OECD Reports go against NDP Child Poverty advocates

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Tue. Nov. 24 2009 10:00 AM ET

Twenty years after the House of Commons resolved to eliminate child poverty in Canada, almost one in 10 Canadian children still live in low-income families, according to a new report.



"After a period of about 12 to 15 years of economic growth and prosperity, the poverty rate only came down a very small amount," Rothman told CTV's Canada AM during a Tuesday morning telephone interview from Ottawa.

"We still have more than 634,000 children living in low-income families," Rothman said.

"Many of them often have to resort to food banks, they may not have secure housing and have to move frequently and change schools."

These same families are often unable to find affordable childcare, which also puts them at a disadvantage.

"We're really quite stuck in this country and we need to move forward," Rothman said.

In order for that to happen, Rothman said Canadian leaders need to make child poverty a priority issue.

"I think the biggest hurdle is lack of leadership and determination," Rothman said.



OECD 2009 Reports this:

“Universality wastes resources by providing something to children who don't need it,” the OECD points out.

Conditional Cash Transfers,

"If the payment is sufficiently high, conditional cash transfers accessed by poor families may also contribute significantly to poverty alleviation and other child well-being outcomes as family income rises."

There was a study down in Mexico called Oportunidades, which is based on cash transfers to the mothers, pre natal care, post natal, education etc... and it worked.



If we do what the NDP wants and initiate a National Daycare Strategy, then we will cause more poverty across Canada and the world.
Resources put into a National Daycare Strategy would cost billion in taxes which means increases to those who do not use or need a daycare


We need to focus on the individual child and not the bureaucracy of political parties.

Ed Broadbent on child poverty, Dion picking Libs over wife

Ed Broadbent

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Nov. 23, 2009 6:13PM EST


All nations have myths about themselves. Canadians are not exempt. Looking to the south, we regularly proclaim our moral superiority: While Americans are out for themselves, we share and care.

Well, once upon a time, we did. But no longer. More rapidly than almost every other country among the wealthiest members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, we are becoming deeply unequal. Who knows? We may even catch up to the United States.

Nothing better illustrates this reality than the two-decade trend in child poverty. Twenty years ago today, all parties in the House of Commons voted for a motion to abolish child poverty by the year 2000. Reform was in the air. Just a few days earlier, with Canada playing a leading role, the United Nations had adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We thought an 11-year agenda to virtually overcome child poverty was quite plausible, and the 1990s did turn out to be one of the very best decades in economic growth. According to the trickle-down soothsayers in politics, the media and the academic world, we all should have benefited. Instead, 20 years after the motion was passed, Canada's level of poverty is virtually unchanged.

Almost all income growth has gone to the top 10 per cent, and their share of the national income has substantially increased. In contrast, after two decades, the child-poverty rate has dropped a mere two percentage points, to 9.5 per cent.

Why is it that Finland, Sweden and Denmark have almost wiped out child poverty, and we have not? Why do more than 600,000 Canadian kids wake up hungry and go to school trying to read, write and think on an empty stomach?

First, we should have no illusions about where our poor children are to be found. Most are in families with two adults. Most poor adults work. Most of them have incomes so low that they can't afford housing and can't adequately feed or clothe their kids. If kids are members of aboriginal or immigrant Canadian families, the odds are even much greater that they will be poor.


Personal Note

Taxing the rich will just make them get more tax breaks in other ways, currently most people who are extremely rich do not pay an adequate amount of tax comparably to lower and middle incomes because of all the tax alleviations for them.
I agree Ed is a nice guy and he has heart, I just do not agree taxing the rich more is the answer. Go directly to the problem, look at the parents their back ground and work with them as a family and not an individual who appears to the government as "productive members of society" = higher tax payers.
Labeling these people is wrong.

Families (any family) are the ones you need to deal directly with, not more bureaucracy.


I don't know if any of you remember this, but Ed Broadbent was one of the first MP's to actively support Income Splitting.








In other news,


Janine Krieber set Liberal tongues wagging on the weekend with a Facebook posting in which she slammed Ignatieff as an intellectual dilettante who is incapable of pulling the party out of what she deems its death spiral.

