Debates of Jan. 30th, 2015

Child Poverty

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Scarborough—Rouge River for her motion to reduce poverty in our country and welcome the opportunity to comment on the government's progress in this regard.

On a national basis, we have had a great deal of success. The rate for children living in poverty was 18.4% in 1996. That rate dropped to just 8.5% in 2011. That translates into about 730,000 fewer children living in poverty at the end of the period than were living in poverty at the beginning.

Unlike what happened in previous economic downturns, the low-income rate for children remained stable during the 2008 and 2009 global recession. The fact is that Canada's social programs cushioned the impact of the global recession and prevented many more Canadian families and their children from falling into poverty.

Our government is taking a comprehensive approach to reducing poverty and is focusing on getting Canadians jobs and opportunities to achieve self-sufficiency, while providing increasing targeted support for those in need.

Helping to level the playing field with lower-income Canadians and moving more families and children out of poverty also includes direct support to families from the federal government. For example, we provide support through the Canada child tax benefit, the national child benefit supplement, the universal child care benefit and the child tax credit. This year the increase in the universal child care benefit will help families even more and the program is even broadened to cover children from the ages of 7 to 17. In all, the government provides over $15 billion per year in benefits for families and children.

We also work closely with governments in the provinces and territories, as well as with aboriginal organizations and voluntary group sectors to reduce poverty.

The annual Canada social transfer helps fund specific provincial and territorial programs targeted at families with young children, and represents a federal commitment that would raise to $1.3 billion next fiscal year.

The government is also helping families make better choices in areas such as nutrition. For example, proper food and nutrition are essential to growing children, no matter what their family income. Unfortunately, those living on lower incomes face particular challenges on that front.

Through Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, the government is spearheading several initiatives that will improve nutrition and enhance food security for children. Child nutrition and food security is linked to a variety of factors and meeting these challenges requires the contributions of multiple sectors working together.

Our government is working with aboriginal partners, provincial and territorial governments, and other sectors to look at how to best address these factors and to provide Canadian families with the information and tools they need to make healthy choices.

Having proper shelter is also essential.

Through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, also known as CMHC, the government has invested more than $16.5 billion in housing since 2006. Working with its partners, CMHC has helped nearly 915,000 Canadian individuals and families find adequate and affordable housing. Targeted groups include low-income seniors, persons with disabilities, recent immigrants and aboriginal Canadians.

Over the next five years, CMHC will invest a further $10 billion in making housing more affordable for all Canadians, particularly lower-income Canadians. This will support new affordable housing and existing social housing.

There is also a great deal of work being done by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I can recall that when we first became government, our first minister addressed this with a $2 billion contribution to housing on reserve and off reserve, especially in northern aboriginal communities.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development funds a number of programs that seek to create safe and affordable housing; improve access to high-quality child care and childhood nutrition and improve the economic security of families; and meet the unique needs of first nations, Inuit, and Métis communities.

In addition to targeted support for those most in need, the government has also provided almost $160 billion in tax relief for Canadian families and individuals in the last eight years. Canadians at all income levels have benefited, but the greatest benefit has been to low- and middle-income Canadians. Overall, personal income taxes are now 10% lower, and more than one million low-income Canadians have been taken off the tax rolls altogether.

We know that many Canadians still face a variety of financial challenges. The major government initiatives I have just talked about will continue to help more and more people move up the income ladder.

In that respect, we are doing a great deal better than all our major competitors in the G7 or the OECD. Since the 2008 global recession, we have created over one million new jobs. That is 675,000 more jobs than we had before the economic downturn started, and a vast majority of those are new jobs. Over 80% of all jobs created have been full-time positions, and over 65% are in high-wage industries. We have weathered the global recession much better than most, and our economy continues to grow and provide good jobs for Canadians.

Both the IMF and OECD report that they expect Canada will have one of the strongest-growing economies in the G7 this year and next. We will also have a balanced budget next year, well before any of our trading partners. This is another sign that our economy is on the right track.

Again I would like to thank the hon. member for the motion. I hope that all members of the House will support it. I hope that all members will recognize the enormous strides that we have made in reducing poverty in this country and support our continuing efforts to do even more.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

-Mr. Speaker, it is said that a bad start in life translates into inequality during childhood and is associated with the underutilization of individual potential. The motion on eliminating child poverty, despite its wording, focuses on the socially vulnerable aspects of the parents or guardians.

I will now introduce the 2013 social statistics indicating that two out of five children living in an aboriginal community grow up in poverty. There are nearly 15,000 aboriginal constituents in Manicouagan, my riding. Out of a population of 90,000 that is quite remarkable. Some communities are remote and cut off from the rest of the world. I am thinking about Pakua Shipi, Unamen Shipu, Matimekush-Lac John, Kawawachikamach. It takes a 12-hour train ride to get to the latter two communities or thousands of dollars in plane tickets. Communities like Unamen Shipu and Pakua are simply cut off from the rest of the world. There are no roads to get there.

