King urged to seek Canadian apology for historical abuse of British children
King Charles and Queen Camilla are being urged to use their visit to Canada to seek an apology for the abuse of British children.
Campaigners have called on them to pursue an apology for the "dire circumstances" suffered by so-called "Home Children" over decades.
More than 100,000 were shipped from orphan homes in the UK to between 1869 and 1948 with many used as cheap labour, typically as farm workers and domestic servants. Many were subject to mistreatment and abuse.
Canada has resisted calls to follow the UK and Australia in apologising for its involvement in child migrant schemes.
Campaigners for the Home Children say presents a "great opportunity" for a change of heart.
"I would ask that uses his trip to request an apology," John Jefkins told Sky News.
John's father Bert was one of 115,000 British Home Children transported to Canada, arriving in 1914 with his brother Reggie.
"It's really important for the Home Children themselves and for their descendants," John said.
"It's something we deserve and it's really important for the healing process, as well as building awareness of the experience of the Home Children.
"They were treated very, very badly by the Canadian government at the time. A lot of them were abused, they were treated horribly. They were second-class citizens, lepers in a way."
John added: "I think the King's visit provides a great opportunity to reinforce our campaign and to pursue an apology because we're part of the Commonwealth and King Charles is a new Head of the Commonwealth meeting a new Canadian prime minister. It's a chance, for both, to look at the situation with a fresh eye.
"There's much about this visit that looks on our sovereignty and who we are as Canadians, rightly so.
"I think it's also right that in contemplating the country we built, we focus on the people who built it, many in the most trying of circumstances."
More from Sky News:Analysis: King is 'piggy in the middle' in Canada-US stand-off
King Charles and Queen Camilla .
On Tuesday, the King will deliver the Speech from the Throne to open the 45th session of Canada's parliament.
Camilla was made Patron of Barnardo's in 2016. The organisation sent tens of thousands of Home Children to Canada. She took on the role, having served as president since 2007.
Buckingham Palace has been contacted for comment.
A spokesperson for the Canadian government said: "The government of Canada is committed to keeping the memory of the British Home Children alive.
"Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada deeply regrets this unjust and discriminatory policy, which was in place from 1869 to 1948. Such an approach would have no place in modern Canada, and we must learn from past mistakes."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
10 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Fulbright board resigns over alleged Trump administration interference
The entire 12-person board tasked with overseeing the State Department's Fulbright Program resigned Wednesday, claiming political interference from the Trump administration. In a statement posted on the board's Substack, the congressionally mandated Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board said its members voted 'overwhelmingly' to resign from the board 'rather than endorse unprecedented actions that we believe are impermissible under the law, compromise U.S. national interests and integrity, and undermine the mission and mandates Congress established for the Fulbright program nearly 80 years ago.'
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Inside Education Secretary McMahon's Fight Against Harvard
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon is leading the administration's fight against elite universities. She sat down with WSJ to discuss her thinking and if there is room for compromise. Photo: Greg Kahn for WSJ
E&E News
an hour ago
- E&E News
Trump's EPA delivers new blow to Biden climate agenda
The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it's revoking limits on power plants' climate pollution — removing the cornerstone of a decadelong strategy to douse one of the nation's largest sources of heat-trapping gases. The proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency would free thousands of existing and future facilities that burn coal or natural gas from regulations aimed at lowering their output of carbon dioxide pollution. It comes as President Donald Trump has shuttered climate change offices across the government, fired scientists and frozen billions of dollars in funding for renewable energy projects. EPA's plan to unshackle the power sector — the second-largest source of U.S. climate pollution, behind transportation — collides with the agency's past assertions that the most effective way to slow rising temperatures is by tackling the biggest contributors of greenhouse gases. Advertisement Administrator Lee Zeldin has reversed that argument. His proposed repeal of President Joe Biden's 2024 power plant climate rule asserts that the electricity-generating facilities contribute too little climate pollution globally to warrant being regulated. That's even though the United States is the world's second-largest climate polluter, ranking only behind China. The U.S. power sector releases more carbon emissions than all but five countries. EPA's new rule said that greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. fossil fuel power plants are not significant because they 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions; cost-effective control measures are not reasonably available; and because this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.' Power plants are responsible for almost a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, or about 2.7 percent of all global climate pollution, according to EPA. The agency argued in its proposed rollback that the facilities' don't contribute 'significantly' to global warming, using language from a legal threshold for regulation in the Clean Air Act. The assertion promises to ignite court challenges from green groups and Democratic-led states. 