Debates of Feb. 24th, 2020

Citizenship Act

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.

I am happy to speak on Bill C-6, where the government has introduced changes to the oath of citizenship. These changes are necessary. New Canadians need to recognize and affirm the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people and understand the major contribution to our collective successes as a country.

One of the strongest pillars for successful integration into Canadian life is achieving Canadian citizenship, and we have one of the highest naturalization rates in the world. Some 85% of newcomers become citizens. Over the last decade, Canada has welcomed nearly 1.7 million new Canadians.

Citizenship ceremonies are the end of a long process of immigration, settlement and integration for a newcomer to Canada. Ceremonies are a moving and emotional celebration, as well as a necessary legal step to citizenship. The oath of citizenship is a solemn declaration that the citizen applicant promises to obey Canadian laws while fulfilling his or her duties as Canadian citizens. Taking the oath of citizenship is an integral part of the citizenship process, and the act reflects the Canadian values of social cohesion, openness and transparency.

The proposed changes include clear reference to the rights of indigenous peoples. They are aimed at advancing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action within the broader reconciliation framework.

The bill would modify the words of the oath of citizenship as follows:

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.

Indigenous peoples have played a fundamental role in Canada's past and are a strong pillar of our society. Our government believes that it is important for all Canadians, including new Canadians, to understand and appreciate the importance of indigenous peoples to our heritage.

The bill we are proposing is consistent with the values and practices that exist in Canada today. The revised text of the oath uses wording that reflects a broad range of rights held by diverse indigenous peoples.

The government encourages all immigrants to take the path to full membership and permanent belonging in Canadian society. Canada's diversity is among its greatest strengths. We are a strong and united country because of, not in spite of, our differences. Canada's commitment to diversity and inclusion is an essential approach to making this country and this world a better, safer place.

My riding of Don Valley East is one of the most diverse ridings in Canada, comprising immigrants and Canadians whose backgrounds are from all over the world. This change to the wording of the oath of citizenship is important to my constituents and to all Canadians. It reflects the fact that we are all immigrants, regardless of how far back we track our ancestry. It is important to recognize first nations, Inuit and Métis people as the first peoples of this land.

The Government of Canada is focused on building an inclusive society with a sense of belonging and a common set of values shared throughout our country, while valuing the diversity that people of all origins bring to Canada.

Canada welcomes immigrants and helps them to settle, integrate and succeed here in Canada. This is both our history and our present. The success of immigrants is our success as a strong and united country. Taking the oath of citizenship at a citizenship ceremony is a requirement to become a Canadian citizen, but the oath is much more than just words. As I mentioned previously, taking the oath demonstrates that a new Canadian embraces the values of social cohesion, openness and transparency in an open, free, democratic and diverse Canada.

As I meet with many people, young and old, it is amazing how few know the history of the indigenous people, what they have contributed and what they have done to ensure that we, the newcomers, have a good life in Canada. If it were not for the hospitality of the indigenous people, none of us would be here. It is sad that their history is not taught in schools. The change in the oath is but a first step, and that is what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report states:

Precisely because “we are all Treaty people,” Canada’s Oath of Citizenship must include a solemn promise to respect Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

In closing, I would note that the aim of this change to the oath of citizenship is to raise newcomers' awareness, and emphasize the importance, of aboriginal and treaty rights. Beyond the introduction of this bill, we must keep moving forward together on many fronts. Continued progress will require a new level of commitment, determination and partnership. It will also require a great deal of patience and perseverance. Above all, we must continue to build trust through stronger, more collaborative and respectful relationships, and by working on the issues that matter most to Canada's indigenous communities.

Canada's ethos of pluralism is a model for the world, and it is a constant work in progress. Diversity and inclusiveness, through the fabric of all its peoples, make Canada stronger. This is part of our government's ongoing commitment to meet the goals of reconciliation with the first nations, and serves as an important and necessary step toward reconciliation.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-6 is certainly something the NDP will be supporting. In our long path toward true reconciliation, this is very much the low-hanging fruit. It is important, but there is some very important work that has to be done in addition to this bill.

