House of Commons Hansard #255 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.

Topics

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague heard the last part of my speech, but the basic problem is that the bill does not solve the problem of cash for access. It just formalizes it and makes it even more official.

My colleague says that it will provide for greater accountability from members of cabinet who take part in these activities, but that is not true. They will simply be able to say that they only had private meetings with rich people. What does that change in the lives of ordinary Canadians? The bill just brings to light that privileged access exists in our democracy. It simply makes it more transparent. The people involved will not be more accountable.

I also do not know why the hon. member is trying to compare cabinet members, the executives, with members of Parliament and even with a leader who is not even a member of this House. I do not understand why he is trying to compare apples and oranges. That never ends very well.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Mr. Speaker, I certainly heard what the member was saying and wondered what his thoughts would be.

I have described this legislation a number of times as “I got caught with my hand in the cookie jar, so I will blame the cookie jar act”. Obviously, the Prime Minister and some of his cabinet ministers have not really followed the legislation that is in existence already, so this is kind of a PR stunt to make it look like something will change.

If the Prime Minister has not followed the laws that are already in place, does the member think that with this change the Prime Minister is going to follow this and it will make everything all right, or does he think the Prime Minister is going to carry on doing the kinds of unethical things he has done in the past?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, it actually matters little what legislation is in force, whether it is the Conflict of Interest Act or the Canada Elections Act. I am just afraid that the Prime Minister continues to think that the laws do not apply to him, that they are for others, and that he can do what he wants. Basically, if he contravenes the Conflict of Interest Act, he just pardons himself and acts as if nothing has happened.

Unfortunately, by being found guilty by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for his trip to a private island, he has certainly broken Canadians' trust in our institutions and in the office of Prime Minister. He is supposed to be the first to comply with the laws of Canada. In this case, do not take my word for it; it was the Ethics Commissioner who found him guilty of four violations of the act.

How can we therefore trust a Prime Minister who, with his fellow ministers and Liberal members of Parliament, continues to enact new legislation while having no scruples about contravening it and giving himself a pardon right afterwards?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and participate in this debate. I have listened intently this afternoon to my colleagues' remarks and they have outlined very well not only what is wrong with the legislation, but clearly what is wrong with the government.

The member for Banff—Airdrie referred to it as the Prime Minister getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar. That is a really good way of summing it up, but I can envision a cartoon where the Prime Minister has his hand in the cookie jar and over his shoulder there are about 20 or 30 other hands reaching into the cookie jar and those hands belong to cabinet ministers.

It all started with the justice minister who, as one of my colleagues referred to earlier, somehow tried to slough off this cash for access fundraiser that she held in Vancouver as just a meeting of friends. Well, all of these friends happened to be lawyers, all meeting with the justice minister, all writing big cheques in the hope that someday one or more of them would be promoted to the bench. They know that the justice minister is the one who makes those decisions. They write a cheque, hobnob a bit at a private fundraiser and that is what happens.

We had the government being caught on more than one occasion with this cash for access. It is hard to imagine that we have only been in this place for just over two years and when we look at all of the ethics breaches the government has managed to come forward with, if we wanted to script this, it would be very difficult. The former health minister decided she needed her own limos. Another minister continues to use limos to go back and forth between here and the minister's home in Quebec. The Prime Minister travelled to a private island.

The Conservatives actually travelled to an island a week ago, but we went to Vancouver Island to work. We did not go to a private island owned by the Aga Khan to play on the beach and then bill taxpayers for that trip. By the way, he also took along the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and there might have been a backbencher who went with them as well. There was a whole bunch of them who decided it was all right to go to a private island and bill the taxpayers for it. These are the kinds of ethics issues we raise day after day in the House and we hear lots of chuckles from the government side. The Liberals think it is a big joke. They call it open and transparent. I call it unethical behaviour.

It took the Prime Minister just over a year to break the rules. What did the Liberals do? They bring in legislation under the namesake of open and transparent legislation. They were not going to do this again. They were not going to get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They are actually going to tell people when they are sticking their hands in the cookie jar and somehow that makes it okay.

It is important to note that despite the Liberals having their hands in the cookie jar, the Conservatives continued to raise more money than the Liberals. The numbers are out now and 2017 was a banner year for the Conservatives. Canadians felt that they needed to make a contribution to a party that was prepared to hold the government to account. Some $18 million was raised by the Conservatives in the last year and $14 million was raised by the Liberals. By the way, the party in government should be able to raise twice as much money as the opposition because the governing party is the one that makes the decisions.

