Charlie Angus

[Ethics, October 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to ethics, the Prime Minister promised to do better, but now the finance minister is defending his cash for access scheme by saying he is simply following the rules of the Harper government.

When Bev Oda tried that same scheme, she gave the money back, so why has he not given the money back?

No wonder the Ethics Commissioner is calling his behaviour “unsavoury”. If the finance minister does not think what he doing is illegal, will he tell us whether he thinks it is ethical, or is he content to just be unsavoury?

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have such enormous respect for my colleague, and he knows what institutional attempts to destroy families mean; he has lived it.

What we are talking about today is a compliance order by the Human Rights Tribunal, and we hear the Liberals making things up in the House, claiming that these numbers came out of thin air when the government has had the numbers for eight months and has offered no counter-numbers. For the minister to stand in this House and say these numbers were pulled out of thin air, to me is a slap in the face to the work of Cindy Blackstock and all the people on the ground who did this work and brought forward these numbers.

Given the Liberals' sudden concern that they have to consult and they are going to get an online portal, it is a question of priorities. Look at the Site C project. What the Minister of Justice said was a complete overriding of indigenous rights. The indigenous people asked the government to work with the communities on those permits, but the Liberals rubber-stamped those permits immediately because it was a priority for the Prime Minister. It was the same with the LNG project. When the chiefs came here to talk, the Liberals were already in Vancouver approving it. They did not set up a consultation process.

Why is it that the Liberals can take all the time in the world when we have children dying in my riding, dying in northwestern Ontario, dying and being denied basic services? That is what we are talking about. It is pennies for these children, but the Liberals can take all the time in the world to consult.

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the work my colleague does on our committee. Today we have seen a government that seems to believe the compliance order of the tribunal does not apply to it. The Liberals have ridiculed the shortfall numbers, saying they were made up, or pulled out of thin air or, as I think the minister said, cooked up in a back room. These numbers have been put forward by Cindy Blackstock to the tribunal and they have gone unanswered.

I want to ask my colleague about his concerns on the residential schools. He has heard the intimate connection between the suicide crisis and the residential schools. He has brought forward a motion to committee to study the implementation of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation commission. The first four recommendations are about the overhaul of the child welfare system and the implementation of Jordan's principle.

The New Democrats support the view that we should be looking to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the implementation, as my colleague does. I am concerned the Liberals are walking away on those commitments.

I want to ask my hon. colleague if he is concerned about any efforts that would happen at our committee if we did not take the time to find out whether the government is actually serious about implementing the promises of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We know the Prime Minister said that would be his priority.

It will come before committee. We have not voted yet. Does my colleague have any concerns that the Liberals are against reviewing something as simple and straightforward as whether Canada is in compliance with the recommendations in the call to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report?

[Indigenous Affairs, October 27th, 2016]

Nine hundred kids? That is it? Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House agrees that the first nations child welfare system is underfunded. The question is whether the government will comply with the legal ruling ordering it to take immediate action. After nine months, and two compliance orders later, the government's notion of “immediate” becomes clear. Wait for it: more consultations and an online survey.

The government can consult all it wants. The question is whether the Prime Minister believes he is above the law of the land, while first nations children are scooted by the law.

It is a simple question. Will the Prime Minister support our motion to bring the Liberal government into compliance with the Human Rights Tribunal ruling that orders immediate action on the—

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is willing to work with the tribunal, then there should not be a problem with this motion.

What I am sensing is that the Liberal government has a problem with priorities. When it came time to rubber-stamp the Site C permits, despite the questions by people from Treaty No. 8 that this ran roughshod over their legal rights, the permits were rubber-stamped immediately, as was the pipeline through the Great Bear Rainforest, because it was a priority.

However, when it came time to meeting the compliance orders of the Human Rights Tribunal, after nine months, the government has announced that it is going to have an online survey and put someone out on the road to do consultations. That might be great for the Liberals, but the question I have is this. Why is she consulting with the first nations when her government is refusing requests for mediation by the Human Rights Tribunal, by Cindy Blackstock, and by Chief Perry Bellegarde of the Assembly of First Nations, who has told her government to come to the table for mediation?

