[Maritime Q-Scout]

At the end of the day I believe James Moore is flat out wrong, and if he truly believes that this is a division of powers issue that rests with the provincial governments, he couldn't be further from the truth.

Children, are the responsibility of everyone. The federal government, the provincial government, the municipal government, the parents, the grandparents, you, me, the tax payers. Everyone.

Why? Because they are citizens that cannot care for themselves. There's the age old adage "it takes a village to raise a child" and it couldn't be more true.

But this has to do with child poverty, and both Healthcare and Education are provinicial matters.

Well the federal government has enacted the Canada Health Act which outlines requirements for transfer payments for healthcare. Ensuring the well being of children falls under section 3 of The act which states that "the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers."

But the federal government doesn't administer how programs are to be offered. Very true. However the federal government has a role to play with regard to the criteria and guidelines followed. Programs don't have to be identical across the country, in fact they shouldn't be. They should cater to what works best for each particular region of the country based on need. The federal government can, and should have a voice in discussions with the province to ensure this is sufficiently cared for. Why?

The federal government is responsible for our economic and fiscal policies. While education is a provincial matter, in essence we have public education to have an intelligent working class (I mean working class in the broadest sense, not just blue collar). By providing ample nutrition for our students we are ensuring they are in the best shape to learn, progress and grow. This will allow them to be smart and healthy enough to enter the workforce.

As Ryan Coke alluded to there seems to be a problem with how child poverty is calculated. I need to do more research into that before truly commenting. But the federal government does have a role to play.

But those people chose to have kids and can't look after them, why should I as a tax payer have to subsidize the child's meals?

Because if the child is loved, and cared for, but meals are the big issue, paying for meals is far better than clogging down an already clogged foster care system.

But if you're poor why choose to have kids? Is it really a choice?

If it's not a choice then use birth control. You or I might be able to afford proper birth control. But do you think that is easily accessable for everyone? Sure you and I might be able to order Crown Skinless Condoms online for the best safe experience possible. Our wives and girlfriends pay for birth control pills. But can those impoverished afford to order online and pay monthly at the drug store?

But they can go to a clinic and get free condoms. And how great do these condoms make sex? Nothing like being in the heat of passion only to strap on a blood restricting piece of thick latex to feel absolutely nothing. If this was such a great option why do drug stores, grocery stores and department stores across the nation sell what you can get at the clinic for free?

Ok, so you didn't use protection. But you can get an abortion. We're back into the taxpayers dollars versus cost of provention debate (and if the abortion costs money, if they can't afford condoms they can't afford an abortion). This not considering the health risks and moral debate of abortions (please do not get into them here).

Ok, so it's partly federal responsibility (as well as provincial and community responsibility) and providing necessities to children is the most cost effective method to combat the poverty presented. But non-impoverished families will take advantage of this. My next door neighbour is rich and sends his kids to school to eat their breakfast program. That's not what I'm paying for!

If you feel this is taking advantage of the system, so what? If we're helping the poor and doing it effectively, the abuse is a price I'm willing to pay. I'd rather pay for the poor and rich kid's breakfast than have the poor kid starve.

On the other hand, if we only supplied breakfast programs (for example) to the poor kids, should they and other programs to combat child poverty be segregated? If the cafetira is for poor kids only, guess how successful the program is going to be? The other kids have a method of ridicule hand delivered to them. You're setting up a system for bullying. If we allow all kids there is no stigma and the ability to co-mingle exists forming friendships and bonds. Success breeds success, let's surround those with little opportunity with those blessed with it and see how everyone flourishes.

At this point I've written a novel on my phone. I'll click post and edit.