Relief for a disaster of our own creation

Enough emergency responses to the child poverty crisis. Policy got us into this tragedy, and policy can get us out. 

The remarkable outpouring of donations to the tsunami relief by Canadians has left some asking how we could respond so swiftly and energetically to that disaster while the disaster of child poverty in Canada has become old news. I have heard this question asked by community activists and high school students. Most recently I heard Ed Broadbent of the NDP ask it again, this at a national forum marking the 15th anniversary of the all-party resolution to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000.

In one way, that question is really misplaced. But in another, our response to the tsunami disaster holds important lessons for what we are going to do about child poverty in Canada.

Both Canada’s response to the tsunami disaster and the questions about apparent lack of interest in child poverty are positive. They underscore a profound recognition that we are part of one human family and that a crisis that befalls our neighbours, whether a world away or just down the street, stirs us to action.

But the tsunami disaster and child poverty in Canada are fundamentally different. The tsunami was a natural disaster. Our immediate response to give charitable donations for emergency relief is appropriate in the aftermath of that disaster.

Child poverty in Canada is a human-made disaster. It is the result of many decisions – made largely by government, but also by other decision-makers in businesses and in communities. Decisions like Paul Martin’s 1993 budget when the federal government stopped building new, affordable housing. Decisions by business and governments to “rationalize” the work force – laying off workers in full-time, well-paying, secure jobs only to hire them back on a contract basis with no job security or benefits. Decisions to clamp down on people who were unemployed or on welfare – out of a sense of tough love, of course – by making it harder to access these programs and cutting benefit levels.

Child poverty in Canada is not a natural disaster. And it is not an inevitable result of the new realities of a globalized economy. Many other countries dealing with the same economic pressures have protected families with children from the economic distress that so many Canadian families face.

Yet, Canadians’ response to the child poverty disaster has been remarkably similar to our response to the tsunami disaster. Emergency measures remain the primary reaction. Communities across the country mobilize every year to stock the growing number of foodbanks with emergency food for a growing number of families. Business, too, has stepped up to help develop a remarkable network for shipping excess groceries to foodbanks across the country. Faith groups have opened their places of worship as temporary shelters in winter months. The federal government even launched a homelessness secretariat. Local utilities have set up “share the warmth” programs where we can donate money to help keep the heat on for our neighbours who are struggling to pay the rent and feed the kids and have nothing left over for other necessities at the end of the month.

We are a generous, compassionate people.

But if the emergency responses pouring into Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and elsewhere were all that happened when rebuilding is possible, we would be outraged.

Picture the images of whole cities that were razed by the tsunami. Now imagine the scene 15 years from now. Those areas are filled with people living in tents, provided by relief agencies. They line up weekly for the emergency supplies provided through the generous, ongoing donations of Canadian citizens, businesses and governments. There is no tsunami warning system and nothing has been done to create structures to protect vulnerable areas from the ravages of natural disasters.

And every year, political leaders, including our Prime Minister, meet at conferences and speak eloquently of the moral imperative to protect people from preventable natural disasters and to rebuild affected communities.

A preposterous picture you would rightly say. If that were the situation 15 years from now, it would add human-made disaster to the natural disaster.

Yet, that is precisely what Canada has done about child and family poverty at home. In 1989 our Members of Parliament resolved unanimously to strive to end child poverty in Canada by 2000. This was a heartfelt response to the recently signed United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In the intervening years, many countries have taken effective steps to dramatically reduce child poverty in their countries. Throughout Northern and Western Europe child poverty rates are far lower than in Canada. Britain under Tony Blair belatedly joined this movement setting ambitious targets for reducing child poverty and taking decisive steps to achieve them. And Britain, so far, has met those targets. International studies have identified the mix of factors – primarily well-paying jobs and strong, well-financed public programs like affordable housing, child care, child benefits and maternity/parental leave.

Between 1989 and 2005, Canada has moved mostly backwards on most of these measures. And much of the responsibility for the situation and for changing the situation lies at the feet of our current Prime Minister, Paul Martin.

For, although he has spoken eloquently about how child poverty in Canada is a national disgrace, he presided over – indeed, initiated – much of the dismantling of the programs as Finance Minister. It was Paul Martin who ended federal funding for new affordable housing; Paul Martin who slashed transfer payments for social programs and threw out the national standards that protected the dignity of people who fell into poverty. And, in the face of international evidence that countries who devote high proportions of their national wealth to public services that benefit families and children have been most successful in reducing child poverty – it was Paul Martin who proudly proclaimed in his 1999 budget that federal program spending as a percentage of Canada’s gross domestic product was at its lowest level in 50 years.

Granted, other political and business leaders share responsibility for the decisions that have been taken, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien among others. Yet Paul Martin must take responsibility for the impact his actions have had. Now that he heads a government that has racked up more than $61 billion in budget surpluses the past seven years – all spent on debt repayment – he has the means to tackle the problem. 

All is not gloom. Indeed, the federal government has taken steps to rebuild after that disaster that swept over communities across our country. With Paul Martin as Finance Minister the federal government did increase child benefits and protected from erosion due to inflation. Maternity leave was extended to a full year, although many mothers can still not access it. The federal government eventually started to provide new funds to build affordable housing, and not just expand emergency shelters. Indeed, as Prime Minister Paul Martin appointed a minister responsible for housing, Joe Fontana, who recently launched consultations on a national housing strategy. And there is even a promise to create a national early learning and child care system.

For the sake of the people whose lives were shattered by the tsunami, we have to hope that the international response is far more effective than Canada’s own response to the ravages of child poverty on our own shores. And it is high time for Canadian governments to demonstrate the political commitment – and the good sense – to implement the proven measures to reduce and prevent child poverty.