Cathy McLeod

[Citizenship Act, November 2nd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

I will start by talking about citizenship and the citizenship process, then I will get into what the bill would do and what it is intended to do.

We have heard a lot about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but it is also important to reflect on becoming a citizen of Canada, what it is and what it means.

As everyone knows, there are only two ways to become a citizen: by birth or by naturalization. In Canada, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship released his new numbers a few days ago for those coming into Canada. Typically, it is in the 300,000 range, plus or minus. Each year, 100,000-plus, or 100,000 to 200,000, of the people who have chosen to come to Canada as permanent residents will decide to take that next step to become Canadian citizens.

There are some criteria in terms of wanting citizenship in our wonderful country. Out of those 350,000 who might come next year with permanent residency, some may choose to return home, as Canada is not where they really want to be, and some will be permanent residents forever. However, to become a citizen one has to be a permanent resident, has to have lived here for three to five years, have filed taxes when necessary and have taken a citizenship test. It would be interesting for Canadians who were born here to take that citizenship test and see how they do. I believe there are about 20 questions, and one has to get 15 out of 20 to pass the test. One also needs to have a degree of proficiency in one of our official languages but, of course, there are some exceptions in terms of older residents and some of our youth.

For those who choose to go through the process to become a Canadian citizen and take the test, the culmination of that process is the citizenship ceremony. Most members of Parliament who have been in the House for a while have had an opportunity to participate in these citizenship ceremonies. There is nothing more profoundly moving than going to these ceremonies. Often large groups of people from around the world go to these citizenship ceremonies, and it is their final step in terms of becoming citizens.

I have been to some ceremonies that were held in schools. These were really fun, because all the students would get to come and watch the process. In one case, students from grades one to six decorated the auditorium and watched the process. I have been to one on Canada Day. What better can a person do than to be outside in a park on Canada Day? In this case, 80 or 90 people from my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo who chose to become citizens of Canada there in the park. They were not only celebrating Canada Day, but also the commitment they had made.

Unfortunately, with COVID, now there are virtual ceremonies. I have not participated in a virtual ceremony, but I would think that it would probably not be as moving as some of the in-person experiences. I remember families: moms, dads and children taking the oath. I remember one lady who had been in Canada for 40 years before she made that decision. For her, it was such a leap that it took her 40 years to decide that she wanted to become a citizen of Canada.

There are people who come to Canada as permanent residents, and their goal is to get their Canadian citizenship as soon as possible. The people who choose to become citizens of Canada, who are not privileged by birth, are perhaps the ones who most appreciate the citizenship they have.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission indicated in its calls to action that, first of all, in the test, there needed to be more work in terms of people understanding Canada's history, understanding Canada's history with indigenous peoples, understanding treaties and, quite frankly, in the case of British Columbia, understanding the lack of treaties. That was a call for action.

It is interesting to see that the oath has not changed in over 40 years. I was looking through the history of our oath. People have often looked at changing it over the years, and there were some very interesting oaths proposed in the early 1990s and 2000s. However, we have had the same oath for 40 years.

The oath is, as members know, the final legal requirement to become a citizen of Canada. I want to say quickly what the oath is currently, and then I will say what the proposed oath is. It is very simple. I was surprised at how short it was.

The current oath is:

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 and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

There was a modification that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission proposed. I understand that what we have in the legislation is not actually what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission proposed, but is a modification made after consultation with indigenous groups and also immigration groups across the country. It will be interesting when this bill gets to committee.

The proposed oath is:

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.

Again, there has been some question as to some of the changes. The TRC just talked about the treaties. I have already noted that in British Columbia there are no treaties; however, there are certainly aboriginal rights, and there is a need to respect those rights.

From listening to the debate today, it sounds like there is general agreement in the House that the bill should move forward to committee and be further reflected upon. I think that is important.

With the time I have left, I want to talk a little more about the report. It was tabled almost six years ago. There were calls to action, and it has been six years. The day the report was tabled, the Prime Minister stood up in the House. At that time, he was the leader of the third party. He said that he would commit to implementing all the calls to action. As we know, in 2015, he became the Prime Minister. He again said that he would commit to implementing all the calls to action.

