for it. However, I do not think that is universally applied throughout the chamber. We often find the Conservatives lacking. They need to reaffirm where they stand. This is just one important call to action, and they are opposing it.

From what I understand, the Green Party is supporting the legislation.

It is important that we recognize this is just one piece of legislation dealing with the call to action 94. A number of steps have already been taken, but many other steps still need to be taken. However, it is not only the federal government that has to take action. Provincial governments and other entities need to recognize this and start to work more toward getting some of these calls for action complete.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, yes, we are supportive of the bill before us. Again, it puts forward one of the 94 recommendations. If we are looking at prioritizing or placing importance on these recommendations, it is rather symbolic, if we are going to talk about symbolism, and it is the 94th call to action. It would seem that the hard-working individuals who were involved in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission would have rather seen some of the others addressed long before we got to this one.

Again, while it is one step that is necessary to take, 93 others steps should probably have been taken before this one.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my friend's speech with interest. She talked about being an educator. Education is an important aspect of reconciliation.

We have limited House time. On average, 16 government pieces of legislation get passed per year. Would it not make more sense for us to be dealing with, for example, recommendation 93 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which talks about revising the information kit for newcomers to talk about indigenous treaty rights and other things? Would this not be a more productive use of the House time rather than 17 words being inserted into the oath?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is yes. With our limited time here, we have to address things with a certain level of urgency and prioritize them in a very important way. However, this is the bill before us, and I support it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Fredericton seemed a little frustrated, not with what is before the House but rather the lack of government action in other areas. I think we all understand that when we realize indigenous kids are still having to go to court to get their rights. We see the government's lack of follow-up on a whole range of issues, to sitting down and negotiating so we get the free, prior and informed consent that is part of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Could the member express the frustration that so many people feel about the lack of action and could she help us with the road map for the future? What should the government be doing so it is actually walking the talk that is expressed in the bill?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am very frustrated. I sat very patiently and listened to the midnight debate without a speaking slot, so I took this time to really address those concerns.

My children are indigenous. What I see from all this, as I mentioned, is some of the racism that is really pours out of the comment sections and in society. I am very concerned. Therefore, I would like to see a strong focus placed on anti-racism.

With that, comes all the rest of the recommendations as well. They are very much imbedded in that spirit. We need to understand how to better relate to one another, but we have to tear down the walls we have seen. The power of racism in our society is there and I worry for my children, my students and Canada. We need to address this right away.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to once again address the House as the member of Parliament for Chilliwack—Hope, a constituency that has a large number of reserves.

The Sto:lo Nation and the Ts'elxweyeqw tribe are a key part of my community and they play a key role in partnership with the City of Chilliwack and the District of Hope in making us a great community. In a bit, I will talk a little about some great examples of reconciliation just over the last number of years in my community.

Today we have heard the parliamentary secretary to the government house leader take partisan runs at the Conservative Party. Of course, it was the Conservative Party, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, that brought forward the historic apology to former students of Indian residential schools. This was on June 11, 2008.

That was after a lot of hard work by the government and first nations, Inuit and Métis leadership. The groups were represented by chiefs and leaders from across the country, who were right on the floor of the House of Commons in the old Centre Block. That was a moving moment for all Canadians.

My father, Chuck Strahl, was the minister of Indian affairs, as it was called at the time, and it was one of the proudest moments of his long career, to be a part of that apology recognizing the impact it had on survivors of the residential school system, which was, quite frankly, a dark chapter in Canada's history. That was acknowledged for the first time here under a Conservative government.

As part of that agreement for the settlement for the residential schools, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was created by the Conservative government. Over seven years, it heard from survivors from across the country. It listened to their experiences and how the residential school system had changed their lives forever, not just for them and their parents and grandparents in many cases but for future generations. We acknowledged that and we acknowledged it was wrong. We acknowledged the lasting harms the residential school system brought to first nations, Métis and Inuit communities across the country, and that was an important step.

A number of recommendations came out of the TRC, one of which we are dealing with today.

I remember I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of aboriginal affairs when the 94 recommendations were tabled. The reason I remember it is because now Senator Sinclair gave the government the 94 recommendations just before question period. By the time the Liberals' first question had come up, they said that they supported all 94 recommendations without having read them. That is a fact.

There was an election on the horizon and the current Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations was their critic. She said that the Liberals supported all 94 recommendations without having read them. That was indicative of the importance they placed on this file. It was all symbolism right from the beginning. Unfortunately, we see that continuing here today.

I have been here for quite a while. I have been watching as well. I heard one Liberal speaker say that this was important symbolism, that words mattered. Yes, the words do matter. We can look at the words, and I will read the proposed change into the record again. It says:

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

If we believe that words matter, the words of the current oath matter as well. They cover the addition to this. When we say “including the Constitution, which”, we are saying that this is already covered in “faithfully observe the laws of Canada”. Therefore, this really does not anything of substance.

The treaties, which we are called upon to recognize here, already form a part of the laws of Canada, which new Canadians are asked to affirm that they will faithfully observe. This, quite frankly, is trying to use words to make the government feel better about its relationship with indigenous Canadians, because right now that relationship continues to be strained.

