Francesco Sorbara

[Indian Act, March 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑38 is very important for us.

I want to say that I am very happy to hear that the pertinent committee for this bill did the requisite work and put forward a number of recommendations. It is obviously fitting that we continue to do the work in line with the recommendations in UNDRIP. Obviously, how quickly we proceed in this process will determine the timeline.

On the recommendations that the committee has brought forward, I am sure, in the spirit of collaboration, that all of those recommendations were looked at by the pertinent individuals and parties who put forward this legislation.

[Indian Act, March 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-38, from my understanding, is going to receive support from all sides of the House. If I am incorrect, then I am sure it will be pointed out afterward. What is important is that we continue to consult and collaborate with first nations people, make sure that we understand their concerns and the areas where we can move forward judiciously and with diligence to continue the process of reconciliation because we know it is imperative for our government, any government and all peoples in this beautiful country, which we are blessed to call home.

[Indian Act, March 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on this topic and to join my colleagues, the topic being Bill C-38. Again, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sudbury, as I indicated earlier, and I will be providing important information about the Indian Act and about the amendments being proposed in Bill C-38.

My colleagues have described how these amendments were developed through engagement with first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations, which was central to the process. We could not do this without their collaboration and guidance. Now, I would like to share the potential impact of the amendments and some next steps in addressing the historical inequities of the registration and membership provisions of the Indian Act, and ultimately, a full transition away from the act to true self-determination and governance by first nations.

The amendments being proposed today are situated within a broader whole-of-government effort to advance indigenous rights to self-determination and to self-government.

Our government acknowledges that the Indian Act is an extension of our colonial history. These amendments would be an incremental step toward the development of an approach to first nations' citizenship that would be an alternative to the Indian Act. We have heard from many first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations that we need to address a range of issues before a full transition of jurisdiction over citizenship to first nations can occur.

That is what we are working toward today by introducing amendments to address inequities in registration and membership under the Indian Act. What would the impact of these amendments be? Let me begin with the proposal to address the discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement. This bill would eliminate the differential treatment of those whose family histories include involuntary or voluntary enfranchisement, resulting in approximately 2,400 newly entitled individuals.

It would also reinstate individuals who collectively were enfranchised as a band prior to 1985, resulting in approximately an additional 1,100 newly entitled individuals. Descendants of enfranchised individuals would be entitled to registration and would be able to exercise their rights and access the associated benefits and services, which include education and non-insured health benefits.

These amendments would also recognize the acquired rights of all individuals to membership in their natal communities. The amendments would provide a legal mechanism enabling women to re-affiliate with their natal bands, if they wish. This would directly benefit those first nations women and their descendants whose membership in their natal bands was changed without their consent or their say. The result would be that first nations women who married first nations men from a different community, between 1876 and 1985, would have the choice to reconnect to their natal community.

The bill would also return autonomy to first nations by allowing them to deregister or to remove their name from the Indian register if they wish. Individuals would have the legal capacity to exercise agency over their status.

Finally, by eliminating outdated and offensive language about first nations persons with a disability, the amendments strive to align the language of the Indian Act with the last 50 years of development in capacity and guardianship law. The outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act is a lingering affront. Addressing culturally insensitive and offensive language would positively benefit first nations persons with disabilities, and their caregivers, by acknowledging their fundamental humanity and personhood, instead of relegating them as defective in some manner.

These amendments in Bill C-38 are considered necessary incremental changes with an aim to align the Indian Act with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; although, clearly, much work remains. By amending the Indian Act to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the amendments support the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 43, which calls upon federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments to fully adopt and to implement the UN declaration as their framework for reconciliation.

The amendments also support the national action plan to address missing and murdered women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people by acknowledging and recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples. Of course, we know that the work is not complete. Reconciling the colonial legacy of Canada's relationship with first nations while constrained to the framework of the Indian Act is fundamentally challenging.

During this round of engagement, we have heard loud and clear that the second-generation cut-off issue continues to impact many individuals, and our next focus must be on this issue. An equal application of the second-generation cut-off has resulted in many grandchildren and great-grandchildren being denied status and membership to a first nations community. There are also remaining issues, such as the scrip taking and cross-border concerns.

Further conversations are needed with first nations partners to listen and learn about what future changes may encompass. To this end, starting in early 2024, we will begin engagement on these initial inequities, with a plan to introduce additional amendments once we have engaged broadly. Changing the Indian Act is a continuous iterative process. We unequivocally respect the need for engagement and input from first nations voices. Any future legislative changes will be the result of ongoing engagement and the co-development of solutions with first nations partners and other rights holders.