It is human nature for people to write cheques to the government party so they can feel like they have some influence on those decisions, but they were a failure. The government is not only a failure at governing, it is a failure at raising money but it has to do it unethically so it brings in this legislation. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader stood up a few minutes ago and quoted the outgoing Ethics Commissioner as saying that this legislation is headed in the right direction.

I thought about that for a minute, and I remembered that a short time ago, I was in a strange city and I was not sure where I was. I stopped at a gas station and asked if I was headed in the right direction. The guy said that yes, I was headed in the right direction, and so I said, “Okay, I just keep going down that road.” He then said, “No, if you go down that road, it ends and actually falls off a cliff.” He said that I had to turn left and then turn right. I sort of caution the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that headed in the right direction does not mean it is the answer to solving the unethical behaviour of the current government.

I have heard this just about every time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions stands up and talks. I know that these are all the Liberal talking points about openness, transparency, and all of these types of things, but quite frankly, this legislation is none of the above. It pretends that it is open. It pretends that somehow what the cabinet ministers are doing is open and transparent and it meets all of what Canadians believe an ethical government would be doing, an ethical party would be doing, but it does not.

As an example, as has been mentioned many times today, parliamentary secretaries such as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, are not covered by this particular legislation. He can go out and have private fundraisers, use his position as a parliamentary secretary, and that is all just fine. He does not have to abide by the legislation, but that is okay because this particular party, this particular government does not abide by most legislation or legal rules anyway.

The Prime Minister took a trip to a private island. When he came back, he tried to hide it. Then it was discovered that yes, he did in fact take the trip with his buddy the veterans affairs minister and a couple of others, and billed the taxpayers to the tune of about $200,000. Not only does he refuse to pay that money back, but he refuses to stand up and answer questions in this House. He sloughs it off to his House leader to answer the questions for him. That is absolutely despicable.

We know this legislation is going to pass, and we know that it is better than what the government could have brought forward. Quite frankly, I thought the government would be bringing back the per vote subsidy, because we have seen the Liberals cannot raise money to the tune that the Conservatives can raise money with Canadians. I thought they would be bringing back the per vote subsidy because, like the New Democrats, that is what the Liberals think is the right way to have Canadians fund political parties. I am proud to say that when the Conservative Party was in government, it changed all of that, and our legislation today for how we raise money is among the best in the world.

However, we do not need legislation to prevent bad behaviour and that is what we have had by the Liberal government. We have had bad ethical behaviour, so what has happened is the Liberals have brought in this particular legislation to try to cover up their bad behaviour and now they want Canadians to say that they have solved all the problems. It has been made very clear by our members who have spoken to this particular bill that we are not going to fall for this. Canadians will not fall for it either, and the Liberals will end up paying the price in the next election. They are already paying the price because Canadians are no longer delivering the money to their party. The Liberals will pay the price in 2019.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Halifax Nova Scotia

Liberal

Andy Fillmore LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions

Mr. Speaker, the member, along with his colleagues across the way, have a new-found esteem for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and have been very interested lately in what she had to say about a number of topics. I wonder if the member would tell me how he feels about what she said about Bill C-50, which is:

I support the direction of this proposed legislation.... The amendments to the Canada Elections Act proposed by Bill C-50 promote transparency with respect to fundraising activities. I think it is a positive measure.... It goes quite a good way, I think, because it puts things in the public domain. It allows me to have access to some information if I'm dealing with some kind of a problem.

Does the member agree with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member was listening to my speech, but I absolutely addressed that, because it was raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Heading in the right direction hardly means that it is going to solve the problem. If a person is driving in a strange city and stops to ask someone if he or she is headed in the right direction, the answer may be, “Yes, but you had better take a left or right turn because you will drive off the edge of a cliff if you stay headed in that direction.”

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is probably not much of a surprise to anyone in this chamber that I agree with many of the sentiments of my colleague from Alberta, particularly that this is more about political cover for mistakes made by the Prime Minister and many of his ministers, including the Minister of Justice, who hails from British Columbia.

There have been useful changes in the system, done by both Conservative and Liberal governments past. Getting rid of big money by banning union and corporate donations certainly changed the way that we campaign in this country, and I think for the better. It is something that the previous Chrétien government brought into play and which the Conservatives, in the last several Parliaments, continued to tighten up.

In this regard, would the member give us a specific example of why this is more political covering for the Liberals' lack of integrity, similar to what we saw with their proposed open, transparent, and accountable government pledges, only to have them vacationing and breaking the ethics laws?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the sunny Okanagan is exactly correct. We will give full credit to the former Liberal government and former Prime Minister Chrétien who brought in significant changes, changes which, frankly, I think everyone endorsed and certainly endorses today. One cannot be seen to be bought by big corporations or unions and it was brought in because that was a perception that many Canadians had.

