---

Reform Party Dissenting Report

The Official Opposition believes that the family is the most essential building block of society, and families have the primary responsibility for raising children. The Reform Party's Statement of Principles #7 states that "We affirm the value and dignity of the individual person and the importance of strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals and society." It is important that government policy recognize the importance of this, our most valuable institution, even though it has no political lobby to ensure that its voice is heard in public debate.

Recognizing this, the Official Opposition has started to perform a "Family Impact Assessment" on government bills to assess the legislation in light of a number of questions on how it might affect families. Now, point 3 on page viii of the Interim Report of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk, alludes in passing to the need for a "public policy framework that acknowledges ... the impact on families." Elected representatives must ensure that the family is a priority when considering the effects of legislative changes. Indeed, Canadians expect nothing less from their elected officials. A 1998 Southam News/National Foundation for Family Research and Education (NFFRE)poll found that 91% felt governments should automatically consider how their policies affect the family lives of Canadians.

The Official Opposition believes however, that Parliamentarians should take responsibility for this assessment, rather than call for the establishment of a "Family Impact Assessment Bureaucracy." It is quite incorrect to think that adding another level of government to intervene in family life will serve families better. In fact, a recent study indicates that an increase in the size of government is mirrored by a slowdown of economic growth,1 which of course, can therefore lead to strain upon the lives of families. This study finds that in 1960, government outlays as a percentage of GDP in Canada was 28.6%, while in 1996 it was 46.4%. It notes that "this increase in government expenditures reflects a substantial broadening in the scope of government beyond its traditional functions... [G]overnment has expanded into activities the legitimacy of which is highly questionable. As this has happened, economic growth has slowed. The evidence illustrates that there is a persistent robust negative relationship between the level (and the expansion) of government expenditures and the growth of GDP." [emphasis in original]. It appears that the sub-committee report may have a tendency to overlook these important realities.

When one examines the studies and polls that are coming out with more and more regularity, one can see that the family is coming under increasing strain. 1998 COMPAS polls indicated that 92% of Canadians feel that families with children today are under more stress than families 50 years ago. 90% felt that parents working too hard or too many hours in a day is now more serious. 90% of Canadians feel that parents with children suffer more serious stress from high taxes now than a generation ago. 78% felt that not enough respect for the efforts parents put into raising children is now more serious.

The Vanier Institute of the Family reports that the increase in debt loads has been so significant that several indicators of financial stress have now risen to record levels."2 According to the Fraser Institute (Canadian Government Debt, 1998), Canadians' average total tax rate runs 49.3%, preserving their place among the most highly taxed nations in the G-7. Ottawa's much vaunted "balanced budget" was achieved by squeezing the people. 76.7% of the balancing came from higher tax revenues, 14% from slashing health and social transfers, 7.2% from cutting transfers to persons, and a miniscule 2.1% by cutting federal spending itself.3 A significant number of studies indicate that the priority for Canadians is not increased government spending, but rather debt reduction and tax relief. In attempting to examine Children and Youth at Risk, the Interim report of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk fails to adequately acknowledge these realities, nor acknowledge the role that high levels of taxation have played in the increased stress levels of Canadian families.

The Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk also needs to better define its mandate. The sub-committee does not have an explicit terms of reference document, and as a result, has now regards itself as the sole " `home' ...within Parliament for children and children's issues."4 This fails to properly acknowledge the hard work on children and family issues that takes place every day in various ways in numerous Parliamentary forums. A rather significant omission of the interim report is a failure to acknowledge that, as a sub-committee dedicated to addressing issues as they relate to "children and youth at risk," the interim report fails to address which children are defined as "children and youth at risk."

When one looks at the Canadian statistics, one can see the difficulty in assessing such a question, but such a statement of the sub-committee's mandate would be helpful before embarking upon a study of "children and youth at risk." Otherwise, the sub-committee report may give the impression that every child without a government program is a "child at risk." This would seem to contradict the views of parents themselves, as Statistics Canada notes, "By far the majority of children living in Canada are in excellent or very good health according to their parents."5

One must acknowledge that there are limitations in what a government can do to address children and youth at risk. Governments programs, no matter how well funded can not take the place of loving parents. Indeed, Statistics Canada's has found that parenting is perhaps the most important factor in raising a well-adjusted child. StatsCan's National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth found that "children at risk (e.g., lower-income, low parental education, family dysfunction, prenatal problem, single-parent) have fewer behavioural problems when raised with positive and consistent parenting."6

This Parliament has seen much debate about issues that relate to children and families. This has included debates on family taxation, child custody and access issues, Hepatitis C, and upholding Canada's child pornography laws. Unfortunately, Parliament's response to these matters has been disappointing. The Official Opposition believes that children are best cared for within families, not governments. The needs of families under stress with children at risk are best met at a community and local government level. New federal bureaucracies for children funded by non-optional taxes from their parents is not in the best interests of children.

---

1 The Scope of Government and the Wealth of Nations, James Gwartney, Randall Holcombe, and Robert Lawson, Cato Journal, 18: 163-90, Fall 1998.

2 Vanier Institute of the Family press release, February 11, 1999.

3 Minority Opinion of the Official Opposition - Dec. 1998 Finance Committee report.

4 First Report, Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk, p. xiii.

5 http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/981028/d981028.htm - National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Cycle 2, 1996 - StatsCan, The Daily, October 28, 1998.

6 http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/981028/d981028.htm - National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Cycle 2, 1996 - StatsCan, The Daily, October 28, 1998.