Debates of Sept. 29th, 1994

Supply

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer will be very short, as requested. It is precisely the lack of clear answers and, in some cases, the total lack of answers that the member for Berthier-Montcalm who represented our party on the committee had to endure, which motivated the opposition.

If, during the summer, the member, acting as our official representative, had been able to get the answers he was looking for, obviously this motion would have been very different. In our view, if the government is willing to change its attitude and wants to get to the bottom of this, as we do, the only way to proceed is to call for a royal commission. This is what we contend.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time I think I might begin with my conclusion and then get to the beginning part.

It is my feeling the hon. member's motion is flawed and that it assumes the veracity of the recent allegations that have come to light in the media. The allegations have in no way been substantiated by fact or tested by the accountability of the system that is already in place in the CSIS act as it exists. The motion is premature, if not inappropriate at this time.

The Security Intelligence Review Committee has appeared at the subcommittee of the House and offered assurances that its review of the matter will be painstaking, thorough and complete, and I expect nothing but that. The House should respect that commitment and await the outcome of the legislative process of review prior to reaching any conclusion on the matter.

A basic principle of any democratic system should be the presumption of innocence. Unsubstantiated allegations which lead people to reach immediate conclusions of guilt fly in the face of this basic principle. Whether it is an institution or whether it is an individual, it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that due process is followed and that only facts are entertained in reaching a decision.

To date we have not been apprised of the facts. Nor have we been allowed due process to be followed. Sensationalism and innuendo, a lot of it in the House, have no place when we are dealing with national security issues.

The CSIS act provides Parliament and all Canadians with both a process and an opportunity to reach factual conclusions. Regrettably in recent weeks we have seen a frenzy of unsubstantiated allegations and finger pointing that has undermined public confidence, about which many members have spoken today, in an important institution charged with significant responsibilities in ensuring the public safety of all Canadians.

Members of the House, the media and all other Canadians have a responsibility in allowing the effective systems we have in place to run their course. Our national security ultimately depends on the public's confidence in the people and the institutions which are designed to ensure it.

CSIS as part of this regime implicitly depends upon public co-operation to meet its mandate. It is our responsibility in the House to ensure that the review regime as prescribed in the CSIS act is allowed to run its course and address any doubts about our national security system.

In the meantime members of Parliament should not encourage the distrust the member for Wild Rose spoke about. They should follow the process, review the information, and then if we are unhappy with the outcome the motion might be in order.

It is important to remember how CSIS got here. In fact many members have spoken about that.

It has been 10 years since Parliament passed the act which created the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This was done following lengthy deliberation and with the full participation of the then members of Parliament following the conclusion of the McDonald commission of inquiry into the activities of the RCMP security service.

This latter inquiry was extensive and exhaustive in addressing concerns about the activities of the RCMP security service. The recommendation was clear that the national security interests of Canada would best be served by a civilian agency. I believe that the regime and the powers created by Parliament in 1984 by the enactment of the CSIS act fulfil the requirements of accountability to the Canadian people because the act itself fulfils the five basic principles which emerged from the McDonald commission.

I will remind members of Parliament what those principles were. The first was the provision of security and intelligence is essential to the security of Canada. Second, there is an adequate legal framework within which a security service would co-operate under the rule of law while recognizing the democratic rights of all Canadians. The third was an effective management system to ensure responsible direction and a respect for the law. The fourth was effective accountability to ministers who are responsible to Parliament or responsibility subsequently assigned by Parliament to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The fifth principle was openness to satisfactory external review, ensuring that the agency does not abuse its power and that it is not misused by governments.

These principles were adopted by government in the drafting of the CSIS act and confirmed in Parliament in 1984. In 1989 Parliament met the statutory requirement of the CSIS act by reviewing the effectiveness of the act and its stated objectives.

It has been some five years since this review and I see no reason to question the validity of that document produced at the time. The recent flurry of allegations about CSIS are just that, allegations. The allegations have not yet been subjected to the full scrutiny of the review regime outlined in CSIS.

It is worthy to note that the CSIS act is comprised of 29 pages, half of which are devoted to the control and review mechanisms applied to CSIS in the performance of its duties and functions. This fact alone should provide us with initial comfort in assessing the concerns that have been raised over the last seven weeks in the media. Each year for the last 10 years the House has been provided with an annual report from the Security Intelligence Review Committee. While initially it was critical, it has in the last few years been much better and much more clear in its issues because of course CSIS is getting better and better in its operations.

It is important to remember that here we are in 1994 and there still are threats to Canadian security. International terrorism remains a threat to world order. From time to time Canada is a base for activities in support of terrorism in other countries. Terrorist acts can have direct impacts on the lives of Canadians. The guests of Canada can also be the subject of terrorist threats.

We do not want to be subject to violence in this country nor do we want our reputation as a nation internationally damaged. It is important to remember that this does exist. The technology of terrorism is becoming more accessible. The World Trade Centre bombing confirms that this is so. The sources of terrorism remain strong: nationalism, religious and political extremism, state sponsored terrorism, ethnic unrest and regional conflict.

