Industry Minister James Moore Shows his Inner Scrooge

[Devils'Advocate]

Even the Fraser Institute puts the number at 5% of children being in what is referred to as "absolute poverty".

From one of the Institute fellows:
http://www.yorkregion.com/opinion-st...ctual-poverty/

(Being poor) is about not having enough food to eat and perhaps having to go to a soup kitchen or food bank. When you are poor, you often cannot afford to replace worn out clothing or meet personal hygiene needs. When you are poor, you are likely to live in inadequate and often unsafe accommodation.

The fact that 5% of Canadian children fall into that category should be considered a national shame. That's 1 or 2 in each classroom. He claims that by using an inaccurate measuring stick only serves the trivialize the predicament of the poor. I think the claim that "it is only 5%, not 20%" only serves to trivialize the problem.

-=-=-=-
Funny. The "fiscally conservative" folks are the ones that ridiculed the Liberals for suggesting that it was possible that parents could use the day care credit for buying beer and popcorn. Scott Reid was raked over the coals for that. When you ask any Conservative what they are doing to reduce child poverty they talk about trying to improve the economy, increase jobs, lower taxes, child tax credits, etc.. But none of that ensures that the money doesn't go to beer and popcorn. The money needs to end up with food in the child's stomach. And clothes on their back. And proper hygiene.

[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.

[Devils'Advocate]

I'm thanking that post not because I agree with all of it (which I do 100%), but because I would have gotten frustrated with typing it on a phone after the first paragraph or two.

There are so many different ways of measuring "poverty" - OECD's definition, LICO (both of which are warped since a single parent in Toronto earning $20,000 a year would likely be in poverty, but that same family in rural New Brunswick would be able to scrape by)... but as I said above even the MOST CONSERVATIVE estimate is 5%. Which should not be acceptable to anyone.

[Street Pharmacist]

I believe the federal government should not merely be feeding our children. They should be ensuring the children are fed. It's an important distinction, one that gets to the heart of the left/right debate.

There needs to be programs and jobs to make sure the kids get fed at home. Most poor parents who don't feed their children well do so by lack of resources, not laziness

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I believe the federal government should not merely be feeding our children. They should be ensuring the children are fed. It's an important distinction, one that gets to the heart of the left/right debate.

There needs to be programs and jobs to make sure the kids get fed at home. Most poor parents who don't feed their children well do so by lack of resources, not laziness

I don't think I alluded directly to either feeding children or ensuring children are fed. I did mention breakfast programs (as it's the most visible example I could think of) but I want to be clear I agree with you.

Children should be fed, and we all federal, provincial, municipal, community should be ensuring our children are fed. There isn't anyone that should ever say "that's not my job".

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I believe the federal government should not merely be feeding our children. They should be ensuring the children are fed. It's an important distinction, one that gets to the heart of the left/right debate.

There needs to be programs and jobs to make sure the kids get fed at home. Most poor parents who don't feed their children well do so by lack of resources, not laziness

I totally agree with this, but I also think that there are lots of these parents who are not just lacking in the financial resources to properly care for their kids, but the mental resources to do so.

Mental illness and parents who have grown up in troubled homes make them unable to take care of their kids without some kind of assistance whether it is training or counselling to deal with the issues.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I believe the federal government should not merely be feeding our children. They should be ensuring the children are fed. It's an important distinction, one that gets to the heart of the left/right debate.

There needs to be programs and jobs to make sure the kids get fed at home. Most poor parents who don't feed their children well do so by lack of resources, not laziness

You might be right, but it's funny how people don't typically take issue with baseless statements when they are extolling the virtues of the impoverished.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I don't think I alluded directly to either feeding children or ensuring children are fed. I did mention breakfast programs (as it's the most visible example I could think of) but I want to be clear I agree with you.

Children should be fed, and we all federal, provincial, municipal, community should be ensuring our children are fed. There isn't anyone that should ever say "that's not my job".

I wasn't disagreeing with you in any way, just adding a distinction in the difference between truly what their role is and the reality of how we have to feed kids is all

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ark2

You might be right, but it's funny how people don't typically take issue with baseless statements when they are extolling the virtues of the impoverished.

