Citizenship Act
Bill to Amend--Third Reading
June 10, 2021
Moved third reading of Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 94).
She said: Honourable senators, I move that this bill be read a third time.
Honourable senators, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Anderson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan, that the bill be read a third time.
On debate, Senator Simons.
Honourable senators, I’m so pleased to have this chance to speak in support of Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 94).
I want to start by telling you a story about one of the best, most Canadian, most Albertan moments I have ever witnessed.
The event took place in April 2016, as Canada was in the midst of accepting hundreds of Syrian refugees. The Edmonton Mennonite Centre for Newcomers, which does a lot of refugee settlement work in Alberta, was hosting a dinner event to honour the families and community groups that were acting as private sponsors and to welcome some of the Syrian refugees families who had been resettled in Edmonton.
The dinner took place in the Portuguese-Canadian Cultural Centre, and the halal food was donated by local chefs. It included Italian, South Asian and French dishes, as well as shawarma, fatayer and baklava. A multicultural choir sung in English, Swahili, Tagalog and Arabic.
But the highlight of the evening was an honour song and a series of performances from the singers, drummers and dancers of the Thundering Spirit Drum group.
Lonny Potts, one of the leaders of Thundering Spirit, spoke to the newcomers in both Cree and English, telling his audience with the help of an Arabic interpreter:
Just open your ears and feel the song. We understand that you come from hardship. May you come here and find comfort and solace among our people.
It was one of the most remarkable moments I’d ever witnessed. So many different members of the Treaty 6 community gathered together with First Nations leaders and artists, giving a formal and joyous welcome to refugees who had only just arrived. The symbolism was so powerful and so critical. A chance for these Syrian newcomers to understand the deep roots and history of the country they were about to join. A chance for the Indigenous performers to feel themselves — not just seen and respected — but as integral to the refugee settlement process.
I took a moment to speak to Mr. Potts after his group’s performance was over. He told me what a connection he felt with the displaced Syrians. He talked about the parallels between his own community’s experience and the experience of the refugees. His welcome to them was heartfelt and rooted in a deep sense of empathy.
Later, I chatted with one of the Syrian refugees, a young man named Basel Abou Mamrah. He was Druze and he and his family had fled their home near Damascus after their house was destroyed by shelling. He had been profoundly moved by the performance of Thundering Spirit. “When I hear them, they take me to another world,” he told me. “It’s amazing.”
I still think back to how important that was, that his first impression and the first impression all these newcomers had of Indigenous people was so positive, so celebratory, so joyous, so numinous.
And that’s why I think this bill is so important too.
As Senator Omidvar noted this week, there can often be a disconnect between new Canadians and first Canadians. If we are being frankly and uncomfortably honest, we need to acknowledge that it’s all too easy for new immigrants and refugees to absorb ambient racist prejudices and fears about their Indigenous neighbours, and for Indigenous people to sometimes feel equally suspicious of newcomers. That can be especially true in lower-income neighbourhoods where the two communities may be in competition for jobs and social resources.
Adding recognition of treaties and of Aboriginal constitutional rights to the citizenship oath is an important step. It is a profoundly important symbolic gesture, one that properly centres the importance of treaties in the development of this country; one that pledges every new citizen to uphold the honour of the Crown, not just offering allegiance to the Crown.
It is a powerful reminder that most of us are settlers here, whether our families arrived in 1815 or 1915 or 2015, and a testament to the fact that treaties are living documents, as relevant today and tomorrow, whether they were signed a century or a decade ago. The revised oath is a guarantee that new generations of new Canadians will be encouraged, indeed required, to learn about the Indigenous rights in the Constitution and why those rights are relevant to them too.
Changing the citizenship oath is a start. If I might suggest, the people who organize citizenship ceremonies might want to take that inspiration one further.
I’ve had the pleasure and privilege of attending a good number of citizenship ceremonies in my time, sometimes as a journalist, more often as a friend, welcoming people I care for into the Canadian family.
And it must be said that though the swearings-in are meaningful for those who participate and those who love them, the events themselves are a bit dull and bureaucratic. There is no music. There is no poetry. There is no sense of the numinous. It is not a ceremony of transformation, not of the solemn transformation that it represents.