Canadians thankfully in recent years have been spared in large part from those acts of terror but we live in a world that is becoming increasingly smaller as a consequence of globalization. What happens in a distant part of the world can have an immediate impact in Canada. We are no longer isolated from what was at one time viewed as a far off regional conflict. We have responsibilities to assist our allies and protect ourselves in countering the effects of international security concerns.

Our borders are long and open and we are part of a global transportation and communication system. Canadians and Canadian soil are not immune from security concerns. Terrorism is not an abstract force sowing its horror in a foreign land. Canada and Canadians are vulnerable and have been vulnerable in the past. Canada's evident prosperity and open society make it sometimes all too inviting a venue.

The CSIS act defines the roles and responsibilities for the Solicitor General, the deputy Solicitor General and the director of CSIS.

This regime provides a full measure of checks and balances in ongoing CSIS operations, particularly those of a most intrusive nature. Approvals are required from a federal court judge for the utilization of these most intrusive measures.

This is a clear reflection of the priority and concern that the public and parliamentarians attach to the potential for abuse of power by a security service, given the extraordinary means that it would have at its disposal to intervene in the private lives of Canadian citizens.

As a member of Parliament, I am very concerned about this. For these reasons special care, precision and clarity were used in describing the mandate of CSIS in the act and the role of the various review bodies in control mechanisms.

The system has evolved over a 10-year period and works effectively to guard the integrity of CSIS conduct. Certainly the process we are now in will determine whether that is the case.

In addition to the the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the Solicitor General also has available the Office of the Inspector General to ensure CSIS complies with policy, procedures and ministerial direction. By international standards this is the most complex control and accountability system in the world. We should all be proud of that.

This is what Canadians demanded in 1994 and creates the balance we see in the system today. Let us see the system work. Then we will have motions like this if they are appropriate and needed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 5.50 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 81(19), debate on the motion is now concluded.

Child Poverty

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reaffirming its commitment to seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.

Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, the motion that I seek approval for today is that the government should consider the advisability of reaffirming its commitment to seek to achieve a goal of eliminating child poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.

On November 24, 1989 the then member for Oshawa put forward a motion essentially in the same terms as follows: "That this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000".

That motion received unanimous support from this House. All members present voted in favour of that motion. They voted to commit this country to eliminating child poverty by the year 2000.

That gave rise to Campaign 2000, a group of organizations fighting for the implementation of this motion, fighting to ensure that our most precious resource, the resource which will provide for our future, receives some attention in Canada today.

As many will know, the number of Canadian children living in poverty has increased since that time, now amounting to some 1.3 million children. Not only have we not brought a downward trend in child poverty, but in Canada it has increased.

Canadians who care about children and children themselves will be watching Parliament's response to this motion. Does this Parliament care about children as it did in 1989? Does it want to reduce and move to eliminate poverty among Canadian children, our greatest resource? Does this Parliament view child poverty as an emergency situation, which surely it is in Canada today? Or will it try to turn a blind eye and a cold heart to those 1.3 million poor children in Canada?

At the end of my speech I will seek unanimous consent to make this motion votable, as it was in 1989, in the anticipation that this Parliament is as committed as the Parliament in 1989 was to Canadian children. We may believe there are different ways to eliminate child poverty in Canada. We have different philosophical and economic perspectives on how to achieve this most important and laudable goal.

It would be remarkable if anyone in this House would not support a motion to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.

As I said, since 1989 child poverty has worsened in Canada and I would like to give some indication of how deep and how serious this matter is by quoting some statistics. I will do that at some length because I am sure many Canadians are unaware of how serious this problem is in Canada. They may have a sense of the numbers involved but I do not think many have a sense of how deep and how serious this problem is and how important it is in the long term for Canada because of the economic and social costs which are incurred as a result of not addressing this very serious social problem today.

The high school dropout rate for children from poor families is 2.5 times that for non-poor families; children in families with incomes in the bottom 20 per cent of the population were twice as likely to be living in inadequate housing than in families with incomes in the top 20 per cent, and 1.4 times more likely than children living in middle income families.

The infant mortality rate is twice as high among families at the lowest income level as it is among families at the highest level. Low birth weight is related to poverty as well; it is 1.4 times more common among babies born in the poorest families than children born in the richest families. Children from low income families are 1.7 times more likely to have psychiatric disorders than children from other families and almost twice as likely to perform poorly in school and twice as likely to develop a conduct disorder, a behavioural problem.

Teens in low income families are almost twice as likely as teens in higher income families to smoke and to have alcohol problems, and 1.5 times more likely to use drugs.

Children who grow up in low income families are less healthy, have less access to skill building activities, more destructive habits and behaviour, live more stressful lives and are subject to more humiliation. In short, they have a less stable, less secure existence and as a result are likely to be less secure as adults.

It is sometimes thought that people are poor because they do not work. Yet half those who live below the poverty line in Canada do work. Half of Canadians who are poor work to earn a living and still cannot sustain themselves above the poverty line.