This is totally different. This is cover-up legislation. This is trying to cover up bad ethical behaviour. As my colleague mentioned, it started in Vancouver literally months after the Liberal government was elected, with the Minister of Justice hauling in a bunch of lawyers to write big cheques and expect to get promoted to the bench. Then it went from there, and we all know about the Prime Minister's little trip to an island last Christmas and he is still refusing to pay that money back.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to something I previously asked. I am surprised that the Conservative Party does not recognize the value of having legislation that is more transparent when it comes to political fundraising, specifically in the area of leaders, not just ministers, but leaders. I am going to ask the member the same question I have asked other members.

Does the Conservative Party really believe that it is fooling Canadians by voting against this legislation, trying to give the impression that there is no need to hold the leader of the official opposition or other opposition party leaders accountable for where they are getting their money from? It was not that long ago when the leader of the official opposition was not telling people when he had fundraisers and who was contributing to his campaign. Why are the Conservatives opposing that?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, our leader has not been found guilty of conflict of interest. Our shadow minister of finance has not been found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner for forgetting to report his rental apartment in Ottawa.

There is a big difference between our members and how they conduct themselves and how this Prime Minister and these ministers have been conducting themselves over the past two years.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in this evening's debate on Bill C-50, which I consider a highly superficial solution to a problem the Liberal Party itself created.

In 2016, from the summer through to the end of the year, the Liberal Party of Canada organized a number of $1,500-a-ticket fundraisers. They were held across Canada, in major centres and in the regions, and were attended by 30, 40, 50 or 60 guests at a time. People had to organize the fundraisers to provide special access to the Prime Minister and various ministers. No doubt the orders came from the Liberal Party itself, putting the Prime Minister and a number of Liberal ministers in the awkward position of probably having to make a few speeches, drink some good wine, and eat some little crackers. That is all well and good. Unfortunately, there were some less than pleasant discussions about the whole situation, discussions involving ministers and the Prime Minister about a problem the Liberals created.

During the election campaign, the Liberals peddled hope. They said they would put all kinds of money into infrastructure, but they were very evasive about how it would be done and where the money would go. People wanted to know how to get some of that money. As a result, in order to boost their own party funding, the Liberals created a monster during the election campaign that caused some ethical problems. How sad.

Canadians can donate to political parties. We, on this side of the House, look for values and direction. We give Canadians the option of donating money to the Conservative Party or to Conservative Party associations, because we want to provide all Canadians with vital leadership that is fair and equitable.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party gets its funding based on the private interests of organizations and companies that want preferential treatment or information on how to get what they want, such as access to programs or appointments. We have seen that in the past, and I have no doubt we will see it again in the future.

Sooner or later, this whole thing will become a scandal and really blow up. The scandal will undermine Canadians' confidence in our democracy, all because of the old Liberal ways when it comes to party financing.

I can confirm that the more time goes by, the more opportunities we will have to ask the new Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to enforce and monitor the directives established in the document entitled “Open and Accountable Government”, provided by the Prime Minister himself, who made some changes here in the House.

This evening I have the opportunity to talk about values and ethics and to reiterate our concerns on this side of the House for the new Liberal MPs who are being immersed in the old Liberal Party culture by the old guard, perhaps, or the upper echelons of the party.

Ethics are clearly a value lacking from this Liberal government's judgment. I believe that the Liberals like to get dangerously close to the borderline and step on either side. They always push the boundaries of conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest.

Under the Conflict of Interest Act, we must not put ourselves in conflict of interest or in apparent conflict of interest. It is truly unacceptable in our democracy.

The goal of this evening's debate is specifically to ensure that no preferential access or appearance of preferential access in exchange for donations is granted to individuals or organizations that may have contributed to the Liberal Party through its fundraising activities. That is why I stated that in the last six months of 2016, the Liberal Party organized a series of $1,500-a-ticket events for 25, 30, 40 or 50 people, raking in $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 or $70,000 per evening.

I want to confirm that, since the Liberals came to power, scandals involving the Liberals' dubious fundraising activities have continued to emerge. There are always new events that outrage honest citizens, hence this evening's debate on a government initiative to put in place superficial measures related to its own conduct.

It is very shocking, because not all Canadians can afford to pay $1,500 for privileged access to a minister or the Prime Minister. Ethical lapses continue to pile up. It began when the Prime Minister's friends moved to Ottawa from Toronto or other cities, claiming $200,000 in moving expenses. Personally, when I move, I pay for it myself, and that is also the case for Canadians.