My colleague Senator Cormier, a man of the theatre, has argued that it might be of value to add something more to the ceremony, perhaps to ask local elders or drummers to take part. Not just on an occasional basis as Minister Mendicino described to us today, but as a routine or requisite part of the proceedings to start or end the citizenship ceremony with something meaningful or beautiful from the culture of the specific local Indigenous communities of the region where a swearing in takes place, be that a prayer, a dance, a song, a smudge. That’s not something to put into a piece of legislation; it’s just an inspiration to drop into the ears of those who put together the events.
But adding some words to the oath, even adding some Indigenous cultural elements to the ceremony, isn’t nearly enough.
We need cultural and community leaders who are building and tending relationships between First Nations and new Canadians.
I’m proud to say that my hometown of Edmonton has been excelling in this regard. I want to boast, for example, about the unique partnerships that the Bent Arrow Traditional Healing Society, one of the city’s leading Indigenous community support groups, has forged with the Edmonton Mennonite Centre for Newcomers and also with Islamic Relief Canada, the Muslim Association of Canada, Edmonton, and the Islamic Family & Social Services Association. Together, they offer joint programming to their client communities and welcoming ceremonies for new immigrants. Before COVID-19, sometimes that meant sending drummers, dancers and singers to the airport in Edmonton to greet new arrivals. During COVID-19, Bent Arrow staff had been recording prayers and welcome songs in Cree to be played for new arrivals.
So far, people are really just planting seeds. But as every gardener or farmer knows, you have to start with seeds before you can harvest. Sustaining meaningful, lasting relationships takes time. But those are the relationships we need to grow and tend as we move forward.
Sadly, much of what connects immigrant and Indigenous communities is a shared experience of economic and social injustice and raw racism.
This Sunday, four members of the Afzaal family from London, Ontario, were killed when they were run down as they took an evening walk. Police have charged a 20-year-old man, Nathaniel Veltman, and alleged that he was motivated by racial and religious bigotry. They allege, indeed, that this was a targeted hate crime.
The very next day, indeed the day the story of what happened in London broke, Brayden Bushby, a 22-year-old man from Thunder Bay, was sentenced to eight years for manslaughter in the death of an Indigenous woman, 34-year-old Barbara Kentner. She died after Bushby hurled a heavy trailer hitch at her as she walked along the road. How horrific, how surreal, that the simple act of taking a walk in Canada should be something provocative enough to incite a lethal attack, a mindlessly malicious and fundamentally cowardly assault, launched from the safety and security of a vehicle.
The fact that Indigenous and immigrant Canadians should be united by being the victims of racism is a telling indictment of this country we love.
But an alliance based on discrimination isn’t the strong foundation we want for healthy, positive, forward-looking relationships.
What we really need to support and incent are strong alliances of political, social and economic opportunity, where new Canadians, and First Nations, Métis and Inuit Canadians pool their talent, their entrepreneurial drive, their artistry, their strategic savvy, their professional and technical skill, to come up with business opportunities, artistic creations, inventions, research projects and political movements that will propel our country toward a better future.
Such alliances grounded in mutual respect and understanding should be the bedrock of the Canada we want to share.
So no. The words of a citizenship oath are not a magical incantation. They won’t instantly transport us to some better place. But an oath is always a promise. And an oath is a pact. It is a vow to be honoured, or all honour is lost. Would that we could all take such oaths, as Canadians, to honour our treaty and constitutional obligations.
I’ll leave you with one more story tonight, if I may.
Almost a decade ago, I had the joy and the honour of spending a day at St. Francis of Assisi Elementary School in north Edmonton. The school had a unique demographic catchment. Roughly 40% of the kids in the schools at that time were refugees or the children of refugees from South Sudan, whose families had fled a land ravaged by civil war.
About 55% were First Nations kids, who were part of the school’s popular Cree bilingual program. But the principal faced a dilemma. The student body was so divided. There were two distinct streams at the school. The Cree bilingual students had very few classes with the South Sudanese classmates. There were tensions in the hallways and on the playground. So the principal — her name was Katherine Dekker — made a pretty radical choice. She brought the kids together. The day I visited, a member of the award-winning Indigenous singing group Asani was visiting the school to teach a special music class to all the Grade 4 and 5 students. All the kids together, learning to drum and to sing a song in Cree. All learning and all celebrating the deep history of their shared community.
As one 9-year-old boy told me:
No matter what culture it is, we allow kids to come into this school. Being friends with everyone is a good deed – and you get to feel good inside.
