Your View

I don't believe the government is the answer.

In fact they cause more problems with their policies and legislations.

I also agree some people like and use the system.

I also know alot of people who fall through the government cracks in the social safety nets.

What I have found though,is people really don't care about other people.

In an country as rich as Canada,there should be no hunger or homelessness.

People should be able to live humane lives but alot don't.

I also know too many people that have fought against a system for so long they gave up.

Poverty creates hopelessness as well as helplessness.

Far too many kids are turning to alcohol,drugs and suicide as a way out.

It is hard to have hope when you look around you and see only despair and desperation.

On the Governor General's web-site Citizen's Voices,I started to add names of youth under their Youth section to help inspire kids with other Canadian kid role models.

I believe even though it may not be much,it just might be the little bit of inspiration kids need to help them understand that life can get better.Maybe not now today but hopefully in the future.

I ask if anyone knows any to please list them because that is something ALL kids need today positive kid role models.

Most of us agree that we want a country that offers everyone a level playing field when it comes to earning a living.And honest disagreement over what the possible remedies is healthy.

But I totally disagree with people who think the answer can be found in social handouts.We need to do more to target groups of people who live in povery.And those who are struggling. However,I think it is the height of moral bankrupcy to be willing to live off your neighbours earnings.All to often that is the solution offered by the political left.

Social programs that are not targeted towards the people in real need are counter productive.This "universality" attitude strikes fear in my family.They are so open to abuse that the working poor,and middle class are bankrupted by the taxes needed to support them.

When the political left can propose social programs that are efficient,and available ONLY to those in genuine need,I will be there to support them.But,I am also on a very limited income.My escalating tax bills will soon mean I have to leave the city I have lived my life in because I can no longer afford the taxes here.

I'm not starving.And I know I am better off than many,but I have to watch my pennies closely.If I am going to help pay for social programs,I think I am entitled to "value".To know that my taxes are not going to people more well off than I am.

It's immoral to help the poor by impoverishing someone else.In fact,that would almost certainly ensure that many end up needing social assistance who might otherwise have not required it.

EVERY tax impoverishes someone.A child with two parents who smoke,for example.Their parents pay $400-500 in extra taxes every month.They should not smoke,but,since you can't MAKE them quit,the children will have less to eat.

I'm amazed by how many people think there is "free" anything.Until we get the majority past that misconception we have no chance.

"Free" transit,"free" health care,"free" post secondary education,"free" lunches.

Perhaps if we can agree that the debate is not about "free" anything,but in fact,is about "who pays" for those "free" services we can move forward.By acknowledging that someone pays for them,we will at least be in a position to open a debate on who that should be.

It is important to recognize that "the government has no money".They are only custodians of money earned by it's citizens.

I agree with people who suggest we lower,or eliminate the tax burden of low income families.Lowering prices,or even raising incomes is not always possible.But there are already ways for governments at all levels to let Canadians keep more of their incomes,and upgrade their education and work skills.

But in the end,it will be up to the individual to scratch and claw his/her way up the ladder.And,perhaps,that is the way it should be.As they say,"you can lead a horse to water,but you can't make him drink".

We have to accept that there will always be some poor people.What we need to do is make sure there is support,and a road they can take,that takes them out of poverty.

Living on charity,social services,and the work of your fellow Canadians can be a powerful addiction to some people.Once they get on one of those treadmills,it is hard to find the motivation to get off.

Have some faith.I think things are getting better.The sky is not falling.Improvements will be slow in coming,but they will come.We are decreasing our debt,as opposed to decades of increasing it.More people are working than ever before.

Taxes are going down,as opposed to going up.Every little bit helps.And every time we reach one goal,we can move the goal posts and set another target.

I don't disagree with anything you say there Charlene and I congratulate you on your presonal involvement, which is also very important and a lesson to everyone.

Your points don't preclude mine however. I'd be interested in hearing what exactly you find offensive in my contention that the government also has a role to play in this and that strong social programs can be an effective measure to help combat child poverty.

Jane said earlier that you can't throw money at poverty and expect it to go away. What she should have said was you can't JUST throw money at poverty, money still has a role however.

Like I said previously, we have a role to play as individuals and parents, but the government must also do it's part. It is not a case of one versus the other, it's a case of everyone doing everything they can at all levels to help erradicate child poverty. I have trouble understanding why that is so radical a concept to grasp.

Here's a thought - how about the Government stop making report after report on how to help children in poverty and use that money to help alleviate the issue at hand.

I worked for the Government and most of the reports the Govt spends thousands upon thousands on are simply sent to other Government departments and shelved.

When will the endless expenditures on studies and reports stop and the money be used for REAL things such as food, clothing, shelter and free physical activities!

High numbers of children living in poverty, poor health and state care?

Poverty is based on the income of the parent, how can a government legislate that people must make more money?
Poor health refers to what disease? Obesity? Cancer? Alcoholism?

State Care refers to what? Foster Homes? Juvenile detention? Asylums?

I can't believe that any reasonable person can draw any conclusion whatsoever from such a non specific statement.

Think about it...if I donated a Billion dollars...would sick kids no longer exist...would foster kids get homes...would bad kids be good?

It'd make for a real high commissioners salary though.

Ah,but Brian I did propose steps and not only do I propose them I act on them.

I do it locally,provincially and federally.

I am not only involved locally in helping volunteering my EXPERTISE in poverty but am very active and vocal about it all over Canada.

I have lived in both ends of the spectrum,rich and poor.

I have lived on the streets also.

I have fought with my city trying to get free transportation in the heat for people,free programs for kids including access to the water parks and swimming pool.

Kids are excluded from sports and programs if they don't have money.Not everyone can afford a couple dollars here and there when they have to choose between food and recreation ,which do you believe people will choose.

My family collects,food,clothes,is involved with many organizations to help people.

I have NEVER turned anyone away from my door who needed help and have NEVER turned away a kid who needs help EVER.

Some of us who have lived the shittiest lives understand and empathize the most with people because we don't believe anyone should have to suffer the way any of us did.

MAYBE if more people lived as we do,the world would be a hell of a lot better place to live in.

IF you want a better,kinder,gentler,loving world for everyone,change begins first with ME.

This is very frustrating as CBC won't let me respond to posts directed at me.

Jane and charlene, there is a problem with what you're saying. I'm not disputing the sentiment of what you're saying. If a child has no love whether that child be rich or poor, it is a bad thing. Same for abuse, it is not income dependant.

I was simply proposing concrete practical steps that the government could take to diminish child poverty. That's what this topic is about. The government can't provide love to children nor can it legislate love.

Providing employment to parents, providing real universal healthcare, providing proper day care, are all steps that will help reduce child poverty.

They do not preclude parents loving their children and accepting their responsibilities. As for the legal aspect of child abuse, I'm on record here saying the laws need to be stronger to better protect children.

Both of you talk a good piece but propose no practical actions that could be taken. Saying that we must "create a country where children are put first" is all very nice but it's just words and no action. We need action Jane, as a social worker you should know that.

Not every parent on social assistance is there by choice. When I became pregnant I had a husband and a career making $19 an hour, which was pretty good money 16 years ago.

Unfortunately when I was 5 weeks pregnant, hubby decided it would be more fun to disappear into the states rather than raise a child. Sixteen years later he still cannot be located.

My career came to an end when I suffered a back injury which is inoperable. I am now a single handicapped Mom of a handicapped child. I decided to retrain and took out $10,000 in student loans so that I could get off the system, only to re-injure half way through my second year of school.

I cannot apply for disability because we need a family doctor (which we can't find) to fill out the forms and I am $10,000 in debt.

Sometimes life throws you a curveball and that's all it takes to change your life. There is no pride in having to say no to your child when he wants to partake in an activity with his friends that costs money. Yes, there are some people who are where they are by choice, but then again there are just as many that don't have a choice.

I don't drink, smoke, do drugs or spend money at the bingo halls. However through careful budgeting, my son is well dressed and well fed and I try to instill good values in him.

In spite of everything I try to do to ensure my sons well being however, I worry about his future without a college fund I had planned on securing for him when I was pregnant, and the dreams most parents have for their children.

On another note, many of the programs that are set up to help low income parents and their children do not always benefit those it is intended for. Walk into my sons school any morning of the week and you will see almost every teacher there (who all make more than enough money to eat at home), sitting in a group enjoying the free breakfast program which is meant for kids who go to school hungrey.

I think of Linda (Vancouver) is a good example of how you can grow up in a low income family and be happy and proud of it.

The main thing here is having good parents. Too many posts here (i.e.; Brian) seem to think it is better government and more and more money that will solve this situation.

Sure it would be nice to grow up in a family with all the material needs you can think off, but what about proper love from a parent.

The average parent today thinks too much about their own individual needs and therefor neglects the child.

No Brian you are wrong. Poverty comes in many forms. Does it really matter how/where a child is brought up, what kind of income background they live in, or even where they get their food (food bank , grocery store, etc)? If the child grows up happy and loved and moves into the adult world of Canada they will do well in this country.

Actually, if a child grows up in a struggling lower income family but receives lots of love and support they often are much more successful than their counter parts who grew up in a higher income environment.

As it’s been said before “it takes a village to raise a child”. You can give all the nicest clothes and food to a child, but abuse them and they will suffer long after into adulthood, and that sir IS A PROVEN FACT.

Child and family services report child abuse (including child sexual abuse) reports to be at an all time high, and the complaints come from all incomes levels, not just the poor. ALL facts I may add.

Brian, throwing money at the situation will not necessarily make it any better. Creating a society that makes (or enforces) children to be FIRST PRIORITY will. The wants and needs of the child MUST come before the adult. Until that happens we don’t stand a chance.

Jane (Social Worker)

"I would support government-supplied child care for those who had a real, demonstrable need but I do not believe a universal system is required."

Childcare is rather expensive, especially when it's yet another big chunk of one's income (added to housing, food, and transportation costs). Because of that, I'd wager that any _fair+ policy on childcare would see that most Canadian families with young children would end up qualifying for (and using!) the government-supplied resource.

By making it so that only some people qualify, the government would almost certainly add yet another layer of bureaucracy to sort out who gets the funded spots in childcare and who doesn't.

Why waste that money on office jobs when it could well be going to pay for childcare spots for those that can use it?

It seems more financially sensible, if nothing else, to provide a universal program. In doing so, it will provide real, measurable assistance to every family with young children and especially those who are scraping their change together for busfare and groceries.

We see government after government in Canada talk about addressing this issue. They throw some money at it, but by the time they staff the necessary beaurocrats etc, the money's gone and tied up in red tape. Then it gets funneled into someone's campaign fund and never feeds a single hungry mouth.

We need to stop expecting that our government will or can do anything about this problem. There are lots of non-government run charities who do great work for them.

We should urge the government to do all it can not to hinder thier good work. Anyone who wants to put an end to child hunger should be looking to themselves to help fight the problem not government.

We need more than a commissioner! We need a government that is not mean spirited, which is what our entire decadent capitalistic system is based on, ie deceit,exploitation, and last but not least blatant delusion.

Until the people elect a government that is not concerned with fat cats and their debauchery, we are doomed to societal paralysis.

Brian R. define the words "child poverty."

What Steve is saying also fits into child poverty.

Child poverty is: not having the basic neccessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter,warmth,medical care,schooling.I believe those things are agreed upon.

But lets take it further.

Do you not believe also that a child should have in addition to the above, security, not be afraid, not abused and have the ability to thrive and grow?

Do you not believe they are entitled to unconditional love?

To me a child is entitled to ALL of the above and when they don't have ALL the above ,they live in poverty.

Children are priceless and until treated as such we will have problems.

Money doesn't by that but love does.

Steve, while I sincerely sympathize with your unfortunate experience, with respect, it isn't really what we're talking about here. We're talking about children today in Canada living in poverty.

Of course abuse has to be dealt with. You seem to be implying that there are no laws whatsoever, that all abusers walk. Not true.

Should the laws be stronger? Of course, I'd support that immediately. But poverty is the issue here, not child abuse.

Child poverty at it's root is due to parental poverty and under a socialist leaning political system, poverty is inherently lower, it's a proven fact.