I would like to go back to a story we hear a lot about these days. I had the opportunity to ask several questions about the famous trip taken by the Prime Minister to the Aga Khan's private island. The Prime Minister apologized for that mistake, but he said it had to do with the trip itself, which ended in January 2017. It is hard to imagine that the Prime Minister did not plan the trip with his family and that it was just a mistake. Come on. During her 11-month investigation, the previous conflict of interest and ethics commissioner learned that the trip first started being planned in the summer of 2016. People in the Prime Minister's Office, the RCMP, and the Prime Minister's family, among others, already knew that he would be visiting the Aga Khan's island. This therefore is not a simple mistake. The trip was planned, and they had the opportunity, right from the start, to ask the commissioner if precautions should be taken to avoid any conflict of interest. Unfortunately, we learned from the report that no such inquiry was submitted to the commissioner.

In addition, the Prime Minister's family so thoroughly enjoyed the trip to the Aga Khan's island, which cost Canadian taxpayers more than $200,000, that they were ready to go back there two months later, after being invited again. The family then packed up their bags and flew once more to the island, again at taxpayers' expense.

Canadians were not fooled and they are shocked. They like travelling, but they pay for their trips out of their own pockets when they choose to travel to such sunny destinations. The Prime Minister, however, chooses not to pay and to just apologize. When something is stolen, apologies are not enough. One must be accountable to society. All this leads us to believe that this bill is just a cosmetic exercise for a problem created by the Liberals. In my view, the old Liberal culture will keep rearing its ugly head, and we will be pleased to denounce it.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Halifax Nova Scotia

Liberal

Andy Fillmore LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions

Mr. Speaker, I have never owned a mule, and I have never had the opportunity to ride on a mule, but I imagine that if I had a favourite old mule, I would want to ride it as far and as long as I possibly could. Looking at things that way, I can understand why members of the official opposition party are riding this particular mule as far as they have, the mule of pretending to oppose this bill for any reason other than the true reason, which is that they do not want to have transparency in their fundraising regime.

Will the member opposite admit that this mule is tired, unsaddle it, and tell us all that the real reason for the opposition is to avoid full transparency in fundraising, such as modelled by this side of the House?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House see no problem with the political financing system. The laws in place are already very good. The Liberals created the problem, and now they are looking for a way out. Unfortunately for them, that is not going to happen. This is what happens when political financing is used to get favours, and we have to try to make the best of it.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière will have 3 minutes and 45 seconds remaining when this matter comes before the House again.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 22, 2017, consideration of the motion.

British Home Child DayPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Serge Cormier LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Motion No. 133, which seeks to declare September 28 of every year British home child day in Canada.

This motion seeks to recognize the significant contributions that the British home children made to Canada, especially their service to our armed forces throughout the 20th century.

The motion also seeks to recognize the hardships and stigmas that many of the British home children endured, as well as the importance of educating and reflecting upon their story for future generations.

I fully support this motion, and I urge my parliamentary colleagues to do the same. We should all be proud to recognize the contributions made by these people, who came to Canada as children and helped build our country.

It is estimated that 12% of Canadians have ancestors who were British home children. That is approximately 4 million people, an incredible number. In other words, one Canadian in nine. The thinking that led to the decision to uproot those children from their lives in England and send them to another country, thousands of kilometres away, seems absurd to us today. The children had no idea what awaited them. The story of their lives in Canada is happy for some and sad for others. Moreover, the background of a large number of them will forever remain unknown. Many were initially ashamed and, once they were adults, they decided to forget. They have never told their families how things went after they arrived in Canada.

Others know nothing about their families and heritage because, in some cases, the charitable organizations that brought them to Canada changed their names. They were so young when it happened, and they no longer remember their birth names or who their biological parents were. David and Kay Lorente from Renfrew, Ontario, were among the first to stand up for the rights of home children and their family members. They founded Home Children Canada, which has helped many families gain access to personal files and has raised awareness in Canada about British home children.

David’s father was a home child who, by all accounts, had a difficult time at the first farm where he was placed, but who was treated well at the second.

I would be remiss if I did not also mention the efforts that Perry Snow, John Willoughby, and Lori Oschefski have made to ensure that this important part of Canadian history is never forgotten.

The children who arrived in Canada came from all over the United Kingdom. Some of them were orphans. However, many of them had families and, for various poverty-related reasons, were placed in institutions, likely workhouses, correctional facilities, or homes run by charitable organizations.

At the time, governments on both sides of the Atlantic considered immigration of that kind to be a good idea. In the 1860s, England went through an economic depression and sending children to Canada allowed the government to divest itself of the costs of meeting their needs.