I wouldn't call it baseless. Most successful poverty are so because they provide things like training, shelter and mental health services. Not sure curing laziness has ever helped. There's plenty of "base" in that statement

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I wouldn't call it baseless. Most successful poverty are so because they provide things like training, shelter and mental health services. Not sure curing laziness has ever helped. There's plenty of "base" in that statement

Perhaps you could provide some then? Any actual facts to support your claim?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Perhaps you could provide some then? Any actual facts to support your claim?

Here's one:

http://www.cpj.ca/content/poverty-canada

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I wasn't disagreeing with you in any way, just adding a distinction in the difference between truly what their role is and the reality of how we have to feed kids is all

I didn't mean to imply that you were disagreeing, just that you made the point better than I did in my epic novella.

I wanted to draw added attention to your statement because of how well put it was.

[1stLand]

"It is YOUR responsibility to feed YOUR neighbours child.
ESPECIALLY if your neighbour has addiction problems and feeds their addictions at the expense of their children's bellies."

I agree with a previous poster's idea. Food stamps.
How much welfare / government assistance goes towards cigarettes, alcohol or worse?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

"It is YOUR responsibility to feed YOUR neighbours child.
ESPECIALLY if your neighbour has addiction problems and feeds their addictions at the expense of their children's bellies."

I agree with a previous poster's idea. Food stamps.
How much welfare / government assistance goes towards cigarettes, alcohol or worse?

If your neighbours have addition problems and bring narcotics and drugs into their household, then yes it is YOUR responsibility to call child protective services.

As Street Pharmacist (I'm noting the irony with his handle and the example you provided) has pointed out there is a difference between feeding your neighbour's child and ensuring that they are fed.


I haven't commented on the how as of yet, a combination of school programs and food stamps on the surface seems like a good idea. I only say seems as I haven't thought through the pros, cons, benefits, drawbacks and alternatives.

[Tinordi]

This is actually a very good thread with interesting discussion. Kudos!

[1stLand]

Should we feed our neighbours children organic & gluten free?

Anything but organic and gluten free just seems like child abuse to me

[FanIn80]

Not sure if it's been stated or not, but the Industry Minister was correct.

It is not the responsibility of the federal government to ensure your neighbour's child is fed. Child welfare falls under provincial jurisdiction, not federal, and what he said was that his (the federal) government isn't about to take over ("usurp") jurisdiction from the Province of British Columbia.

The federal government gives money to the provinces, but it is the responsibility of the provinces themselves to handle these things.

When Moore responded by saying his quote was taken out of context, he was actually telling the truth. Now, could he have been more political in his original answer? Sure, he could have said something like, "Well, even though I go to bed every night and cry myself to sleep at the thought of starving children everywhere, we do have to work within the system right now, and that system says that the responsibility of caring for and feeding underprivileged children falls completely on the provinces themselves. The federal government, which is the level of government that I work for, can only provide funding to the provinces. We are unable to actively take part in the distribution of that funding at the provincial level."

It's just another quote pulled out of context by a media outlet, and then thrown to the Liberal wolves for... well, whatever wolves do with words typed out on the Internet. I'm not entirely convinced that wolves even know how to use computers in the first place, but I guess that's a post for a different topic.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Not sure if it's been stated or not, but the Industry Minister was correct.

It is not the responsibility of the federal government to ensure your neighbour's child is fed. Child welfare falls under provincial jurisdiction, not federal, and what he said was that his (the federal) government isn't about to take over ("usurp") jurisdiction from the Province of British Columbia.

The federal government gives money to the provinces, but it is the responsibility of the provinces themselves to handle these things.

When Moore responded by saying his quote was taken out of context, he was actually telling the truth. Now, could he have been more political in his original answer? Sure, he could have said something like, "Well, even though I go to bed every night and cry myself to sleep at the thought of starving children everywhere, we do have to work within the system right now, and that system says that the responsibility of caring for and feeding underprivileged children falls completely on the provinces themselves. The federal government, which is the level of government that I work for, can only provide funding to the provinces. We are unable to actively take part in the distribution of that funding at the provincial level."

It's just another quote pulled out of context by a media outlet, and then thrown to the Liberal wolves for... well, whatever wolves do with words typed out on the Internet. I'm not entirely convinced that wolves even know how to use computers in the first place, but I guess that's a post for a different topic.

