Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 91 - 98 of 98
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2019-12-09 19:15 [p.143]
Mr. Chair, I am quite shocked because her lawyers are in court saying that there is no evidence any children were improperly taken. How can she stand and misrepresent her lawyers? Then the lawyers said that there was no reason for compensation. They have said that in the hearings.
Now the government wants to quash a legal finding that the tribunal spent 12 years adjudicating, and the minister's lawyers say there was no evidence to prove what was found, which they said was reckless and willful discrimination. How can minister tell us that it is better to have that ruling thrown out so the government can fight children in court and make each of them testify? That is what the government wants to do. How can she justify that?
View Carolyn Bennett Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, with respect to the CHRT and the good work of Dr. Blackstock, I believe many good things have come out of this. With Jordan's Principle, thousands of cases are settled all the time, when zero cases had been settled in the past. This is very important.
However, in the case of appropriate compensation, the appropriate place for that is with the class action, where there are representatives of the victims and the survivors who can determine what is fair. I do not think there is a way for fair and equitable compensation to be done without the voices of the people who were harmed.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2019-12-09 19:16 [p.143]
Mr. Chair, I am really glad she raised Jordan's Principle, which brings us back maybe four non-compliance orders ago. For the minister's lawyers to say that there is no proof that any child was harmed is a falsehood, because the ruling on Jordan's Principle was about the deaths of Jolynn Winter and Chantel Fox. Her government decided that it was not going to bother to fund those children and at the Human Rights Tribunal was forced to implement Jordan's Principle. Every single time the minister's government said that it was in compliance and children died because of that.
The government says good things have been done, but let us now throw out the Human Rights Tribunal ruling. How can the minister claim that the government went along with Jordan's Principle when the filings show that it fought it every step of the way and children died?
View Carolyn Bennett Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, the member opposite knows that we worked very hard to put in place Jordan's Principle. At the beginning, the motion that we passed in the House was only for children on reserve with multiple disabilities and where there was a squabble between the federal and the provincial government. We are now getting the kind of care that the kids need on and off reserve, particularly when there is only one disability such as a mental health or addiction problem, but also there does not have to be a squabble. We have moved way beyond what was passed in the House and children are better for it and—
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2019-12-09 19:18 [p.143]
Mr. Chair, I agree with the minister that children are certainly better for it. However, children are better for it because Cindy Blackstock, the AFN and Nishnawbe Aski Nation fought the government at the Human Rights Tribunal, while it was refusing and children died. It has met Jordan's Principle because it has been forced to meet it.
I want to refer to the latest human rights ruling, which says that there is sufficient evidence that Canada was aware of the discriminatory practices of its child welfare program and that it did this devoid of caution and without regard for the consequences on children and their families. That is the finding after 12 years, and the government spent $3 million trying to block them every step of the way.
How can we say to crush that ruling, throw that finding out, fight it out in court and trust that the government actually cares about children? The minister's lawyers say that children have not been harmed and to prove that they have, those individual children of four and five years old should be brought in and tested. The tribunal found that the government acted with devoid of caution over the lives of children. That is the finding of the Human Rights Tribunal. Is the Human Rights Tribunal lying or is it the government, which has misled the people of Canada on this?
View Carolyn Bennett Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I think the hon. member knows that our government has a very good track record on settling the childhood litigation, such as Anderson, the sixties scoop, day schools. We are doing what is right.
With the compliance orders, as I explained to the member, from what was Jordan's Principle and on multiple disabilities, only on-reserve where there is a squabble, we have gone away beyond what that original vote in the House of Commons was, for which I voted.
Therefore, it is hugely important that we go forward, understanding we have to do the best possible thing for these children. The lawyers have agreed that we want to compensate and the Prime Minister wants to compensate, but we have to do it in a fair and equitable way that also covers the children from 1991 to this day.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2019-12-09 19:21 [p.144]
The Liberals want to quash the ruling, Mr. Chair. That is what the government is in Federal Court to say. If we look at the Human Rights Tribunal ruling, there is point after point about how to make compensation work, and the government says that it will not compensate; it will litigate. That is the government's position.
I am astounded that the minister is in here telling us that the government cares about the children when the finding says there is willful and reckless discrimination against children who died. The children who died had to be named. When it said there was no evidence unless we brought individual children's names forward, individual children's names were brought forward. That was the policy. Those children died, and children are continuing to die. They will continue to die as long as the government refuses to do the basic funding.
The minister tells us the discrimination has ended. That is not what the Human Rights Tribunal found and that is not what any first nation family in the country will believe.
View Carolyn Bennett Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, the first nations, Inuit and Métis across the country are very grateful for Bill C-92. With respect to asserting jurisdiction, we have to allow that the people can assert the jurisdiction to look after its own families with the adequate funding to do that. We know that in terms of how we determine fair and equitable funding, our government did not think we would be able to get that done throughout an election and by this week. Therefore, it is really important. The January 29 date is coming up, but I am hearing from families. They want this to be fair and they feel there has to be a negotiation at a table to actually determine what is fair.
Results: 91 - 98 of 98 | Page: 7 of 7

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data