Correspondingly, Canada was expanding and farms all across the country were desperately seeking labour. Initially, the children's travel expenses were greatly subsidized in Canada. Nova Scotia provided $5 for young children and $10 for older ones. Ontario provided $6 and the federal government provided $2 for every child that the charitable organizations brought into the country.

Once the children arrived in Canada, the charitable organizations reached apprenticeship agreements in order to stabilize the working conditions of children of various ages. For the young children, the organizations gave about $5 per month in compensation to the family caring for them, whereas older children were expected to work for a living.

Most organizations required children over the age of 14 to be paid a salary for the work that they did. However, many children never received that salary and, for the majority of them, their lives were defined by the work they could do rather than by what they needed.

In fact, the apprenticeship agreements are brutal reminders that the children were not considered to be family members, but servants. What situation did the children find themselves in? It is impossible to know for sure. There is very little data available. However, by collecting letters, archives, and evidence from various inquiries held in the United Kingdom and Australia, a reasonable picture can be painted, a picture of a very difficult life that, for some, brought much suffering.

We need to recognize the pain associated with the loss of their identity, as well as the fact that some of the children were abused. This event is part of Canada's history, and we must recognize its existence today. However, many Canadians are unaware of this chapter of our country's history. I myself did not know about this story.

By declaring September 28 British Home Child Day, we send a powerful message about the importance of the personal and collective experience these children went through and the role they played in building our country.

Not only did they help build this country, they also fought to keep it free. An estimated 10,000 British home children fought for Canada in World War I. Many also fought in World War II alongside the descendants of children who came to Canada at the beginning of the immigration program.

The government has supported several awareness, commemoration, and education initiatives to highlight the many hardships British home children experienced and their contribution to Canada.

The partnership between Library and Archives Canada and the British Isles Family History Society of Greater Ottawa is one of the most important initiatives. Thanks to this partnership, extensive records held by Library and Archives Canada on the British home children have been publicly released, and most of them are also available online. These records include passenger lists, immigration branch correspondence files, inspection reports, non-government collections, and indexes to some records held in the United Kingdom.

I am certain that my colleagues will vote in favour of this motion and that the British home children will get the recognition they deserve.

Once this motion is adopted, Canadians will want to learn more about this unique event in our shared history and the contributions that British home children and their descendants have made to our country. Once again, I hope my colleagues in the House will vote yes on this motion.

British Home Child DayPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is an extreme pleasure to stand tonight to speak to the motion from my colleague, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, to establish a day to recognize British home children. In fact, this story is unknown to most in Canada.

As has been mentioned by my colleague across the aisle, almost 12% of the Canadian population either are home children or are descendants of home children. They came to Canada as young children, orphans, and they have helped to build our country to where we are today. It is a deeply personal story of hardship and overcoming adversity. It is also a story about success and health, and the families and generations that followed their wonderful example of overcoming challenges, as well as the loneliness.

The story of the British home children struck home with me through my uncle who never spoke about it. My uncle was close to me because I was the same age as my cousin and we lived only two blocks from each other.

I found out about the British home children in 2008 when I first came to the House of Commons. A minister at the time, Greg Thompson, suggested that I should learn more about this issue. Through that research, I found the story of my uncle. With further research, I found the story of many others.

This summer, I had the opportunity and the privilege to go to Stratford to view a documentary film produced by Eleanor McGrath. Eleanor decided, after she had discovered one of the orphan homes in Toronto, to follow this story and to make this unbelievably beautiful film. We just viewed it this afternoon in the precinct. By the way, the first time I viewed the movie was last summer in Stratford.

For me, the highlight of the documentary was a man named Pat Maloney. He is a British home child and is in his nineties. His children were there. The most exciting part of the movie for me, if one does not experience a strong emotion when watching it, was seeing Pat Maloney standing on top of Lancaster.

My colleague mentioned how many of these individuals served and protected our country in the war. The story that I skipped over, and I will not have enough time to describe in its fullness, is the fact that they came here as eight year olds, 11 year olds, or 14 year olds, the age of my uncle when he came here. Some of them came as young as six months old. They were brought to Canada to serve as labourers, typically in agriculture and farming because the country needed that.

Some people view this as a scheme or a plan between different countries, something we must look back on with shame. However, my heart says, after speaking to home children and their descendants, that with the majority of the experiences they had, they would never have had lives they had if they had not come through what many believed in that time period in our history to be something necessary, to rescue them from poverty and life without hope in Great Britain, for the most part.

Many homes and groups came together. Groups like Barnardo's Homes and Fegan Homes brought these children into Canada.

First, imagine being abandoned by family and delivered to an orphanage in Great Britain. Imagine living there for years. At one time, 350,000 of these children were in Bernardo's Homes. Then, imagine a posting saying that they could go to Canada or to Australia.