A number of posts consider the use of the term “poverty” to be manipulative or not clearly defined. There are also many postings commenting that the UN seems to be overstating the matter.

Why has the UN done this? Could it be that our society has become full of people who only respond to bite sized self-interest or emotional messages more than they do to moderate, rational, dry and complete descriptions that go on and on about the complexities and nuances of an issue?

Even our own political parties agonize over the details of the method and presentation of their tidy, controlled, micro news bits. They have even developed catchy slogans for policies.

The second most effective messages use babies or children to attract interest. The most effective messages simply tell the consumer what’s in it for them.

Perhaps the current day news consumer is the reason every issue is now being presented as a headline disaster or imminent threat. If the subject does not affect the news consumer then it needs to be phrased to be affecting babies to get the readers attention.

Perhaps it is no surprise the UN have resorted to this type of messaging. Without it they might not be heard.

The UN is trying to get the attention of Canadians. In Canada, the population probably gives more consideration to potential NHL trade deals than the living conditions that must be endured by many Canadians.

I think the UN hopes that awareness of suffering in our land of plenty will grow. They may hope Canadians will realize that, for some potentially very complex reasons, even with all the wealth that there is in Canada there are still people who, unjustly, are living in horrible circumstances.

The question has to be, why is this allowed to happen?

The real answer will be when all Canadians actually care about others.

Hopefully, the commissioner will be able to raise awareness and increase the number of people who care.

I believe children are our future and we have an obligation to ensure that every child can achieve his or her full potential.

This means every child will: have their basic needs met (for example enough food to eat, homes that are dry and warm, clothes); feel safe in their homes, schools and communities; and have access to all the supports they need to develop emotionally, physically and mentally.

I agree with Joes first comment from Halifax (posted Nov 20 at 9:45) and Charlene Smith's comment (posted Nov 21 at 3:58).

For me I do not think the answer lies in a federal commissioner alone, but in a collective policy that crosses all levels of government (federal, provincial/territorial, municipal) and multiple departments (health, community services, education, justice, etc.)

If a commissioner is supported by all levels of government and the different departments to make a real difference then I applaud this move.

But if a commissioner is not supported then it is a futile exercise. We have done enough talking. It is time to act.

A Minister for Children's Affairs? The U.N.? This is laughable.

Just what we need, another ministry telling us how to do something. As for the U.N., any outfit that can have China on its Human Rights Council needs a little scrutiny.

The U.N is famous for bloated bureaucratic paralysis. They have no credibility on anything anymore.

Yes there should be a special commissioner to see that Canada looks after all disadvantaged children.

With the large surplus of funds our government has there is no excuse for our children to live in poverty.

Not to have enough food or proper housing is unacceptable in a wealthy country such as Canada.

The Canadian government must act to address this wrong.

"Let's stop forcing mothers to decide whether to work or go on welfare. its an impossible decision where no one benefits."

However, the flip side is why force Mom to work because the tax burden demands 2 salaries. I think stronger, intact families are a big part of the puzzle here (though admittedly not the only piece).

I would support government-supplied child care for those who had a real, demonstrable need but I do not believe a universal system is required.

Controversially perhaps, I think our country would benefit if the Government supported families and marriage more aggressively (income splitting as one example) and made divorce more difficult, and therefore hopefully less common.

As an aside, I would like stories such as these to at least link to a clear definition of what is considered poverty. I am fairly certain that my definition of poverty would differ from many here so a definition of terms would be very helpful.

I totally DISAGREE with Brian R (BC)

Free education and all the social programs in the world would not have made my childhood (and siblings) situation any better. Read my previous post!

I for one think that we must clamp down on child abuse across the board (rich and poor), and that will not come form the socialists.

I think the conservatives are on the right track, but need to enforce much stricter rules regarding children. Child abuse must not be tolerated.

The socialist idea (The Liberals, and especially the NDP) is to give the abusers a “slap on the wrist and say don’t do it again”.

If they do, they give them another and another chance, while the kids suffer. Let's start with locking Pedophiles up and throwing away the key! Something however we will NEVER get from the socialist agenda

I grew up in a single-mother family with a family of nine. My mother took us all from the maritimes and moved us to Ontario.

She was on social assistance until she got a decent job several years later. She did it all on her own with getting money from the government for only five kids. (that was the max, I guess)

Now, I think I'm a responsible adult. My education is paid for and I have a full-time job and a small family.

I have a son now, and he and my husband is what matter to me most. People must have their priorities right while raising children.

People with lots of money can be lousy parents. It takes a LOT of hard work and love to raise kids...not just money. Though, I must admit, it would help if we had universal child care in place!

If I can turn out ok, (with some mistakes along the way) then I believe the kids of today with the use of resources available, anyone can.

That's what makes Canada a great country to live in.

Child poverty (just like any form of poverty) is something that we should work toward doing away with.

However, what is the definition of poverty?

The "Poverty Line" is something that is abitrarily created from year to year. Sometimes it is a statistical line which is drawn based upon the average salary earnings of families.

The line is moved to ensure that a certain % is below the line. That would be impossible to erase. Sometimes it is defined by a group of economists taking a basket of goods which they personally feel are needed and working out the income required to afford those goods.

Two families with the exact same income, but living in two different regions of the country, might both be "below the poverty line" but one might be living a much easier life.

I am not trivializing poverty, it really does exist, and in Canada too. But many of the people in Canada who are "below the poverty line" would be considered middle to upper class in many nations in the world.

When someone throws out statistics, the most important first question that can be asked is "how do you get these numbers?".

A number of years ago there was a front-page article in a certain newspaper which reported that a staggeringly high number of women had been sexually abused (I think the number was over 80%).

A week later it came out that the study had been done at a local women's shelter for abused women. I would hope that we could learn a lesson from this and ask pertinent questions before we start tossing around decisions on the quality of life in Canada.

The U.N. is a huge waste of time, and their recommendation that Canada appoint a Commissioner for children is an example of the U.N. doing what they do best: pour money into Utopian concepts that don't fly in the real world.

According to CBC, the U.N. is holding the Canadian government responsible for "High numbers of children living in poverty, poor health and state care."

The people responsible for this are the parents of children, not the government.

If we say the government is responsible, then we have to give them all of the authority in a child's life. You can't have it both ways.

So, unless we're willing to let the state adopt our children, we as parents are still responsible for our children's lives.

And the best thing we can do right now is confirm for every man, woman, and child in Canada that we all have free will, and that we are all responsible for the decisions we make.

When a person creates or adopts a child, they are responsible for that child's welfare. I don't care what has befallen you, or what your gender or race is: here in Canada there is so much help and assistance available that if your child isn't eating properly and accessing simple fitness opportunities, you are a loser.

Your child doesn't need to eat like a monarch, and they don't need to be registered in 12 sports and 5 artistic pursuits.

A simple balanced diet and daily interaction and recreation with their parents will suffice. Look in the mirror, ignore the U.N., and let the Canadian government focus on real issues, not on how we should be raising our children.

All these posts point towards a few undeniable facts: conservatives are inherantly anti-powerty and their solution is to punish the poor even further.

Another point that is clear, is that the countries that have done the most for their children are socialist leaning countries like Sweden.

Like Charlene Smith said, free post secondary education, real universal healthcare, a proper child care program (as opposed to sending out state sponsored hush money) are the real solutions that will move us towards making a significant dent in child poverty.

We need to be moving politically towards a more socialist state, it is THE best option for Canadians and our country going forward.

I grew up in an upper middle class family. Lots and lots of xmas presents and basically wanting for nothing (material wise that is).

However, my father was very abusive and used to beat us (all 5 children) with his fists, boots, hockey sticks or whatever was close.

Also, as he was beating us he used to call us disgustingly bad names and tell us we were no good.

On top of this a close friend of my family also sexually molested us many times over many years.

Today, all children (now adults) suffer from these bad childhood experiences. Drug/alcohol abuse, broken families/marriages, post traumatic stress disorder, etc.

For these reasons, I disagree with some posters that have suggested that low incomes is the main culprit in child neglect and abuse.

In my (and my siblings) case it was not at all part of the problem. Even with more then enough income to provide for his family my father failed miserably as a parent.

Linda (Vancouver), It sounds like you had a wonderful childhood, you should be very proud of your parents. I envy you!

IF government and people want solutions to problems of poverty try these:

Start school programs that address the needs of hungry kids with breakfast and lunch programs.Lots of kids are hungry and IF it was allowed that ALL kids would be able to use it,no matter their background kids would get fed.Not just poor kids go to school hungry.

Access to day care.Doesn't matter if you are in school or working,kids need some place to go.Better yet IF possible start a day care at the work place.Some companies have.

Provide FREE schooling to those that want to educate theirselves.It is hard to get ahead in life if you have to spend years trying to get out from under that debt.

Start address the NEEDS of people rather than telling them what they need,ASK then LISTEN.Who knows what the poor need other than the poor theirselves.

Provide dental,eye and medicines because when a choice has to be made between these needs and food,which do you decide is the most important need that has to be met first?

Everyone knows that there is a Canadian Food Guide but how do you follow it if you don't have the money to pay for the food?

IF you see someone struggling with massive problems,do you turn away?

Alot of times shit happens and when it keeps happening with no let up people turn to drugs,alcohol,violence and suicide because they just can't cope with one more let down.

So the next time you see someone in need,why not ask if they need help?

Sometimes that is all they need.It can mean the very difference in that person's life,that someone does care.

As a society we need to stop thinking of ME and start thinking as WE.

As usual, my long-winded post of a few minutes ago exceeded 2000 characters. Let me try to sum up the points I trimmed from it.

There are also many good things that happen to children in need in Canada today.

Many children are taken from neglectful and abusive homes, and are given loving homes with foster families who truly care, which allows them to prosper at school, and in life.

Many children in youth protection facilities are well cared for and well-educated by the state.

Many poor parents are doing the best they can, but are unfortunate enough to live in a place where the rents are higher than their incomes, or had their mutual fund collapse, or are suffering any number of things that can drive an honest family to the brink of collapse.

And even though it may not be immediately obvious, the parasitic losers who abuse the system also pay in a heavy way.

No matter what they may say to defend themselves, we know them for what they are: LOSERS!

The loss of respect and the shame and hopelessness they choose to live in is payment enough for their lack of parenting skills.

The rest of us are decent parents, and as annoying as it may be to pay the bill for the deadbeat parents in this country, (I may be native, but I live off-reserve, so I pay the same taxes as the rest of you) it is not the fault of the children that they have lousy parents.

We know what must be done, let's get busy and build a better tommorrow for all.

The majority of children (outside Canada) would prefer the living conditions of the poorest one in six children within Canada. What does that tell us? The Canadian version of *poverty* is quite good by international standards.

Perhaps if each of us were to pay more attention and concern to our neighbours, we might be able to avoid this from happening and at the same time save our selves from spending tax money on paying for another official to do a job we all can do ourselves.

cwithy.
I do see your point, I just don't agree with it. And I welcome criticism of my own points on this, or any other topic, so long as I am given the opportunity to defend or explain my position, or in some cases, to alter my position thanks to the often very valid points of others.

What I have no tolerance for is people who attack an individual, rather than the individual's argument. It's even worse when they make statements that attribute certain characteristics to entire groups of individuals - like the residents of a particular province.

There is absolutely no excuse for the manner in which you attacked a person and the entire province that person is from. To suggest that someone should be prevented from procreation is simply indefensible.

You have no credibility in my eyes until you retract that statement and offer that individual an appology. But I suspect you're more likely to just stubornly stand by your statements and try to somehow justify them.

Coincidentally, the main reason I disagree with your point is that you tend to contradict yourself. You advocate assisting the disadvantaged, but condemn a province for receiving transfer payments.

You support helping children, but resent paying for health care that seniors receive, mainly because you're not part of that demographic - yet. You wish to express yourself and your beliefs on the subject, yet suggest that someone else's opinion is enough to demonstrate they're unqualified to have children.

Sorry - this is not a position I can agree with. But I know - you don't care about my opinion.... or maybe you do, since you keep replying to me.

