House of Commons Hansard #99 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was services.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you were to seek it, I believe you would find that there is unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Timmins—James Bay, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, November 1, 2016, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Does the hon. member for Hochelaga have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and the usual arrangements among the parties, and I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented to the House on Wednesday, October 5, be amended by replacing the first paragraph of page 9 with the following: “They might be facing refoulement, forced return to their country of origin, or they may be detained, but refugees are not simply supposed to be detained because they are refugees”.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move this motion?
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, a number of citizens in my riding are very concerned about the state of palliative care and hospice care.
They are suggesting that the federal government recognize its importance and make specific accommodations for it.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again in this House to present a petition on behalf of the hard-working and dedicated constituents of Shawnigan Lake.
The petitioners are asking for the federal government to provide some assistance in combatting the situation of a contaminated soil dump in their watershed.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
moved:
That the House call on the government to comply with the historic ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordering the end of discrimination against First Nations children, including by:
(a) immediately investing an additional $155 million in new funding for the delivery of child welfare that has been identified as the shortfall this year alone, and establishing a funding plan for future years that will end the systemic shortfalls in First Nations child welfare;
(b) implementing the full definition of Jordan's Principle as outlined in a resolution passed by the House on December 12, 2007;
(c) fully complying with all orders made by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and committing to stop fighting Indigenous families in court who are seeking access to services covered by the federal government; and
(d) making public all pertinent documents related to the overhaul of child welfare and the implementation of Jordan's Principle.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to open this debate this morning to put an end to the systemic and racist discrimination against indigenous youth in Canada. However, I am very troubled by the fact that we had to force a debate in the House of Commons to get the government to recognize its legal obligation to comply with the historic ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
The Prime Minister is also the Minister of Youth, and he told Canadians that renewing the relationship with the first nations was a priority for him. Unfortunately, the government continues to drag its feet when it comes to complying with the tribunal's ruling, even though it was ordered to take immediate action. The government has ignored orders twice since the ruling was handed down. What part of “immediate” does the Prime Minister not understand?
Because of this government's lack of due diligence, Parliament now has the duty to call on the government to honour its legal obligations regarding the welfare of children who continue to suffer because of a broken, underfunded system.
All across the country, young indigenous children are dying of despair every day. They go to schools that are underfunded, they have inferior health care services, and they are suffering the consequences of this government's broken promises.
What nation crushes the hopes and dreams of children? As a nation, our best resource is the potential of our children. The days of racism and systemic discrimination must come to an end. Reconciliation is not just a word. Reconciliation must become a reality.
I am very proud to rise in this House. What we are discussing today is about the choices we make as a nation, about the legal obligation, but above all it is about the children. I want to note that yesterday in the Manitoba legislature there was a unanimous condemnation of the government's refusal to respond to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
I want to pay tribute to 13-year-old Garrett Tomagatick from Fort Albany, who gave up hope this week and died. I want to thank the Canadian Rangers who were there at his funeral, because they do so much good work in our region. I think of the three others we lost in Fort Albany alone just this year, that beautiful little community. I think of the four in north Saskatchewan. I think of Sheridan Hookimaw, who was ground into hopelessness, and her death touched off the Attawapiskat crisis. We have seen 700-plus children try to kill themselves since 2009 in my region.
We have talked in this House about suicide and it is not specifically the issue of the day, but it is the public manifestation of the hopelessness and the failures that we can trace back through the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling to the systemic racist discrimination against children in every area of public service that they are entitled to. I am heartbroken that we even have to stand in this House and force a debate on this issue, because we are talking about compliance with the law.
I think of, this past week, the story of Chanie Wenjack and Gord Downie that has opened Canadians' eyes to reconciliation. But there are hundreds of thousands of Chanie Wenjacks across Canada trying to find their way home now; trying to find their way home to hope, trying to find their way home to identity, and the 163,000 Chanie Wenjacks who want to come home to their families and are in a broken and badly underfunded child welfare system.
When the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found in January that the government was guilty of systemic and racist discrimination against children, it shone a light on that broken system, and the tribunal ordered immediate money to be put into that underfunded system. What the government responded with in March was its budget, in which it promised $71 million. When the shortfall was over, $200 million had been identified. The current government that spent $7 billion this past summer on flagpoles, tennis courts, and good-time announcements could not find the money to meet its legal requirements to keep children protected.