She broadly hinted she's thinking of switching allegiance to another party.

Ignatieff wouldn't comment directly on Krieber's musings, which were deleted shortly after she posted them.

But he said the only thing that matters is that Dion himself has assured him of his support.

"I just spoke to Stephane," Ignatieff said Monday.

"Stephane is a colleague and friend and has given me absolutely magnificent support throughout my leadership."


Personal Note:


Way to stay true to your family Dion.
This bothers me a lot, most politicians do show more loyalty to their political family than there own real family.

International day of the Child....

Remember your child, give them a hug a smile a cookie and always remember what they give to you.




















Kids don't know about politics, policies, idiot politicians, media bias or even economic problems, so why do I need to waste the day of the child on complaining.



Today is the day to smile!

Mom could be charged by military for staying with son....

Single mom refuses deployment to care for infant son

An Army cook and single mom is confined to her base in Georgia and may face criminal charges for skipping her deployment flight to Afghanistan in orer to take care of her infant son.

Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, 21, who was arrested by military police Nov. 6, claims she had no choice but to refuse deployment orders when her mother was unable to care for her 10-month-old son, Kamani.

Her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, alleges that one of Hutchinson's superiors at Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Ga., told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care.

No charges have been filed, but Kevin Larson, a spokesman for the Army post, says commanders are investigating, the Associated Press says.

Larson says he does not know what Hutchinson's commanders may have said, but that the Army would not deploy a single parent who had nobody to care for a child.

Savannah's WTOC -TV reports that Larson calls some of the statements from the Hutchinson camp "misleading" and says that the Army gave her an additional 30 days to work out a plan when her initial child care arrangements fell through.

At the time of Hutchinson's arrest, Kamani, was placed into custody overnight with a daycare provider on the post, Larson says.

Watch WTOC's report below or click here.


Personal note:


Could this happen in Canada?

Of course, society in America does not put parenting first.

Equal parenting seminar in Ottawa

Childcare advocates for non-profit not Childcare...

For-profit child care is the wrong model
Enid Elliot, Times Colonist
Published: Saturday, November 14, 2009

We understand that the University of Victoria is facing a child-care crisis -- this is a crisis throughout our region.

The Regional Child Care Council has been monitoring and reporting on the child-care situation in Victoria for 10 years. From our research, we believe an affordable, accessible and high-quality system of child care would benefit our community economically and socially.

(If it is a crisis then explain why instead of "we believe", there is no actual evidence in the statement above)

We are concerned that Kids and Company, a corporate child-care company, might be invited to solve the problems of the university and urge it to consider alternative solutions.

(Alternative solutions? Like what cheaper rates so parents can afford them, oh wow how awful!)




Academic research and experience in other countries has shown that corporate child care does not provide good care for children.
(Where is this research? Academic and experience by who, YOU the childcare advocates who only advocate non-profit?)

Throughout the research literature, one finds that non-profit child care delivers care of a higher calibre than care that must make a profit. Wages are the largest portion of any child-care budget. Cutting corners on wages attracts a less skilled, stable and consistent workforce and hiring less qualified staff is another way to keep the wage costs down. Poorly qualified and poorly paid staff do not result in a quality situation for children or their families. Corporate child care's focus is profit and returns to shareholders. Community-based child care's focus is on children and families.
(In my experience if a child is at at home with mom or dad, THEY DON'T GET PAID AT ALL. Does that make them horrible?)


The university is educating people to work with young children, families and the community. It can set an example of high standards that reflect the understanding that resides within its community.
(They will reflect the understanding of Communist childcare if you force the fact of non-profit childcare)

The university can be a leader in supporting the development of affordable, accessible child care of a high quality.
(The University will not be a leader instead it will force parents into a communist childcare setting if they follow your dictations!)

Enid Elliot

Regional Child Care Council

Victoria

it is illegal to transport a child without a seatbelt & a car seat... but not on school buses... why?

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Thu. Nov. 12 2009 6:46 PM ET

Seventeen children are injured after their school bus collided with a mini-van and then spun out of control, crashing into a tree and stopping within a few centimeters of a house in Calgary.

