Skip to main content

Dissenting Report to the Standing Committee on Health



A `Fresh start' on child health

House of Commons, Canada



by

Grant Hill, MP
Keith Martin, MP

The Reform Party of Canada



December 12, 1996

Introduction

The health and well-being of their children is every parent's principal concern. Yet, in Canada, there remain families that are unable to provide the essential elements of what might commonly be considered as constituting a healthy childhood environment. As public policy professionals representing Canadian interests, Members of Parliament have a duty to draft policy which addresses those situations where Canadian families are unable to provide healthy environments for their children. Child poverty in Canada can be and must be eliminated.

The purpose of this dissenting report is to propose alternative policy to the traditional old-line approach in order to best facilitate for Canadian families the provision of a healthy environment for their children. Reform is as dedicated as anyone to the eradication of child poverty in Canada.

The Old-Line Approach

For the past thirty years in Canada, politicians, policy-makers, academics and the media have generally taken the approach of equating income disparity with the term poverty. There is and never has been in Canada a comprehensive, universally acceptable definition of poverty. Traditionally, relative measures of income disparity have taken the place of any agreed upon absolute measurement of poverty. Statistics Canada's low income cut offs (LICO) and the Canadian Council of Social Development's (CCSD) measurement are both examples of such "relative" lines of income disparity. Yet they are widely represented as poverty lines.

Using such relative measurements as proxies for poverty rates targets an obvious conundrum. We know that, all else being equal, average incomes grow in line with overall economic growth. Yet, despite the fact that Canadians are on average more wealthy than in the past, there still exists income disparity and therefore poverty. Indeed, by defining poverty as relative disparities in income, poverty can never be eliminated.

The Canadian Council on Social Development has used its lines to estimate the extent of poverty in Canada since 1973. They reveal that the rate of poverty in Canada has increased from 23.3 percent in 1973 to 25.9 percent in 1986. Yet over this same period of time all indicators of average living standards rose. Real output per capita increased by 34 percent, real personal disposable income per capita rose 29 percent, average real family income increased 14 percent and average real income of unattached individuals increased 23 percent. The distribution of income was essentially unchanged during this period. In these circumstances, we should expect that real economic growth would lift some out of poverty. Yet the CCSD measure shows poverty increasing. That average living standards can increase while the proportion of the population classified as poor also increases defies our common sense.1

Based on this flawed representation of poverty, governments have attempted to deal with the problem in much the same way governments have been dealing with most social problems in the post war era. That is to say, after reaching the limits of conventional budgets, governments at all levels have relied on deficit financing in vain attempts to raise societal income levels. The result has been burgeoning public debts leading to cash-strapped governments, diminished economic confidence, increased taxation, higher unemployment and ultimately less money in the pockets of Canadian families for their children. In summary, the old-line approach to poverty and child health has been to fight the fire with gasoline.

What is poverty?

Any true definition of poverty will be subjective. What one person may deem as constituting impoverishment is liable to be totally different from another person's view. However, to deal with the problem does necessitate some definition. As such, this report shall rely on a definition generally accepted by most Canadians. This definition of poverty implies insufficiency, a deprivation of life's basic necessities. Such insufficiency, most would agree, means people are unable to obtain a nutritious diet, warm, dry and safe housing, clothing appropriate to one's climate, sufficient personal hygiene items and health care.

Addressing Child Health By Eradicating Poverty - A `Fresh Start '2

Poverty in Canada can be eradicated. The health of Canadian children can be the best in the world.

The Reform Party recently launched its `Fresh Start' campaign which offers real solutions to the problem of child poverty based on a fresh, new vision of Canada. Reform envisions a country defined and built by its citizens, rather than by its government. It is a vision of smaller government and lower taxes. It is a vision of a country in which the unemployment rate is 5% instead of 10%. It is a vision of Canada wherein child poverty has been completely eradicated.

The key element of such a vision is tax relief for Canadian families. By bringing true fiscal responsibility to the Government of Canada, a Reform government will require less money from Canadian families. In fact, as spelled out in Reform's `Fresh Start', the tax bill paid by a family of four will be reduced by over $2,000 by the year 2000.

Recommendations

In particular, Reform proposes. . .

For All:

For Families:

For Jobs:

By leaving more money in the hands of Canadian families, a Reform government will provide many impoverished Canadians with the means to obtain a nutritious diet, warm, dry and safe housing, clothing, sufficient personal hygiene items and essential health care. In fact, when combined with projected economic growth, Reform's proposals will allow over $12 billion to be handed back to Canadians in tax relief and 1.2 million low income Canadians will be totally removed from the tax rolls. With more money in the hands of Canadian families, children will be healthier. Healthier children means a healthier Canada.

Further Consideration of the Standing Committee Majority Report on Child Health

The following are aspects of the Standing Committee's majority report which The Reform Party found either completely absent or inadequately addressed.

1. The report has a strong gender bias against males. There is a clear single-minded focus on women throughout the report and we believe that this division between genders does not help to develop an environment of mutual respect and understanding. Males and females must work together on a wide range of issues as they affect both sexes, particularly child health. For example, it is important to include young men and young women on an equal basis in parenting workshops in high schools, as this helps them both recognize their mutual responsibilities in rearing healthy children.

2. The report lacked firm guidelines and specific timelines in addition to clearly identified measurement criteria. It is important that specific timelines and program measurement criteria be introduced so that any new initiatives can be evaluated fairly. Furthermore, it is important that the Federal Minister of Health take a leadership role with his federal colleagues in Human Resources Development and Justice to work with their provincial counterparts in ensuring that programs get off the ground.

3. Lastly, an area that is epidemic in young adults and was not addressed was that of unplanned parenthood. Teen pregnancies have been on a dramatic increase for some time and cost our social programs over seven billion dollars a year. Not to mention that both, the children and their single parents are usually destined to a life of poverty. That is why it is important for the Minister of Health to work with his provincial counterparts in increasing comprehensive sex education programs in schools. Only by having this information will young men and women be able to make the appropriate decisions while being aware of the social and economic impacts of parenthood.

Conclusion

Canadian children deserve more than to be handed a legacy of government fiscal irresponsibility, skyrocketing debt interest payments, increasingly higher taxes and hopeless horizons. Yet old-line political parties continue to advocate those same policies based on the same old tainted assumptions which lead to the same old vicious circle of problems. The past has proven that high government spending, increasing debts, stifling taxes and high unemployment do not translate into prosperous futures for Canadian children. Canadian children deserve a `Fresh Start'.

1 Sarlo, Christopher A., Poverty in Canada, The Fraser Institute, Vancouver, 1992, p. 12.

2 The Reform Party of Canada, 1996.

;