Mr. Speaker, I reiterate for the record that the NDP does endorse and support this motion.
In the first speech made, we heard reference to poverty 2000 and the aspirations this House had in those days for eliminating child poverty. Around 1990, I was the chair of the poverty 2000 campaign in Hamilton when it first started and, sadly, we did not reach the goal we were looking at. In many ways, things are much worse than they once were.
Members will be aware that in 1991 Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention, among other things, charges the current government with the responsibility of taking all available measures to make sure that children's rights are respected, protected and fulfilled. We heard in the parliamentary secretary's speech reference made to the government's belief that this is taking place today, though we have some disagreement about that.
When countries ratify such agreements, they agree to review the laws relating to children, which involves assessing social services, the legal and health and education systems, as well as levels of funding of these services. Governments are obliged to take all necessary steps to ensure that the minimum standards set by the convention are met.
The government was late in responding to questions that were posed in March by the United Nations committee reviewing Canada's participation in this protocol. The questions were to be answered by July 2, but the answers were in fact delivered to the UN committee just last Friday. This week in Geneva, the committee is reviewing Canada's record and we anticipate a response shortly. However, it was very troubling for us that Canada took all that time to respond to those questions. There are people out there, with perhaps a more cynical view than my own, who are concerned that the Conservatives' reasons for not responding earlier are that they did not want their response open to public scrutiny before they were delivered to the UN, and perhaps to face the potential questions that might have been asked internally within Canada.
As the government's response to the UN committee suggests, it does not track the numbers of children under state care. People have asked for and tried to get from the government just how many are under state care. One has to wonder whether it does not have the available information to work with. The office of a commissioner would do precisely that. It would accumulate the necessary information regarding the services provided, the number of children receiving them and the various levels of need in our country. It is important that people stop and ask themselves if that is not a role that a commissioner would offer to Canadians and to the government in support of the work of the government. In some senses, when the Conservatives took office we had the Parliamentary Budget Officer put into place to take an arm's length view of government operations, someone who could report to the Canadian people and the House. This would be something similar to protect the rights of children and to ensure that we meet the obligations that we have signed up to.
The international agreements that Canada is party to are significant, given they have been negotiated and put in place for the benefit of children in this case, or in other protocols to prevent torture and other aspects. The agreements are important because they reflect Canada's international reputation for how we treat our own citizenry in the public context. We can say, as a government, that we are doing these things but having a commissioner would add to the veracity of those statements.
Federal and provincial ministers are responsible for social policy, as just one example. However, they have not met in five years despite the fact there is evidence out there, which we believe, that children are falling through the cracks.
On September 25, the Government of Canada was repeatedly taken to task in Geneva by the UN committee on the rights of the child for its incoherence about how the federal government and the provincial programs actually help children, and for the lack of any evidence of a clear strategy. Committee members said that Canada's biggest challenge is to bring together the various parts of its political system to implement the convention throughout Canada and to improve the conditions for our most vulnerable children.
One could ask: Would that not be a role suited to a commissioner, as has been proposed by our friend from Westmount—Ville-Marie? I think so.
The Canadian response to the committee cites that first nations children are 4.2 times more likely to be investigated by child welfare officials than non-aboriginal children, and that this is driven by neglect linked to poverty, substance abuse, social isolation and domestic violence.
The government claims that coordination between the federal and provincial and territorial governments occurs, but the reality is that the relationship is between low-level officials who exchange information and call it coordination.
Current mechanisms for coordination serve to kind of grey the area around what is happening more than actually bringing things to the fore. In fact it could be argued that they protect government decisions from public scrutiny. They do not serve children.
Again, would this not be a place to insert a commissioner to help us all deal together to ensure the work is done?
It has been said in this place, and I do not disagree, that all members of this House have the best interests of children at heart. This would be another valuable tool, a force to pull it together in a way that would ensure the best possible delivery.
The government has claimed, repeatedly, in public that the universal child care benefit is designed specifically to help families pay for child care. In the section on poverty, in the recent response to the UN committee on the rights of children, the benefit is presented as a poverty reduction program. At $100 a month, it does neither effectively and most of the money goes to non-poor families.
Again, would this not be a place where a commissioner could insert himself or herself into the process to advise the government to make the appropriate changes?
There are various tax credits that we hear spoken of, such as the child tax credit, the fitness and arts credits and RESPs that benefit the wealthy more than the people who are below the poverty line.
There are a lot of places where a commissioner could be inserted.
Canada's 2010 report to the UN universal periodic review states that the principal intergovernmental forum for consultation on human rights is a body called the continuing committee of officials on human rights.
Most people inside and outside of government are not aware that there is such a body in Canada, but there is. The body meets twice yearly, behind closed doors, with no public reporting. It is mid-level bureaucracy that lacks enforcement authority.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, in her previous life, released a report called, Reaching for the Top, which strongly recommended that the Government of Canada create a national office of child and youth health. She said:
There is a lack of the analysis as to how and how much children's rights have been achieved in the state and how progress has been made.
I apologize; the parliamentary secretary did not say that. Marta Mauras Perez, vice-chair of the committee on the rights of the child, said:
What we're telling you is really to raise the bar...
I have raised that question in this place. We are being challenged by the United Nations committee to do a better job, and in my view, and in my party's view, a commissioner would be a great asset.