Then we find out that the government actually never even bothered to respond to the compliance orders. It simply brought forward numbers that had been put together by the department of Indian affairs in the dying days of the last government. It says it responded to the tribunal, but no; it continued to ignore it.
What does this mean for children on the ground? There have been more than 2.6 million sleepless nights for children who have been away from their families since the tribunal ruling. There are stories that connect the broken child welfare system to the hopelessness and deaths of children. Tina Fontaine was taken from her family and found in a bag in a Winnipeg river.
We think of Azraya Kokopenace of Grassy Narrows, whose little brother died from mercury poisoning. One of the effects of mercury is depression, apparently, so she ended up needing help, but the broken child welfare system did not help her and her family. It put her into foster care. The poor little girl ended up on the streets, dealing with police; she was put in a hospital one night with no oversight or adult to look after her; she walked out and they found her body later.
It is said that a nation is not conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground. How do the hearts of women end up on the ground? It is when their children are taken. That was what the white conquerors figured out first off, and it is happening today. I talked to a mother the other day, who asked, “How do I sleep at night when I don't know where my babies are?”
We learned recently, in British Columbia, that there are horrific levels of sexual abuse against children in the child welfare system, the vast majority of them indigenous children. In Alberta, studies show that more than 741 children in the child welfare system died between 1999 and 2003, the vast majority of them first nation children.
Raven Sinclair told the Calgary Herald there was nothing accidental about these shocking deaths. She said, “There are an incredible number of kids dying in care each year. This isn’t just an accident. It is not a fluke of statistics. It is happening year after year”.
The other thing that was ruled on was Jordan's principle. We voted in the House for the principle for Jordan River Anderson, the little boy who died in the hospital and never got home because the feds and the province argued about jurisdiction. The House passed a motion saying that all first nation children should be eligible for medical services, and the government is now at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal arguing about what that means. It is saying it will agree to pay for treatment for children who are badly handicapped on reserve, but not other children, and it will continue to fight.
What does that look like to children? I will give the example of Pictou Landing First Nation, in 2011, almost bankrupting itself trying to fight to get home care for a badly handicapped little boy. The government's case was thrown out because the justice recognized that the government had supported Jordan's principle, so it could not actually deny this child care. The government appealed it and actually wanted the family to pay its court costs.
We saw, through the tribunal, the ruling in internal documents in 2012, about a child who needed a special bed to keep from suffocating. Health Canada wrote on the report “Absolutely not”, and the doctor had to pay for it.
The new government is saying it will deal with those cases; it will accept the ruling and remain in compliance. However, other children will continue to be denied. On the very day that this ruling came down, the health minister's department turned down the third-round appeal for special orthodontic surgery for a little girl from Alberta.
At the time, Health Canada denial rates for orthodontic appeals were 80% in the first round, 99% in the second round, and a full 100% in the third round. Tell me that is not systemic denial of services to children. However, with the new government, it has gotten worse. It is now 99% denials in the first round for orthodontic surgery, 99% at the second level, and 100% at the third level. How can government members stand in the House and say they are going to support children when they are actually fighting that family in court?
In fact, the health minister decided that there was a better way to spend taxpayers' money. She spent three times the amount of money on lawyers in the justice department to fight that little girl's family than it would have cost to provide the medical care.
That is what systemic, racist discrimination looks like. I want to see the government stand up today and tell us that little girl in Alberta will not have to worry that her teeth are going to fall in because she is being denied service while government lawyers fight her family. This is not a question that is asking for something unfair. This is about compliance with the law.
In my final moments, I want to talk about the suicide crisis we are seeing. When the little girl from Grassy Narrows died, what we heard was that there were no mental health services. What I have seen in northern Saskatchewan and heard elsewhere is that they could not get the treatment or they were denied the treatment.
I asked an official at Health Canada if the department tracked the young people who were turned down or the delay rates. He said, “Yes, we are very concerned about mental health. Yes, to answer your question, the department does have records of people.” I asked if he would share those statistics, and he said the department would be happy to provide those statistics.
We wrote to the department and asked it to provide the statistics tracking the young people who were being denied health services and who were facing suicide. The department wrote us back, saying that Health Canada was unable to provide data on the number of requests and approval rates.
Health Canada does not track the children it rejects. What kind of system does not even bother to keep track of the children under its responsibility? That is why children are dying. That is why children are ending upon the street. That is why the government has been found guilty of racist, systemic discrimination against children.