"It takes a whole community to raise a child"

I repeat my earlier statement that the creation of a Ministry of Children's Affairs is long overdue.

Poverty is just one of many issues faced by Canadian children today.

Laying blame will not help a thing. The fact remains that there are millions of children in this country in need of some sort of help, and the various federal, provincial and local governments in this country are working with depleted budgets in a willy-nilly fashion, attempting to do what little they can.

An effort to consolidate resources and the creation of a national vision regarding the care and support of Canadian children is what is needed here.

While everyone fights over blame, Canadian children continue to starve in neglectful homes, learn criminal behaviour in youth protection facilities, suffer sexual abuse at the hands of foster parents, graduate from high school while still functionally illiterate and suffer from numerous other problems.

Canada needs to unite behind her children and provide a better future for all.

If you think the parasitic alcoholic on welfare who cannot be bothered to feed their children because they want to buy beer is none of your concern, think again.

Will you still feel it is none of your concern when those children that you do not want to pay to help, grow up and rob you to pay for drugs?

Until somebody stands up and starts healing the damaged children in this country today, the cycle of poverty, negelect, crime and abuse will only continue.

This affects ALL of us, and only a concerted national effort will begin to make a dent in this situation.

We all owe it to ourselves and our loved ones to make sure that Canada is healthy and safe for all, and that starts by helping the most disadvantaged, as they have the potential to cause the most damage later in life.

This will also help reduce the costs related to health care, social services, policing, courts, etc.

Let's do it.

Greenman

Well, it worked. You got a response.

I do now appeciate where you are coming from, but sarcasm, which I've attempted to use unsuccessfuly enough times to know, is like an Australian boomarang.

You've got to be careful how you toss it, because if it doesn't hit your target, it'll turn around and find another.

I had noticed your previous post on the Climate Change forum and was completely floored by you apparent flip from a calm rational debater there, to the raging get 'tough on crime before it even happens' tone on this forum.

As you've noted, it's not the first post offering such sentiments.

In fact, we are on the same page with this issue. My apology for not cluing in.

Mr Trudeau, you fail to see the point yet are eager to spit venom (and also deliver long-winded stories). Pete does not want to pay a cent towards helping Canadian children out as he believes that because he doesn't have a child it is not his responsibility to help.

In fact, he wants payment in terms of a tax-break for not wanting anything to do with children. Yet he is part of a generation that over-spent and leaves the next with $500 billion in debt, he lives in a province that receives more back in terms of taxes that it pays in, and he is now in an age group that will take even more tax dollars in terms of healthcare.

I am therefore only critcial of someone who is eager to receive benefits and yet does not wish to give a bit to those in need.

And as so many other posters have pointed out, this mean-spirited behaviour coupled with an ignorance of the needs of many Canadian children would not make for a very good parent.

Allan from kamloops:

My post was more a sarcasm post directed at some posters who felt that the parents of poor children should bare most if not all the responsibility. So I carried that point further.

To say then that we as a society do not have a shared responsibility in developing our youth to me is a falacy. Is it the parents fault they live in poverty; not all the time. But certain posters seem to think that this is or was the case.

So my post was more of less resigning myself to that level of understanding and saying that if we turn our backs on the poor because they made poor choices(or found themselves in harsh situations) and leave it to the responsibility of the parents then we should do the same for youth crime.

To be honest I don't have a solution to child poverty, I don't know if anyone does but one thing I think for sure is that tax cuts aren't going to help one bit.

But hey thats the society our parents and our parents parents have built. We live in a world where individual success outweighs the success of the community.

We look at people who consume the most as being pillars for our society. The fact that the poor do not fit into this helps to marginalize them. So when people say its the responsibility of the parents I say okay but lets then make everything kids do the responsibility of the parents.. including crime.

Children are used as pawns in our society.

In relationships,when they end,kids are used as the weapon of choice against the other parent.Relationships are disposable in our society.

At one time people worked at them but now it is my way or the highway.We no longer know how to work at one with things such as compromise,talking.We think in terms of "I "rather than "WE".

In the rush of the almighty dollar,we forget our kids would rather have "us" rather than "things."

People have to first acknowledge that poverty exists rather than deny it's existence.

I am living in a booming city yet 20% of the people here live in poverty.

The jobs aren't going to the local residents but to union members from all over.

A food bank started here 25 years ago as a meeting place for the unemployed as branched out to the homeless.

ALL of the food banks are in critical need yet the city believes housing is the answer not taking into account the other problems,such as government red tape.

I could have applied years ago for housing but couldn't have my step-sons come and stay then,adult only building,otherwise we needed them to live with us all the time to have a room for them.

We CHOSE to pay 3/4 of my disability check to pay for a room for them but WHY should anyone have to make that choice in the first place?

How do you tell a kid you can't have them stay with you because of government rules?Do you really think they would understand that or do you think that they would figure they were not wanted or loved?

These are some of the things people are facing.

Reading these comments has given me a deeper appreciation of my own parents,if nothing else.

They were both extremely poor.Born on the 1920,spending their teenage years trying to work during "the great depression" of the 1930's,only to see that era come to an end because of WWII.Which saw both of them serving in the military.

Neither had "free" health care,an opportunity for even a high school education,and certainly nothing like the social "safety net" of today.

We lived in shacks as children.Well supplied drinking water,outdoor toilets,and neither phones or electricity until my sister and I were about 10 years old.

Maybe it was their military training that taught them how to fight for what they thought was right.For the years I lived at home I saw them scratch,claw,struggle,and plan every move to provide for us.They went without most of the time so both my sister and myself would have a better chance in our lives.

To this day both my sister and I feel badly about how little they were rewarded for giving so much.To us,to their country,and to anyone else they thought were in need.

But they finally made a decent home for themselves.And finally,at about age 50,my father was finally able to afford his first new vehicle.Charlene,I really think people can climb out of poverty.But it takes the same grit and determination as someone trying to escape drug addiction.

And finally,maybe it's partly about us being soft,or having higher expectations regarding "necessities" and "wants".To "J" in Toronto,who says "two incomes of twice the minimum wage" is not enough to start a family on,I think that even if both of your incomes were doubled,you would still think it was not enough.It's a matter of what you value the most.

Me ? I wouldn't trade our "dirt poor" beginnings with my family for all the millionair lifestyles on the planet.Those early struggles brought us closer than all the material wealth people of today seem to think will bring them happiness.

It would be nice of the CBC monitor would allow this post to go through, as I have attempted to remove any suggestion I am accusing another poster of anything but bad judgment, certainly not the greatest allegation made by one poster of another.

Afterall, there seems to be no ground rules in this forum despite assurances there would soon be more than a month ago.

Greenman, could you perhaps explain why your post of yesterday dealt with youth murdering other youth and how "these welfare kids learned" it all from their parents.

Are you suggesting parents on social assistance are all criminals turning out more criminals, and if so, on what basis other than your own prejudices, would you make such wild-eyed claims?

The issue in this forum is the suggestion a commissioner for children be appointed by Canada, not whether "little Johnny" is a child killer.

May I suggest you stop watching police shows on TV.

How about higher wages for early childhood educators? if we really want to look to sweden for their low child poverty rates, perhaps we can draw parallels to their awesome system of universal daycare.

Why would a single mother of two toddlers work full time and give 60% of her paycheck to a babysitter? Welfare starts to sound like a great idea when this situation arises.

On the flipside, why would an educated woman choose to work at a daycare for next-to-nothing pay to do one of the hardest and most important job?

Of course we can be wary about drug, gambling, and alcohol addicted parents, but we must remember this is a vicious cycle that needs a lot of help. Start with the kids. Pay attention to their bruises, clothing, hygiene. Provide stimulating afterschool programs that doesn't break mom and dad's bank. I'm not for giving out handouts to ablebodied persons on welfare, so lets make sure that any reforms that do get passed are NOT IN THE FORM OF CASH.

Let's stop forcing mothers to decide whether to work or go on welfare. its an impossible decision where no one benefits.

A good point by Marthe Lépine

"What does the fear of inflation have to do with children's poverty?

- There is a rate of unemployment deemed necessary to prevent inflation; it is called the Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. In 1999, this was considered to be 8%

- This means that there are over 1 million wage-earners who are condemned, through no fault of their own, to remain at the "bottom of the bucket".

- But employment insurance benefits have been lowered, and the benefit periods shortened"

I just want to share a little story:
Years ago when I was a student, a buddy and I shared an apartment in a low-income building, as starving students do.

Our neighbour was the single mother of a beautiful little girl. Was on welfare, mid 20's, smoked and drank, didn't work or attend school, and was a physically and emotionally abusive parent - always screaming at the child, using language that would disgust anyone, smashing and throwing things around.

Listening to that child suffer in terror was more than I could bear.

My roommate and I reported the situation to police, and to child protection services, only to be told that there was nothing they could do.

On one occasion, the police did arrive and spoke to the lady. This seemed to quiet things down for a while, except that now this lady began calling our super and the police every time we had company.

She needed some revenge, but quickly became the "boy who cried wolf".

One sunny day, while I sat by my open window studying, I heard her having a conversation with a friend or relative of hers. Apparently, social services was forcing her to attend some form of course or class. She was livid!

How dare they make her take a class!!! Those *@^#$ ers better be paying for @&$*ing babysitting for the brat!!! God *@^#ed sons of, so on , and so on.

This is what we're up against folks. Oh there are solutions alright. But it will require people to truly see the problems, not just sit at home railing against a system that has the ability to provide education, training, and more today than ever, employment.

This lady could have been a better person and parent. But the cycle of despair and self-defeat is devastating. She needed to be put on a better path, even if she had to be dragged there.

I have read through the commentary, and all I can say is time to take off the rose-coloured glasses.

There are those in this world who are considered “poor” because of one, some or all of these reasons:

1) The parents are irresponsible and have made/continue to make poor life choices;
2) The parents have had a run of bad luck;
3) The parents do not have the aptitudes (mental and or physical) to go beyond a low-level income – these are the people who perform menial jobs, but still contribute to the best of their ability.

I do not have an issue with society providing a social safety net, or subsidies for people who fall into categories 2 or 3. As a nation, we are duty-bound to do so. Unfortunately, bad things sometimes happen in life, and not everyone has the aptitudes to complete an education, and obtain decent employment.

I do however, take exception to being required to contribute to the welfare of people who have no desire to do anything other than achieve a free ride.

The general perception is that there are many (and I have dealt with them in a previous role) who believe they are entitled to receive money for doing nothing with the unfortunate by-product that these bad parents/role models generally help perpetuate poverty on their children. A simple descriptive term for this category of parent is, “parasite.”

It is not “Society’s fault” that someone decides to go down a certain path versus another. We all have free will, and the ability to choose wisely or poorly.

Should we therefore waste time and resources on appointing a children’s commissioner? Absolutely not! It is far better to put resources to use over-hauling the social safety system, putting those who are able-bodied to work, and providing adequate facilities for the education/care of children. Not another dime should be wasted on parasites.

My partner and I both have jobs that pay over twice minimum wage, and yet we are not in a financial position to have kids. We don't smoke, gamble, drink excessively, or spend all of our money on tattoos.

If the equivalent to 4 minimum wage salaries is not enough to raise a single child, then there is something wrong with the minimum wage.

One of the previous forums regarding smoking in cars with children inside also addresses this issue. Basically children are still treated as second class citizens in this country as well as all over the world.

Just as it was wrong for black people to sit at the back of the bus, or women not be allowed to vote, children should be treated with full respect (they are not because they can’t speak for themselves).

We live in an adult world and children take a back seat. Look at how we view child sexual abuse (which is an epidemic in this and other countries), we give the perpetrators (the adults) a slap on the wrist, and thus the child (the victim) a slap on the face!

If we don’t treat our children better how can we expect the world to be a better place in the future? We have too many adults that think they “own” their kids, like some kind of possession, thinking they have “the right” to “parent" as they please.

These same adults were sexually, physically, and emotionally abused as children, and how can they be expected to understand the proper way to treat a child. I think the number one problem in this world is how children are treated and regarded, and solving this would be the one number way to solve most of the worlds “other” problems.

