Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the response is not simple. We believe in compensation and ensuring that all those who have been disadvantaged or discriminated against by the child welfare system are compensated.
The issue with the CHRT decision is about jurisdiction. It is about the size and the scope of the decision. It is also about ensuring there is proportionality between what is merited and meted out to individual claimants. The decision itself purports to provide $40,000 of compensation to every indigenous child, regardless of whether the child spent a week in the child welfare system or up to 20 years. That subverts a basic principle of proportionality that needs to be addressed.
We are not seeking to deprive compensation to first nations children; we are seeking to calibrate it carefully, so that in some cases they may merit more than $40,000-worth of compensation. To show good faith—