The total number of poor households has grown substantially over the last two decades. The number of poor families increased from 700,000 in 1973 to almost one million in 1992, a jump of 41 per cent. Similarly, the number of poor unattached individuals grew by 79 per cent. The total number of poor households in 1992, the last year for which numbers are available, was 2.36 million, an increase of almost a million since 1973.

A family is five times more likely to be poor if the head of that family has not worked during the year. One earner families face four times the risk faced by two earner families. Twenty-five per cent of the heads of poor families and 15 per cent of poor unattached individuals work a full year, but in spite of this they are still poor.

What distinguishes poor families from other families is on the whole lower levels of formal education and lower levels of employment.

Let me say a brief word about aboriginal peoples because it is there where we find the greatest level of poverty. The incomes of aboriginal peoples tend to be lower than the incomes of other Canadians; almost one-half have incomes well below $10,000 compared with one-quarter of other Canadians. Almost three-quarters of aboriginal peoples have incomes under $20,000 compared with only 50 per cent of other Canadians. The proportion of aboriginal people falling below the poverty line is increasing and is about 20 per cent higher than the Canadian population at large.

Let me also say a word about persons who are disabled in Canada because that is another group that is over-represented in the poverty group. Those with disabilities are 25 per cent more likely to be poor than Canadians of the same age.

Part of this problem is because income distribution in Canada is getting worse. The gap between rich and poor is increasing and is at around 1951 levels. The top 20 per cent of Canadian households, the richest 20 per cent, receive about nine times the income of the bottom 20 per cent. That gap is increasing in spite of some measures taken in the 1970s and 1980s.

The number of poor families in the 1980s and 1990s increased by 18 per cent. One of the most significant increases was among younger families. We have essentially addressed to a large measure the problem of poverty among seniors because we cared that seniors who had provided so much to the country should be able to live their last years in dignity. We addressed the problem of poverty among seniors because we had the political will to do so.

We sometimes hear from the government that more education is the answer to the problems of poverty that people face or the inability of people to participate effectively in the marketplace. Over the last decade it has become clear there is a large increase of families living in poverty whose heads have post-secondary degrees. The number of poor families where one or more of the adults held a post-secondary degree almost doubled in the decade of the 1980s. Therefore higher education is no guarantee against poverty but it is clearly an important element of the fight against poverty.

Unless employment and the income picture improve, the poor will increasingly represent a larger portion of our population. We know about the incidence of poverty among single parent families. We know too that it is increasing.

We also should bear in mind that the poverty gap, the gap between what people need in order to live at the poverty line and the money they actually receive from income and from other government supports is increasing. Indeed the increase in that gap was almost $3 billion in the decade of the 1990s due largely to an increase in the number of poor.

The numbers go on and on and they are be depressing enough for everyone and should be enough to make us feel urgently of the need to address this important issue.

The numbers of people living in poverty, the numbers of children living in poverty are growing. The gap between what they receive in increment and support systems and what they need in order to survive at a moderate level of dignity is increasing. The numbers of people working full time and nonetheless poor are increasing.

Without an effective strategy to deal with this problem Canadians will continue to suffer with the second highest child poverty rates in the world. As we all know, only the United States has a worse child poverty rate than Canada and yet as we see with the suggestions for social security reform the government is proposing that we move to a more Americanized social security network. We need to do something about our tax system. We need to do something about our economic system so

that there are adequate jobs for those who need them to raise their families.

It is not a question of people not wanting to work, not being able to work. It is a question of insufficient jobs to provide income through the traditional workforce for all who need it.

In making a few suggestions for where we should proceed let me just say that children who just happen to be born to poor parents, and after all children do not choose to whom they are born, if they are unfortunate enough in terms of economic opportunity and social depravation to be born to poor parents, on average, they will be born with lower birth weight. They will be sick more often and when they are sick they will be sicker than those richer children. They do less well at school. They will be more likely to drop out of school. They will have more accidents. They are more likely to be unemployed. When they are unemployed they are more likely to be unemployed for longer than children of richer parents. They are more likely to experience behavioural problems and they will die several years younger than their richer counterparts. That is the legacy we present, that we enable to take place, for poor children.

We should be ashamed of what we have done in this country with regard to children of those who are less well off. It is not the case that this is the only solution. In particular, if we look at the northern European countries, Norway, Sweden and Germany, certainly West Germany before the joining of the two, those countries had child poverty rates of about 5 per cent. We have child poverty rates of about 25 per cent, five times as high as countries who have committed themselves to solving this problem.

The so-called solutions of the past have not worked. Child poverty and poverty in general have increased while over the last 20 years federal governments have cut social programs, cut taxes to the rich and large corporations, built up enormous deficits and engaged in trade, monetary and fiscal policies which have sucked jobs out of the Canadian economy. At the same time little has been done to address the structural problems of the economy which has led to the second highest child poverty rates of rich industrialized countries.

As I said, while the U.S. has the worst poverty rates, the government is setting out this week to further the Americanization of Canada's social programs, continuing in the Mulroney tradition.