What we have here is 19 words added to an oath. There are many calls to action, and many are complex. If it has taken the Liberal government six years to add 19 words and, quite frankly, to get a relatively simple piece of legislation through the House, I really have to question the government's commitment to moving forward in the way that the Prime Minister stood up and promised to do.

I am unfortunately out of time, but I could share so many things in terms of how the Liberals have disappointed over the years.

[Citizenship Act, November 2nd, 2020]

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

[Indigenous Affairs, November 2nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in 2015, stood in the House and solemnly promised to lift all long-term drinking water advisories by March 2021. He has now admitted that this is another broken promise and, quite frankly, it is unforgivable. Fifty-one advisories have been added since then and for one community, its drinking water now has compounds found in oil and coal.

When will the Prime Minister stand up, apologize and tell us his plan?

[Indigenous Affairs, November 2nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the Neskantaga First Nation is on day 9,406 of a boil water advisory, the longest in Canada. The minister was there in 2016 and promised that it would be done by 2018. They are not alone.

On Friday, the Chief of the Chippewas of Nawash told CBC that their plant would not be open until 2023. This is one of over 60 communities that still cannot put clean drinking water into a glass. They cannot wash their hands in this time of COVID.

How much longer is the Prime Minister going to make them wait? If it is not 2021, then when is it?

[Citizenship Act, November 2nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that this is part of the path to trust and healing. We are talking about a change to the citizenship oath that I think is very appropriate and supportable. We talked about a statutory holiday as well. However, in the meantime, the things that are actually making a difference for indigenous people, such as clean drinking water and an action plan on murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, are missing.

The Liberals have completed 10 calls to action, so this may be a step, but does the minister not believe that trust and healing would come with following through on other commitments, such as clean drinking water?

[Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, October 21st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have failed to deliver an action plan to address violence against indigenous women and girls. It has been 16 months, and the government has been sitting on the result of the national inquiry’s final report. The government sure loves process, but again fails to deliver action.

Last week, Canada’s Ombudsman for Victims of Crime released a letter to the government indicating the time to act is now. She wrote, “We can no longer only talk about what we should do. We need to take action NOW, because Indigenous lives are at risk every day.”

The Native Women’s Association issued a report card last spring, giving the Liberals a resounding fail.

In the last election, Conservatives pledged to develop an action plan that would advance reconciliation, address violence and achieve measurable improvements for indigenous women and girls, but from the Liberals there has been nothing but talk.

Indigenous women and their families are wondering when the Liberals will deliver a plan. Will it be this year, next year, or never?

[Lobster Fishery Dispute in Nova Scotia, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, within my remarks I talked about a history that no one should be proud of, in terms of the unfinished business. There were certainly some really positive examples in the last Parliament of great goodwill as we worked in partnership, in terms of the child welfare legislation and the indigenous language legislation. Certainly, when we were government, there were matrimonial real property rights. There is example after example. When I said, “in the last number of years”, I want to remain optimistic. I want to look at those words that I quoted at the end of my speech and hope that we are headed in the right direction.

[Lobster Fishery Dispute in Nova Scotia, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest, and I did make comments in my remarks, that there have been successive failures, since Confederation, of governments in terms of doing the right thing. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which a Conservative government spearheaded, was an important step. The awareness of Canadians across the country is only increasing, in terms of what the unfinished business is and what the tragic impacts have been of not doing the right thing. Therefore, I think certainly there is more positive movement in the last number of years than there has been in a long time.

[Lobster Fishery Dispute in Nova Scotia, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, a top-down approach is absolutely not negotiation. Negotiation is a conversation. It is being at the table. I am someone from British Columbia who has travelled back and forth to Ottawa a number of times. Yes, we have a pandemic, but we also have critical work that we have to get done. My colleague from West Nova just finished his isolation period after spending time. Yes, there is a bubble, but sometimes we have to be there. We have to have the hard conversations face to face. We have to say we are going to get this job done.

No, it is not top-down, but it is negotiation and it is conversation. It is making sure that we have found a way for everyone to contribute to the discussion, so we get to the win-win-win instead of the win-lose.

