Ending child poverty, but when?

On November 24, 1989, Ed Broadbent, the leader of the NDP, rose in his place in the House of Commons to make what would be his final speech before retirement.

He put forward a resolution.  It read: "Be it resolved that this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000."

It passed unanimously.

It was a subject close to Broadbent's heart. Eliminating child poverty in this country had long been an NDP policy plank.

Reform was in the air back then. A few days before the vote, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Canada played a not unimportant role in getting that convention approved. And to eliminate child poverty by 2000, while it would be difficult, was not an improbable or impossible goal.

If governments kept their heads and focused on the various ways Ottawa and the provinces could pull it off, it would be a great way to celebrate the Millennium.

Children are not statistics. But unfortunately when you write about child poverty, you have to use numbers. Well, on this 25th anniversary of that resolution, how have we done?

The answer to the question might be "not very well." Or it could be "not as well as we had expected." Or the answer could and should be "bloody terrible."

In fact, since the warm glow of the resolution 25 years ago, child poverty has become worse. By 2013, the number of low income kids had increased from 912,000 to 967,000. A recent study says child poverty has reached what could be called epidemic levels.

According to Statistics Canada, my city, Toronto, is tied with Saint John as having the highest poverty rate. There are almost 149,000 children in the city whose families are living on half the median household income after taxes. I needn't remind you that coincidentally, Toronto is the richest city in Canada. As the United Way points out in its current campaign, the child poverty rate in some neighbourhoods is plus 50 per cent. 

There are all kinds of reasons. Precarious employment has increased at the rate of 50 per cent in the last 20 years. In the Toronto of 1970, there were 97 low income communities. In 2005, the figure was 271.

Ordinary people search for answers. Some blame an influx of immigrant families. Others wonder why poor families don't move to smaller, less expensive cities. In the recent Toronto mayoralty campaign, Olivia Chow was the only candidate to raise the issue with any real energy. But by the end of this week, the mayor-elect John Tory announced that child poverty in the city will be a priority for his administration, requiring, as he said, the coordinated  energies and imagination of numerous agencies.

Why can Scandinavian countries wipe out child poverty completely? Is it perhaps because Norse voters care more than we do? Perhaps if we really cared, we wouldn't elect school trustees who cut budgets and provincial governments that care more about deficits and Pan Am Games, than children. 

Radio master Garrison Keillor once wrote: "Nothing you do for children is ever wasted. They seem not to notice us, hovering, averting our eyes and they seldom offer thanks, but what we do for them is never wasted."

Twenty-five years ago, we said we would do it, get rid of child poverty by 2000. Hate to think what the fiftieth anniversary will bring.

NOTE: Inspired by activist June Callwood's example, Keep The Promise (KTP) is a coalition of volunteers and organizations deeply committed to ending child poverty across Canada.