We would be asking new citizens to take this new oath. I wonder if the member can tell the House her thoughts about the oath of allegiance that members of Parliament swear, and whether such language might be incorporated into that one day in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an important suggestion. We should incorporate the hon. member's idea in the consultations with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and with the respective authorities.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member was speaking about reconciliation, I was thinking about a visit I made to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg, where the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission was used as an example that Canada had helped and subsequently learned from.

Could the hon. member talk about the importance of reconciliation, beyond words but in terms of actions that often take years and, in fact, decades in order to advance our cultures?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reminding me of what South Africa has done. South Africa has been a beacon.

When I went to visit the place where Mandela was kept in prison, it reminded me that people can be so forgiving. I looked at the horrific situation he was in and, despite the fact that there was so much injustice done to him, he brought forth this Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Respectfully, they agreed to reconcile.

Those are some of the lessons we can learn and we have learned. This is the first step and, going forward, probably we should do more.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke very eloquently as to the educational process to inclusion. I wonder if the hon. member for Don Valley East would elaborate on the process of education and how Bill C-6 takes us down that road.

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

Madam Speaker, our education system is very narrow in its approach. It is important to understand all of the contributions that the first nations, the first people, have made. I think we can work with our provincial partners to ensure that we understand and work with them, just as when we made the lyric change in O Canada to “all of us command.”

We have to do this in very small but progressive steps so that we can achieve the reconciliation that we want.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns I have is that this is the 94th call to action. With the passing of the bill before us, that would mean 10 of the 94 calls to action would have been implemented, which is very slow.

I am also concerned that the government is now dragging its feet on moving forward with legislation around the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I wonder if the member could speak to how long reconciliation needs to take with the current government in power.

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

Madam Speaker, we are talking about provincial and federal jurisdictions, and it is important for the provinces to do their work.

Number one, these 94 calls for action really include provincial jurisdiction. Number two, had the Kelowna accord not been destroyed by the previous Conservative government, we would not be talking today.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a great day when I get to rise in this chamber and speak on behalf of the residents of Dufferin—Caledon.

I want to point out that I will be sharing my time with the member for Steveston—Richmond East.

The first thing I want to do is acknowledge the importance of the path to reconciliation. This is something that is critical for our country. If we take a look at some of the things that have gone on over the past few weeks, they are exact representations of the failure of reconciliation.

Before I get into the main part of my remarks, I want to briefly talk about some of the things that have gone on in this country that have been so detrimental to indigenous peoples. The first thing that jumps out at me is that, up until 1960, indigenous people could only vote if they gave up their status. This is a shameful history in this country and something that needs to be addressed through reconciliation.

The issue I have today is that this particular piece of legislation is, in my estimation, really about virtue signalling. It is the low-hanging fruit. If this were the 94th of 94 recommendations we were to proceed on, then let us talk about it, but it is not. My colleague from the NDP just pointed out we are at nine of 94 recommendations that have been completed in five years. If we work that out, it is 2.25 per year, and to complete them all will take 38 years. The path the government is on for reconciliation is a winding, meandering path that is taking us nowhere quickly.

I also want to talk about the fact that we have precious time in this chamber. If we look at the 42nd Parliament, we might wonder how many pieces of government legislation actually passed. I took a look, and it was 85. When we factor out budget implementation bills, the budget and other things, it is significantly less than that. It is around 73, which is about 15 or 16 pieces of legislation passed per year.

Why am I saying this is an issue? Let us talk about that, because there are 94 recommendations that have been put forward by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and there has been action on nine. Let us look at some of the things that have not been proceeded on. I think it is important to look at what the Liberals are not doing when we look at what they are doing.

There were 18 recommendations under the category of justice. How many do members think the government has accomplished? Is it half? No. Twenty-five percent? No. One. That is all it has done. We are dealing with an amendment to the citizenship oath, but guess what is in those recommendations? I will start with one, recommendation number 33, under justice. It states:

We call upon the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to recognize as a high priority the need to address and prevent Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), and to develop, in collaboration with Aboriginal people, FASD preventive programs that can be delivered in a culturally appropriate manner.

Is that what we are debating today? Is that what we are going to be debating down the road? No, it is not. Do members know why? It is because it is a tough one, where the government has to get its nose to the grindstone and do some real work. It is not, so it put this one in to say that it is doing something. It is time to move past doing something and work on issues that are of critical importance.