The only solution to poverty and child poverty, and I want to stress that, is to make it a matter of national urgency to address the apparent inability of the Canadian economy to create the jobs required to enable those four million Canadians who are not presently part of the paid workforce to find work, four million Canadians who want to be in the workforce so they can feed their families.

Further cuts to social programs can only make matters worse and yet that is what the government intends to do. Training can only help if there are jobs to do when that training has been received.

The real problem is not social programs, but unemployment. As a country that is what we should be focusing on. If the government had committed the resources both human and in dollar terms to the job side of the equation that it has instead committed to social program review, we would be in a much better position to show hope and opportunity for those 1.3 million children presently living in poverty. They would have a much better chance of breaking that poverty cycle.

Two further brief points. As a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada recognizes: "the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development".

Canada by this article is obligated to take and again I quote: "appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programs particularly with regard to nutrition, health, clothing and housing".

We have not done that. We have not lived up to our international responsibilities. As a country we have not lived up to our responsibilities to our children.

Last I would like to go back to the point I raised at the beginning. I know all members will regard this matter as a serious one and one of considerable importance. I believe that everyone in the House believes that we should work toward eliminating child poverty and assisting Canadian children and their future.

I would now ask if there is unanimous consent to make this motion a votable motion, to recognize the critically important part that children will play in our future and our critically important responsibility to children we have today. I would like to seek unanimous consent to make this motion votable. If that was available I am sure we could choose a time to do that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate this very important motion presented by the hon. member.

Child poverty is on the minds of many Canadians. We know from surveys that 91 per cent of Canadians make the reduction of child poverty a major priority. Considering the enormous riches we have in the country, there is no excuse whatsoever for Canada to have so many children living in poverty.

Estimates vary as to the number, but a commonly cited statistic is 1.25 million children live in low income families. Clearly this is not acceptable. There are those who believe that poor children is not an isolated issue, but that poor children come from poor families, poor parents. It is a complex issue that we can appreciate only too well.

This is not a simple matter. Child poverty is more than a little boy or little girl going without adequate nutrition or warm clothing for school. Yes, it is that. But it is so much more. Child poverty can stem from family breakdown, or a parent or parents not having a job, or not having a job that pays a decent wage.

What do we need to do? We need to work together with our partners in the provinces and the non-governmental organizations to come up with constructive solutions that will address the underlying cause of child poverty. Let us do it right. Let us work in a co-operative, constructive way. Let us take the necessary steps to make a real difference in alleviating the plight of so many Canadian children.

I extend an open invitation to hon. members and to all of our partners to contribute their input. That to me is what social security reform is all about. It is not about whose toes are being stepped on or how the status quo is going to be affected. No, it is about finding real solutions for real people and real problems.

Let us explore a broad range of ideas and then zero in on the most effective measures to prevent children from falling into poverty in the first place rather than always reacting to the situation once it is there.

Let me assure you however, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government is already contributing to the welfare of Canadian children through a number of initiatives. For example, in 1994-95 under the child tax benefit program we will provide $1.6 billion to families with incomes below $30,000. Under the Canada assistance plan the federal government will provide to the provinces and territories some $1.3 billion for welfare payments, $315 million for child care and $440 million for child welfare.

In the red book document the government outlined a commitment of $720 million over three years to expand the availability of quality child care. Last February the budget set aside money for the first two years of this initiative.

We will have to develop a consensus in co-operation with our provincial partners and parents across the country about how that money should be spent. Discussions on child care have already begun with provincial and territorial governments but invest we must because our investment in children is an investment in our future.

I am pleased to say that the Department of Human Resources Development is also working with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to improve child care for First Nations children living on reserves. As a government we also have the initiative of the head start program that is being headed up by the Department of Health.

Hon. colleagues know that I have a special empathy and so do they for aboriginal children and the appalling conditions that they face daily. I am reminded of a 1990 report by the National Youth in Care Network. It is estimated that of the more than 303,000 children 17 years of age and under, 51 per cent of status aboriginals and 27 per cent of the Metis children live in poverty.

It is no wonder that we have tremendous child poverty in aboriginal communities. On average aboriginal income is about one-half to one-third less than for other Canadians as a whole. This is a statistic that has been used quite often in different efforts to create equity.

Both the unemployment level and the level of illiteracy is twice that of the Canadian population. Aboriginal students are only one-half as likely to receive a post-secondary education as are Canadians generally. There are significantly fewer aboriginal students who complete high school. In some northern communities as few as 5 per cent of aboriginal youth complete grade 12.

This situation which we should be especially ashamed of cries out for our immediate attention. The Canadian Council on Social Development reminded us last week that while we focus on social security reform to make our programs more effective we need to also look at the labour market and how it can supply good paying jobs.

Of course, it all ties together. I am sure hon. members will agree that child poverty is linked to education and employment.

I heard my hon. colleague refer to the fact that there are educated people, heads of households with degrees, who live in poverty and their families that live in poverty. We realize as a government in terms of education and life-long learning that it is not that they learned something, that they have certain skills and certain talents, but that their skills are matched to opportunities.