What we are hearing now is that change is incremental, that we should not worry because it will get better over time. I am sorry, but the communities we represent should not have to crawl and fight for inches of ground when children are suffering, when children are being denied their greatest potential.
What we are asking for through the compliance orders of the Human Rights Tribunal is actually peanuts compared to what the government would be willing to spend on other things. What kind of nation thinks it can squander the hope and potential of their children? What kind of government believes it is above the law, when we are talking about racist discrimination, systemic discrimination against children?
It is a question of what kind of Canada we are going to be in 2016. Children only get one childhood. Once it is gone, it can never come back. I am urging my colleagues in the House of Commons to do the right thing. What we are asking here is not the opinion of the New Democratic Party, these are the findings of the Human Rights Tribunal that affects all of our nation. We can do better as a nation if we are willing to put the needs of the children first.
At the beginning, I spoke about the young children we have lost. I do not want to come in here to do another motion in the name of a child who was lost because of systemic laziness. I want us to be promoting the children who are going to go on and create the kind of Canada that we need.
However, we need to see the government recognize that it has legal responsibilities, that it has to meet these terms that have been laid out, the full implementation of Jordan's principle. It needs to stand up in court and say that it will no longer fight families in court, that it will meet that shortfall in child welfare that has been identified this year as $155 million, and that it will explain to the Canadian public why it did not even bother to crunch numbers in response to the Human Rights Tribunal. It just pulled a set of numbers off the shelf and handed it off, pretending it was its own. It is like stealing someone else's homework and thinking it will be patted on the back for it. It is not acceptable.
The $71 million this year does not cut it. The amount of money the government has put aside for next year does not cut it. It does not meet the shortfalls that have been identified. This is the final element of our motion, that the government needs to come forward with the documents to prove whether it has been studying this at all or is just making up numbers out of thin air.
I have enormous respect for the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I know she wants to support the motion. I also know that the Prime Minister gets his advice from Michael Wernick. That is the man who has the Prime Minister's ear. Michael Wernick fought the legal case against Cindy Blackstock, tooth and nail, for nine years.
I want to see the government putting the interests of children first for a change, and not the interests of the finance minister or Michael Wernick. This is about the children. We need to do this.
Opposition Motion—Care for First Nations ChildrenBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Labrador Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Yvonne Jones LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for bringing forward the motion today. I think the member agrees with the government that the system needs a complete overhaul in order to bring protection for first nations children. We are very supportive of that reform and have started the cogs in the wheel moving to make that reform happen. I am little disappointed today that the motion does not speak to that reform because I thought it was something that the member opposite would want to see. I would like for him to clarify that.
I would also like to ask a question based on the number of financial dollars quoted in the motion because the tribunal ruling was very clear. It stated that it should be based on need and that need should be identified and the resources identified to meet that need. Nowhere in the tribunal ruling that I have been able to find is the amount that should be contributed. Why did the member pull this number out of thin air as opposed to honouring the recommendation that the tribunal made?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to her if I did not write in the motion that I wanted to thank the government for all its great work. She seemed to take that as an offence off the top. Well, the Liberals have not done great work on this file. For her to say that we pulled this number out of thin air, that is not our number. It is Cindy Blackstock's number. Cindy Blackstock is more than willing to present the document, which is part of the motion. If my hon. colleague reads section (d), it asks the government to provide the documents. If the government provided the documents, then we would know on what basis it costed this out because it fought nine years against this. The government knew this was coming. It has had two compliance orders and it is still scratching its head and saying no one knows what the numbers are.
The government presented numbers to the tribunal that had been prepared before. If Liberals believe $71 million this year is the adequate number, that is their opinion. The Human Rights Tribunal says it is not in compliance. This is not my opinion. This is the legal decision of the tribunal. However, if Liberals present the documents to show why $71 million in underfunding is good enough, then I am sure the tribunal would be more than happy to read that and we will support whatever the tribunal says. Right now the tribunal says the government is in non-compliance.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of working for Jean Crowder who brought in Jordan's principle in 2007. What is really helpful in today's debate is to compare what the Liberal Party members used to stand for and what their actions are now that they are in government. I want to read a quote from the member for Yukon during the debate on Jordan's principle in 2007. He said:
In conclusion, we in Parliament must unanimously support this so that first nations children have access to the same life-saving, life-enhancing and life-building programs and services as other children. Let us not ever again have a situation where a child lives his life and dies in a hospital because of bureaucratic squabbles between governments or departments.