I will point out one more under justice. This one is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Call to action number 37 states:

We call upon the federal government to provide more supports for Aboriginal programming in halfway houses and parole services.

Where are we on that? Has any progress been made on that? No, absolutely not. This is what we are dealing with.

I am going to continue. On child welfare, there are five recommendations under child welfare. How many have been completed by the government? Zero.

Let us look at some of the recommendations there. Recommendation number 4 under child welfare states:

We call upon the federal government to enact Aboriginal child-welfare legislation that establishes national standards for Aboriginal child apprehension and custody cases and includes principles.

Again, this is the federal government. The government cannot say that it has provincial partners and others that are not doing anything. This is the federal government.

That is something incredibly worth pursuing. With the precious time that we have in this House, why would this not be what we are debating today? Instead, we are talking about a symbolic gesture. From what I can tell, first nations communities, indigenous communities are tired of symbolic gestures. They want real action on reconciliation.

I am also going to speak on education.

How many recommendations are there in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report with respect to education? There are seven. How many has the government actually completed out of those seven? It will be no surprise, based on the previous answer, that it is zero. Nothing has been done.

There is another one exclusively within federal jurisdiction. Once again, the government cannot say that it is the provinces or, as it likes to do, bring out the big bogeyman, the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford. The government cannot blame him for this.

Recommendation number 7 states:

We call upon the federal government to develop with Aboriginal groups a joint strategy to eliminate educational and employment gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians.

Why is that not what we are debating? Once again, this is the hard work that has to be done. In fact, right now, there is a $10-billion class action lawsuit against the government for underfunding education. Are we dealing with that? No. It is tied up in court. The government is going to say, “Look over here. We're making changes to the citizenship oath. Don't worry about all this other substantive stuff we are not doing.”

Recommendation number 8, also under education, also the federal government, states:

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.

Once again, we hear crickets from the government on a significant and substantial recommendation from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The action from the government is like its action on so many files: It is absolutely non-existent. Indigenous communities deserve better than virtue signalling on the citizenship oath.

My final points are going to be with respect to health.

There are seven recommendations with respect to health. I am on a bit of a roll here, so I am going to say this: How many of the seven recommendations on health has the government completed? Zero. That is exactly it.

Recommendation no. 21 states:

We call upon the federal government to provide sustainable funding for existing and new Aboriginal healing centres to address the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual harms caused by residential schools, and to ensure that the funding of healing centres in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories is a priority.

I will conclude by asking this: Why is that not what we are debating here in the House today instead of something simple and easy, like a change to the citizenship oath? Indigenous Canadians deserve real action on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and this is not it.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am left a little confused when comments are made that we are doing nothing as a government in the transformation of education for first nations people.

Could the hon. member refer to the www.sac-isc.gc.ca website where we show the new policy for first nations kindergarten to grade 12 education, the progress on investments in kindergarten to grade 12 education, the new engagement programs from 2016 to 2018, the current systems for first nations education in Canada, what we have heard in the past and what we are doing now, and what the report's recommendations are? It is all here, as is the investment in 13 new schools in first nations.

We are making unprecedented investments in education for first nations people, but of course there is always more to do. There is more room to improve. When we look at university input, we see there are things we can do to help students get into university as well.

The new member has maybe not seen this report. Maybe he could comment on whether he has seen it, and if he has seen it, why he is ignoring it?

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

Madam Speaker, I will correct my colleague. I am not a new member. In fact, I was a member in this chamber from 2011 to 2015. I served on what was then called the aboriginal affairs committee for the entire duration.

What I can say is this. Citing one or two things to try to suggest that the Liberals are doing a great job is a great way to try to divert attention from the abysmal points that I raised in my speech. As well, if things are so sunny and wonderful and the member for Guelph says to look at all this great stuff they are doing, why is there a $10-billion class action lawsuit against the government by indigenous groups for their lack of funding in education?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to centre my comments and questions on call to action number 94 and Bill C-6.

The Conservatives have put forward an amendment to this bill to effectively kill it at second reading, and I understand there are some concerns over the language and call to action no. 94.