We have to approach the whole issue of learning with a difference. Not only will we be challenged with making tougher choices, but we will also be guiding people to make the right choices, better choices and smarter choices for their employment and other opportunities.

In 1993 there was a 17 per cent increase in jobs for students with post-secondary education. There was no growth for those with only secondary education. There was a 17 per cent decline in jobs for students with less than secondary education.

The Canada Council report says that children from poor families are more than twice as likely to be school dropouts. Let us face it, the better educated and the better trained a person is on the whole, the better chance he or she has of landing a well paying job.

Last spring the Minister of Human Resources Development and I collaborated with provincial and business partners to implement an employment and learning strategy for Canadian youth. The strategy for which we have budgeted $684.5 million in the current fiscal year is helping our young people in the difficult transition from school to work. It is addressing barriers such as high school dropout rates, access to post-secondary education, lack of work experience and effective job training.

Youth Services Canada is one of the strategic measures aimed at putting unemployed and out of school young people back to work. The mission of Youth Services Canada is to strengthen young people's sense of accomplishment, self-reliance and self-esteem and to enable young people to gain meaningful work experience.

I point out that the majority of the program funds will go directly to youths and that eligible participants will receive financial assistance to help them pay for day care while they are working.

As we reform our social security programs the whole employment and learning strategy will help to ensure that young people, the future leaders, the future builders of this great nation, will have every chance to become productive and self-reliant.

This is the thrust of social security reform. It is a springboard, not a cushion that robs people of initiative and self-esteem. It is an effort to reintegrate, to pick people up and to help them to reintegrate into the mainstream, not to marginalize them and not to create dependency.

Another aspect right now of the 1.25 million children living in low income families is that over 40 per cent live in single parent families headed by women. In the Northwest Territories in 1991 the average income for single parent families was $17,100. Someone familiar with the politics and the economic demographics and otherwise of the country will know that the cost of living in the Northwest Territories has been stated as 30 per cent to 40 per cent higher than that of southern communities. North of 60 there is a real difference in the cost of living, not to mention the lack of infrastructure and the lack of opportunities for employment. There are situations that are quite limiting so we are definitely at a disadvantage.

We need to do much more to help sole parents, mostly of course single mothers, by providing more quality affordable child care services. Helping these sole parents become self-supporting will go a long way toward alleviating child poverty.

One example of building self-reliance is a project announced by the government on September 16 in Rimouski, Quebec. For 27 weeks beginning the middle of next month the government and its partners in the Rimouski region will give women with no income access to a training program that will enable them to enter the labour market by creating their own businesses. This is an empowering process. These women entrepreneurs have sound business ideas but they have no income to launch their businesses. By training them, by enabling them to attain specific skills, we are helping them to get their businesses off the ground.

Human resources development is supporting the initiative in Rimouski. Each participant will receive financial assistance in the form of weekly allowances, which includes child care costs for those who require them. We know it is very limiting when individuals are faced with extra hours either to learn or to perform their duties on the job and are not provided with any kind of assistance.

Three weeks ago in Winnipeg the government signed an agreement with the Government of Manitoba to assist 4,000 single parents currently on welfare. It is called "Taking Charge". This five-year project will give single parents access to a storefront office where they will receive help with needs ranging from child care training to family support to job placement.

I conclude by saying that I hope we will not hear complaints and cynicism that nothing can be done. If we work together we can do a great deal. There is plenty of optimism among Canadians. Let us tap into that hope and develop a social security system to serve Canadians in the 1990s and for decades to come. Poor people are not poor by choice; they are poor because of circumstances.

I appeal to all my colleagues to have a heart for the poor children of Canada. They are not poor by choice; they are the victims of circumstances. We have to work to alleviate those circumstances and set the record straight for those people to have a better future in our country.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House today, as the Official Opposition critic for training and youth, to support the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reaffirming its commitment to seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.

In a country that has already won international recognition for its quality of life, it may seem strange that it should be necessary to advise the government to deal with a problem as serious as that of child poverty. Children are a country's greatest asset, and it is thanks to them that nations develop and evolve. Thanks to them, we can look forward to the future.

However, according to a recent study by the Canadian Institute of Child Health, in 1991 1.2 million children in Canada were living in poverty, which is 500,000 more than in 1981. Today, 20 per cent of our children live in poverty in this country.

The hon. member who moved the motion mentioned more recent figures-1.3 million children-which indicates a trend and shows that the situation continues to deteriorate.

Forty-two per cent of child deaths before the age of one year can be attributed to prenatal conditions. The mother's quality of life before birth is crucial to the life expectancy of the child. The incidence of learning disabilities and mental health problems among children from poor families is double that of children in the rest of the population.

If I may, I shall digress for a moment. I was told recently that even in the supposedly richer areas, children in increasing number go to school without breakfast or a nutritious lunch. No wonder their failure rate is so high and they eventually become high-school dropouts.

One cannot talk about child poverty without talking about poor families. As we all know, in the past few years, the average family income has not kept up with the cost of living.