I wanted to read that for the record and ask my friend to comment on what the Liberal Party members used to stand for and what they are doing now that they are in government.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to meet the family of Jordan River Anderson when we moved that motion. I guess I was a lot more naive back then. I thought that when Parliament passed a motion to say it was going to protect first nation children that we were all honour bound and we would do the right thing, because it would be shameful to do any less. However, here we are all these years later and we are seeing a new government, a new health minister, and she is fighting indigenous children in court when the denial rates in her department against special orthopaedic surgery is 99% and 100%.
Recently, her officials denied a little boy an audiology test. They said it was not necessary. I was stunned when I saw that because my daughter was born deaf. We were told that for every month we lose there was a chance that our daughter would never get into school. We had to move immediately.
Some bureaucrat, not a medical doctor, a bureaucrat in the health minister's office wrote that it was not necessary. This is the kind of discrimination that indigenous children face. Imagine if a child goes to a doctor and gets a prescription or an order for specialized treatment, but someone who has never seen that child, someone who knows nothing about the case, can overrule it. That is what systemic discrimination is. I thought that when we passed Jordan's principle those days would end, but they are still alive and well with the current government.
Opposition Motion—Care for First Nations ChildrenBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very impassioned speech by the member for Timmins—James Bay.
What is interesting is that right now the government is focused on the health accord and a battle with the provinces. It is trying to tell the provinces how to deliver health care. The federal government has a responsibility for certain populations, whether veterans or aboriginal children. Therefore, I would like to ask my colleague this. Is the government doing as good a job with respect to the support that aboriginal children need on reserve compared to what someone off reserve might receive?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I work well with my hon. colleague and have enormous respect for her. What she has laid out is the fundamental issue, which is that there is a complete discrepancy between the services that children on reserve are treated to and children off reserve. That is why it is systemic racist discrimination. That is what people back home need to understand.
We saw the numerous horrific deaths of children in care in Alberta. If the family of a child who is off reserve has problems, it is a lot cheaper, more proactive, and better in the long term to give that family support in its home. That is a common practice in the provincial systems. The common practice of how it is dealt with on reserve is that the child is taken away. When a child is taken away from his or her home, the family starts to implode. Often we see children who end up on the street or being trafficked. We have to build the family. The fundamental reason it is broken is that the financing is not there to support the family on reserve so that these children can grow up and be who they should be. However, for non-native families the known solution is to support the family.
This is the discrimination we are talking about, and I want to thank my hon. colleague for bringing this up.
Opposition Motion—Care for First Nations ChildrenBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member, but we are missing out on an opportunity. I have noticed that this minister has a genuinely caring heart for first nations and indigenous people.
Let us look at the magnitude of the problem. When I served in the Manitoba legislature for over 18 years, the last issue that I raised in substance dealt with the children of our province. Over 10,000 children were in foster care. The magnitude and seriousness of the problem is incredibly difficult to gauge. What we need is genuine reform. We need to go beyond this, and that takes working with the provinces and the different stakeholders. The provincial government plays a critical role. In 1999, the child advocate said that Manitoba was in a child care crisis back then, and it has not gotten better.
Would the member not agree that what we really need is a genuine reform of the system? We need the provinces at the table, Manitoba especially. Would the member not agree that it is time that the provinces and other stakeholders start putting the child first and look for reform?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for mentioning Manitoba, because last night the Manitoba legislature, including his daughter, voted to condemn his government for its refusal to comply with the Human Rights Tribunal. Therefore, we can certainly look to Manitoba, because the provinces were not brought before the Human Rights Tribunal, the federal government was. The federal government has the responsibility.
The people on the other side can laugh about this, but we are talking about a compliance order. We are talking about whether or not the government believes it is above the law. What I am hearing from the Liberals is that they will appoint someone to consult whether or not they have to abide by the law. That does not make sense to me. If they were going to consult about Site C, they could have appointed a special appointee to determine whether the government was running roughshod over treaty rights. No, they had to take immediate action.
We have a tribunal ruling and two compliance orders. That is what this is about. It is not about what the NDP thinks. It is about what the court of Canada has said.
Opposition Motion—Care for First Nations ChildrenBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Toronto—St. Paul's Ontario
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett LiberalMinister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here on Algonquin territory to speak to the motion by the member for Timmins—James Bay. I want to thank the hon. member for affording me the opportunity to discuss this truly important issue, to address any misunderstandings, and to update the House on the progress we are making.