Is there a version of this oath that would be acceptable to the member? If so, why is his party trying to kill the bill at this stage, rather than send it to committee, where we could get feedback from witnesses and maybe try to find something that is acceptable to all parties in this House?

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

Madam Speaker, I can say, after listening to the remarks that have been made by my colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP, that this particular piece of legislation will pass at second reading and will go to committee to be studied.

The primary objection I am raising today is this, which I think I made very clear in my speech: We have precious House time. We have pressing recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Our time, Canadians' time and indigenous communities' time will be better served with legislation that deals with the critical needs of those communities; not this.

That is my objection. That is why I am proposing we do not proceed with this bill.

[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, the Conservative members have actually stood up and said that they do not want to progress with the bill because they do not support the legislation.

When the member talks about the number of calls for action that have been taken, he makes reference to nine or 10. There are 94. Many of those recommendations have nothing to do directly with the federal government. There are other jurisdictions. Many of the recommendations involve the federal government working with indigenous people and other levels of government.

Can the member tell me how many calls for action Stephen Harper ever actually acted on?

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite has forgotten that it was actually a Conservative government that brought forward the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The commission delivered its report in 2015. Then he may recall that there was an election in which his government was elected.

The point I raised in my speech was very clearly that yes, there are some calls to action that deal with provincial jurisdictions and others, but guess what? I spoke about the ones that are exclusively within federal jurisdiction. This member's party and the members on that side of the House have done absolutely nothing to advance them: zero, zip, zilch.

Let me tell the House that this is shameful. They should do better.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to my constituents in Steveston—Richmond East, British Columbia, for having placed their trust in me by electing me as their representative in Parliament. I also want to thank my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon for sharing his time with me. I am honoured to serve my constituents in this Parliament.

I am here today to debate Bill C-6, an act to implement a change in the oath of citizenship in response to recommendation 94 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is an amendment to the Citizenship Act to include the promise to respect the treaty rights of first nation, Inuit and Métis people.

I found there is no logic in placing support behind this bill when it is so glaringly exclusionary of the many Métis, Inuit and B.C. first nations who are not under treaty rights. They do not have effective treaties in their respective areas. What purpose would the proposed changes serve for these individuals?

Our nation is a nation of immigrants who stand on the traditional territories of, and shoulder to shoulder with, first nations, Inuit and Métis people. Canada is one of the few countries in the world where indigenous rights and treaty rights are entrenched in our Constitution.

I believe that educating Canadians about these rights is an important part of the path to reconciliation. However, this education is already in effect. New citizens, having completed their residency requirements and having studied the handbook of history, responsibility and obligations, are expected to be aware of the rights entrenched within the Constitution. This gives them at least a general view of the spectrum of resolved and unresolved treaty rights in different parts of the country. In doing so, they develop respect for what is among Canada's existing body of laws and can appreciate the need to fulfill the remaining unfulfilled treaty obligations within the process of reconciliation.

Apparently the Liberal government believes Canadians to be so unsophisticated that they would find this task accomplished merely by adding 19 words in the oath of citizenship.

Over 30 years ago I came to Canada as an immigrant. I have taken the oath of citizenship to our great country. Other members in this House have done the same. I will now read the oath, which has stood unchanged since 1977. It states, “I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.”

The oath is simple. It represents the final step of the journey from initial entry to planting roots and eventually becoming a Canadian family member and citizen. The oath of citizenship need not be and should not be complicated, nor a thorough examination of the rights and obligations of what it is to be a Canadian. It is merely an affirmation of loyalty to the Queen of Canada, who is the head of state of our constitutional monarchy, and it is an affirmation to obey our laws and obligations as a Canadian.

Let me reiterate: The existing oath of citizenship already includes the promise of citizens to faithfully observe the laws of Canada. These laws include the Constitution, and the Constitution recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people. To accept the proposed legislation is therefore unnecessarily redundant.

Therefore, I ask again: What is the purpose of this bill? As I have mentioned, along the way of becoming a citizen, a new immigrant must read materials relating to the origins of Canada, including materials relating to Canadian indigenous peoples. I believe Canada's indigenous peoples would be better served by emphasizing recommendation 93 and not 94 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action, thus strengthening this education.