[Lobster Fishery Dispute in Nova Scotia, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

Like many, I have become increasingly concerned over the last couple of weeks as we watched the escalating dispute and violence in Nova Scotia. As members may be aware, the Crown signed peace and friendship treaties in 1760 and 1761, and this of course included a right to fish, hunt and gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. These rights were affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Marshall decision of 1999, and there was further clarification on November 17, 1999, that this right was not unlimited and regulations could be introduced if it was justified for conservation or other important objectives.

It is important to note that history, and I know many have repeated it. This is a right that has been around for many long years and has been reaffirmed. The Sipekne’katik fishers in southwestern Nova Scotia launched a moderate livelihood fishery last month and protestors were concerned about this. Protests have become increasingly violent, with tensions rising. We have all been witness to some very dramatic footage over the last few days in particular, and of course we are very concerned.

This current dispute is a failure of the Crown, and in this case the Liberal government, which had promised to do better. Five years ago the Liberals were elected and had a majority government. They promised to do better. I have been in conversation with the member for West Nova for many weeks, knowing he has been very concerned and has been calling for serious action.

What do we have instead of serious action? We have four ministers taking the unprecedented step of calling for an emergency debate. Do they not realize that they are government? They have the ability to resolve this crisis and they have the responsibility to be on plane, rather than being in the House. Lives and livelihoods are at risk and they matter.

The minister has said there is a pandemic. The intergovernmental affairs minister can have an exemption to do a meet-and-greet with the new Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would suggest this is much more important. Not everything can be done by Zoom. Sometimes people have to be there and put that energy and time into saying that this is going to be resolved. They have to put some urgency to it. Let us not just talk about it in the House. The government is asking for a domestic debate on an issue it has the ability to resolve.

Canada must fulfill its obligation under the Marshall decision and a negotiation around what a moderate livelihood means is probably one of the important steps. The Minister of Public Safety must ensure Nova Scotia has the resources it requests to effectively manage the escalating tensions, fully investigate criminal activity and keep everyone safe.

We all know Canadians have a right to peacefully demonstrate or protest. That is constitutionally protected. However, we are also a country of rule of law and those laws must be respected. Anyone who has crossed the boundary from peaceful protest to criminal activity must be held to full account.

Failed policies and unfinished business of successive generations truly is our shame and the results for indigenous people across Canada have been catastrophic for too many. We must do better. With realizations and court decisions, there is an understanding from Canadians from coast to coast to coast that we have much work to do toward reconciliation. Since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I have seen a real understanding from Canadians that we must do better.

As we are working toward reconciliation and correcting the injustices of the past, we cannot create new injustices. The government needs to have a process that includes third parties in the conversation.

I will go back to the treaty process in British Columbia in the 1990s. It was a very flawed process, but one of the things they did right was that they had five tables of people who had a special interest. Whether it was hunting and fishing or other areas, they had a special interest in terms of what was at the table. They created a win-win as opposed to a win-lose.

That is certainly something that the government has not done. The Liberals go out to meet with the Wet'suwet'en and they do not bother to include the elected chiefs in the conversation. There are many examples where their failure to have a conversation with third parties, to let them know what was happening, why it was happening and perhaps seek some advice, has been to the detriment of communities that have worked and lived side-by-side for generations. Certainly I am very concerned with the current government's failure. In the past, there was a Liberal government that had a better process.

The conversation tonight is very difficult and is very concerning. As I go about my work, there is something that I am very proud of and that I reflect upon often. It was that some of the first nations communities, when I was first elected, had me read something called the “Memorial to Sir Wilfrid Laurier”. This was in the early 1900s, but the sentiment is something that we all need to look at. In B.C., we did not have treaties. There were many unresolved issues and they went to the government at the time. Some of the words that stand out in my memory are to the effect that:

We have no grudge against...the settlers, but we want to have an equal chance with them of making a living.... It is not in most cases their fault.

They have taken up and improved and paid for their lands in good faith.

There was very clearly a recognition that it was not the people living side-by-side in communities; it was the government that had been the failure. The other piece that stands out very importantly in these comments is that, when the white settlers arrived, it was said:

...These people wish to be partners with us in our country. We must, therefore, be the same as brothers to them, and live as one family.... What is ours will be theirs, and what is theirs will be ours. We will help each other to be great and good.

If we look at those sentiments, we know that government has important work that it must do. We need to be great and good together, and that is only going to be through sitting down at the table, having those difficult conversations and coming to a resolution.