'The collision between Republican political imperatives driven by the fossil fuel industry and fact and reality is particularly apparent in this because power plant emissions in the United States are a very significant part of global emissions,' said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). 'So it's just plain false to pretend this isn't a big deal.' If the courts uphold the EPA rule, which the administration expects to finalize this year, it could free the government from legal requirements to regulate climate emissions from other stationary sources such as refineries and industrial facilities. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin arrives to speak during a policy announcement at the EPA headquarters in Washington on Wednesday. | Francis Chung/POLITICO The administration also announced it will roll back (Reg. 2060-AW68) a separate Biden-era rule aimed at reducing power plants' releases of toxic mercury into the air (Reg. 2060-AV53), strengthening the original Obama-era standards. EPA's plan also targets a 2015 rule requiring new coal plants to capture a share of their carbon emissions. The Obama-era standard remained on the books throughout the first Trump administration — largely because no new coal-fired power plants were planned. The rollback comes as EPA targets the scientific underpinning for its authority to limit climate pollution — not just from power plants, but also the transportation sector, the largest U.S. source of warming gases. Called the endangerment finding, the landmark 2009 conclusion found that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health. EPA is expected to announce later this year whether it plans to repeal that finding, a step that could allow the Trump administration to stop regulating climate pollution from cars and trucks. Together, those vehicles are responsible for about 30 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions or around 3.4 percent globally. To regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to determine that such pollution 'causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.' Jarrod Agen: Trump is a fan of fossil fuels, says they got a 'bad deal' lead image In the final days of Trump's first term in January 2021, EPA issued a surprise rule defining the significance threshold at 3 percent of U.S. emissions. Such a level would have maintained regulation over power plants but exempted every other industry, including oil and gas production, oil refining and industrial boilers used in a variety of manufacturing sectors. The rule was later vacated in court because the Trump administration had issued it as a final rule without going through the required public rulemaking process. This time, EPA is going even further by effectively saying that no industry in the U.S. contributes 'significantly' to climate change, and thus the agency has no authority to regulate (Reg. 2060-AW55). Yet the U.S. has contributed one-fifth of the pollution that has driven climate change to date and remains the world's second-largest source of planet-heating gases. That means greenhouse gases from any U.S. sector intensify warming, said Noah Diffenbaugh, a climate science professor at Stanford University. The science shows that each increment of warming from those emissions causes a 'multiple, exponential effect' in terms of the impacts to the planet, he said. That brings severe economic costs. Diffenbaugh's research group found that over a nearly 30-year period, heavier precipitation linked to climate change resulted in 36 percent of U.S. financial losses from flooding, while hotter temperatures caused about 20 percent of insured crop losses. Damages amounted to tens of billions of dollars. 'We can absolutely expect the stresses that we experience from the climate system to accelerate,' he said. 'How much of that we experience really does depend on how much humans emit going forward in the future.' The agency is also proposing to repeal the Biden administration's power plant climate rule (Reg. 2060-AV09). That regulation effectively required coal-fired power plants planning to operate long-term to install technology to capture most of their carbon emissions — something no coal plant in the U.S. has ever done on that scale. It also required some new gas-fired power plants to eventually install carbon capture systems. Industry groups have argued that using carbon capture systems as the rule's benchmark technology was impractical and possibly illegal. During oral arguments over the rule in December, several federal appellate judges questioned whether carbon capture technology was ready for the kind of wide-scale deployment EPA's rule would require — even if the agency expected most power plants would choose to shut down rather than invest significant sums in pollution controls. The court never decided whether Biden's rule was lawful. The 2024 rule would also have required coal plants that commit to closing by 2039 to reduce emissions by co-firing with gas — a requirement the Trump administration proposed to strike down because it says it violates a Supreme Court prohibition on fuel shifting. The Biden rule was EPA's third effort to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants. In 2015, the Obama administration issued the Clean Power Plan, which relied heavily on utilities shifting away from coal and toward natural gas and renewables to reduce climate pollution across the electricity sector. The Supreme Court later ruled that the plan overstepped the agency's authority, which the justices said is limited to addressing pollution from specific sources as opposed to entire industries. During Trump's first term, EPA issued a rule requiring only minor efficiency upgrades to coal plants. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck that down because EPA had refused to consider other methods of emissions reductions. Despite EPA spinning its wheels on tackling power plant climate pollution for more than a decade, the sector has reduced its emissions anyway — by about 41 percent from its peak in 2007, according to EPA data. The decrease was caused by a long-term shift away from coal as market forces and the risk of EPA eventually imposing climate rules pushed the sector to use more natural gas and renewable energy. Zack Colman, Annie Snider and Josh Siegel contributed to this report.