As minister, I have been mandated by the Prime Minister to engage in a renewed nation-to-nation process with indigenous people to make real progress on the issues most important to indigenous people, including child welfare.
We promised to establish a new relationship with indigenous people and a new way of doing things. We intend to keep our promise.
Our priority as parliamentarians and as responsible Canadians must be first and foremost the health, well-being, and protection of indigenous children.
All Canadians want children to have the best chance in life. First nations children, however, do not always have the same access to quality health and social services. They too often have been apprehended and placed in situations where they have suffered abuse. They have been removed from their culture and have therefore lost their personal cultural identity, which is essential for optimal health, education, and economic outcomes. This is shameful and has to change.
For years I have been outspoken on the need to reform this system. The fact that there are more children in care than at the height of the residential schools is heartbreaking.
The first five recommendations of the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recognize the need for all of us to work together to close that gap. I intend to honour that commitment and take action immediately.
The hon. member has placed his motion in the context of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision on child and family services. I want to state clearly that the government welcomed the decision of the tribunal, and we are working to implement its findings, including ending the discriminatory practices identified by the tribunal, but we were working on this regardless of what the tribunal said about the need to make the reforms.
In my view, one of the most important factors in that discrimination is the overrepresentation of indigenous children in care. These children are separated from their families, at risk of losing their culture and identity and language, and even worse, of facing abuse and violence, as was demonstrated in the member's speech. It is the current system that causes this, and we can and will do better by these children.
The tribunal has said that it believes that the federal government is “determined to reform the entire FNCFS Program and believes it intends do so”. We are, and we will.
The Minister of Health and I have been working very hard every single day to ensure that first nations children have access to the health and social services they are entitled to.
Last December, at the Assembly of First Nations Special Chiefs Assembly, I committed to working toward an overhaul of the child welfare system on reserve. I meant what I said that day. We are committed to nothing less than a full-scale reform of child and family services on reserve and are undertaking that reform in partnership with the provinces and territories and first nations.
We are actively reaching out to partners across the country to jointly develop options for reform. This includes working in partnership with first nations organizations, leadership, communities, front-line service providers and agencies, non-governmental organizations, other federal departments, and the provinces and territories, to meaningfully reform the first nations child and family services program.
We need transformational change. The goal of the child welfare system must be to reduce the disproportionate number of children in care, full stop. The member spoke to the need for reform, but unfortunately, that is not in the motion.
As a first step, we need to end the funding discrimination endemic in the first nations child welfare system. Budget 2016 announced an investment of $634.8 million over five years to support the immediate needs of first nations children on reserve. This included $71 million in immediate relief investments for first nations child and family services. The immediate relief was focused on providing additional enhanced prevention services in every province and the Yukon territory.
We agree with the tribunal that future funding must not be based on an arbitrary formula or figure created behind closed doors in Ottawa. Rather, it must be based on the actual day-to-day needs of agencies. It must be based on what it will take to operationalize transformational reform and keep kids out of care and in their communities.
We also agree that Jordan's principle applies to all first nations children, and we are already applying its full meaning and scope. Children are getting their needs met.
I am proud to report that, since the changes implemented last July, nearly 900 children from every province and territory have been designated to receive services under the expanded definition of Jordan's principle. Those children would not have had access to those services in the past.
These are concrete first steps in addressing the most pressing concerns. However, it is not only about money. Building something new, something different, means that we need to talk to the people who are most involved. This new approach means moving forward in our relationships.
We want to be accountable for results: keeping more families together and reducing the number of kids in care. It is no longer satisfactory that the federal government pays the provinces and Yukon to deliver services without any say in the results.
The current system has left kids suffering and taken them from their families and communities. One need look no further than the recent report by the B.C. child advocate to see the tragic results of how this system fails kids.
We heard time and time again during our consultations on the design of the national public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls about the direct connection between the failure of the child welfare system and the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. It has affected both the children who were taken and the women and mothers who were left behind.
There is the story of Reina Foster, who I was lucky enough to spend the day with in early October as part of the celebration of International Day of the Girl.
Reina was put in foster care when she was just two. It was the first of six foster homes she lived in, during which she both witnessed and experienced abuse. As I said that day, Reina spoke truth to power in a very poignant way. It reaffirmed my understanding of the need to listen to people who are affected by policies like child welfare.