I will now read out recommendation 93 of the TRC report:

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.

My alternative to Bill C-6 is just this. Implementing recommendation 93 would go further to educating new Canadians about our history with first nations and the obligations the Crown has to them. Such content can also discuss part 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35, which states, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”

It is because of the lack of forethought by the Liberal government that my initial reaction to this legislation was the same as when the government introduced it shortly before the election as Bill C-99, a mere three weeks before Parliament was to end.

That reaction was that this was yet another virtual signal by the Liberal government to talk big but not deliver. The bill is a half-hearted effort by the Liberals to distract from something real. The Prime Minister has recently fumbled a crisis of his own making and is desperate to take attention away from his own failings when it comes to Canada's indigenous.

Instead of empowering indigenous communities to act in their economic interests with Canada's vast natural resources, he waited until it was too late to respond, effectively siding with those who would keep our first nations impoverished to suit their own agenda.

Instead of getting on with the program and allowing the Coastal GasLink pipeline to proceed with construction, a pipeline that has signed agreements with all the elected band councils along the planned route, the Prime Minister instead spent significant time actively promoting the obstruction.

Like Albertans, our first nations people want to work. They want to do what is best for their generation and their future generations, and they both have had opportunities denied under the Prime Minister.

Instead of creating jobs, jobs have been lost. Because of indecisiveness on the blockades, Canada has lost the opportunity and the economic advantages provided by the Teck Frontier oil sands mine. This is not good for our country or those in the indigenous communities who actively want to see construction on resource projects proceed. Nor is it good for Canada.

Canada has a long and complicated relationship with its indigenous peoples. I readily agree that further steps are necessary to strengthen our relationship. Changing the oath of citizenship does not accomplish this task.

The leadership of the government has promised so many more sunny ways than it has delivered in any substantial form. Canadians deserve better than another empty promise made by politicians wishing to cater sympathetic favour and reduce proud citizens of this nation to tokens cynically used to curry political favour.

Bill C-6 is another example of more Liberal false and, dare I say, empty compassion, something of which I believe Canadians are getting very tired.

As a Conservative member of Parliament, I stand for the improvement of Canada. My party stands for the improvement of Canada. We represent the many Canadians who want better than a government that consistently fails in its mandate by changing the rules and not providing urgent or transparent actions to address the concerns of Canadians.

Simply put, the Liberal government does not act in the interests of making life for Canadians better. It merely pretends to do so.

In these last few weeks, the Prime Minister has been absent and indecisive as Canada has faced a unity crisis in dealing with the blockades. No matter the gravity of the issue facing Canada or the concerns of its indigenous inhabitants, the House has been served an appealing word salad in his responses. Similarly, the bill is but another response devoid of any substance.

I would like to know when the Liberal government will begin to take action to help Canadian indigenous peoples beyond its typical tokenism and pandering.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member read the 93rd call to action, but did not read the 94th call to action, although he did refer to it.

Call to action 94 is in fact what we are debating today, of changing the citizenship oath to recognize indigenous peoples as part of our country and that newcomers coming to Canada would know the importance of indigenous peoples to the foundation of Canada. Therefore, call to action 94 is what we are debating today.

As we look at all of these, should we eliminate call to action 94? Should we just focus on call to action 93 and call it a day at that?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon, who spoke prior to me, already mentioned that it was a matter of priority. When we talk about our first nations, indigenous peoples, there is so much we can do. Instead, the Liberal government has picked something that is virtue signalling and not substantial for indigenous people.

Educating newcomers, having them recognize and understand indigenous histories in our country, would be far more beneficial to everybody in the country. That is why I suggested that recommendation 93 instead of recommendation 94 should be implemented.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague touched on some important aspects in his speech. A lot of the issues dealt with in the calls to action cannot, in fact, be solved by legislation. They will require sustained government policy, adequate funding and so on.

The previous Liberal speaker had a point. This is a simple bill. It deals specifically with call to action 94. These calls to action were not just written on the back of a napkin. They are the result of a very long and sustained process.