According to the same report on child health I quoted earlier, in Quebec, in 1993, a single parent earning the minimum wage had to work 73 hours to have an income equivalent to the poverty level. In Canada, the same single parent on social assistance, with one dependant child, would receive 65 per cent of that. In 1991, 453,200 single parents were women whereas a mere 83,600 were men. Therefore, we cannot talk about child poverty without talking about the poverty of mothers, especially single mothers.

Single families make up 20 per cent of all families, but the most alarming situation is that of single mothers with children. Indeed, in Canada, close to 90 per cent of children living with a single mother live in poverty.

Our young people, and that includes children of course, find themselves in a situation we had not seen since the Depression, that is to say that they are in a worse predicament than the previous generation. They have less opportunities than their parents had. The report on child health in Canada, which was published this week, and from which I got my statistics, was funded mostly by the federal government. I would like to hope that the federal government reacts quickly and with concrete measures in the light of this troubling conclusion because it would be obscene for the government to commission a study and then to ignore its findings, particularly when it comes to the health of our children.

As my hon. colleague who introduced the motion indicated, this is not the first time that the House of Commons looks into child poverty. On november 24, 1989, at the initiative of the hon. member representing Oshawa at the time, the House unanimously passed a resolution similar to the one before us today, to eliminate poverty among children by the year 2000.

May I digress for a moment to say how disappointed I was when we did not get unanimous consent to vote on this motion, while consent was granted in 1989 and all the hon. members present at the time voted in favour of the motion. That was five years ago. Things are getting worse instead of getting better. Why is that? A resolution was passed, but why has the situation deteriorated? I say that it is because the Conservative government of the day did nothing to correct the situation and in the past year, the Liberal government has continued, as we heard again this week, to consult the people on social program reform, but this reform will only take effect next year, yet another year away.

That will make six years since a unanimous resolution was passed to fight child poverty. However, the Liberal Party at that time was in favour of the resolution as it voted unanimously for the motion in 1989. Members then, even some who are ministers today, said many things which are worth quoting. Even the member for St. Boniface, whom I see in front of me, spoke in favour of this motion in 1989.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

I am still in favour of political reform, my friend!

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

I will go more quickly, but one quote in particular attracted my attention because this speech was made by the present Minister of Human Resources Development. He said that members should set aside the fine speeches prepared by the departments and open their eyes and their hearts a little.

They should try to face reality and talk about Canada's real problems. Not one day went by in the House without a minister or member of the Conservative government talking about the deficit. That is what they said at the time.

I never heard the then finance minister talk about Canada's real deficit of one million children living in poverty. That is where we should be investing. That is the real tragedy. In 10 years these children should be our educators, business people, politicians and journalists but they will never get that far because they cannot get a head start. One million children living in poverty is a tremendous loss. That is the big deficit we must face. Yet, nothing was done to solve that problem.

In 1989, the current Minister of Human Resources, the same member who is now a minister, authorized the cut in the UI program, did not provide more daycare spaces, voiced his intention to cut social programs to fight the deficit, and did not, in my opinion, table a real program to create permanent jobs. Let me give you an example: The Youth Service Corps is a program designed to give $150 per week to young Canadians. In other times, it would be nice to create part-time jobs for our young people, but these are not real jobs.

Such a program maintains duplication in the field of vocational training and this is costly for everyone. In the meantime, his colleague, the Minister of Industry, refuses to allocate funds for the conversion of military and civilian industries. I raise this issue because we have an industry back home called MIL Davie, which waited in vain for a year to get an answer from the Conservative government regarding a simple ferry, and which has now been waiting for another year to get an answer from the new Liberal government. If approved, this project would create at least 700 jobs.

We are poor because of the deficit. We cannot help needy children since we are poor. In the meantime, there are costs. I am truly disappointed because the members of this House-some of whom seem to approve-will not even seize the opportunity to vote and confirm our commitment to fight child poverty.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the motion to recommit to eliminating child poverty in Canada by the year 2000.

What is poverty? The Oxford Dictionary definition is: Being poor, not having means to procure comforts or necessities of life, in deficiency, in want.

Distinction must be made between basic financial deficiency for which there may be economic solutions, and social deficiency where individuals are deficient in relation to others, emotionally or otherwise, and the deficiency is more than just simple finances.

Socially each individual may find themselves poor in some aspect of their life in relation to others, a situation which can never be helped. The purpose of government social programs is not to make people equal in every way.

There is however, potential for government to find solutions to long term financial hardship by reducing taxes, reducing debt and reducing spending. It must be clearly understood that there is a world of difference between poverty, which is a situation where the basic needs of life are not being met, and the situation in Canada where we have a portion of population living with low incomes relative to the majority.

These low income Canadians would be considered well off as an income group if compared to the citizens of most other countries in the world. However, because it is more common for us to compare ourselves to our neighbours to the south rather than to people in Brazil or Morocco, it is this comparison that forms the argument for the anti-poverty lobby in Canada.

There is at this time no existing fiscal definition of poverty. In Canada this is a general measure of low income that is widely misused by various advocacy groups as poverty line and it is called the low income cutoff of Statistics Canada.