We have been listening to the concerns of first nations communities and organizations regarding the child welfare system. We agree that it needs a total overhaul, and we are taking action.
On September 22, I was pleased to appoint Dr. Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux as my special representative responsible for leading the engagement process on the total reform of the on-reserve first nations child and family services program. Dr. Wesley-Esquimaux is a member of the Chippewas of Georgina Island first nation in Ontario and is the chair of truth and reconciliation at Lakehead University. She has spent her whole career advocating for and advancing the rights of indigenous peoples. This appointment represents a key step in our commitment to engage with all the provinces and territories and all partners for the full-scale reform of the first nations child and family services program.
This is important, as we need to transform the system with the benefit of hearing directly from youth, incorporating their lived experiences into any new approach. The voices of the children who participated in the Feathers of Hope gathering echo in my ears every day. The feather they gave me sits on my desk, reminding me of this important work on a daily basis. They told me their difficult stories of abuse, of being separated from siblings, and of being told that their culture, their beliefs, and their traditions were inferior.
We have taken a number of concrete steps. Dr. Wesley-Esquimaux has begun consultations on reform, which will run from coast to coast to coast. This afternoon she will be meeting with all the provincial child advocates.
We are surveying all agencies to better understand their unique and individual needs and circumstances, and we are committed to identifying best practices that achieve real and culturally appropriate results for kids.
These models include things like Touchstones of Hope, championed by Cindy Blackstock, and the Maori family conferencing model, Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata, in Manitoba.
The federal government is also a full partner at tripartite meetings with the provinces and the Yukon, first nations, and agencies to discuss real reforms in the system.
We are funding indigenous regional organizations to hold meetings and gather strategic information that can inform the reform process. We will be meeting with child advocates and other provincial and Yukon stakeholders.
We are working to re-establish the national advisory committee to provide advice on the engagement process and the reform of this program. The committee will include representatives from the federal government, the Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, agency directors, and an elder and youth representative.
We are also planning for a national summit on indigenous child welfare in early 2017. The summit will bring together key stakeholders and hear from youth in care, service providers, child advocates, first nations community representatives, researchers, and others who will share information about wise practices in prevention and how to support children and families.
There is a federal-provincial-territorial working group, involving senior officials who work on child and family services, to share information and best practices. I will also be working with the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to launch consultations with provinces and territories and indigenous peoples on a national early learning and child care framework.
We know how important affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care is, but we also know that for indigenous children, care must be culturally appropriate in support of their language and culture.
I can say with conviction that our concrete measures will help put an end to these discriminatory practices.
We have taken real steps to, in the Gitxsan phrase, upright the canoe.
We know that real reform does not happen overnight, but we must be relentlessly focused on driving this reform. We have to understand that removing first nations children from their families, from their communities, and from their language and culture creates lasting damage.
This was what was meant by the motto of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: For the child taken, for the parent left behind. That must be and will be our motto as we reform the system once and for all and put first nations kids first.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my hon. colleague, and I know how much this matters to her. I want to say that I actually feel bad that her government is putting her in this position, because she knows as well as I do what the shortfalls are.
We had the parliamentary secretary say that we pulled a number out of thin air and had the minister told to say that these numbers were created behind closed doors. These numbers and the shortfall were given to the government and to the tribunal eight months ago by Cindy Blackstock, and there was no argument at the tribunal about what the shortfall was. The government then offered $71 million, and that was supposed to be a response, but it was not a response. These were numbers the government had already created in the final days of the Harper government.
I love consultation. I think consultation is important. I agree that we have to reform it, but I am staggered to hear that the solution to a compliance order by a court is that we will start another consultation process. No. The question before us today is about complying with the Human Rights Tribunal, and when the minister says that the Liberals are actually implementing Jordan's principle, that is not what the compliance orders are saying.
Will she tell us, in the case of the young girl from Sucker Creek First Nation, if the Liberals will stop that court case against her, because the tribunal is saying that they are not implementing Jordan's principle?
That is what this is about. It is about the legal obligations that have been laid out. The shortfalls and numbers have been put to the tribunal, about which the government never argued, but it is now saying they were taken out of thin air. It is about the refusal to meet Jordan's principle, because it is still fighting children in court.
We cannot have it both ways. The minister should tell us that this case will be ended today and tell us what the government's numbers are that it opposed Cindy Blackstock on.