When I was working for Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-utenam, my own band council, the numbers brought to my attention indicated that more than 60% of the population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on Mitshim Shuniau, in other words social assistance, for money to eat. That was roughly six or seven years ago, when I was working for my band council, that more than half the working-age adult population was directly or indirectly dependent on transfers from social assistance.

Some might say, and perhaps rightly so, that the amount of social assistance paid to aboriginal communities is a bit higher than the base amount in Quebec. Nonetheless, if we take into account the cost of food and the cost of living in the remote regions, this amount is not enough for properly raising children.

Beyond the financial considerations, it is also important to address the shift in the parental model within many communities affected by the clear deterioration of the social fabric.

I believe that a massive injection of funds into dysfunctional clans should not be seen as the only solution to child poverty. The Conservatives like to talk about how their action plan focuses primarily on massive injections of funds. They toss out staggering numbers—hundreds of millions of dollars invested in communities. What I am saying is that massive injections of funds will not necessarily solve the problem once and for all. It can be part of the solution, but we certainly cannot think of it as the only answer to all of the problems in socially dysfunctional communities.

When I talk about the absence of parental models, dysfunctional parental models or even dysfunctional guardians, I am referring to statements that I made here in the House when we talked about issues related to street gangs. Members of Parliament with good memories will recall that, at the time, I pointed out that street gangs crop up when children do not have parental supervision and are forced to meet their own needs themselves. They band together and take over a house.

I am thinking about life on the reserves. Gang members take control of a house on the reserve because the parents have gone off somewhere. They often decide to turn to questionable methods to meet their needs, to feed themselves. The result is that there are houses with about fifteen young people, all minors, living together. It is a bit of a free-for-all. This happens because many parents or guardians are simply not there to supervise these children.

It is important to mention that this is not the case with all families. These are somewhat isolated cases, but they still need to be mentioned in the House. When parents receive social assistance, they revert back to being adolescents themselves. They go join a group of adults who, one might say, have veered off course, and children, particularly those who are 10, 11 or 12 years old and fairly independent, are simply left to fend for themselves. Sometimes older members of the family, often the grandparents, will decide to take care of these children. However, many children are left to fend for themselves and turn to crime.

That is unfortunate, but that is what is happening. A 10- or 11-year-old child has no other choice. These children start by stealing from malls and then it all snowballs as the years go by.

The fundamental findings of developmental psychology have shown the negative, long-term impacts of growing up in a home that does not have the financial resources required to meet the family's basic needs.

I will now talk about the insidious nature of daily exposure to negative influences within dysfunctional social units. Even children in my community who come from a functional, educated, relatively well-off family are nevertheless exposed to the same negative influences as all other children, especially in isolated communities where transportation costs are high.

When I talk about negative influences, I am referring to hardened criminals who have been incarcerated in several federal institutions. This includes sex offenders, murderers who ride around on their bicycles in the community and known HIV carriers. Promiscuity being what it is in communities, people know who is who and what everyone is doing.

In a community of just a few thousand people, such as Uashat-Maliotenam, which has a population of about 3,000, it does not take long to learn everything there is to know about each and every person. In the summer especially, because everyone lives outside, children can be exposed to all kinds of behaviours. It is not uncommon to see an alcoholic sleeping with his head on a case of beer beside the corner store, someone urinating in his pants or people who are in a toxic psychosis because they have taken PCP and need to be talked down by paramedics.

When I was a teenager, I used to invite my Quebec friends over on the day people received their social assistance cheques to have some fun. I had lost my moral compass and I considered that entertainment. On Mitshim Shuniau day, I would invite my friends over to have fun watching my neighbours consume just about anything. I would tell them that the paramedics would be coming and going all day and the show would be worth their while. That is what I thought back then.

Today, I see that it was wrong and detrimental to everyone's personal affirmation and societal betterment. However, at the time, I thought it was quite funny. Thus, on Mitshim Shuniau day, I would give my friends a bit of a guided tour of my community. We saw all kinds of things, like people walking around naked because they had taken PCP in public. Nothing mattered.

Children are exposed to these harmful influences and might consider this to be normal by the time they are 12, 13, 14 or 15 years old, especially those who do not have the opportunity to leave the reserves. They may believe that it represents the norm in Canada, which is really not the case. There are dysfunctional communities just about everywhere in Canada. However, broadly speaking, most of the Canadian population is not dysfunctional and we do not find this type of anything-goes behaviour.

