Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 106 - 120 of 242
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by approximately 1,000 people in support of a petition started by Stéphane Handfield.
We have learned from Mathieu Paiement's documentary, Les poussières de Daech, that there are children with a Canadian parent who are currently trapped in refugee camps in northeastern Syria. They are living in extremely poor and even inhumane conditions. These children could be brought back to Canada. There are families who are asking that it be done. In fact, a young girl was brought back to Canada last fall.
These children are innocent and have the right to a good life. Canada needs to meet its obligations under international conventions. These people are calling for the federal government to take action and bring Canadian children who are trapped in refugee camps in Syria back to Canada.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2021-01-28 10:05 [p.3675]
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to table e- petition 2830, sponsored by Colleen Hele-Cardinal. She is the co-founder of the Sixties Scoop Network. She launched this e-petition to call for a national apology for the harmful decades-long practice of scooping up indigenous children and adopting them out.
The petition is for the Prime Minister, and she cites that the sixties scoop refers to a practice that occurred in Canada of taking or scooping up indigenous children from their families and communities for placement in foster homes or for adoption. It is estimated that over 20,000 indigenous children were taken from families. In 2018, the Government of Canada announced a settlement agreement with the survivors of the sixties scoop.
She cites that the undersigned residents of Canada call upon the Prime Minister to work with the Sixties Scoop Network and survivors on a ceremony with the intent of asking forgiveness and issuing a national apology in the House of Commons. The federal government must accept responsibility for its role in the sixties scoop. Survivors have waited far too long for justice, and the first step the government must take is to meet the survivors in ceremony and ask for forgiveness.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-01-26 14:16 [p.3540]
Mr. Speaker, on January 22, the Association des parents d'enfants handicapés de Drummond celebrated its 40th anniversary.
The association was established in 1981 by parents seeking services for their children with disabilities. Since then, it has grown with the support of very involved parents and volunteers. It has spearheaded various initiatives over the years. It was especially instrumental in improving the integration of special needs children at school and in all kinds of other settings where including them would have been virtually unthinkable not so long ago. Day after day, the association continues to improve the living conditions of these children and their families.
We must acknowledge the association's work with the parents of children with disabilities, who are often discouraged and lack resources. The association is always there to support them, listen to them and guide them. I would like to congratulate the Association des parents d'enfants handicapés de Drummond and its volunteers, and I would especially like to recognize Danny Lauzière, who has served as its director for the past 18 years.
Congratulations on 40 years of breaking down barriers and doing good.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2021-01-26 14:46 [p.3545]
Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth anniversary of the historic Human Rights Tribunal ruling that ordered the Liberal government to end its systemic discrimination against first nations children, yet the Prime Minister's obstruction has resulted in eight non-compliance orders and over $8 million in legal fees. The cost has been paid in children's lives, children such as Chantel Fox, Jolynn Winter and Jenna Roundskye.
When will the Prime Minister just call off his lawyers, do the right thing for first nations children and end his systemic discrimination against their rights?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, while today is the fifth anniversary of the CHRT order on the inequalities and overrepresentation of indigenous children in care that spanned decades, we have been clear that our goal is a comprehensive, fair and equitable compensation for those impacted by the historic inequities in first nations child welfare.
Let me be equally clear in saying that currently Canada is facing three competing lawsuits that purport largely to represent the same group of plaintiffs, and we welcome the appointment of a mediator to navigate this process. I would also take the a moment to highlight the termination this week of birth alerts in Saskatchewan.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indigenous Services recently stated that his government does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on expanding Jordan's principle. He wants consultation instead. Is the minister for real? We are talking about children who have no access to health care supports for the basic and urgent care they need. This is about care for children.
I am asking the minister to not take first nations children to court again. I am asking for reconciliation and action, not words. I ask the minister to please drop the legal action now.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would highlight for the member opposite that Indigenous Services Canada has provided 800,000 supports since 2016 in implementing these orders. The appeal of the particular order that the member is referencing will in no way prejudice indigenous children.
We will implement every single aspect of that order, regardless of the outcome. It is part of the competing three lawsuits that this government is facing, purporting to affect the same group of plaintiffs. We welcome the appointment of the mediator to navigate through this process.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2020-12-11 11:35 [p.3336]
Madam Speaker, everyone was disgusted when they saw Donald Trump separating migrant children from their parents two years ago. That is why I was appalled to find out that it is happening here too.
Last year alone, at least 182 children were separated from their families at the border, even though the best interests of the child are a key principle that must guide all of our decisions. That is why the Canada Border Services Agency was instructed not to separate children from their families.
What happened? Can the government assure us that this will never happen again?
View Bill Blair Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bill Blair Profile
2020-12-11 11:35 [p.3336]
Madam Speaker, the welfare of children is a top priority in our asylum system and, as such, CBSA does not systematically separate children from their parents or legal guardians.
I am pleased to advise the member and the House that there are currently zero children in immigration detention. Immigration detention is only used as a measure of last resort. Alternatives for minors are always considered first, which include release into the care of a parent or legal guardian and placement with alternate arrangements. Only in such extraordinary circumstances is a child allowed to remain in detention with a parent, but those circumstances are strictly limited by ministerial directive. I will repeat that currently there are zero children in detention.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2020-12-11 11:36 [p.3337]
Madam Speaker, I said “at least” 182 children were separated from their families because the truth is that we have no idea of the exact number. The government does not keep any statistics on that.