What we hear very clearly is that the Liberals believe they are above the law of the land, that Liberals can appoint people to go around and talk on their behalf, that they can set up an online system, and that they can continue to delay compliance with the Human Rights Tribunal ruling. Meanwhile, they are refusing mediation at the tribunal level.

Are the Liberals going to support this motion or do they believe that the Prime Minister is above the law of the land, while indigenous children are left below the law of the land?

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Minister of Health did not deliver a speech on something of this importance. That is not to denigrate my colleague, but what we are talking about here is compliance with the law and whether or not the government believes it is obliged to respect a tribunal ruling of systemic discrimination and two compliance orders. Issues of childhood obesity and diabetes I am sure are interesting on other days, but they are really irrelevant to this discussion on Jordan's principle, which the House calls on the government to respect in full, in line with it motion on Jordan's principle.

The Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs has told us that the government does not accept that full motion, that it will be limited to children with disabilities. In fact, in the tribunal hearings we have seen the government limiting its denials to children on reserve with short-term critical illnesses or disability.

Therefore, I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. The denial rates for children needing orthopaedic surgery are 99% in first round appeals, 99% in second round appeals, and 100% in third round appeals. Her minister is spending more money fighting a young child in court to deny special orthopaedic surgery than it would have cost to provide that treatment in the first place. Can the hon. member explain to anyone out there watching how her government would rather spend money on lawyers than on children with special needs requiring orthopaedic surgery?

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point my colleague to part (b) of our motion, where we ask the government to implement the full definition of Jordan's principle, as outlined by the House of Commons. I mention that because I was absolutely shocked that the Minister of Indigenous Affairs today came up with her own definition of Jordan's principle.

She said that it used to be “multiple handicaps for multiple service providers”, but as of July, children with disabilities will get care. In fact, what it means at the tribunal is that children with critical short-term illnesses or severe disabilities, if they are on reserve, will get care.

That is not what Jordan's principle says. Maybe the minister is making things up now with Indigenous Affairs, so that they can rewrite a motion in the House of Commons.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this question. Jordan's principle was that any first nation child needing care will get care. It did not define what kind of care or who is eligible. I want to ask her why there is this disconnect, with the government pretending that Jordan's principle that was passed is somehow different and so much more restrictive.

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, an issue my colleague raised was financial accountability. Whenever money is designated for children, we want to ensure children get that money. This is about all of us having a moral and legal responsibility to look out for children.

The Liberals have told me that the number we brought forward was created behind closed doors, or that it was pulled out of thin air. I do not know what bureaucracy Cindy Blackstock has. These numbers were given to the tribunal over eight months ago, and the government has refused to counter with any numbers of its own. If there is to be transparency and accountability, one would think that departments as big as Indian Affairs and Health Canada, which have enormous numbers of staff, could rebut Cindy Blackstock, who has a team of three or four.

We have a set of numbers laid out with respect to the shortfall and no one from the government has countered with a credible number in the nine-month period. What it is offering us now is another series of endless consultations.

What does my hon. colleague think of that? After nine years of court battles, a ruling was made by the tribunal. Surely somebody on the other side would have actually crunched the numbers to give the House a credible number of what that shortfall was.

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the minister's comments on the Liberals inheriting a broken system, this has been broken for decades.

Her colleague said that it was the Harper government, and we all know that, but what I am trying to get my head wrapped around is that when it came time to put forward a child welfare plan, it does not seem to be based on the minister's vision of a proactive grassroots approach to helping children. Instead, the government actually presented the Harper numbers. The $71 million in the budget this year was decided before the tribunal's ruling and before the current government came in. We're actually dealing with a road map that was created by the previous government, which is not in response to the Human Rights Tribunal.

When the minister says this is not just about the tribunal, we get it that there is a bigger issue, but what we are talking about today is compliance with the Human Rights Tribunal. That is the issue.

On Jordan's principle, I do not want to contradict the minister, but the tribunal has limited the definition of Jordan's principle to children with short-term needs, such as the badly handicapped, on reserve. There may be 900 more children getting it, but Jordan's principle in full is that all children in first nations deserve equal medical treatment, and the Liberals are not complying with that.

Will the government change the definition at the tribunal and stop these court cases against children?

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

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.