Those Grade 4 and 5 students I met that day would be about 18 today, coming of age, stepping up to lead, in a country that has yet to learn to keep its own promises. We’ve not quite found the courage to be friends with everyone.
When we do, maybe we’ll feed good inside too. Thank you, hiy hiy.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 94).
I would like to preface my comments by saying that I was engaged as deputy chair of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee by Minister Hussen on December 6, 2017, alongside Senator Omidvar and Senator Christmas and former senators Dyck, Sinclair and Watt, on this bill’s predecessor. That was a constructive meeting, but I have not been engaged further on Bill C-8 nor its predecessors, Bill C-99 and Bill C-6.
In fact, colleagues, I must reiterate to you, as I did to Minister Mendicino in Committee of the Whole today, that I have never received a briefing nor have I received any briefing materials on this bill. My office first received outreach on the bill late last night, and I was able to connect with the minister briefly at noon today in between committee meetings. Some may blame that on timing pressures, but I would note that this bill concluded clause-by-clause consideration in the other place on February 4 of this year and was reported back on February 5.
Inexplicably, for a government that consistently touts its commitment to a “renewed nation-to-nation relationship,” report stage was only completed on June 1, and third reading completed in a single day, June 3, in the lower chamber.
I would also note that movement on another bill recently passed by this chamber, Bill C-5, was also quickly whisked through the other place after languishing for months on the Order Paper. That bill was reported back without amendment on November 25, 2020, and only completed report stage on May 28, and third reading on June 6, 2021.
Again, there was no time to study it in this place following second reading in committee.
During all of these debates, limited as they were by an emergency debate motion, almost every speaker mentioned the tragedy of Kamloops. And I spoke in this chamber about the tragedy myself and offered personal stories that I very seldom speak of in public. Kamloops, rightly top of mind for everyone, was clearly the impetus for the government to finally move on Indigenous-related bills again.
But I have to wonder aloud at why it took a national tragedy for the government to move on legislation that it tells us is a priority — they say there is “. . . no relationship more important . . . .”
Bill C-8 had two previous iterations. First, there was Bill C-99, which was introduced in the dying days of a majority government right before the election. It didn’t make it past first reading on May 28, but I guess technically the Liberals can point to having tabled it within their first mandate.
Then there was Bill C-6, and that at least made it to second reading in February of last year, only to die on the Order Paper in the other place when the government abruptly prorogued Parliament on August 18, 2020, apparently due to the WE Charity scandal.
That said, I would like to return to my previous point. Why did this government not deign to seek the support of the Senate using the usual methods, such as a technical briefing, a critic’s briefing or by providing a deck even after the bill passed the committee stage in the other place?
Is it a lack of knowledge of the legislative process? Or worse, is it a disdain for the Senate and the constitutional role that it plays in reviewing legislation? Or is it, once again, an “oversight?” I am not content seeing the official opposition role, which I argue is an important component of our duty for sober second thought, being relegated to an oversight.
May I respectfully say, I believe it is the duty of the GRO to coordinate these things and ensure we are given the respect we deserve as parliamentarians. We cannot allow this precedent to stand. Senators require information and answers in order for us to do our jobs of sober second thought.
Now, due to the inability once again of this government to manage its legislative agenda, we find ourselves rushing through consideration of yet another bill, a bill that, on the surface, doesn’t require a second thought. It did, after all, pass the House of Commons with support from everyone except the Bloc Québécois. In spirit and intent, this bill is an important step on the path to reconciliation. It ensures that all new Canadians recognize and affirm that Indigenous rights are woven into what it means to be Canadian.
However, colleagues, please spare a thought for this: When a bill calls for the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in something that historically they have been left out of, like this solemn Oath of Citizenship, it makes sense to me that Indigenous peoples should be consulted.
In written responses to the committee in the other place, IRCC departmental officials listed 10 organizations that they consulted with, and only four were Indigenous: The Assembly of First Nations, or AFN; Métis Nation; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK; and the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, or LCAC. Once again, we see no attempt being made to include representatives of the 11 numbered treaties. Their inclusion is vital as this change to the Oath of Citizenship attempts to capture how Indigenous people want new Canadians to be introduced to the complex interrelationships between the Crown, non-Indigenous Canadians and Indigenous Canadians, including, of course, the sacred Crown-Indigenous relationship enshrined in historic treaties.