If children grow up in a healthy happy environment they grow up to be healthy happy adults, if not, we11 just look around you and see the results!

We are simply reaping the rewards of a defective system we bindly adhered to half a century ago.... Until the foundations are "fixed", problems like these will go unsolved.

No commissioner can resolve child poverty nor hope to bring about viable solutions....

The government apoint a children's commissioner and make the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child enforceable in court? Don't count on it from the Regressive Conservative government.

Harper would give the same opinion on that as he did about the Kyoto accord. He would describe it as a "hair brain socialist scheme."

Okay B.Kelley, here I go...

My mom chose money,we suffered as kids the consequences of that choice.Money may buy privedge but it doesn't stop abuse of kids.

CAS protection does not guarentee child protection either.Sometimes you end up in HELL regardless as a child.

Hard work does not guarentee a better standard of living even if you work constantly.

Education doesn't mean squat if you can't get a job.

The newest face of poverty is the working poor.

The oldest is the elderly,disabled.

Do Iagree that there are people who aren't parent material?You bet and they aren't neccessarily poor,uneducated people.

Do I believe people need a hand up in life rather than be kicked down some more/You are damned right!

Take a good look at who is commiting suicide.It's the kids and elderly.

That should be a wake up call to our society that we have MAJOR PROBLEMS!

Years ago I lived in an experimental community where people actually CARED about each other and the community.Society could use some lessons from it.

I’d just like to add a few things.

Firstly, anyone calling for roundabout parenting “licenses” has either never thought about what they are saying or is too blinded by the notion to understand that institution of such an immoral and repugnant program would only create hundreds of thousands of more children in state care (which costs money).

Regulation of something as basic and inherently “right” as reproduction by the state also smacks of a brave new world I have zero desire to be a part of.

And seriously, aren’t some of you conservatives who are promoting the idea also vehemently against things like the gun registry!? Not believing in a government’s ability to register firearms but believing in their ability to decide who can and cannot have children seen somehow, well schizophrenic to say the least.

Secondly, as everyone should be aware, we are facing a massive population/labor shortage in about 10 years. Now while it would be wonderful if everyone could get educated after high school, get married and have 3-4 kids by the time they are 23 all the while building a career and becoming a happy little taxpayer that people seem to want them to be before giving birth, it just doesn’t work like that.

It is also safe to say that especially among the more educated by the time someone is 25 they are carrying huge student debt (or a mental mortgage as they say), need years to begin making any money become somewhat established, etc. That is a big reason why birth rates have fallen and the average age of parenthood risen dramatically.

If you want to change that, try making education free for starters if you can stomach such “socialist” ideas.

And incidentally, while so many of you rage against the “young, poor, stupid” people out there having children and causing you problems, try to keep in mind that only a few generations ago, many of your own relatives were probably in a similar boat.

Ashley Kowalewski wrote

"It's not just a cycle of bad parenting, and bad government. Its easy to shove the blame on anything or anyone besides ourselves....All of us as individuals, parents or not, need to own responsibility....Someone once said...don't wait for a leader to do it, start today, now with yourself. Thats what I am doing, can everyone else say the same?"

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, Ashley, but I'm really interested in what you are doing to address this problem?

When I look at the options available to me, there might be volunteer work perhaps coaching a team or contributing to food banks, or writing letters to political groups to support various community initiatives. But even at that, I can't see my efforts reaching very far into the problem.

Perhaps meals in schools for kids who are hungry because their parents can't organize their lives and finances to feed the kids? Putting more money into the hands of irresponsible parents is not the answer.

So, I'm truly baffled about what people can do. Nor do I believe that social agencies and government will be effective in addressing the problems. Also, I question what agencies such as the UN mean by "poverty". One in six kids in Canada? Does that really make sense?

Are we talking about starvation and the lack of shelter or other serious deprivation? Or are we talking about comparative poverty where some families have more toys than others? The problem with such reports is that, perhaps with the best of motives in order to underline a problem, they exaggerate thinking that the shock value will get people to pay attention. The opposite is true. People turn off when they feel they're being manipulated.

In answer to the questions I would say No and No. This is just a kneejerk reaction to a public report in an effort to put a bandaid on another social problem.

A commissioner would have very little power to change things in Government policy, as stated in an earlier post, this needs to go to a Ministerial position.

If the Government wants to correct this in any way shape or form, it's time to overhaul the existing social assistance systems starting with welfare and low cost housing. The old "one plan fits all" just doesn't work.

The system abusers need to be weeded out and dealt with. There's more charitable organizations than just UNICEF that need to be consulted and supported, Sally ann for one.

As for our tax cuts, if you are concerned about the welfare of the poor, then use your share of the tax cut to help fund some the organizations that instead of waiting around for the Government to try and fix this problem on their own.

One way to help eliminate the hallmarks of child poverty is to implement true universal health care, including needed drugs and dental care.

If you want fertility treatment or porcelain veneers, fine, pay for it yourself, but needed drugs and dental care should be universally available to all our citizens, particularly children.

Have you ever seen a young child with their teeth rotting out? I can't imagine how painful and prone to infection that condition must be. Universally available basic dental care, without having to be on welfare for 3 or months, or be referred by an agency, etc., should be for us all.

The same is true for needed drugs. When families have to choose between medicines and food, or rent, or daycare fees, the choices get harder and harder. This doesn't concern families on welfare as much as working families who don't have adequate benefits, although this lack of benefits is one of the disincentives to employment.

Lack of oral health has implications for the rest of health, and it's beyond me why it's treated so differently from the rest of medicine. It is a major source of pain and infection. For adults and kids, this is very important!

The same is true for medicine, if you are on a tight budget, it can be hard to manage the money for medicine. If a parent has developed a mental illness, such as depression, bipolar disorder, etc., and cannot earn much money, and can't go to work if they can't afford their meds, they are in a viscious cycle.

Should they not buy groceries for their kids, or not buy meds to get well and be able to do better for their kids? It would be better if that was not the choice.

I wish to see the wealth of our society used to ensure that all the citizens who try their best are at least able to provide for their own basic needs.

Though this attitude probably gets me labeled a “socialist”, I am more of a fiscal conservative. I want the social programs to be the most effective they can be by only helping those who truly need help.

I don’t want programs that give money to everyone, or that build and subsidize daycare spaces for everyone. The most effective solution is to determine who needs assistance and only provide them with the specific assistance they need to enable them to become self-sufficient.

I wish people would pay closer attention to what really happens in our socio-economic system. Though free-market capitalism is the best way to operate an economy it does not ensure all citizens who try their best can take care of their basic needs.

While it is true that a weaker economy has more poor people, there are limits to the benefits of a stronger economy.

What is missed, or denied, by many people is the role that luck plays in our free-market economy. I know that my success in Alberta is partly due to my talent, effort, and choices. But I also know that a big factor was good luck.

Many others who have not succeeded did not make poorer choices, lack talent or not work hard. Many people started years of training in programs that were in high demand at the time they started, only to graduate at a time when few were being hired.

That includes those highly employable knowledge based subjects where we are now short of workers like, Engineering, Computer Science, Information Technology, Health Care and Education.

I wish people would stop believing that every less fortunate person deserves their lot. I also wish those who have succeeded would recognize that good luck had something to do with their success.

Be thankful for your good fortune and be willing to help those less fortunate.

There is no more personal responsibility anymore. It's always society's fault.

Now I'm not saying these children are poor through their own fault, that is definately not the case, but really, a federal commissioner? All this will do is throw tax dollars at a high paying, do nothing job because the Provinces are responsible for implementation of any service involving this issue.

I am tired of the "Let the government handle every little thing" mentality. A federal commissioner will have no effect.

Sadly, child poverty is not a problem that can be solved through legislation or by throwing money at it.

I know that the socialists among us will flame me for saying it but there will always be an able-bodied, able-minded segment of our population who bring children into the world and don't give a damn about them or their future.

Give these parents money to benefit their children and it will be spent on beer, bingo, cigarettes and drugs.

Provide funding for the childrens' post secondary education and they won't get far enough in school to qualify for it because their parents' example will condition them to believe that education has no value.

To be fair, these same parents are usually the victims of their own parents' parasitic view of their place in the world and they are simply passing it along. Any measures taken by government that would perpetuate the welfare cycle would be irresponsible and serve more to further entrench the problem than to solve it.

The only practical and viable solution is to mandate our schools to conduct an intensive and ongoing education of children who come to class each day hungry, dirty and undisciplined to reject their family's philosphies and life style and to strive for better things in their lives.

Ultimately, the children themselves are the only ones who can break the vicious poverty cycle by making the right choices as they enter adulthood and that will never happen unless they are educated to believe that a better lifestyle is both desirable and attainable and they are empowered to go after it.

Okay, Charlene of Woodstock, let me have it!

Part of the problem, is that people are having children when they really shouldn't. How many times do you see a family walking down the street where the parents are clearly young and poor and have 3 kids?

I don't think we should regulate a couples ability to have kids, but people shouldn't be irresponsible and have kids when they can't afford them, and then complain about it.

It's not just a cycle of bad parenting, and bad government. Its easy to shove the blame on anything or anyone besides ourselves.

All of us as individuals, parents or not, need to own responsibility for the state of our child welfare in this country. They are the future of this country, if we do not join together to protect and look out for their best interest now, who will care for us later and who will run our country?

Someone once said...don't wait for a leader to do it, start today, now with yourself. Thats what I am doing, can everyone else say the same?

Why should we as a nation even listen to the UN?

If the UN is the greatest thing for the ills of this world, why are the Somalia's, the Ethiopia's, the Darfur's, etc still re-occur year after year after year?

And this organization is dumping on us?

I have been reading the comments of the people who are doing well in life, obviously they have NO understanding of poverty whatsoever.

I keep reading about irresponsible people having kids that can't support them, they are lazy excetra.

I have read that these kids should have their kids taken away because of poor choices they made.

Has anyone ever stopped to think that sometimes they had catastropic circumstances that happened through no fault of their own?

Any of you ever tried to pick up the pieces of a life that had one thing after another go bad and where just when you think things can't get any worse, it does?

To your way of looking at it, that person is down as far as they can get, so they might as well get kicked around some more.

To add insult to injury, take their kids away too.

Got news for you all, if you think any of the government systems help you, you are sadly mistaken.

Has anyone seen Joe from Halifax's post (an early post)? It seems to me that it hits the nail on the head regarding two recent topics.

And, no, we don't need a federal commissioner on children and youth simply because it will not make any significant difference regarding child poverty.

Oh, I applaud its intentions, but our dog eat dog society does not allow some of those who cannot, yes, I said CANNOT, keep up in the ratrace to provide for their children as adequately as the rest of Canada.

Yeah right 1 in 6 Canadians live in poverty.

When they blow out this kind of misinformation, it is not for the benefit of the real kids who are in need, it is a cash call so they can raise more money to have more cocktail parties.

We just learned today that Aids numbers who overblown by the UN just to get more money (as reported by Rush Limbaugh years ago).

I don't believe that simply creating a commissioner would necessarily do any good. What we need is more of an understanding of how government can be effective in the fight against poverty.

Just look to Sweden and see that they have a child poverty rate that hovers around 2 to 3 percent!

They pay high taxes but it evidently makes an important difference in the fight against poverty. I'm sorry, but you cannot rely on the "free market" as the solution to everything.

Corporations and governments can work together to create good strong economies while maintaining a strong and effective social safety net.

There are many more solutions and options than just cutting taxes and pretending/hoping that trickle down economics will save the day.

In the end it comes down to what's more important to you: Some extra spending money, or feeding and housing those who are in dire need of your support?

I'm afraid that tax cuts are not what this country needs. If you aren't prepared to pay to do the right thing, then the right thing won't happen.

One is right to see problems associated with children, directly associated with the parents. But in this regard it is then connected with society as well.

Child poverty AND adult poverty are an issue that must be dealt with together. It has been shown that those in poverty have higher birth rates than those who have a higher standard of living.

Hence, it seems a no brainer that there is such a high level of child poverty.

Also, those children in that situation will have the same diet as their parents (usually high sugar and processed foods), leading to obesity and diabetes.