Under section 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the Government of Canada must, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration. The amendments being introduced today are considered requisite incremental changes that both increase the Indian Act's alignment with the declaration while also laying the groundwork for the Indian Act to be repealed in due course. The changes under discussion today are a necessary step to transition Canada out of the business of Indian registration and toward a future beyond the Indian Act.

By addressing historic wrongs in co-operation with first nations, we will continue to advance reconciliation and support a renewed relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. We strive toward a relationship based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

I encourage members in this most honourable House to join me in supporting Bill C-38 and the steps it proposes to begin to move away from the Indian Act.

[Points of Order, March 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, it is important to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

It is a pleasure to speak today on this topic, and to join my hon. colleagues in providing important information—

[Indian Act, March 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, good morning to you and to everyone. I wish all hon. colleagues who are gathered here this morning a happy Friday. Welcome to the folks in the gallery as well.

First, I will be splitting my time with my friend, the hon. member for Sudbury, who I get to sit and work with on two committees in this wonderful House.

With that, I would like to begin speaking to Bill C-38, an act to amend the Indian Act—

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Waterloo for her insight. If we look at history, one U.S. president, Theodore Roosevelt, and one Canadian prime minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, may he rest in peace, were two of the greenest individuals to ever be president and prime minister. One was a Republican and one was a Progressive Conservative.

It is really sad to see the state of affairs the Conservative movement is in, where it cannot offer up a real plan for the environment and can only do slogans, as Conservatives are doing. That is not leadership; that is abdication of leadership.

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, putting a price on pollution is the right thing to do. There are obviously different policy measures and instruments that we could put in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The reason we have a price on pollution is that it is a federal backstop. When some provinces, I would argue, abdicate their responsibility for a cleaner environment and a stronger economy, that is when the federal backstop kicks in. The Supreme Court has ruled that is a correct method to proceed.

I agree with the hon. member from British Columbia that we have had three elections where the price on pollution was part of the ballot for Canadians, and Canadians overwhelmingly chose a healthier environment and a stronger economy.

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I consider the member for Calgary Forest Lawn a friend, and I understand where he is coming from, but I humbly disagree with him, of course. In the province of Ontario, an average family of four will receive $1,120. The rural top-up will be 20%. From the Statistics Canada material that I have seen, and from what I have heard from some fellow economists, on average, that would ensure that eight out of 10 families will be better off in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and across Canada.

We understand that we need to put in place effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while we build a strong and inclusive economy. As many individuals would state, putting a price on pollution is really the most effective way of doing it and will account for about one-third of the emissions reductions by 2030.

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to rise in the House. I will be splitting my time with the parliamentary secretary to the health minister, the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre. He has been a dear friend for many years, I would say.

Before I begin to speak to the heart of the matter, which is the CPC opposition day motion, as this may be my last opportunity to speak before the constituency week break, I would like to wish all my residents a happy Easter. Of course, Passover is also coming. Ramadan mubarak to all the residents of the city of Vaughan in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Buona Pasqua a tutti to those back home. I look forward to going to church the night before Palm Sunday, then for Easter, of course. Good Friday marks the most holiest of days in the Catholic calendar.

I would also like to say, before I go to the comments, that there are some rumours in the newspapers that the city of Vaughan will be getting a medical school, that it is potentially with the forthcoming provincial budget. I hope to see that come to fruition in the city of Vaughan. We have the Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital, which is a $2-billion investment. We are also getting a community centre, along with the $700-million Highway 427, a $2.5-billion hospital and a subway to our city. I get to represent the most generous and entrepreneurial residents, I would argue, in all of Canada, just as members would argue the same for their ridings.

We are here to talk about the economy and the environment because we know that, in the world we are living in, they go hand in hand. We cannot have a strong economy without having a strong environmental policy. It is almost like the commercial a few years ago, to date many of us, that asked, “Where's the beef?” Our government has put in place a very robust environmental plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to transition to a green economy, and to build a strong and inclusive economy. Why did we do that? It is because that is where the world and private capital are going. That is where we are taking our country, focusing on providing a better and brighter future for families across Canada and in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I know my kids are depending on it, much like all our kids are depending on it in this most honourable House.

We know that our price on pollution returns more money in the rebate to eight out of 10 families in Canada on average in all our ridings. We know that this price on pollution will account for approximately one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions going into 2030. Those are the facts. We know that the mechanism that has been put in place is one that economists across the board, including myself, as an economist, prefer to undertake.