Instead of wide consultations with Indigenous peoples — and there was time to do that — this government once again limited its efforts to the three national Indigenous organizations, or NIOs, and an organization focused on modern treaty implementation. I hasten to add that one of these NIOs, the AFN, has in particular repeatedly been pointed out by Indigenous leaders during consideration of Bill C-15 as a lobby and advocacy organization that does not get to speak on behalf of some in this country, such as Treaties 6, 7 and 8. And I’ve heard AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde admit to this himself.
However, the treaties were not the only people left out. I was saddened to read testimony like that of Elmer St. Pierre, National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP, who clearly said in committee in the other place that he was not consulted. He testified that:
One of our biggest problems is — I might as well say it — the racism and discrimination that CAP has to go through to try to get to these meetings. Sometimes it’s a last-minute thing. Most of the time we don’t even get to speak, and if we do, it’s normally about half an hour or an hour before they throw it to us like, ”Okay, you have a chance to speak”. That doesn’t give us time to put something together.
The general lament over the lack of consultation with regard to this bill was echoed by the Native Women’s Association of Canada President, Lorraine Whitman, who said:
. . . I am speaking to you at what can only be described as the last minute. I hope that the members of Parliament sitting around the table will excuse the fact that NWAC seems to be offering an opinion so late in the day. The truth is that it was only last week that we were advised about the contents of Bill C-8 and the committee’s work.
If you have further legislation that will affect the lives of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people in Canada, we would be pleased to be part of the discussion right from the start, at the same time as you hear from the male-led Indigenous organizations. I urge you to keep in mind that NWAC, which has been in existence since 1974, is the largest organization representing Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people in Canada. When you consult with us, you are consulting with grassroots First Nations, Métis and Inuit women in every part of Canada.
Colleagues, Ms. Whitman agreed with the distinctions-based approach to recognizing rights, but asked for the inclusion and recognition of the realities of gender in the oath.
Despite my disappointment at yet another dismal consultation effort by this government, who spent more time discussing an Indigenous-related change to the citizenship oath with organizations working with new Canadians than it did with actual Indigenous people, I would point out that the feedback received by the national Indigenous organizations, or NIOs, and the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, or LCAC, weren’t even fully taken into account.
Natan Obed, President of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, told committee members in the other place that his organization had proposed the following wording:
I swear (or affirm) 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, including treaties, agreements and constructive arrangements with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.
Meanwhile, Marlene Poitras, Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Alberta, shared language put forward by the Assembly of First Nations executive council that wanted to see the express inclusion of “inherent rights” in the oath.
I would point out to senators interested in concordance between the English and French version of bills that while the English version of the oath in Bill C-8 states that a newcomer to Canada “recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples,” the French version states that a newcomer can either recognize or affirm, and I translate “the rights, either inherent or treaty-based, of First Nations, Inuit and Métis . . . .”
This discrepancy — and we saw the same in Bill C-15 — seems a significant one to me. Why do we not expressly recognize inherent rights in the English version as Chief Poitras requested, or else why did we not just say “les droits autochtones” in the French version?
Well, colleagues, we never had the chance to study that important question in committee because of the rush. So two of the four Indigenous views that were considered are not reflected in the language before us. The committee did not hear from the Métis and the LCAC on this bill, and the Senate has not been given an opportunity to do our own study, so I have no way of knowing if they agree with this wording or not.
I am also concerned, colleagues, because this chamber purports to defend the regions. However, this bill includes a requirement for new Canadians to affirm the Constitution Act, as it is that act that includes section 35 rights of Indigenous peoples.
As we know, this is not acceptable to many in Quebec, as it would have new Canadians affirm something that no Quebec politician has recognized. As the Member of Parliament for Saint-Jean explained during clause-by-clause consideration of this bill in the other place:
The current wording of the oath of citizenship in the bill means that they will be asked to recognize something that Quebec has never recognized, namely the Constitution, or rather the Constitution Act, 1982. In his testimony, Professor Cardinal explained the difference between the Canadian Constitution and the Constitution Act. The Constitution is the set of rules and court decisions that govern Canadian law. The oath of citizenship refers specifically to the Constitution Act, 1982. . . .
Future Canadian and Quebec citizens will be asked to recognize the Canadian Constitution when no Quebec government, either sovereignist or federalist, has signed the Constitution with honour and enthusiasm. A question arises. Is it necessary to mention the Constitution in the oath of citizenship?