Really, Canada should be looking into poverty among First Nations and other socially excluded members of society to find a solution.

Parents do not exist outside of society...they are a product OF society, constructed by their own family and the options in life that are presented and percieved.

We have had successive Liberal and Conservative governments that have ignored this problem because it goes against their fundamental economic philosphy of embracing capitalism and letting the chips fall where they may.

This is especially true of hardline right-wing governments that believe in the trickle down theory of economics (or Reganomics) which says give generously to the rich and some of this wealth will trickle down to the middle classes and from there to the poor (if they're lucky).

Unfortunately, this theory has led to an even more disproportinate sharing of the wealth. The conservatives, who supposedly embrace the teachings of Jesus, show themselves to be total hypocrites to their religion when it comes to treating the poor.

These sanctimonious hypocrites can go one for hours about the evils of abortion or gay marriage which Jesus rarely if ever touched on, but show an undisguised contempt for the poor.

If one removed all the references to helping the poor from the New Testament it would end up being a flimsy phamphlet indeed. When these religious right types talk about family values it is obvious that the only families that they value are their own. A pox on all their houses.

For the life of me I can't understand why these stats are still being used to measure poverty in Canada. Anti Poverty Groups have been warned by Stats Canada repeatedly, that "these stats are not a measure of poverty in Canada and are unreliable"

The records are compiled by STATS CANADA using taxable income of all taxpayers who filed returns last April. There are many various reasons for taxpayers who declare nil, or low taxable income, and they are not living in poverty or even close to it.

See SOME examples of why income could be reduced:

1. Business losses, 2. Losses claimed from other years, 3. Large moving expenses,
4. Unemployment income (EI), 5. Maternity leave, 6. Leave of absence, 7. Tuition Fees, 8. RRSP Contributions, 9. Vow of Poverty (NUNS), 10. Soldiers on missions overseas, 11. Diplomats posted to UN, 12. Diplomats posted to NATO in Belgium, 13. Workers COMPENSATION. Do you get the picture? The numbers used by Anti-Poverty Groups are grossly misleading the Public, are not believable as "STATS CANADA" has told them over and over for years.

Do some families need a leg up? YES OF COURSE. It may be to help get a better education to find decent jobs, better parenting courses and money management for those who may need it. At best a helping hand is needed to break the cycle of dependence.

First of all I fully agree that no child should be in poverty. Having said that the entire welfare system in Canada needs an overhaul.

There is no incentive for most unemployed parents to gain employment. How can people on a day to day basis feel entitled to my contributions in the form of taxes.

Social assistance is abused daily by non-working parents who use the children as a bargaining chip. The more children....the more money. Pure fact! Yet the children are the ones who are suffering.

The suggestion of government enforcement in relation to poverty issues is just a "knee jerk" reaction to deflect the topic back on the tax payers. The government will not come out and say "get to work to earn a pay cheque". We all are guilty of dancing around these sensitive topics carefully.

What we should be doing is instilling self esteem, integrity and self worth through community programs where an individual who is on income assistance actually has to earn their assistance by giving back to the community and the tax payers.

We are all accountable for our future. I am also accountable for my children's future and they will not be in poverty.

Once we stop shedding crocodile tears on those poor little ones, and blaming parents’ so-called “irresponsibility”, let's look at some economic facts.

One BIG reason (but of course not the only one) children are poor is because their parents' economic rights are being trampled. for examaple:

What do wage equity and equal opportunity have to do with children's poverty?

- 80% of single parent families are headed by women

- women earn on average 68% of what men earn for equivalent work;

- about 2/3 of workers earning less than $10 an hour are women.

What does the fear of inflation have to do with children's poverty?

- There is a rate of unemployment deemed necessary to prevent inflation; it is called the Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. In 1999, this was considered to be 8%

- This means that there are over 1 million wage-earners who are condemned, through no fault of their own, to remain at the "bottom of the bucket".

- But employment insurance benefits have been lowered, and the benefit periods shortened
What does the minimum wage have to do with children's poverty?

-At minimum wage, even a 2-income family has difficulty making ends meet.

- When there is talk about raising the minimum wage, employers' organizations are quick to protest that Canada's "international competitiveness" will be hurt, and some economists even argue that there should NOT even be a minimum wage.

What does a "zero tolerance" policy towards recipients of public assistance has to do with children's poverty?

- Welfare payments and benefits from public disability pension systems are insufficient for even mere survival.

- any extra income that a person may manage to earn is
- almost totally confiscated if honestly declared;
- if left undeclared, this is considered fraud and severely punished;
- Federal child benefits are confiscated from welfare recipients.

Well, it appears we have two ways of combating 'child poverty' in Canada, both guaranteed by their proponents to be absolutely right.

1. give everybody else a tax cut. That will take money away from governments which only know how to waste it, and give it back to those who have worked for it. In no time at all, those so-called poverty-stricken sexaholics will figure out that they actually have to 'work' for a living and can get a job any time they want.

That's the benefit of free enterprise, lots of well-paying jobs, unlimited opportunities, and no one left out in the cold.

2. Impose more taxes, directed toward those who actually deserve relief, hire a 'commissioner' and an army of Ph.D.s to 'attack' the problem, compose proper applications for relief, including three or four pieces of identification, and exclusionary qualifications.

OR - provide all children with appropriate meals at schools, proper exercise regimens, education applied to real life, and opportunities to grow into adults unfettered by out-dated ideas infused by racism, sexism, ageism, etc.

(Of course, school boards would then argue loudly about whether hot oatmeal is better than cold cornflakes, or should Coke be contracted to provide drinks, or is catsup a vegetable or not.)

Naysayers will immediately question if such a program would 'help' reduce poverty. All I can say is "Well, it wouldn't hurt." Certainly not as much as having your kids taken away or your baby lifted from your birth-arms by a punitive nurse.

Not as much as watching your child degenerate into an ignorant pool of TV fat. Not as much as looking into the future and seeing the helplessness of your present life turning into the hopelessness of your children.

Don't we have to start somewhere?

Jay is right.Of course there are many parents working hard,but not able to make a decent living.But I suggest we deal with that particular demographic,rather than institute national and universal programs.

I think there is a lot we can do to help make it easier for them to earn a better standard of living.Taxes on low income families should be minimal.

Opportunities for education that upgrades their skills,thus their opportunity to earn better wages might help some.Perhaps Mr.Harper could re-assess his child care allowances.It might be more helpful to send less to people already earning a good income,and more to those who don't earn a lot.

But there is also a responsibility for these families to make the best choices possible,thus helping themselves.In cases like this,I am more than happy to try helping out.But not in cases where poor judgement and bad choices are the main cause of the family's lack of opportunity.

My friends are big advocats for subsidized day care.Meanwhile,they live in a house twice the size of ours.Have two nearly new vehicles,a giant TV and a camper.Now they are looking to get a boat.He is a tradesman who earns about the same as I do.His wife makes even more.

I am OK with helping out those who need serious help,and are doing their best to help themselves.But I need someone to explain to us,why we should give up even more in taxes to help pay childcare or anything else for a family like this.

We sacrificed a lot so one of us would always be able to spend time with our kids.I suggest that they made another choice.To go for the extra money,and all the toys that cash buys.And now they want taxpayers to pay for their children's care.

There must be a better way to get kids out of poverty without punishing people who made more prudent choices.

Finally, this is about parenting and not poverty. I grew up with not much of anything, but we spent time with Aunts and Uncles, and cousins, and friends...and that was ok. And I was taught respect. Foreign concept today!

That didn't mean my folks were bad parents for not being rich, but that that was just how it was. Coal mines and nurses and small town Canada.

Throw money at poverty by bringing good ol' unemployment numbers as low as you can (economy), allowing those that chose to work a job...and ENCOURAGE families to have children. We need them! You are nuts if you believe otherwise.

The only way to continue our country with a strong social and moral tradition is by breeding within...and everyone feeling a responsibility to that next generation. Otherwise, Canada becomes what those entering chose it to be. That may be ok for some, but I think what we have is worth fighting for...despite some parents priorities having gone terribly wrong.

Do we need a commissioner? That really isn't the issue here. The village has failed the family!

Yes, there are those that should not be parents for one reason or another...and some of that may be our (collective) fault as well. And I agree that kids should not raise kids, despite them having the right to give birth to them (and I am adopted by the way).

Yes poverty is relative, and man...thats one of the reasons I love this country so much because I've been to a place or two, and seen the community living off the garbage dump (if they had one to live off of).

Yes, we need to reproduce within our boarders and not depend on immigration. If you believe you are releaved of child responsibility because you chose (or otherwise) not to have children, then don't say a word when our great Multiculturalism (hmmm?) is hijacked by a wave of immigrants you aren't comfortable with. I hear constantly from all sorts that our way of life is being dilluted.

Don't blame the government. Start popping out kids and raise them with the ideals and principles that you were raised with. We need something (don't quote me) over 2 kids per woman to hold the population level right? So the village should be instrumental in maintaining/refueling that way of life.

I have no children but still feel adamant that I have a roll to play in other childrens development and the continuation of what I've been blessed to be a part of. I have 8 nieces and nephews to which I am responsible, because thats what I feel to be right.

Continued next post...

cwithy.
Should you care to re-read your own comments you may notice that your criticism of an individual from NB was exceptionally insulting to not only that individual, but to the entire province.

If you do not recognize that, perhaps you should pause and think prior to clicking the "post" button.

We do agree that the vulnerable in our society need protections, but your suggestion that you in some way contribute any more than anyone else to that is absurd and egotistical. You suggest a tax cut would be beneficial if it stops the likes of a New Brunswicker from procreating? Nope - nothing ignorant about that, is there?

Extend your logic and your beliefs into the history of this country and see where the righteous finger of such indignation points. Until you are able to do that, you are not qualified to criticize anyone in this country.

Yet we still continue to have children raised in poverty, uneducated, jobless or in meaningless employment to subsidise their welfare, to have more children raised as they were, an endless cycle. The parent or parents of these children are not taking care of their responsibilities. We are letting others into our Country to pick up the pieces, is this right, is this fair or should we make sure we educate the parents and children , give them meaningful employment, make them feel good about themselves and the role they were born to play to help Canada grow to its potential.

Oh dear, touched a nerve. Mr. Trudeau, Canada ratified this agreement in 1991 and the government has failed to fix even part of this problem - so yes I take issue with the previous and current governments on this topic.
I have no issue at all with any particular province - and could resent the accusation if I cared to - but was making a note of someone from NB who was grumbling about paying tax into a social welfare system when he benefits from the social transfer system himself.
Your comment on history is peculiar and the extreme ignorance comment is equally perplexing - so I will leave those with you and your imagination.

Pete from have-not NB, I suggest it is perhaps a bit dim to post veiled sarcasm on a blogsite. Ontario is a great place - it would be even better if they better supported children in need there too.
Your sentiment cuts both ways: why should I pay for all of the extra costs that your old age brings with it? I didn't ask your parents to have you those many decades ago and now you are set to cripple our health care system (after running up its deficit). Of course, I believe that as Canadians we are in this social experiment together and that means you help kids who need it and I help old fogies who need it.

Doug of Surrey states

"The best way out of poverty is a job."

I agreed with some of your comments, Doug, and I have disagreement with the one quoted. There are so many working people living in poverty that your comment is proven false immediately.

No, what we need is for certain members of Canadian society to get their act together.

Stop having babies if you fall into any of the following categories:
1) You are under 18 years of age
2) You are dependent on someone yourself
3) You have no money

Im sick and tired of seeing these 'Canadian children live in poverty' studies from whatever interest group because they never address the root of the problem. The problem is with parenting. And good parents are prevented from having more children because we're taxed way way too much to help those that fall into the categories I mentioned above.

Its high time people must be licensed in order to have children. The longer we let this problem continue, the more severe the consequences will be down the road.