The Liberals say that if new Canadians have to say these words, will that not be an important symbol to indigenous Canadians? I would argue that it would be a better symbol, a better action to indigenous communities to actually respect the laws or the treaties of the country as the Crown. I have not heard in all of my work on this file or in all my work as a member of Parliament a lot of indigenous leaders complaining that the people of Canada, individuals, new Canadians, are failing to faithfully observe the treaty. I have heard many times that the government, the Crown has failed to live up to its obligations under the law.

If we actually want to make a difference, if we want to satisfy the concerns of indigenous leadership, indigenous individuals, it will be for the government, for the Crown to fulfill and honour its obligations instead of saying to new Canadians that they should affirm the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people. It is a bit of misplaced symbolism if the government takes that action because it believes it is important.

The government should focus on recommendation 93 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is on education. One of the lasting legacies of the apology in 2008 is the increased awareness of residential schools, that chapter in our history, and the need to learn from it.

In the same way, recommendation 93 calls on the government to increase that portion of the new citizenship guide so when people come to that last step where they swear the oath, they have learned all about the various relationships that have formed our great country. Whether it is our two founding nations or the indigenous treaties, that it is all part of this. The residential school system and that dark chapter is all part of it.

My fear is that once we start to say follows all the laws, “including the Constitution which”, and the government will probably say, no, that this would never happen, why not at some future date say “including the Constitution, which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”? We all believe in the charter. We should include that. It should be something that new Canadians swear an oath to, that they will follow not only the laws that are in the Constitution, which includes treaties, but also the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What about the fact that there are two official languages in the country? Why should we not include that in the oath? Once we start to go beyond the law to include the Constitution, to include the treaties, what is stopping us from expanding it further? Saying we will faithfully observe the laws of Canada covers this quite well.

My colleague from Yellowhead mentioned this as well. We have heard a lot about reconciliation today. We are told that this debate is all about that.

I believe, and I have said this before in this House and certainly in my own community, that reconciliation is a process. It is a journey. It is not a destination that one gets to by completing checklists. It seems that this is what this is today. It is a belief that if we check this one off, if we check off recommendation 94, we will be well on our way to achieving reconciliation.

I would argue that this is one of those times when what is happening in this chamber is at fundamental odds with what is happening in real Canada. We have seen it in protestors, quite frankly, who have been out to stall an energy project; that is their main goal. Many of the protests include banners that say “Reconciliation is dead.” We see, from the Mohawks here in Ontario to the Wet'suwet'en people in British Columbia, there are some who disagree with these projects, and they are protesting the actions of the government.

Today in this place, a very safe place to speak about reconciliation, a very sterile environment, we can have these debates, these words in the House, but outside of these walls, a very different story is emerging. Indigenous communities and indigenous leaders feel let down by the government that repeatedly says, and we heard it again on Tuesday, that there is no relationship more important than the relationship with indigenous peoples.

Has that been the record of the government? I would argue that most certainly it has not. When it comes to the government's record on indigenous peoples, it is a record of profound disrespect. We saw this on many occasions. I think Canadians will remember two very clearly, and I want to talk about a few more.

There is one that sticks out the most, outside of the House of Commons where there are rules that govern how we conduct ourselves. We are all honourable members. We cannot even call each other by name. That is how structured it is here in the House. However, when we get outside of this place and we are confronted by reality, how we react there shows more of our true character.

Many Canadians will remember when the Prime Minister was giving a speech to a group of well-heeled lawyers and donors, Liberal Party donors who had given the maximum donation to his party, and he was interrupted by a young indigenous woman who could well have been referencing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation on clean drinking water. This time it was in Grassy Narrows. She said that the Prime Minister had promised they would have a water treatment facility, that there was mercury in their water and they were dying.

The Prime Minister mocked her to her face, saying, “Thank you for your donation.” That is what he did when he was confronted outside of this safe space that is this chamber, when he was confronted with the reality of an indigenous protestor. “Thank you for your donation,” he said to great laughs from the well-heeled rich donors in a downtown hotel room, who had never had to worry about a clean drink in their entire life. That is what he did when confronted with that issue.

Talking about reconciliation, I know in British Columbia how proud first nations communities in my riding were to have the first indigenous justice minister as a member of the Liberal cabinet in 2015. She was a former Assembly of First Nations B.C. regional chief. She had been a spokesperson for indigenous issues in my province for a number of years. We did not always disagree, and in fact she was usually there to tell me, when I was the parliamentary secretary in our government, how we could be doing things better. She was a respected leader, as was her father.

We saw the reaction here when she decided to stand up to the Prime Minister. She was summarily fired from her post as the justice minister. She was then humiliated. I remember well the former member of Parliament for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Mr. Jati Sidhu, who said that she did not know anything, that she was just taking direction from her father, patronizing a lawyer, and justice minister and attorney general.