A child's environment and the people around him have a great influence on his brain development. It has also been proven that just a few years of poverty can have a lasting negative impact on a child's development. The negative effects of poverty on a child, from the prenatal stage through to age five, can be especially harmful and lasting.

When I say prenatal stage, I am of course referring to fetal alcohol syndrome. Children who are victims of fetal alcohol syndrome have a lesser quality of life starting at birth. It is not always the case, but most often, there is a correlation between alcohol consumption during pregnancy and the possibility that the young person will join the workforce in the future and stay far away from alcohol use.

The NDP believes that to eliminate child poverty, we must improve the economic security of families and provide them with access to child care services, culturally integrated psychosocial services, housing and affordable nutritious food.

Today I asked a question about the nutrition north program, but we also need to focus on culturally integrated psychosocial services. Too often, the psychologists who are sent to communities to address their pressing needs have the academic training but not necessarily the tools to deal with the adversarial nature of the realities on reserve.

On July 1, Mitshim Shuniau can sometimes turn the whole community into a zoo. Every month, a single social worker might be doing the work of two to five of them, depending on how many kids are referred to the youth protection branch. Safety cannot always be guaranteed. I have seen cases in which a social worker was hit in the head by a client who was not happy to have her children removed. It was simple: this meant less money for her. When she saw the social worker at the grocery store, she hit her in the head with a can of Chef Boyardee.

That is the reality. Violence is everywhere in these communities, and social workers need to be well equipped and prepared before they show up there; otherwise, we are just throwing them to the wolves.

I submit this respectfully.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There being only five minutes remaining in the time provided for private members' business, at this point in the day we are going to go directly and invite the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for her right of reply.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my hon. colleagues in the House who have spoken to my motion to eliminate child poverty in Canada.

I also need to thank all of the local agencies and not-for-profit organizations and advocates who are supporting this motion across this country. I thank my constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River, who have spent hours and days and weeks supporting my motion by making sure there were increasing conversations in our community and signing our petitions and spreading the word within our community and neighbourhood.

An umbrella organization called Campaign 2000, through its vibrant network of national, regional, and local partner organizations. has done so much work to get the word out about the motion to end child poverty in Canada. I must also say a very special thanks to the campaign called Keep the Promise, because it is 25 years ago that we in this House, as members of Parliament, made a promise to end child poverty by the year 2000. Now 25 years have come and gone, and we have not kept that promise.

I would like to speak very quickly about a report that has come from the Conference Board of Canada. It says that Canada is 12th out of 17 compared to our peer countries with respect to income inequality. Income inequality in our country has grown over the last 20 years. The gap continues to grow. Since 1990, the richest group of Canadians continues to get richer while the poorest group of Canadians continues to get poorer in our country. That is absolutely abhorrent and unfair, and it is not Canadian values.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

It is also untrue.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear a Conservative colleague saying that it is not true, but I am citing a Conference Board of Canada report.

Poverty today affects three million Canadians. That includes children, seniors, indigenous persons, people living with disabilities, single parents, and recent immigrants. These are the groups of people who are more likely to be living in poverty, and today 967,000 Canadian children are living in poverty.

Canada ranks 15th out of 17 peer countries when it comes to child poverty. Once again, I am stating the Conference Board of Canada statistics. It is imperative that we, as a have country not a have-not country, invest in our children. I spoke about the motion of November 1989 that was brought forward by the then NDP leader Ed Broadbent to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. In 1991, Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that every child has the right to a decent standard of living, clean water, nutritious food, a clean environment, and good-quality health care.

For 25 years, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have ignored the problem or have not done enough to alleviate it. As a result, today we have almost one million Canadian children living in poverty. In 1989, when this House made the promise to end child poverty, the LIMAT, the low-income measure after tax—which I will use as my comparator so that I am comparing the same numbers in 1989 to now—was 13%. The child poverty rate was 13% in 1989, and today it is sitting at 21%.

I have heard many members in this House saying that there have been many changes and improvements. That is wonderful, but the problem is that there are far too many children who continue to live in poverty, and that is a serious concern. It is a serious concern that we as parliamentarians and legislators need to make sure we are working toward the eradication of poverty in this country, especially among our children, because we have that responsibility to our children. We made a promise 25 years ago, but “We have been doing our best to keep that promise” is what I have heard.

My plea for my hon. colleagues in this House is that we have not been doing enough. We need to do better. We need to be investing in affordable housing, accessible child care, and child nutrition programs. We need to make sure they are sensitive to our different first nations communities and their cultural requirements. We need to ensure that we have measurable targets and timelines and that we actually act on them, because just making a promise is not enough; we need to keep the promises we make.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The time provided for debate has expired. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 4, 2015, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 2:18 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:18 p.m.)