Susan,I expect to get CPP when I get older because I paid for it.I also expect health care of some sort,because I paid for it.I have my cheque stubs to prove it,should you require that.
I also pay plenty in local taxes,school taxes,etc,etc.I applaud the work you do,but the fact remains,parents should be responsible for the vast majority of the responsibility for raising their children.
I will glady support tax breaks and incentives for ALL low income people.That would include the elderly,the disabled,and those on low,fixed incomes.
To all others,earn your own way,and support your children.I can't legislate any income support that would prevent parents from buying a new car instead of putting aside a few dollars to send your kids to school.
I made huge sacrifices to pay for mine.I expect you to do the same for yours.I know for sure that I am not interested in doing it for you.

This reminder of our country's failure to meet its obligations to our children is sobering and another wake up call. I feel that the appointment of yet another commission is unecessary, but giving children the protection of the Court in these matters maybe the only way for the provisions set by the UN to be enforced.
It is an indictment on the priorities of government that in times where our economy is reportedly strong , so many of our children are vulnerable.

There is no such thing as poor children. Children do not have an income. We have parents who are poor and we have poor parents.

A federal commissioner for children and youth would have to be an advocate for children and children only. That would mean that he/she would have the right to bypass parents and deal directly with children.

It ain’t gonna happen in Canada.

I don't agree with those who think we don't care.I think most people do care.But is has to be recognized that,no matter what else happens,there will be things in life that neither we,nor the government can solve.
We all agree that we need to reduce poverty in Canada.Most children living in povery are poor because their parents are poor.What we disagree on,is how to best address the problem.There is no good guy,bad guy here.It's honest disagreement.Some people think we should fight povery by mailing out cheques.Others,including the current government,think that the best way to fight poverty is to let families keep more of their incomes by reducing taxes,to give them more buying power through a higher dollar,and increasing employment by making our economy work better.
I don't see the necessity of vilifying anyone for supporting policies that they genuinely belive offer the best hope for creating the opportunities we all want for the future.
I happen to believe that socialism is not going to work.And,in fact,will likely lead to more poverty.Every time someone imposes a tax,no matter how well intended,someone else slides below the poverty line.I applaud any level of government that,at least recognizes this.Even if rectifying the problem is difficult,and requres adjustments.
Parents fail their children.Some,just bacause they can't escape poverty themselves,and some because they are just poor parents,making poor choices.We can never expect the govenment to relieve us of all of our personal responsibilities.And,as long as people have choices,there will be those who make good ones,and those who make poor ones.
Don't blame either the government of others for parents who don't live up to their responsibilities.
The best way out of poverty is a job.Not a handout paid for by your neighbour.

Not having child poverty, in developed industrial countries, is against capitalist logic and its survival principles. Therefore, I do not expect governments do do anythimg of true value for children's well-being!

Contrary to popular beliefs, there are countries that have eliminated child powerty!

Namely, children have needed clothing, food and free education and health care. This is supposed to be a BIG SECRET, thus I can not reveal those, albeit very few countries.

Beleive it or not, I could be charged for treason! The rationale is if children have what they need, not to many people would work exstra hours needed to keep economy moving.

At least we have some hints as to why poverty wont't be eliminated anytime soon.

It should be very apparent, by now, that our role model governments only want to do a bare minimum for the people's needs, and do mostly everything for the things we don't need them!

Another thought on this topic occured to me after reading a few more posts - in particular, cwithy's post from Vancouver.
Lets hope that whatever strategy is adopted and in whatever form it takes, there is a strong emphasis on education. Otherwise, we end up with extreme ignorance such as that displayed by cwithy who apparently hates the previous government, as well as the current one and seems to detest New Brunswick. Presumably that means cwithy equally hates NS, PEI, NL, NT, NU, SK and MB. How far back in history shall we go, perhaps BC would be included there as well?
Maybe cwithy is just in need of some Canadian history lessons.

"About one in six Canadian children live in poverty,
Oh! thats why we have a budget surplus all these years. go figure ;) justifies the tax cuts doesnt it?"

Sorry TG doesn't matter WHAT we do, you'll always have parents who fail to provide for their children, so unless you're wanting a political regime that takes all the kids and sends them to state run camps like in Germany 1933-1945 or the Soviet Union 1917-1991 and other such societies then sadly you'll have children somewhere going with out.

That being said, surplusses aren't a reflection on the average Canadian failing to provide for children because of course not all of us have this duty and most of us who do, do in fact do their duties to their kids.

Surplusses are the result of government overtaxing people, and many people if they were not compensated with tax breaks for government overtaxation might see themselves having trouble taking care of their children. Hence, yeah tax cuts are justified!

It is logically impossible to end child poverty. Poverty is a relative measure. X% of people are defined as poor. Or people whose income is Y% of some measure of expected income. Or those who must commit Z% of their income to "basic" necessities (necessity also being a relative measure). Poverty in Canada is not the same as poverty in Haiti.

On another point, why would any rational person suggest that we abandon our sovereignty (as apparently suggested in this report) to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats working for a bunch of corrupt tyrants and dictators at the UN.

Beaconsfield Ray, if any of your action items were even slightly realistic, they would deserve consideration, as it is they have to be taken for what they are and that's not much.

Advocating kidnapping children from their parents and having the state raise them is not as simple as you make it sound nor is it very desireable.

Who will decide what parents are fit and unfit? Income tax returns? Where will the children be relocated to? How will the requests from the children to see their real parents be handled? What if the children really love their parents but the state deems the parents unfit because they earn below the poverty line?

What you're advocating is removing all rights from children, having the state impose and monitor parenthood criteria, punishing otherwise loving happy families because they happen to be poor. Sounds like facism to me.

I grew up in a very poor family, but we were happy. We weren't on welfare, my father worked but didn't earn much income. I can't imagine what I would have felt had the government showed up one day and said: we're here to take you and your siblings away and relocate them and you can't see your parents anymore because they're poor.

Being poor is not a crime and certainly doesn't justify punishing the victims by breaking up happy but financially poor family units.

Pete: it does no good to punish the children because they were born to idiot parents. Refusing to help disadvantaged children because their parents should look after them but don't is an excuse for your own refusal to do anything either.

There are lots of agencies, charities, United Ways, churches, and individuals who refuse to sit idly by and observe the destruction of individual lives around them.

There are all sorts of programs to provide these innocents with summer camps, sports equipment and support, tutoring, mentoring, food, clothes, after-school clubs, or just a friendly visit.

While you are right to point the finger at useless parents (some poor parents are very good parents, btw, and some filthy rich ones are terrible), you are not right to do nothing.

To cwithy from vancouver:

Nice to see your opinion of people from NB, the vast majority of whom are good hard working individuals. Sorry to disapoint you but I am originaly from Ont.(you probably have a problem with that province too though).

The comment with regards to getting a tax break was meant as sarcasm but the sentiment that as a retired person on a fixed income I dont feel that taxes that I pay should be helping to pay for child care for singles and couples who in some cases make far more than I do is real.

Nor do I feel that I should help to subsidize sports or leasure activity for other peoples kids.

They chose to have them and should have considered the financial responsabilities that that would entail rather than expecting others who have chosen not to have kids to help chip in.

"Poverty, in Canadian statistics speak, I think is defined generally when 70% or more of your income goes towards living essentials, basically leaving you with money for nothing else.

So here's a thought. Tax people less so they have more money in their pockets at the end of the day.

Tax business less so they can make more money, and in turn create more jobs. More jobs means more job competition, which means better pay."

Yeah, that's right. Tax cuts will make a great big difference to people whose income is already below the level of taxation. Actually, sarcasm aside, tax cuts just might make a big difference in our lives because all of us will just have to pay more out-of-pocket expenses for social programmes, and proportionately speaking, that will be more out of a poor person's income than a wealthy person's income.

I just don't buy the idea that tax cuts will actually help any but the wealthiest citizens. I also don't buy the slander that's been thrown around with regards to poor parents, they're not all lazy bums who spend food money on cigarettes and tattoos like some of you seem to think. Most of my childhood friends grew up in fairly tight financial circumstances, and they were no more likely to have lazy parents than my friends who came from wealthy homes.

As far as living expenses go, I'm in Vancouver. If I had a family to house, I'd be hard pressed to find a decent place to live even with the good-paying job that I currently have, especially if I were to look for something regularly accessible by transit.

I think a federal commisioner for youth is a good idea, although with a few reservations.

Briefly, my reservations are that our approach MUST be balanced. It has to accept that parents are the ones with primary responsibility. This means we shouldn't be trying to legislate every aspect of parenting and child rearing.

I support, indeed applaud actions that protect children from abuse, but I accept that not everybody has the same notions of what "good parenting" means.

Furthermore, by enshrining the convention in law, I am more than a little concerned that there is potential for this to be abused or misinterpreted. Who hasn't heard of the mother arrested in the grocery store parking lot because she spanked her child for mis-behaving in the store? Just one example of how something that starts out with good intentions can quickly become absurd.

I will also echo the suggestion by others here that dealing with childhood poverty has to mean dealing with poverty in general. I mean do we accept that a woman can live in poverty, but as soon as she has a child she must be taken care of? Or do we automatically take away her child because she seems unable to adequately provide support?

I also disagree with covering everyone under 18 with such legislation. It seems a bit old, although I understand the legal implications. I'd prefer it to be related to the age of consent.

Lastly, with rights comes responsibility and accountability. We have certain expectations of children in society, such as that they obey their parents, attend school, etc.

We have to be careful of how much we heap on them in terms of "rights", without considering that they may lack the ability to use those rights responsibly.

I'm simply suggesting here that we approach with caution before going and blindly passing legislation for good optics.

Beaconsfield Ray, you have the right approach: we need to prevent the problem of child poverty - however your suggestions are at best impractical and even ludicrous.

My suggestion is to provide more and better education for parents (eg. weekly pre and post natal programs). Attendance at these programs should be a condition for parents collecting welfare.

They should be accessible, well-advertised, welcoming and hand out bus tickets, milk/food coupons and gift certificates at local baby-supply stores.

The costs to implement such programs should be considered investments where the returns would be realized in 10-20 years.

I see this as a provincial responsibility and therefore feel that a federal commissioner would be useless.

End child poverty. What a wonderful idea. The only problem is how. Installing a commisioner will do nothing to child pverty if there is no concrete plan pn how to do it.

And by a plan I mean a detailed step by step plan. Unfortunately this means exposing proposed actions to scrutiny.

There seem to be two sides, those advocating the concept of ending child poverty but having no plan, and those saying show me the details (the skeptics). I am in the later catergory.

jon

Sounds like a hell of a lot of political selfserving jibjab to me.

No society, repeat NO SOCIETY has ever been able to rid itself of poverty be it amongst adults or their children (last I checked) poor people were not prohibited from having children.

I'm sure in the much praised social democracies you have child poverty only its called unemployment and everyone is stuck in a pointless rut of mere self sustainment or sustainment via the state with no chance at everything.

When you look at the larger picture we all can't be Norway, someone has to create the wealth in technology, science, finance etc to ensure the "Norways" of the world, so what does that mean?

It means freer markets where adults have choices and sometimes due to their poor choices they and their children suffer. Do we ignore it? No but we realise that we can't stop it anymore than we could stop crime, we can only work to make it more scarce, in this case by ensuring an economy that allows for greater economic prosperity for all.

Somehow I feel that the authors of this report would opt for the type oc bureaucratic central planning that would create even more povery and dispair be it child or adult poverty.

"Extremely few, if any, Canadian children head out each day to gather food for the family at the municipal dump as is common in major cities in Central America. They are not forced to drink water polluted with sewage or industrial waste."

Plus, the term "child poverty" is simply misleading and ridiculous. If the parent or parents are poor the child or children will be poor too. It's nothing more than a pathetic attempt at creating an issue out of the incompetence of some parents.

Seriously, Beaconsfield Ray? I'm having trouble figuring out if you are for or against the federal commissioner idea.

In your first post you suggest a checklist for potential parents and in the most recent post you suggest buraucracy will only suck back money with no benefit. Who are you proposing completes the checklist? Should it be self-evaluation so that we avoid sucking back money or would you prefer that it be done in a manner that has a greater chance of success by getting someone to administer it?

Either way, though some of your ideas are seem to have had some thought to it, there are two more items with which you seem to contradict yourself. In your first post you state it's an obligation and a responsibility to have children but in your second post you suggest a limit of one.