I disagree, I think that child poverty transcends government silos, in the same way that healthcare does. The federal government should have a voice in the discussion and should not turn a blind eye because it's the "province's responsibility".

It's not that the federal government should usurp the province, but they should be a sounding board, and a voice to help reduce child poverty and ensure that children grow up and are ready to enter the work force.

At the end of the day children impact all the aspects of society, and thus the responsibility to ensure they are properly taken care of bleeds over to everyone.

Yes the province carries the most weight, in the same way that it's the parents that carry the most weight to ensure their children are fed; but that doesn't mean that the community doesn't have a responsibility either.

The federal government should have a voice, in the same way that they have a say in healthcare and the Canada Health Act even states that the federal government should have a say.

Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but if "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" is coming from the federal government, the federal government has a responsibility to protect children's well-being and facilitate reasonable access to health services, which includes being fed as without food you cannot have health, regardless of financial or other barriers.

[OldDutch]

I finally went back and heard the audio, because as many I was outraged on the story but had not heard the audio.

After hearing the audio I can see how some think he was right, and how I and many think it was wrong.

I don't think he was doing that bad until the very end. Although, he gives a very conservative response on how to combat poverty. Create a lot of prosperity and it will take care of itself. Create a lot of jobs and it will take care of itself.

This sets the tone, as most people know that this mindset is frankly not true. Wealth is condensed, economic property is not evenly divided. Millions of low paying jobs look good on paper but do not translate to less children going hungry.

Then he finishes it off with his famous not my problem line and a chuckle. Man that smug chuckle really did do him in.

So do I think he is wrong in what he said, not entirely. I am a person who strongly believes in making sure kids go to school full. That all levels of gov't need to step up so we can tackle this national problem effectively. However, he was just giving a typical conservative right wing response to a question. I think it got people who don't agree the rightful impression he was washing his hands of this serious issue.

It was that last line though that did him in. The hand wash and the smug laugh.

We need to remember that all this is a conservative giving a typical conservative line on poverty. Make a lot of money, create jobs and it takes care of itself. Nothing new here many of us don't already know about that viewpoint, but its still none the less kinda ugly for us to hear.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Not sure if it's been stated or not, but the Industry Minister was correct.

It is not the responsibility of the federal government to ensure your neighbour's child is fed. Child welfare falls under provincial jurisdiction, not federal, and what he said was that his (the federal) government isn't about to take over ("usurp") jurisdiction from the Province of British Columbia.

The federal government gives money to the provinces, but it is the responsibility of the provinces themselves to handle these things.

When Moore responded by saying his quote was taken out of context, he was actually telling the truth. Now, could he have been more political in his original answer? Sure, he could have said something like, "Well, even though I go to bed every night and cry myself to sleep at the thought of starving children everywhere, we do have to work within the system right now, and that system says that the responsibility of caring for and feeding underprivileged children falls completely on the provinces themselves. The federal government, which is the level of government that I work for, can only provide funding to the provinces. We are unable to actively take part in the distribution of that funding at the provincial level."

It's just another quote pulled out of context by a media outlet, and then thrown to the Liberal wolves for... well, whatever wolves do with words typed out on the Internet. I'm not entirely convinced that wolves even know how to use computers in the first place, but I guess that's a post for a different topic.

I'm calling bull#### on several fronts here.

First. Even if he did mean that the federal government has no role to play and child welfare is a provincial responsibility, he would be absolutely dead wrong. As has been pointed out by many, many people here there is a strong role for the federal government to play in terms of helping child poverty. SOMETHING EVEN MOORE HAS SINCE STATED.

All levels of government, indeed all members of our society, have a responsibility to be compassionate and care for those in need.

But more importantly, if it is your intention to say that the federal government has no role in an issue, you would say exactly that. You would not say "Is it my job to feed my neighbour's children? I don't think so. HAHAHAHA!" By saying "my neighbour's children" he is making it personal. If he said "It's not my job to feed everyone's children" you might be able to argue that he is saying that it is not his job as a federal MP to provide that service. But that's not what he said. He clearly meant that it is not society's job to take care of one another. Once he realized that he shouldn't be saying exactly what he believes and instead he should be saying the things that would help the Conservative party get elected, he back-tracked.