That was the true opinion the government had of her when she told the truth and then got kicked out of cabinet and then got kicked out of the party. One of the indigenous services ministers who got the most done in her tenure was Jane Philpott. I remember her too. She similarly got kicked out of cabinet and the Liberal Party for telling the truth to the Prime Minister.

I want to talk about a couple of other ways the Liberals have been disrespecting indigenous communities. We saw with the Wet'suwet'en, 20 first nations chiefs and councils and nine hereditary chiefs, and were told by one of those hereditary chiefs that 85% of the people in the territory support the Coastal GasLink pipeline, and that the government was nowhere to be seen. In fact, the Liberals were talking about dialoguing with people who wanted to shut down that project that would bring economic prosperity to that region.

I remember the Aboriginal Equity Partners. This is one of the greatest tragedies in the last five years. The Aboriginal Equity Partners had a 30% stake in the northern gateway pipeline. They had worked with the company. I believe it was 31 first nations and Métis communities that had worked with the company to come to an agreement that they would receive $2 billion in benefits for their communities.

With a stroke of a pen the Prime Minister tore that economic prosperity away from them. When we asked if the Liberals had consulted with them, he said that they had no obligation to consult with those first nations and Métis communities because they were taking something away. Cancelling a project and taking away that economic prosperity was not even a consideration for the government.

We saw it with Teck Frontier just today. I know many Liberals have been celebrating all day long the decision of Teck Frontier to abandon this project, the 7,000 jobs, the $20 billion in economic development up front, the $70 billion in tax revenue for all the governments. The Liberals have been celebrating that, but they have not been talking about the fact that 14 first nations are also now having an economic opportunity ripped away from them by the government. The first nations are having that torn away because the government has created such an impossible environment. It reminds me of the energy east pipeline where the Liberals said that it is just the company making the decision. Yes, the company has finally made the only decision that the government left it with. After changing the regulatory process, after moving the goalposts time and time again, the company finally said that it cannot operate in that environment.

Among the people who have lost hope and opportunity, the most tragic are those experiencing poverty and health outcomes that we would never accept in our own communities. The government seems to be willing to accept that some first nations are just going to have to continue to live in poverty, that the economic opportunities the private sector wants to work in partnership with them to achieve, those are not worth pursuing. In fact, the government will do everything it can to rip that economic opportunity away.

Again, this is a symbolic bill that is designed to make the government feel good about its reconciliation agenda. Out on the ground, out in Canada where people right now are seeing first-hand how well the government's reconciliation agenda is working and how well its economic and environmental partnering are working to get the balance right, the balance for the government is no economic development, no economic opportunity for indigenous communities that have been working in close consultation with those communities.

This is an unnecessary change to the oath. It is, quite frankly, designed to make the government feel good about itself when it is failing on the reconciliation front. We cannot support it.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, on December 15, 2015, the Prime Minister accepted the final report of the commission. Justice Murray Sinclair, Chief Wilton Littlechild and Dr. Marie Wilson worked on this report, which resulted in the 94 calls to action. These calls to action were made to the government not in order of preference but as calls that we had to address together.

The member across the way and some of his colleagues have said they do not like recommendation number 94 and do not think we should be debating it today. Apart from call to action number 94, could he tell us what other calls to action we should not be addressing that the report gave us?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are some recommendations that I do not think we should be implementing, like increasing the funding for the CBC. That is an easy one. We do not believe this should be part of the document. We believe the CBC should be able to struggle and make ends meet on a billion dollars a year. However, there are other calls to action that I do support, such as the aboriginal language bill that we supported as a party.

I do not support changing the oath. I do not support increasing the funding for the CBC. Maybe I will get an opportunity to pass along a few more of my observations on the TRC report as we go along.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member for Chilliwack—Hope raised some important points, notably about how reconciliation cannot simply be a list of items to check off.

In the oath of citizenship, we swear or affirm that we “will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second...Her Heirs and Successors”. It was the Queen's ancestors who were often taking land away from the first nations, which existed on this land as sovereign nations with their own governance structures. That is why the bill is particularly important, more so than making reference to Canada's official languages or the Constitution, because this land was inhabited by people before the Europeans came and we fundamentally changed their way of life.

I am asking the member to possibly consider why this might have some importance. It allows new Canadians to recognize that this land was inhabited before the Europeans came and that the first nations' way of life was fundamentally altered by that contact. This is just a way of recognizing how important that is.

Yes, it is a small step and more needs to be done, but surely this one step can mean quite a bit given that it did come out of the TRC, which did months of work on this.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the TRC was a very important initiative. It was set up by our former Conservative government. It worked for years to hear from survivors and develop recommendations.

I believe recommendation number 93 is the answer to his concern. It states:

We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with the national Aboriginal organizations, to revise the information kit for newcomers to Canada and its citizenship test to reflect a more inclusive history of the diverse Aboriginal peoples of Canada, including information about the Treaties and the history of residential schools.

I would argue that any member who has helped someone prepare for the exam knows how seriously it is taken by the people who want to write it. They study the guide diligently, like it is a university course. There is much more value in changing or including information on treaties and indigenous history in the guide than there ever will be in the oath, so I think recommendation number 93 is the way to address those concerns.