One hundred and eighty-two is the number of families that contacted Action réfugiés Montréal for help. We have no idea how many others there were.
Did the minister launch an investigation to find each child who was separated from their family? If not, what is he waiting for?
View Bill Blair Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bill Blair Profile
2020-12-11 11:37 [p.3337]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the member opposite's question, but clearly she wrote the question before she heard my answer. I will repeat for her what I have already said twice.
There are currently zero children in immigration detention. We track this very carefully. Direction has been clearly given to CBSA, and CBSA will only use immigration detention as a last resort in exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances have led to a significant reduction. The actual number of children in detention peaked in 2014. We have worked tirelessly to reduce that number and today it is zero.
View Sameer Zuberi Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Sameer Zuberi Profile
2020-12-10 14:00 [p.3283]
Madam Speaker, the pandemic has hit families within my riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard. Especially hard hit are those families with children with disabilities.
Amelia is a four-year-old girl in my riding. She has an extremely rare genetic condition. Amelia cannot walk, cannot sit and cannot see. Amelia's condition causes her severe seizures daily. Amelia is fully dependent upon her family for all her activities of daily living. Amelia's family actually needs accommodations in order for her to live a fulsome life. As COVID-19 hit, the cost of those accommodations to their home through the form of reparations skyrocketed.
Elsewhere in my riding, I have also heard of a dad who was taking care of his autistic son. Those supports that he needed to access have been strained and have not been as readily available.
I want to take this moment to share their stories with all members in the House and with all Canadians. We hear them and we support them.
View Phil McColeman Profile
CPC (ON)
View Phil McColeman Profile
2020-12-04 10:29 [p.2961]
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this time to speak on this incredibly important issue to all Canadians.
As I was leading into this speech, I reflected back on the debates on Bill C-14. On May 3, 2016, the House was debating the creation of an euthanasia and assisted suicide bill. At the time I spoke in the evening on May 3, I mentioned how this would probably be, in my career as a politician, a member of Parliament, having at that time served eight years and now in my 13th year, perhaps the most important speech that I would ever make.
When I look back on that speech today, I think I was wrong. I think perhaps this is the more important speech because at that time Parliament was faced with a court deadline as well to put into place legislation for euthanasia and assisted suicide. Like many countries around the world that have these bills, going back to the first legislation in the Netherlands in 2002 until today, I have seen the progression of what has happened in these countries as an example of what will happen on the slippery slope of this legislation.
I should say as well, as I did in 2016, I come at this with a very biased approach and that is because I am the father of a 34-year-old intellectually disabled son. My son was brain damaged at age two. He suffered irreversible damage that has caused him to lead a life with his parents as his caregivers his entire life. When the people and organizations that represent persons with disabilities speak, and they have spoken loudly, to the particular changes and amendments that the government is bringing forward in Bill C-7, they have said this is the worst possible scenario.
I interpret that from my lens as a parent in terms of protection for my son. Frankly, it causes me to reflect on what we are currently experiencing: the COVID-19 crisis. Just about every piece of communication that I receive, email, text, telephone call, whatever, usually starts with a sentence where that person says to me or I say to them, “I hope your family is safe”. Generally speaking, the salutation at the end of those communications is, “Stay safe”. I believe all parliamentarians have probably experienced the exact same thing.
One of the concerns of the disability community is this. What will happen to our children in their latter lives when we are no longer with them, when we can no longer care for and protect them? Therefore, the theme of my speech today is “Stay safe, my son”.
Let us look at the evolution of these laws across the world. I will read a few recent headlines that I found through my research coming into this today. “'What kind of society do you want to live in?': Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing”. This headline is from the BBC on October 14, “Netherlands backs euthanasia for terminally ill children under-12”.
Let me read a couple of excerpts from this article, which are fairly poignant considering today's discussion. The article begins, “The Dutch government has approved plans to allow euthanasia for terminally ill children aged between one and 12." Of the current law, it goes on to mention, “It is also legal for babies up to a year old [to be euthanized] with parental consent.
I could go on with more headlines, but I choose not to because I think members get the point. The point is this: Where do we stop? With Bill C-14 in its original form, the preamble said it all, which was, and I am sure the committee heard this, that there are many in society who say this bill does not go far enough and does not satisfy those who want wide open death-upon-request euthanasia laws. When we look at this, we must look at it from both sides, because both sides of this issue require our compassion.
I have spent time with three significant people in my life at the end of their lives. One is my mother, who was in extreme pain for a long period of time. I held held her hand upon her death. I also watched a very good friend deteriorate from age 39 to age 41 before his death. As well, lately, a very good friend, who is choosing to end her life early, and who I had quite a frank conversation with out of total respect. All of them had been, or are in, the final stages of a terminal illness.