Statistics Canada has publicly and consistently stated that the low income cutoff is not a measure of poverty. Based on the premise that any family with an income less than the low income cutoff is in poverty, the child poverty lobby has falsely concluded that over 1.2 million children, that is one in five, must be living in poverty.

Barbara Greene, the chairman of the House subcommittee on poverty in the 34th Parliament studying the issue, stated that the goal of eliminating child poverty is impossible to attain because the low income cutoff measure is a relative measure.

Because the low income cutoff is a relative measure we will never be able to eliminate poverty if it is defined this way because we will always have a similar percentage of Canadian families statistically described as low income.

As an example of how weak a substitute the term "poverty" is for low income consider that 18 per cent of the low income cutoff population owns their own home mortgage free.

There are some generalizations that can be made from studies done on low income earners. Low income can be attributed to youth, unemployed persons, recent immigrants, single parents and native communities. The first three groups, youth, unemployed and recent immigrants, will undoubtedly increase their average earnings over time as their employment opportunities improve with their skills and experience.

Single parents will clearly be helped by the reversal in family policy proposed by the Reform Party as family will be promoted through the tax system and the cycle of welfare dependency will be broken through the reform of social programs.

Native communities will benefit from Reform's commitment to abolishing the department of Indian affairs and a move to full participation in Canadian society.

I have described the confusion and have shown the distinction between real fiscal poverty and low income in Canada. Regardless of whether one accepts the premise that real poverty, meaning lack of food, clothing and shelter, is not a reality in Canada, we are debating the question of child poverty.

It is possible that some children have faced such desperate situations through no fault of their own, as a child is a dependent. As such, a child is not expected to have an income or provide for its own needs. Canadian law recognizes this fact and makes provision for this fact in the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 215 states that everyone is under a legal duty as a parent to provide necessities of life for a child under the age of 16. According to Canadian law failing to provide these necessities is not child poverty, but child abuse and neglect.

Child poverty advocates claim that they just want to help the hungry children but are there really 1.2 million hungry Canadian children as the advocates imply? Is there evidence of such a major crisis? Realistically there are children who are living in broken families and low income families but this does not mean that the basic physical needs of these children cannot or are not being met.

In Canada the generous welfare system already in place is more than sufficient for parents to meet the basic physical needs of their children regardless of employment or family status. The government can never meet all the needs of children. How could government ever provide love and affection? Government can, however, provide a non-intrusive economic climate in which families can grow and prosper.

Reformers believe that the state has no business attempting to raise the nation's children and that full responsibility for children must reside with their parent or legal guardian. The only time the state must intervene is in situations of clear neglect or abuse. Should parents find themselves in situations in which it is difficult for them to provide the necessities the responsibility to do so should remain with the parents. These parents may in these situations request help, first from relatives, but failing family support, private social service agencies and then as a last resort governmental agencies.

There may well be isolated cases of individual suffering on the part of some children due to neglect or abusive parents just as there are cases of child sexual abuse, infanticide and child pornography. This is of great concern to all Canadians. Reformers believe that the proper enforcement of existing law and the promotion of family values in society are the most effective ways to deal with this sort of tragedy.

Health researchers and others have correctly pointed out that statistically there are problems those in low income situations are more likely to have compared to those of higher incomes: problems such as greater school dropout rates, more domestic violence and higher health concerns. It is clear that these problems do not occur as a result of low income but as a result of family breakdown, illegitimacy, structural unemployment and a loosening of societal values.

However the child poverty lobby believes that low income itself is the problem. Low income or poverty, as they call it, is not a disease that people catch. It is a situation that is the result of other factors.

The child poverty lobby has proposed some solutions to the situation of low income earners. They want more day care, more welfare and more state intrusion in the lives of families. However studies by Dr. Doug Allen of Simon Fraser University show that 80 per cent of low income families do not collect welfare. Clearly for the large majority of low income families, more social programs are not the solution.

The Reform Party recognizes that low income is not the problem itself, but rather one symptom of a much deeper problem in our society. Broken families, divorce, illegitimacy and unemployment are many of the factors that lead to low income status. These problems have quickly increased during the past 30 years due to intrusive policies of Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments.

These are the tax policies that discriminate against stay-at-home parents or discriminate based on family type. These are welfare programs that provide disincentives for people to find work and that encourage and sustain illegitimacy. These are policies that fail to punish crime, especially youth crime, adequately and a massive debt that has led to structural unemployment in our economy.

What do we propose as the solution? We believe government must get out of the day care business. We believe in a tax policy that does not discriminate based on the type of family one has. We believe in a non-intrusive system of social programs that helps the truly needy. We believe in a tax policy that continues to recognize the costs associated with raising children. We believe in spending cuts in all areas to deal with the debt and the deficit. We believe long term tax relief must be achieved so that families may have more freedom to make their own choices.

Reformers are interested in promoting healthy Canadian families and in helping the truly needy. We do not believe more social programs are the solution to society's problems. We do believe in the promotion of the family as the best possible solution to the majority of Canada's social dysfunction.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me tonight to speak on this issue, although a sad one at the same time.