I have one little sidebar on my uncle's story. He had a brother and they were both delivered to the orphanage in Great Britain together because their parents could no longer afford them. When it came time to depart, they were both to come to Canada. Something happened on the dock that day and instead of them both coming to Canada, my uncle, Ken Bickerton, came to Canada and his brother went to Australia. This was at age 14. The wonderful part of this story is they were reunited in my home when they were in their seventies.

I do not think any of us can imagine the joy or the things they held inside themselves. My cousins did not know all the details about their father. They did not know whether he was a British home child. My sister alerted me, as the eldest of our five siblings, to say that she thought Uncle Ken was a home child. There are many stories like this, many of them in my community. Many of them are stories that we cannot imagine in the day and age in which we live.

We need to put this in every history book in our country. Parliamentarians at every legislature need to stand and say that Canadians must learn this story. The size and scope of the British home children who came here and who built our country should be known to all.

In that regard, the documentary that I spoke about is called, Forgotten. I will make a shameless plug for it right now. It has been distributed at many festivals. It is an award-winning documentary. It will run on TVO later this month. When we know the date and time all parliamentarians can view this wonderful story of the British home children, we will let them know.

I again want to thank my colleague for shining a light on something I tried to shine a light on in 2009-10. My first motion in the House of Commons was to declare 2010 the year of the British home child. It has never been more rewarding for me than to stand in this chamber and see all sides of the House, all members rise in support of the year of the British home child on the 140th anniversary.

I ask all colleagues in the House to stand with my colleague and declare this the permanent day of the British home child as he has asked for in this motion.

British Home Child DayPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague on this side has pointed out, it is remarkable how many members in the House of Commons are touched by this issue and who come from a line of children who were emigrated to this country, were not well treated, and should be recognized in history.

It gives me pleasure to add my support to the motion by the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry calling for September 28 to be designated British home child day in Canada. It is hoped that by designating this day Canadians will become better informed of the treatment of these children and this will contribute at least in a small way to the healing process for those home children still with us and their families.

On February 16 of last year, the House unanimously passed a motion, tabled by the member for Montcalm, recognizing the injustice, abuse, and suffering endured by British home children and to offer a sincere apology to those still living and their descendants. The New Democrats have long supported the righting of this sad chapter in Canadian history, including through motions tabled by former NDP MP Alex Atamanenko and the current member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, both calling for a formal apology.

In 2009, the Government of Australia issued a formal apology, and in 2010 the Government of the United Kingdom did. In 2011, the Government of Ontario declared September 28 as British Home Child Day. Unfortunately, the Government of Canada has yet to apologize.

In November 2009, then Conservative immigration minister Jason Kenney, in refusing the request of an apology, stated, “Canadians don't expect their government to apologize for every sad event in our history”. From what we are hearing from my colleagues on this side, I do not think they agree with their former colleague.

During the period from 1869 until 1948 over 100,000 children of all ages were sent from the United Kingdom to Canada to be used as indentured farm workers and domestics. The last shipment of boys and girls arrived on Vancouver Island at the Prince of Wales Fairbridge Farm School, near Duncan, B.C.

Canadians were falsely led to believe these children were orphans who had been living on the streets of British cities, but in truth only 2% were. Most of the children came from intact families that had fallen on hard times. It was because of a lack of a social safety net that these families had no other choice than to surrender their children. For some families, this was meant as a temporary solution until the family got back on its feet. There are numerous reported cases where families seeking to recover their children were informed they had been sent to Canada or Australia. In other cases, families were simply sent an after-sailing notification informing them that their children had been emigrated.

The British organizations were paid for each child they emigrated. For each child, the Canadian government paid $2, the British Government paid an additional $2, and the receiving family paid a $3 application fee.

Once in Canada the children were first sent to receiving homes across the country. Here in Ottawa, 1153 Wellington Street West, a little over a kilometre from this chamber, is where they were sent. From the receiving homes, the children were picked up by the families they were to work for, usually farms. The boys were assigned to farm labour and the girls to work as domestic servants.

The boys continued to work for these families until they were 18 years old and the girls until they were 21. While the receiving families contracted to house, feed, clothe, and educate these children, this was rarely the case. There was minimal effective inspection or monitoring. If an inspection was carried out, the child was interviewed in front of the receiving family.

While some of the children were fortunate to be accepted into homes as adopted children, many suffered. Many were simply used as slave labour and moved from one farm to another. Commonly, siblings were separated as well. Some of the children ran away or disappeared, some died of illness or injury resulting from negligence and abuse, and, sadly, some committed suicide.