If it's an obligation to have kids why would you suggest measures to deter people from having kids. With this last post you are hovering near the point of siding with Pete from NB, whose opinion I respectfully disagree with, to offer tax breaks to those who have no children.

I think more needs to be done for the welfare of our children and admit to not having all/any of the right answers.

I don't think it's enough to leave this to parents alone and sadly we cannot police everyone all the time. Having an office empowered to act along with established organizations to act on warning signs and provide for those who are doing their best and still falling short is important to me and in my view is important to all families.

As best I can determine, this report was not written by UNICEF per se but by UNICEF CANADA. A totally Canadian view of what constitutes poverty.

Child poverty is Somalia, Eritrea, Chad, Sudan where children lack shelter, clothing, medical care, and often die of disease or malnutrition.

Extremely few, if any, Canadian children head out each day to gather food for the family at the municipal dump as is common in major cities in Central America. They are not forced to drink water polluted with sewage or industrial waste.

Poverty is a relative term. It cannot be eliminated because as soon as you raise the standard you also raise the poverty line. Money is not infinite and there will always be poor, just as there will always be the rich.

It sounds to me as if the author of this UNICEF CANADA report has an eye to being the child commissioner themself. If so, what a pathetic power play it is to use children as your ladder to fame.

Beaconsfield: You must know that no democratic country in the "free" world is likely to ever allow a mass snatching of children from their incompetent parents.

The last time that was tried, several generations of First Nations children were consigned to the horrors of residential schools.

People in North America do not adopt local disadvantaged children over the age of 4, and older children are often more traumatized by being snatched than they were by enduring the family situation.

Also, there are not enough foster parents in North America to fix the problem, assuming anyone actually figured out the problem to everyone's satisfaction, along with a solution that was not draconian.

Are you the one to define lousy parenting, and which families are unfixable, and how to get the kids and where to put them?????

In the meantime, there are children right in your own neighborhood who could use some adult intervention. If you like, I'll give you some ideas what to do the next time you notice a street urchin on your streets.

I see the point of posters saying that much of this responsibility deals with the parents of these children and their responsibility. I believe this should be taken one step further.

In the area ao youth crime the parents of the perpetrator should be held legally responsible as well. I.E These kids are the responsibility of the parents, if your kid kills another kid the family of the victim should be able to sue for the families assets.

Wonder how many parents would be spending more time at home with their families if they knew that if little Johhny stabbed or beat some other kid to death they could lose their home.

Responsibility starts at home. These welfare kids learned to be that largely from their own parents. something to think about anyways.

I have to admit I get a little crazy when I read such poorly informed comments about children, especially children in poverty, because I work in that field everyday.

Sometimes I think I'm living in the age of David Copperfield when I read opinions (i.e. Beaconsfield Ray)that blame the poor for being poor.

Just because you are poor does not mean you have no morals, or are any less dedicated or capable of raising your children. Poverty is a complex issue. Many comments relate only stories of those apparently abusing the system. It does happen but I have 5 stories for every one of yours of parents who are doing the best they can with what they've been dealt, but no one wants to hear those.

Saying we are not responsible for children is like saying we shouldn't give out the old age pension because those people should have known they were going to get old and should have saved more money...or Pete (N.B.) I hope you never require healthcare because maybe we don't want to pay for it because you are not my child or brother...remember "...it takes a village..."

I'm surprized that one hasn't been created so I'm all for it.

I think the stats speak for themselves. Children poverty comes from parent poverty. Parent poverty typically comes from poor life choices that some will never overcome no matter how many tax dollars are spent in social programs. It becomes a vicous cycle as those children follow their parents foot-steps.

Children can't be left behind. The cycle does need to be broken.

The question is how close to a nanny state to we want to become?

Some would like to see "moralizing and pontificating" eliminated. Well, I will do so, but some won't like the answers:

1. Remove all children living with unfit parents (see my previous comments for a definition). This would include all future parental visits and rights. Harsh, but what else can we do to ensure the well-being of the children since more money doesn't help (see point 3 below)?

2. Properly shelter, clothe, feed, nurture, and educate these children to give them a chance for a productive life. Many desperate couples are adopting children from foreign countries due to a local 'lack', and would be more than willing to 'save' a local child.

3. Eliminate all welfare payments to parents who continually have kids simply to keep the payments going. Limit to one kid - after that, you're on your own. See point 1 above.

4. Beautiful comment John, "Kids should not be allowed to keep kids." See point 1 above.

5. Make it mandatory to have - and PROVE you have - the proper mind set, physical set and financial set to have children. Otherwise, see point 1 above.

Government bureaucracy will only suck back money with no end benefit (see point 3!). If you are serious, serious action must be taken no matter how harsh.

So, how about it Brian R and zed? Willing to help me implement these ideas? Or would you rather let someone else do less?

5 Sisters & 3 brothers. That's what I had in our 3 bedroom house growing up. We didn't eat filet mignon or roast duck. To this day I still hate liver and won't allow it into my home, I won't even buy it for my wife. I didn't know I was poor until I got to the 5th or 6th grade, I thought everyone wore hand-me-downs and suffered through powdered milk. But my Dad worked two jobs when he could, and when my Mom wasn't pregnant with one of us she worked a factory job to help out. The point to this? None of my siblings are in prison or jail, and 5 of them own their own business. It didn't kill us. I don't think any child should go hungry in this country, and every city and town has a food bank or Sally Ann to help those that need help. (but) until we get our middle class back, until the government starts protecting its "workers", A.K.A. "private piggy banks" from downsizing and out-sourcing, the "have-nots" will continue to grow and always outnumber the "haves"

There are many things relating to children and families that need to be addressed but including them under the banner of "poverty" only obscures the issue rather than leading us towards solutions. It's not poverty that determines if parents make bad lifestyle and financial decisions. It's not poverty that causes teenage pregnancy, single-income households and the fact that some of those parents are not employable or choose not to be employed. I'm sure that one-track minded people will find a way to relate all our social problems to poverty but surely, it's more complicated than that. And UNICEF is an organization that needs to justify its existence by commenting on issues that relate to its mandate whether they're qualified to comment or not. It is heartbreaking (and becomes an easy button to press) to think of children who are abused, hungry, unwanted, undisciplined and who are being raised in deprived households. Where to begin? I suggest that the solution isn't to put more money in the hands of parents who prove themselves unable to care for their kids in the first place. I'm not talking about people who have bad luck and misfortune, but parents who are feckless, irresponsible and uncaring. One might attempt to educate those parents into being better, feeding their kids properly and looking after their needs. Failing that, the state has to find a way of helping those kids in spite of the parents. It certainly requires more than the UNICEF with their little charts and check lists. A government agency defined to help children? Why not, as long as it doesn't become one of those simplistic, slogan-infested programs like a "War on Poverty".

If you looked deeper into the statistics you will probably find that the majority of single parent families, whether lead by the mother or father, are either living in poverty or close to it, and have a heavy reliance on social assistance. It's all well and good to say lessen the welfare rolls but people can't work or get back to work if there is no ACCESSIBLE and AFFORDABLE childcare. Getting back in the workforce or going back to school to upgrade your skills is no small feat, especially if you have children and are a single parent. I have no party affiliation (they are all equally inept and opportunistic) but the Liberals were at least attempting to put some structure in place to address this. Then the Conservatives (who all have wives who can afford to stay home) threw that out and brought in the $100/month (before taxes)childcare credit home and we are no farther ahead. The money spent on welfare, and associated health care costs directly related to poverty, could be spent more constructively on childcare intiatives. There are workable, affordable models in other countries so save the money on a new commissioner and let's address the real issue.

We probably do need a federal commissioner for children but will it make any difference? No way. It will be a complete waste of time and money and once again nothing will change. This problem has been around since the beginning of time and I am sad to say it's here to stay. It's called reality folks!

I read that someone said something about it not being the responsibility of the community at large to raise their kids.

Someone else mentioned having your priorities in order to have kids.

I would like to know what they classify as a priority?

People making less money to stay home and raise YOUR OWN kids or sticking them in day care,again asking the community to raise YOUR OWN kids.

What is the difference?

At the risk of being ridiculed, here I go...

I'm not as familiar as I should be with our political system (federal vs. provincial) but I believe that the idea of a federal commissioner is a sound one.

The thing we need to ensure is that this be a position/department that has the ability to press and hold the individual provinces accountable to actions and guidelines. Should this not be possible given that all provinces have signed the agreement?

Also, I don't want to avoid the fact that health of the child should overwhelmingly be the responisibility of the parents, not government. Not to generalise, but parents need to take an active role in the health of their children. Make them unplug and exercise a little more. Talk to the schools and make sure they are implementing daily physical activity for their children.

As for the poverty, well, though there are some case where parents/guardians are to blame, there are other cases where the parents are doing their very best. I think a federal commissioner could do well, working with other established organizations, to ensure the differences are noted and each case handled as it should be, including using tax money to pay for these actions.

Yes, more of a focus is needed on our vulnerable young citizens - but a commissioner is likely not going to have enough clout to get anything changed. Unfortunately this is yet another issue that was ignored by the lazy Liberals for a decade only to be mirrored by this current right-wing lot. As for Pete in NB asking for a tax cut, it may indeed be a good idea if it does stop you from procreating; but of course being from NB you already take way more out of the system than you put in.

While Beaconsfield Ray moralises and pontificates about parent responsibilities, something nobody should disagree with, he offers absolutely no solutions to the plight of poor children now. So typical. Lecturing is very easy when you offer no alternatives.

I believe this new ministry could help if it was done seriously. Until then, how about spending our surpluses to help our children right now. We should consider parenting issues also, but that's more long term.

Bear this in mind:
Today's child is tomorrow's elder care provider.
If we don't help them today, they won't have the tools to help themselves or us tomorrow.

Poverty, in Canadian statistics speak, I think is defined generally when 70% or more of your income goes towards living essentials, basically leaving you with money for nothing else.

So here's a thought. Tax people less so they have more money in their pockets at the end of the day.

Tax business less so they can make more money, and in turn create more jobs. More jobs means more job competition, which means better pay.

And less people on welfare, and less children below the poverty line.

We don't need another burecrat drawing a plum salary and a pension. We need to empower Canadians.

Where do I start here. How about the disappearing middle class. With the lose of middle incomes, families are forced to live on less.

People have fixed expanses and are only able to cut back on variable expanses (i.e. groceries, clothes, dental, vision care).

They say inflation has been around 2%, although I would question that as home heating oil in my area has gone from 48 cents five years ago to 1.02 today (all essential expanses should be included), and have not seeing noticable decreases in anything to possible account for averages.

For people to heat their homes they have to cut back on something else; paricularly if they have
lost a higher paying job to cheap overseas labor markets and are now working in a call center.

Most average incomes are not increasng at the rate of inflation let alone if they have had to change 'careers' to the lower paying service sector job.

Todays economy seems to benefit a few, not the masses. I do not think the answer is more government programs, as it is those same average income families who will have to shoulder alot of the tax burden to pay for them.

We need good paying jobs so families can afford to feed their families and heat their homes.

How about controling inflation to less then the so called 2% the 'experts' are saying it is. Inflation is just a redisribution of wealth from the lower income worker to the
higher income earners; where as, the higher incomes outpace inflation and the lower income fall farther behind.

The rich get rich and the poor get poorer.

Beaaconsfield: It's all very well to notice the role pathetic parents play in the horrific lives they force their children to play, but the fact remains that these children exist, and need intervention and help.

Rather than spend your energy doing the easy thing, that is, criticize the parents of poor, neglected children, how about you get busy working to help a kid who needs you.

There are lots of ways to do this beside looking to government. There are so many kids, even 8 years old, drifting through the streets, right under our noses.

Waiting for commissions and governments to actually make a real difference for a real kid is a waste of time. Kids all around us are growing up wrecked, right now.

Allan, this is Canada "failing", not Canada's Government "failing".

Canada is so much more than a government. Did you donate to unicef? It's easy for everyone to blame the government for everything, but that doesn't mean you're right.

I tend to view most reports of this nature with suspicion simply because child poverty has a direct link to adult poverty, and adult poverty is better addressed.