The witness quoted by the member was Éric Cardinal, an Indigenous law professor who told the committee in the other place:
. . . the new wordings of the declarations proposed for both the oath and solemn affirmation do not require the person to promise respect for Indigenous rights, but rather respect for the Constitution.
Honourable senators, this government has demonstrated, sadly, once again that it is not successfully applying a whole-of-government approach to reconciliation as promised by the Prime Minister. Progress on the Calls to Action remain slow. Every mandate letter includes a section that reads:
Many of our most important commitments require partnership with provincial, territorial and municipal governments and Indigenous partners, communities and governments. Even where disagreements may occur, we will remember that our mandate comes from citizens who are served by all orders of government and it is in everyone’s interest that we work together to find common ground.
The Prime Minister goes on in those mandate letters to reiterate that, “There remains no more important relationship to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous Peoples.” Yet we have the inclusion of a reference to the Constitution Act that Quebec does not agree with and evidence of poor consultation with Indigenous peoples.
Meanwhile, the suggested wording of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action are based on six years of work and were written by Indigenous people. I also recognize that what little consultation was done clearly indicated that not all Indigenous people view themselves as treaty people, and that there was a desire to distinguish the three groups of Indigenous peoples in Canada, while explicitly referencing their inherent rights. Further explanation of what those inherent rights are and what the term “inherent rights” even means will be explained, we should hope, in the forthcoming citizenship guide update that should — and I emphasize “should” — follow the passage of this bill. This would be in line with Call to Action 93 — though we all know, I am sorry to say, that this government’s record on timelines, whether court-imposed or self-imposed, has not been good.
The intent of Call to Action 94 was explained by former TRC commissioner Marie Wilson, who stated that we need to help newcomers to Canada:
That means helping them understand, from the very beginning, that there is a context in Canada, that we are a huge, beautiful country, but that wherever you are in Canada, you are on someone’s traditional homeland. We need to get better at equipping ourselves from an educational point of view and a societal point of view to know that context and to understand it as the basis for ongoing reconciliation.
Colleagues, I put it to you that if this Oath is the first time any newcomer to Canada will learn about Indigenous peoples and their importance to all things Canadian, then we should ensure that they know there are three distinct groups with inherent rights as the First Peoples of Canada and as recognized and affirmed by Canadian jurisprudence, as well as traditional treaties entered into by the Crown. Completion of the citizenship guide before this bill is proclaimed into law is an important element in allowing for this education and understanding, especially on the part of new Canadians.
I am once again disappointed in this government’s inability to conduct meaningful consultation and in the rushed nature of this bill. Once again, we are expected to rush through consideration of legislation that is not without its red flags, with no opportunity to consider thoughtful amendments or even observations. I am happy that at least I still get a critic’s speech and am able to put some points on the record. I will not vote against this reconciliation measure, but I am noting my strong objection to the process, to the lack of consultation and to the lack of consideration for the concerns of Quebec in this proposed wording. Thank you. Qujannamik. Taima.
Would Senator Patterson take a question?
Yes.
Senator Patterson, you mentioned that you did not get a briefing or any information on the bill and that this bill is being rushed.
Are you aware of the fact that Bill C-8 was tabled in the House of Commons on October 22, 2020; that the Government Representative Office organized an all-senators technical briefing on this bill on November 19, at 11 a.m.; and that a legislative summary and briefing deck were attached to the invitation that was sent out to all senators?
Thank you for the question. Senator Gagné, I was a critic for over 10 bills in the last Parliament and 3 in this Parliament. There has been a well-established tradition and good practice on the part of the government — or the government relations officer in the Senate — to provide a critic’s briefing for the official opposition critic. I mention that because this is different than an all-senators briefing. This allows the critic to have a one-on-one with departmental officials, which has two benefits.
The first benefit is that it gives the departmental officials and the political staff in the minister’s office a heads-up on issues that will come up in committee or in debate, which they would be wise to address. It is also beneficial in that there can be, and has been, an exchange between the critic and those parties on the issues, which can provide enlightenment and assistance to the senator.
The all-senators briefings are useful, during which one might have a single opportunity to ask a question amidst a large group. I have attended some of those briefings. I probably received notice of the all-senators briefings on Bill C-8 that you mentioned. I do not deny that. However, I must say that I think it is in the government’s interest to reach out to critics on these bills.
Back in October, I had not been named the critic of the bill. It was not even known to me that I was going to be so focused on this bill.
I hope that answers your question. Thank you.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed, on division.)