I would ask the members of the party opposite where their plan is, where their beef is, because they need a strong environmental policy to have a strong economy. That is why we are seeing multi-billion investments in the Canadian auto sector, whether it is Stellantis, Volkswagen, Northvolt, LG, or any of the companies in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. They are investing in Canada because, as we like to say in economist talk, we have a comparative advantage. We have a very clean electrical grid. About 84% of the electricity generated in Canada is clean. We have been moving off of coal for many years, and we will continue to do so. Again, we need a plan.

Our environmental plan builds upon many economic policies that we have put in place to, yes, build a stronger, more inclusive economy, but also strengthen and expand our social safety net. The Canada child benefit, which is delivered monthly, is tax-free and provides almost $30 billion a year annually to families. It has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. The Canada workers benefit is another measure that I love and argued for, and one of the reasons I entered politics, as it lifts up hard-working Canadians, who are really trying to get ahead and get a hand up. It will be there for them. We have expanded it three times.

With respect to the Canada dental care program, if there is one thing I have heard from my seniors since I have been in office for eight years, is that they need help on the dental side. We have come up with a means-tested program, run by Sun Life, which will help the over 20,000 seniors in my riding. To date, over 1.5 million seniors have been approved. That is another measure for affordability.

On the economic front, when we think about the carbon pricing model, we know it is the most efficient way to reduce emissions, help Canadians, move our economy forward, and green our environment and our economy. The opposite side has not offered any plan. Again, I would go to the reference of the commercial, “Where's the beef?” There is no beef.

We need to offer Canadians a plan to take our economy forward, to strengthen our families and communities, and that is what we continue to do. On the other side, we hear platitudes and half-truths, unfortunately. We need to make sure we make life more affordable for Canadians and, again, we grow our economy.

On Tuesday, it was great to see the Canada inflation report from Statistics Canada. We have gone below 3%. There are big drops on cellular prices, on Internet. There are drops on food prices. All the while, we have these economic policies and environmental policies that continue to reduce GHG emissions and move our economy forward.

I am a pro-business individual. In this honourable chamber, we know that businesses need certainty. They do not need slogans. Businesses need certainty. Again, they do not need slogans.

For those auto companies investing in Canada for the EV transition, and the folks in the nuclear industry, where we have seen a renaissance in nuclear power with a $50-million investment and a partnership with Romania to build CANDU reactors there, we need to ensure that businesses have stability and certainty in the policies we put forward.

That is important. It is highly irresponsible for the other side, who I would say are auditioning for something but not really, who should be responsible but are not, to introduce policy uncertainty in the environment we are in. We know the Inflation Reduction Act in the States has propelled the United States. We know Europe is investing in hydrogen. That reminds me, earlier this week, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources was in Germany, something I like to see and was so glad to hear, to announce that Canada and Germany have a hydrogen accord, a further buildup of Canadian energy that would go to Europe to green their economy, and to move them off any sort of dependency on the dictatorship of the tyrannical regime of Putin. That is something really important.

When I see the opposite side not offering a plan, it is so disappointing. It borders a little on irresponsibility and is a cowering from responsibility. Maybe that is too strong of a word, but they are ducking from their responsibilities to Canadians. We have just had one of the warmest winters on record, I believe. Here in Ottawa and in Toronto, there was no snow, and it was not very cold. Climate change is real. We need to deal with it. It would be irresponsible for any parliamentarian to not offer a plan to Canadians.

We know that an overwhelming majority of Canadians are better off, and that is what we need to focus on, moving Canada ahead, and creating a brighter future for our kids and our families.

With that, I think my time is up, and I look forward to questions and comments from hon. members on the other side.

[Canada-Ukraine Relations, March 20th, 2024]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his very important question. I want to support Ukraine.

We want to do that as much as humanly possible. Even with this innovative agreement with Czechia, we need to do everything we can to support Ukraine. We will always try to do more, as much as possible, whether it is munitions or sanctions. I believe that most, if not all of us in the House are actually sanctioned by the Russia government. We need to keep sanctioning Russian officials.

On that $300 billion U.S. in foreign assets out there that are frozen, we need to make sure that we reconstruct Ukraine with that, that Canada is at the forefront of that and that we will rebuild that country, because it is a beautiful place and the breadbasket of Europe. They are an innovative, hard-working people. We are going to be with them, today, tomorrow and in the future.