Child poverty sounds fancy, but how can it be addressed on its own?

The government cannot do anything about child poverty without involving the parents, unless the measures include short-sighted ones such as increasing funding for the CAS, shelters, etc.

Would it be safe to say that if people have children it is up to them to provide for them not for me.

When do I get a tax break for not contributing to overpopulation or putting another co2 exhaling consumer on this planet?

A federal commissioner for children and youth may help ensure the government is doing their part in addressing policy that secures children's welfare, but I don't think that is where the source of the problem lies.

This will likely have no affect since, as some posters mention, government really has very little control over individual financial or family planning.

We have reasonable expectation of privacy, and our government to have the right to intrude into our homes unless their is a warrant to investigate allegations of abuse or illegal activity - being poor isn't a crime.

I say BRAVO!!! to the comments in regards to the responsibility for parenting belongs to parents and the Kids should not be allowed to keep kids.

There are also those whom use children as a means to gain income or keep them from having to work by becoming pregnant as their youngest reaches the age where social agencies tell mom it is time to go to work.

I thought this was a myth until sitting in Tim Hortons at Esquimalt and Admirals Road in Victoria BC .I over heard a conversation amongst a number of women on welfare by their own admission.

One of them a mother of 5 children all by different fathers said it was time to get pregnant again as her youngest was reaching school age and her social worker was talking about training to go to work.

Another a girl whom appeared to be about 14 to 15 was obviously pregnant and saying now she did not have to go to school and could stay home and watch soap operas on TV.

I don't know where this mind set comes from but it is apparently quite common and welfare becomes a career.

Take the babies from the babies and others on social assistance should be forced into using contraception, preferably the injectable kind, until they are fiscally capable and sufficently knowledgeable to take on the responsibility of parenthood.

Yes. It would be a big step forward if we did have such a commissioner.

Unfortuantely we have a government that would rather hand out tax breaks to the wealthy while 20 percent of Canadian children live below the poverty line.

Remember the Kelowna Accord which all levels of government unanimously supported. It would have provided billions (which Canada's surplus, just this year along, could have absorbed without a hickup), to help some of the country's most needy childen.

Banks are continuing to post record profits, our natural resources have never been selling so fast at such prices, yet the same government that errased the Kelowna Accord just announced in it's mini budget some $13 billion more in tax cuts for industry.

Perhaps when we get a truly "new" government in Ottawa this initiative will be given the attention it deserves.

I trust those of you who oppose this concept won't be depending on future generations to carry you through your retirement.

Remember the slogan, 'Abolish Hunger By 2000'? Even the rightwing got on that bandwagon, alas it seems, with their feet dragging on the ground.

It's proven about as effective as the 'No child left behind' farce GW Bush is still flogging in the US while the Amereican public education system falls apart and the poor of that nation are sent off to war as cannon fodder so Exxon can prosper.

To TG - unless your child has an independent income - ALL children are poor! However some children live in more poverty because of decisions that their parents make - and this will sound like a red-neck, but if as a parent you decide to have a $200 tatoo or spend $60/week on smokes, instead of putting food on your kid's table, or making sure that they have breakfast in the morning - a federal commissioner will do NOTHING to solve the fundamental issue around children's welfare - its about responsible parenting.

An endless list of government programs have attempted to solve these problems (and it appears that the Liberals and NDP are realy to unlease more programs), and the only ones that seem to work are those that make parents take responsiblity.

So I would be in favour of a commissioner to enfore parental responsibility - finish high school, get job training, don't have unlimited number of kids if you can't provide the basics of day to day living, ensure that your kids are your primary responsibility and you arrange your life to make sure that they are (not the other way around).

Then we might, just might have an outside chance of making sure that children are taken care of.

Canada only needs a Commissioner for Children and Youth if the provincial governments are prepared to accept and acknowledge the position and accept the recommendations of a Federal Commissioner. Since many of the issues related to children fall in areas of provincial jurisdiction, it is unlikely that the provinces would agree to such a federal government role.

Having said that though the idea itself is a good one especially since the sorry state of child welfare in the country represent a consistent pattern of provincial governments' deliberate decisions in favour of failing the needs of children.

Even the fact that a number of them have Advocates, hasn't helped a bit; to the contrary, those positions have simply added another veil of secrecy to the bureaucracies ostensibly responsible for child welfare.

Finally, the extent to which Aboriginal children find themselves in the "care" of provincial governments is nothing more than the continuation of the colonialism that gave Aboriginal people residential schools. It is a disgrace to the children and to all Canadians.

And, by the way, lest we forget, we let our provincial governments get away with it.

Yes we could use a commissioner for children.

Children need an advocate in divorce court, in schools, and certainly they need someone to highlight their particular needs and problems, relative to poverty, crime, pornography, abuse, and neglect, someone to speak for them, as they can't.

However, a better question is WOULD we use a commissioner for children? When have these sorts of assignments resulted in improvements for real people? Commissioners, and committees cost lots of money, require lots of catering (good food is necessary when contemplating poverty), lots of airplane rides, lots of paper and fancy wording.

But will poor, disadvantaged, neglected children actaully get real help?

Commissions may be expensive. Talk is cheap.

Beaconsfield Ray, you hit the nail right on the head. It is absolutely frightening how many people have reproduced, and have absolutely no inclination or ability to take care of their off-spring.

I would find it interesting to see the stats broken down into categories to demonstrate the age groups and educational levels of the parents of the children living in poverty. It's difficult to raise a hand-full of kids sired by multiple fathers/mothers when you are working a minimum wage job because you have a grade 10 education.

This is just another cause for the growing nanny state. Children are the responsibility of the parents, and should be raised by them, not society at large. If you are not ready to have children, or have no inclination to do so, do not have them. Pretty simple concept.

If you are sexually active, at least use contraception to prevent certain by-products, i.e. unwanted children that you cannot/are unwilling to care for, or sexually transmitted diseases. One would think that in this day and age, the idea of unprotected sex had gone the way of the dodo.

With so many of our factory jobs moving towards temp agencies that eat up a good chunk of the paycheque, and low paying contract work replacing what used to be stable employment, it is no wonder so many working families are living below the poverty line. We are not just talking about welfare cases here, many of the kids affected are the children of the working poor.

Once again I say: Bingo Beaconsfield Ray!

And there are a whole lot of other folks in Canada, the majority in my experience, who think the same way and have been saying so for as long as this stupid policy of allowing children to keep their children has been around!

This policy is the number one crux of the matter folks. It is the number one cause of the problem: We let kids keep kids!

We didn't use to let kids keep their kids. Kids could have kids, yes; there were no forced abortions, thank God! But, upon birth, no child born of a child was ever allowed to be raised by the child-mother, and, if he was even there, the child father, NEVER!

And it worked too!

My brother, the oldest of our family, was adopted. He was born of a 17 year-old, destitute girl.

He had a great, middle class childhood. There were lots of books opportunities, and love!

I shudder to think what his life would have been like, living in poverty, in a desparate, one-parent home!

Child poverty has risen dramaticaly ever since we started to allow broke, uneducated, unskilled, unprepared kids to keep kids.

Pregnantcy does NOT equal parenthood!

We used to know this. We must learn it again!

For the children!

For the children born of children, and also, for the children who got pregnant way, way, way to soon. In other words: WHEN THEY WERE NOT READY TO TAKE CARE OF THE CHILD!!!!

I know a lot of people will focus on the headline in red at the top of the page rather than the actual question in black bold type at the bottom of the journalistic piece, but I will answer the real question first.

Rather than a federal commissioner for children and youth, I would suggest that a new cabinet position is called for, along with a full ministry for matters related to the protection and development of healthy children.

Our children will become us. Have we done the most we can for them. Childcare cuts, cuts to special services to children, cuts to child protective services we may not feel the impact yet.....those children are growing.

Roch, nice banter, but that good old boy Harper and his joke of a cabinet, have done nothing to help the poor in Canada.

Not one single program has been created or implemented to assist the poor. In fact, Harper has actually cut many of the programs aimed to assist the poor in Canada.

You might want to look at who we can hold accountalbe today as opposed to continue to blame past regimes for the absoulte and unequivocal failures of this one.

If we find it critically important to forbid parents from smoking in the car when children are present in order to protect a child's health, it is decidedly more important to forbid parents from brainwashing their children with religion before their child's brain is sufficiently developed to make sophisticated philosophical decisions on their own, to ensure their child's mental health.

UNCEF is Giant Waste of Resources.

This kind of story is absolute polictical nonsence. Where do these wacko reports come from?

Consider this, the reasons for appointing another do gooder to burn resources is because KIDS living in poverty are Obese.

Only in Canada, you say...

The reality of any situation is people really don't give a damn.

Oh,they give lip service to every "cause' that becomes the "issue" of the day but how many people actually practice what they preach?

It should cause people great alarm at how many kids live in poverty.

It should cause great alarm that we have one of the largest populations of kids taken away from their parents.

It should cause great alarm that what is being pushed is an ALL KIDS IN PROTECTION need until they are 18.

What it does mean though is government will be able to scrutinize EVERY aspect of a person's life concerning a child and deem them unfit if THEY decide.

It will be deemed in the best interest of the child and NO ONE will be exempt.

That is the reason that ALL legislation and laws need to be balanced.

Unfortunately this will become a political issue. There will be lots of hand wringing and finger pointing with little accomplished.

Is it a coincidence that Dion has just recently announced that alleviating child poverty will be one of his major issues if elected?

This commissioner if appointed should head up a public inquiry to determine why the Canadian Government under Jean Chretien did not meet any of their committments.

They signed these agreements like Kyoto with no intention of following through. The Liberal party should be held accountable for their inaction, especially Stephane Dion's involvement as a failed Cabinet Minister.

Amazing how quickly people will blame the government, basically for anyhting and everything.

A few questions, however, need to be asked, no matter how tough they are:

1. Are the parents of the children 'at risk' mentally ready (and competent) to have children in the first place and raise them properly?

2. Are the parents financially capable of having children and raising them properly?

3. Are the parents morally ready to have children and raise them properly (by morally I mean instilling the ability and background to become productive members of society)?

4. Do these parents have the faintest clue what it takes - mentally, morally, financially, physically - to raise children? Or are children only a by-product of sexual activity, or worse, a larger welfare cheque?

It is strange in our society that we have regulations, rules and licenses for everything EXCEPT having children. Perhaps it's time to re-visit this.

And don't get started with "...it's a right to have children...". It's an obligation and a responsibility - if you cannot meet those, you have no 'right' in setting off down that path!

Children are a reflection and an accurate judgement of our society. Let's be judged highly.

What an ironic topic to turn up considering the Wolfville story. We seem to be willing to curtail our own hard won freedoms in order to enact useless legislation in the name of protecting children (a la Revered Lovejoy’s dearest wife) but when push comes to shove and the hard numbers stare us in the face, we are also willing to live with things like high child poverty rates likely at least partially because we don’t want to pay to address them.

Well that’s quite a telling comment on our society. Things like poverty are expensive and difficult to deal with and there is a dominant tacit assumption that “it’s their own fault anyway” so we don’t address the matter.

We do, however, create invasive, superficial laws that require absolutely no sacrifices from the majority of Canadians and achieve pretty much nothing at all, under the express goal of “helping protect kids” so we can feel good about ourselves.

All I can gather from this apparent dichotomy is that we are either indeed a quite shallow people or we simply do not consider the elimination of child poverty and real improvement of their health to be a moral concern. Well, if we placed as much energy and time into bringing those 17% or so of Canadian children into a healthy, productive and secure environment as we do debating pointless bylaws perhaps we might actually achieve something beyond good PR for a small town.

No! What we need is a conscientious Minister of Justice who will see that commitments agreed to by the governments are being met.

Assign responsibilities to all levels of governments and hold Prime Minister, Premiers and Ministers of Justice fully accountable!

I recommend fines, jail and community work, in addition to permanent ban from governments!

Well, our municipal governments are starting to take action to protect our children from their parents' second-hand smoke - that's a start at least.

About one in six Canadian children live in poverty,
Oh! thats why we have a budget surplus all these years. go figure ;) justifies the tax cuts doesnt it?