Most home children faced stigmatization in Canada, were made to feel worthless, and told they were nobodies. Many, if not most, never even told their close families about being a home child, not wanting to face their shameful past or to avoid speaking of the painful experiences they may have endured. I am happy to hear of people revealing their stories publicly, here in the House.

Over 50 British organizations participated in this scheme. One of the largest was Dr. Barnardo's Homes. The organization immigrated 33,000 children to Canada. One of these children was Agnes Milsom, grandmother to my legislative assistant, Douglas Johnson.

Born in 1900, most of the records concerning Agnes's time in Britain were destroyed by German bombs in the Second World War. However, her family has been able to piece together a little of her life before she was sent to Canada.

Born in Bath, she was surrendered to Bernardo Homes at the age of five following the tragic death of her parents in a fire. At the age of nine, she was sent to Canada to work as a domestic servant for a family in Tweed, Ontario. The family paid Bernardo Homes $7.00 for Agnes.

After she left her service, Agnes went to work at a hospital in Peterborough and later married John Zavitz. The couple moved back to a farm near Tweed and had five daughters. Agnes died in 1927, shortly after giving birth to Margaret, her only surviving daughter, and so would not have heard people recognizing her. Margaret has said, “My mother was a slave, pure and simple.”

A Statistics Canada estimate some years ago put the number of British home children descendants in Canada today at around four million, or as many as one in eight Canadians. The descendants of these children are found in all parts of Canada, including here on Parliament Hill. While many remain hopeful of an official apology for the maltreatment of these children, the least we can do is recognize them through the declaration of September 28 as British home child day.

On behalf of my incredible legislative assistant, his mother, and his grandmother, who I am sure is watching from above, I hope that all in this place stand and support this proposal.

British Home Child DayPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is with much emotion that I rise in the House to speak about the British home children.

When I was young and full of enthusiasm, I studied history. What I like about history is that the more we learn about it, the more we realize how much we do not know. Every day, we learn something new about our history.

About two months ago, I was sitting in the House and listening closely to the speech given by my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. That is when I discovered the very moving story of the British home children. I thought I knew my country's history, but I realized that I knew very little. This is a story that is intertwined with the the history of Canada in the 20th century, and even a little before that. Between 1869 and 1948, 100,000 children left Britain for Canada and Australia. One hundred thousand children arrived in Canada.

Who were these children? They were orphans, street kids, abandoned children. As with anything else, things born of good intentions sometimes end badly.

When the British home children program was created in the 19th century, the idea was to literally remove children, some of them two or three years old or even younger, from the miserable conditions they were living in, many of them on the streets of London, and take them to the glorious promised land of Canada.

For many of them, it was a dream come true. They were welcomed by farm families, they grew up, they went to school, they were cared for. Later, they started their own families and had descendants. For others, it was a tragedy of the highest order. Some were taken in by families that did not mean well, people who exploited them as slave labour on their farms. These people gave them the bare minimum they needed to survive, neglected their education and social life, and fed them just enough to keep them useful on the farm, literally turning them into slaves.

Over the years, 100,000 English children were brought to this country. Now here is a sobering thought: we estimate that nearly 10% of the current Canadian population is descended from those children. That brings it home. Those children were their great-grandfathers, their great-grandmothers, their ancestors five or six generations back who came to live here, and many of them have been forgotten.

I love my country, and I love its history, which I have studied extensively, but I did not know about this chapter in our history until I heard my colleague talk about it in the House. I am not exaggerating when I say that since then, I have thought of those children almost constantly. Nothing moves me more than the story of unhappy children.

Let us look at the reality of the situation now. Today, there are millions of Canadians who are descended from these men and women who were torn from their homeland as children to come live here, many of whom suffered, some of whom were nonetheless successful. Their sixth-, seventh- and even eighth-generation descendants are with us today. These are proud people. They contribute to our country today, just as their ancestors did, despite the challenges they may have faced. That is why we must celebrate the successes of those children, and especially their descendants, who contribute to the wealth and growth of our country. We can be proud of our ancestors, especially when we know that our ancestors may have suffered terrible human tragedies and hopelessness. People are incredibly resilient.

Life made sure that this courage, this tenacity, this will to survive was passed down from one generation to the next, and today there are millions of Canadians who are the descendants of those abandoned children who came here to Canada to contribute to the prosperity and growth of this country.

Yes, the descendants can be proud of their ancestors who have been helping to build this country for generations. Yes, they can be proud.

In a way, we are all the product of our ancestors. We were not around when our great-grandparents decided to settle down, here for some, elsewhere for others, but we should all be proud of our own personal roots. Sometimes the past includes horror stories. Maybe our ancestors were criminals. Maybe our ancestors were lunatics, or maybe they experienced tragedy, but life goes on.