One girl on board the bus when it crashed told CTV Calgary that neighbours in the area helped the kids get out through the back door as it filled with smoke and dust.

The children, all between grades 5 and 8, suffered only minor injuries like cuts and bruises, police told CTV.ca Thursday.

The drivers of both the bus and the mini-van were reportedly taken to hospital with serious injuries but are in stable condition. The children have all been released from hospital.

Calgary Police are investigating whether it was a mechanical or human error that caused the crash. First Student Canada, the company that owns the bus, launched its own investigation.

One boy on the bus told CTV Calgary that the children believe the bus driver tried to brake but couldn't stop.

"The brake didn't work and I knew that we were going to be a crash because I saw ice on the ground," said Shawn Lester, who is in grade 5.

Seventeen other children on board were taken to the hospital to meet their parents, but did not require treatment.

Police received a call about the crash, which happened in the northwest end of the city, at around 8:00 a.m. local time.

Six fire trucks and approximately 15 firefighters responded to the crash, according to a news release from the City of Calgary.

When emergency workers arrived on the scene the children were already being evacuated from the emergency exit of the bus.

"Chainsaws and other hand tools are being utilized to remove the bus from the grips of a large spruce tree that the unit ran into and rested on," stated the news release.

The owner of the house, Marilyn Gunn, said she heard a loud bang. She and a neighbour then helped the children out of the smashed-up bus, she said.

The Calgary Police traffic unit is investigating the accident.



CTV reported Nov 12 that a school bus advocate suggested that it was safer to drive in a school bus without seat belts rather than having one for every child.
The man said the only ones seriously hurt in the crashes were the bus drivers and they were only ones wearing seat belts...

In Calgary the bus did not flip, the mini-van did. If the bus had flipped what do you think would have happened to the children, would whip-lash have been more preferable to the outcome compared to...


I asked my oldest daughter what she thought of kids wearing seat belts and her conclusion was "it would cost them too much money to put them in".

Taxi's and school bus drivers are legally allowed to transport newborns to teenagers without seat-belts, but ambulances strap down there patients even if they are children.

I was a small child and seat belts were not mandatory yet, though my older brother insisted I wear a seat belt I thought he was being an annoying pain... eventually I realized he was just trying to protect me.

My personal view is the government of de jour is not willing to spend the money to add the seat-belts to the school buses.

What is your opinion?

Rememberance Day

I can't bring myself to tell stories because of personal reasons, but I would like you to go see MAW


Today is a day to remember, and tell stories. I've told my children the stories from their Umbah and will continue.

Will you.

I agree with the Liberals on this one

Ontario HST


Ontario's plan to adopt the controversial Harmonized Sales Tax could hit a roadblock on Parliament Hill.

Opposition parties said Friday they may not support an upcoming Conservative motion to change federal tax regulations -- necessary for the implementation of the combined tax. And since the HST motion could be budget-related and therefore a confidence vote, the issue might trigger a federal election.

A bill paving the way for the HST, which Ontario wants in place by July 1, 2010, is expected to be presented to Parliament by March 31.

The NDP has stated its intention to fight the combined tax. John Rafferty, the NDP MP for Thunder Bay-Rainy River, tabled a motion Thursday aimed at halting the federal government's promise of $4 billion for Ontario to help it make the tax transition.

"The Ontario government has made it clear that if they don't get the $4.3 billion to bring in HST that they are not going to go ahead with it ... we can nip this in the bud," Rafferty said Friday.

"Anyone on a fixed income is going to pay a terrible price for this. Even if you look at regular middle-class families with a couple children, it will end up costing them thousands of dollars extra over the course of the year." John McCallum, Liberal finance critic and MP for the Ontario riding of Markham-Unionville, said his party supports the idea of the HST. However, he said he needs to see the wording before commenting on whether the party would support a Conservative motion.



Personal note:


The HST will effect everything from gas prices to buying a home. Elderly people on incomes, single income families, welfare, and yes even the rich will pay dearly with an HST in Ontario.

The Federal Conservatives should not be dealing with this issue, McGuinty has started it but the Federal Conservatives are the ones who will sign the deal and finish it.

I don't want the HST!