Child poverty in Canada is a clear indication of the failure of social programs in a society. I believe very strongly that this is something that we must as a nation take in hand, and take in hand very quickly.

Poor children are not poor by themselves. They are poor because their parents are poor. Child poverty does not make for a healthy future in our society. Our human deficit will be the future deficit of this country. I believe that firmly.

We talk about the need for a better educated, skilled labour force all the time in the House. We talk about the deficiency of skills in the workforce. We talk about the need to train and educate. We discuss youth crime and retribution. We talk about how we must punish these young people and put them in jail and throw away the key sometimes. We talk about harsh punishment for young children.

We do not discuss openly and honestly why they are that way. The horrible blight on Canada is child poverty. It is a shame for this country to be in that position. We must work to eradicate this.

Children do not get involved in crime and problems all by themselves. Society has a hand in helping from the time that they are born whether it be because they are poor, or whether it be because they are abused in their homes or what have you.

In my view poverty is not just poverty from the point of view of not having enough food, shelter or clothing. It is also poverty of the society and the environment around them. Children are abused in homes all the time.

It is true, so there is no point in arguing about it, that we do not have social programs that meet the needs of children. We have seen mental health programs cut when children who need these programs are in line-ups across the country. That is unacceptable. How do we expect them to cope when we are not providing the support system they require? We do not have a proper child care program. We must provide one. Parents need that support. We need to have a comprehensive and supportive system for parents in this situation to cope.

We heard a member across the way talk about the fact that the only way to recognize poverty was to look at basic fundamental deficiencies. He indicated that we were looking a little too high at poverty and that low income was somehow too high a threshold. He referred proudly to a former member of the House, Barbara Greene, who was busy trying to raise the threshold of poverty so that it could be technically wiped out of the books. That does not get rid of poverty. The people would still be there. The children would still be there. They would not disappear. We can change the jargon. We can change the verbiage. We can change how we describe it. However they are still there; they do not disappear.

It is the state's business to worry about the children of the nation. We have a collective responsibility toward our children. They are the best resource of the nation to survive as a nation. We collectively make decisions about iron ore, forestry and all kinds of things, but when it comes to children the member across the way talks about the sanctity of the family and not doing anything. He says that we have no say or no role as a collective society. We do have a very strong role as a collective society.

Child care is very important. Proper support systems are very important. Low income is low income. Deficiencies, whether they be social, physical or whatever, are deficiencies. Supportive services in social programs are terribly important. We cannot blame the children. We must accept that raising children and preparing them to lead the country in the future is a collective responsibility that cannot be neglected. The member does not agree.

The UN has said that Canada is the best country in the world to live in. That is a wonderful thing we can be very proud of, but for certain individuals, namely children, it is not the best country in the world to live in. That is something we should be ashamed of and deal with tout de suite.

If we accomplish anything at all in the country it must be the eradication of child poverty in all its forms. We must develop a social support system that is comprehensive and supportive to children and their families.

I look forward to working with the upcoming social security review process and working hard with members of the House and Canadians to develop a system to address the basic needs of families and children at the very least. I hope all members of the House will participate in the process and in the end come up with something can be very proud of.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Under the right to reply, I recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing for a maximum of two minutes.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond. It is clear there are some different philosophical concerns in the House. There are some who see the urgency of dealing with the problem and there are others who want to talk about philosophical issues while children stay hungry. It is offensive to me that we are having a philosophical debate about why children are hungry when we do not have a commitment to solving the problem of child hunger.

How can Reform members look in the eyes of hungry kids and tell them they are not hungry? It is a disgrace to hear people saying those things. You say it is a question of parental responsibility. Maybe it is, but what about the hungry kids who do not have that parental responsibility administered to them? Are you just going to let them stay hungry because you do not like the way-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I would remind members to make their interventions through the Chair and I

would ask the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing to conclude his remarks.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I get angry. I see poor children on a daily basis in my riding and it is offensive to me that people do not respond in an adequate way to their plight. They are hungry and they need help now; they do not need it in 10 years.

We need a commitment to resolving the problems we face. Children are poor because they are born to poor parents. They do not choose to be born to poor parents; it just so happens that that is the way it is.

The hon. member may think it is funny but it is not. The problem of hunger is serious. He should treat it seriously and not in the facile way he is doing it.

We need a national commitment to job creation. People are poor because they do not have jobs, four million of them. We need real and progressive tax reforms so that Canada will have the resources to deal with poverty. We need changes to trade and monetary policy so that we can solve our child poverty problems. Without a real and determined focus on these real problems we will not find a real solution.

I think we all know poor children. We all know the pain they face and the hunger that they face. Surely we need to respond to them in the most humane and careful way that we can. Children do not need ideological debate. They need answers. They need food. They need support. I only wish the Reform Party would have supported the motion being votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 6.52 p.m., as there are no members available for the proceedings on the adjournment motion, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.52 p.m.)