This is a legacy that must be preserved, that we must all know and teach our children. Every story deserves to be heard. About 40 years ago, Alex Haley wrote the book Roots, which told the story of his great-great-great-grandfather, Kunta Kinte, who was taken from his native village of Juffureh in 1767 and sold into slavery in America. Seven generations later, that man's story was told and broadcast on television in the famous series Roots, which we called Racines in French. Tens of millions of African-Americans finally had a name, an image, a reality for telling their story.

Sadly, the British home children may at one time have been embarrassed by their story, uncomfortable with the reality they experienced, unwilling to boast about the challenges they overcame to succeed and settle here, have a family with generations to follow, but today, their descendants can be extraordinarily proud of their ancestors.

They managed to overcome all these challenges and grow up despite the pain they endured and the indignity they suffered at the hands of certain authorities who either turned a blind eye or encouraged the crime of exploiting children on a farm. That is clearly a crime regardless of whether we are talking about the 19th century or the 20th century.

The courage of these people is to be commended. They should not be embarrassed or ashamed of what happened. On the contrary, they should be proud. The best way to be proud of one's ancestors is to live the life we were given, carry on the extraordinary legacy of our ancestors and teach it to future generations.

Everyone has their own story with its share of pain. A painful family history need not dictate how one lives one's life. Rather, that history should be a source of inspiration to do greater things, become even stronger, rise up and proudly embrace one's truth. What I am saying is quite philosophical, but there are words, and then there is reality. Some four million Canadians are descendants of the children who ended up here because of painful circumstances but who went on to help Canada prosper and succeed.

Better still, there are people right here in this House who are descended from the British children we are paying tribute to today. Through those descendants, we honour the hundreds of thousands of children who came here and helped build this great nation.

British Home Child DayPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Resuming debate. Right of reply, the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

British Home Child DayPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise this evening.

I would like to begin by thanking my hon. colleagues from all sides of the House for their comments, insights, and stories from constituents, which highlight the scope and influence the British home children have had on our shared story as Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Despite writing a vital chapter in the story of Canada, many Canadians have never heard a whisper of their stories.

As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, over 10% of the Canadian population can trace their heritage directly to the British home children, yet so many will never know the truth of their ancestry due, in part, to the fact that many British home children carried a stigma of neglect, abuse, torment, and isolation. This burden they carried, which was completely unfounded, was carried long into their adulthood, with so many not wanting to talk about their early lives, therefore burying a piece of our country's history.

From the speeches and comments by my colleagues from all parties, it is clear that these Canadians and their descendants are more than deserving of being recognized with an official day of remembrance that would take place on September 28 of every year.

Until recent years, very few Canadians knew about British home children. Their stories of hardship, courage, determination, and perseverance were not part of Canadian history books. This needs to change. The more than 100,000 British home children, from infancy to 18 years of age, who were sent to Canada from Great Britain, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales between 1869 and 1948 helped to build the foundation of our emerging country. Many were farm labourers and domestic workers in homes spread right across this wonderful country called Canada.

Despite the good intentions of individuals, philanthropists, faith-based groups, and charitable organizations that sought to care for these unfortunate children and truly believed that they were doing a good and noble thing for them, unfortunately there were those who sought to take advantage of these children. Often the children went into rural areas, where they were seen by many as cheap labour, and worked from before sunrise to after sunset.

Although many of the home children were treated very poorly, neglected, and mentally and physically abused, many others did experience better lives. Some were welcomed as one of the family and were loved and nurtured. Most of these children drew on their outstanding courage, strength, and perseverance and went on to lead healthy and productive lives. They contributed to the growth and development of Canada, with many British home children enlisting in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War.

In my opinion, and that of thousands of Canadians right across this wonderful country, the Government of Canada should undertake whatever means it has at its disposal to help preserve and highlight this important part of our history. Passing this motion will be a small step in making that mission come to pass.

I have had the honour of sponsoring this motion. When I first heard about this wonderful cause, I researched it, in part, and was intrigued. As I watched the wonderful film this afternoon by my new friend, Eleanor McGrath, everyone in the room was very emotional. Many of us were made tearful by this wonderful documentary.

When we look at the suffering and strength of these wonderful people, we have to honour them by remembering them on one day each year. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues from every side of this House to lend their support to my motion to ensure that the stories and the names of the British home children are forever ingrained in the story of Canada.

I thank the descendants of the British home children for bringing this to our attention here in Parliament.

British Home Child DayPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

British Home Child DayPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

British Home Child DayPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

British Home Child DayPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.