Compassion must go to people who are in situations that are unbearable. Fortunately, there are other alternatives. I happen to live in Brantford, Ontario, and we have one of the finest palliative care units in all of the country. People come to study it and look at it. They come to see it as an alternative. If we were to focus on something going forward that a government could do, but that it would perhaps not see as a priority, it could be to give people the resources to make a choice.
Let me get back to this discussion of the most vulnerable. They are persons with disabilities, and to name a few, they are autistic children, autistic adults and persons with brain damage, like my son. These are not mental illnesses, by the way. Some of these are genetic, such as Down Syndrome. There are some who have met a person with Down Syndrome who just lights up their life because of their complete innocence and their complete love, not only for others, but also for their own lives. There are many others who the disability community speaks for.
Bill C-7 undermines their precarious position. It takes and diminishes the few protections that existed in Bill C-14, and of course, this is what is being chosen, as per the votes up to this point, on this issue by the majority of members of Parliament.
To my son, I say, “Stay safe.” To the constituents of Charlottetown, I say, “Stay safe.” To the constituents with disabilities in Scarborough—Agincourt, I say, “Stay safe.” To all Canadians, I say, “Stay safe.”
The trajectory of where we are heading, and it is in that preamble to the legislation, is what is happening around the world. It is happening in society. People in legislatures are making the decisions for the rest of the country as to what the future will look like.
This is a critical moment. It was a critical moment back in 2016. Again, we are faced with a critical moment. The priority has become a deadline set by a court, instead of the fullness of all voices being heard.
The parliamentary secretary can articulate the numbers. He can articulate the fact that there were so many submissions and individuals we were able to listen to. At this point in time, the people who represent the vast number of persons with disabilities and their families in this country are dead against this legislation. Let us be clear about that. Let us not try to sugar-coat this. This is where we are today.
What kind of society do we want? Where this leads to, frankly, is one of those headlines. As we take away the protections for individuals with disabilities, as this law does, we eventually lead society into the normal course of accepting that assisted suicide and euthanasia are natural things. We move toward being a society that starts to look at individuals as either being healthy in society's mind, and living fulfilling lives, or beings one of those who have been brought into this world, or has had something happen to them in this world, that puts them in this very precarious situation.
Is life easy for persons with disabilities and their caregivers? In most cases, it is not easy. We can attest to that. We have three healthy children, as well as our special needs son with disabilities. Part of the richness of life is the fact that the child who many would see as imperfect is the one who brings the most joy to life. They are the ones we must protect at all costs.
Why do we not spend the time to get this legislation right and make it airtight so their lives are never at risk? I do not believe this legislation does immediately put them at risk. Some would say this legislation is quite to the contrary, but looking to five, 10, or 20 years from now, when most of us here will no longer be in Parliament, it will be a new group of elected representatives looking to make changes down the road.
Is there anything in the international experience to tell us that this is not a continual, gradual and incremental deterioration of the protections for those who are the most vulnerable?
The other point that needs to be made is that persons with disabilities are a minority in our country. Over the 13 years I have been in Parliament, more time has been spent on legislation, members' statements, just name it, than communications from government about protecting minorities. This is a vulnerable, if not the most vulnerable, minority in society. It is definitely in the top grouping of the most vulnerable.
Disability knows no boundaries. We are involved with groups of people, and I represent the Six Nations of the Grand River, the largest first nation in Canada. We are helping aboriginal individuals from Six Nations who have children with disabilities. They feel very strongly about the fact that the few protections that exist need to not only be kept in place, but also enhanced and made airtight for their children.
In those debates in 2016, the member for Calgary Nose Hill said in her opening statement that this is about, “the sanctity of human life” and “defining the morality of our country.” I could not agree more wholeheartedly with those words.
I will finish my remarks by saying, “Stay safe, my son.”
View René Arseneault Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our friend from Brantford—Brant for sharing his own experience.
I was one of the original members of the joint committee behind Bill C-14. Allow me to share a little background.
Bill C-14 was introduced in response to the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada handed down in February 2014, when the Harper government was in power. The court gave the government 12 months to comply with the ruling. The Harper government, knowing that an election was coming in the spring of 2015, essentially did nothing. The Liberals won the 2015 election. We lost 10 precious months before cabinet was appointed as a result of the Conservative Party's inaction.
Politicians are often called upon to make decisions, and it is not always easy. The majority of members on our committee who opposed this bill said they were doing so to protect vulnerable people, which is something everyone wants to do.
Could my esteemed colleague tell us where in Bill C-14 or in Bill C-7, which we are debating today, it says that a minor with a head injury, cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome could request medical assistance in dying? I do not see that anywhere.
View Phil McColeman Profile
CPC (ON)
View Phil McColeman Profile
2020-12-04 10:49 [p.2963]
Mr. Speaker, I reflect back on a few comments made previously in debate by the parliamentary secretary, and in the question and answer period, which were that this is not a partisan issue. However, the only two people I have heard criticize a particular political party in this debate are the two members from the Liberal government side.
The member said the protections for persons with disabilities are in this legislation. He is wrong. That is why the disability community has spoken so loudly and broadly across this country, yet the government is not listening.
Results: 106 - 120 of 242 | Page: 8 of 17

|<
<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data