Is it my colleague's view that call to action 94 should just be disregarded entirely, given the fact that it was based on so much heart-wrenching testimony and has been conclusively recommended by the TRC as getting us on a path toward reconciliation?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that this is actually a matter of prioritization. We have limited time in the House. We have limited energy in the House. Rather than do something that does not give our indigenous people any substantial improvement, I recommended we look at recommendation 93 instead.

The previous Conservative government did much with cases of social unjust. The Conservatives picked the most important, albeit more difficult, challenges. The member across brought up South Africans. It was under former prime minister Brian Mulroney's leadership that South Africans were brought into our modern history. It was also under Brian Mulroney when the Japanese Canadian internment was settled. It was under former prime minister Stephen Harper that the Chinese head tax injustice was righted. It was Stephen Harper who recognized in the House that the issue of residential schools was a historical wrong in our country.

We need to spend our energy and focus on matters that will actually make the lives indigenous peoples better, and not just on tokenism.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I feel like we are missing the mark a bit. We are missing the idea about sovereignty and self-determination. What we are really discussing is advancing the rights of indigenous peoples in the country.

I heard many times in the member's statement the words “our indigenous communities”. We do not own these communities. They are sovereign in their own right. I ask the member whether he thinks it is a bit pandering itself, a bit token, and a bit patronizing to use that kind of terminology?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, no, I do not think this is pandering when I say the word “our”. It is my country, and we consider everybody in this country our people. That is what I meant.

[William Amos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Innovation]

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

I would like to acknowledge that we are on unceded Algonquin territory.

I just got off the phone with a band councillor for the community of Kitigan Zibi, which is a very special Algonquin community in the middle of the riding of Pontiac. It is a community that has not only brought incredible richness to our region, but also to our nation. I thought it would be particularly appropriate today to pay respect to that nation. As I am representing the riding of Pontiac, foremost in my mind are the Algonquin people.

Taking the oath of citizenship is an integral part of the citizenship process. The act of taking the oath reflects our Canadian values of social cohesion, openness and transparency in a free, democratic and diverse Canada.

The proposed amendment to the oath demonstrates the government's commitment to advancing the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, reflects the commitment of reconciliation and a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples in Canada based on a recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

These changes are an important and necessary step for advancing reconciliation in Canada and strengthening our country's special relationship with indigenous peoples. Also, the new wording will help new Canadians to fully appreciate and respect the significant role of indigenous peoples and their history in forming Canada's fabric and identity.

The new proposed oath of citizenship responds to a call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, but it is also the result of the consultations conducted by national indigenous organizations and targeted testing with the general public across Canada.

Changing the oath of citizenship gives citizenship candidates the opportunity to publicly express their respect for the indigenous peoples, as they go through the important steps of becoming part of the Canadian family.

It is so important that Canadians be able to express that respect for indigenous peoples in their own way. It is so important to be able to express this, because it is who we are and who we aspire to be. It is also an indication of where we have come from. There have been many challenging times in the past. In order to get to a better future, we need to respect constitutionally protected rights, and this is a great thing to have incorporate into that oath of citizenship.

As proposed, the new citizenship oath would read as follows:

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.

Our government is committed to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on respect, rights, co-operation and partnership. Reconciliation with indigenous peoples, including my Algonquin constituents, remains a core priority for the government.

The new citizenship oath is part of our efforts toward reconciliation, as indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada are working to correct those laws and policies that do not allow for indigenous peoples the commitment to self-determination. The proposed changes allow us the opportunity to both acknowledge our past and move toward a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on inherent rights, respect and partnership.

In closing, Canada is firmly committed to implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action and is working hard to make them a reality. True reconciliation will take a consistent and sustained commitment from all Canadians. This is a step in that direction.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, one question I have in reference to the bill is this. Parliamentarians who were here in the last Parliament know that in back 2017, the then immigration minister received a mandate letter stating this change should be done. I wonder if the member could speak to the House about why something that was mentioned in 2017 is now being dealt with in 2020. I am not feeling the urgency to the calls to action that I would like to see.

The very important reality is that this is the 94th call to action and to this point, nine of those calls to action have been addressed, this being the 10th. This is how long that process is taking.