ON FAMILY AND POVERTY

Vol 8 No7  February 19, 2001
CHP  COMMUNIQUÉ
Heritage Place 155 Queen Street, Suite 200 Ottawa, ON K1P 6L1
 Ph.(613)788-3716 Fax (819)-669-6498  E-mail: edchp@netcom.ca
This Communiqué may be copied
See other Commentaries @  www.chp.ca/chp speaks out

GET INTO POVERTY - THAT’S WHERE THE REAL MONEY IS
                       by National Leader Ron Gray

In another Communique (on crime), I made reference to "the sleight-of-hand by which the welfare industry alleges that one Canadian

child in five lives in poverty." I’d like to enlarge on that.

It’s important for us to recognize that every time the Federal Government offers to "solve" a crisis, the crisis is usually the invention of an industry where well-paying jobs depend upon maintaining the illusion of crisis. When I worked for the Canadian Government in Ohio in the 1960s, (promoting tourism to Canada), an acquaintance of mine in the US Federal Government - with a fairly high-ranking position - drew me aside at a diplomatic reception and said, "Ron, get into poverty; that’s where the real money is going to be!"

The oxymoronic prophecy proved to be accurate: as President Johnson unleashed his War on Poverty, the greatest beneficiaries were the army of civil servants through whose hands the billions passed. Inner-city families were destroyed, but sociologists’ and civil servants’ careers blossomed!

I had a sense of daj? vu when the Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD) released a study, this spring entitled "Income and Child Well-Being: A New Perspective on the Poverty Debate"; and again when I read MP John Godfery’s book "The Canada We Want", and saw the Invest in Kids television ads (both paving the way for a massive federal daycare project).

The CCSD study purports to show that families need  an income of$30,000 a year or more if children are to grow up healthy. Better-income families have healthier children, it shows. Of course, its study ignores possible alternative explanations: that parents with better interpersonal skills - the very ones which make them better parents - tend to have better incomes. The better outcome for the children could be attributable to their parents’ skills, which produce the income, rather than to the income itself. Because some families with incomes below $30,000 (if those parenting skills are present) still produce healthy, well-adjusted children.

But if the "poverty line" can be set as high as $30,000, social workers and their highly-paid administrative overseers will have the raw material for a burgeoning welfare industry. Who does that benefit? Not the poor; the welfare professionals.

It’s also possible that parents of some "poorer" families produce less-healthy children because a significant part of the family income received, might go into alcohol, tobacco, drugs and lotteries, instead of good wholesome food; and a significant proportion of parents’ time may be spent on entertainment, instead of child-rearing. I’m not saying that is always the case; only that where it is the case, indiscriminately throwing more money at a dysfunctional family will only make it more dysfunctional.

 It’s the same with daycare: 77% of Canadians say the family, rather than a government program, should have primary responsibility for child-care; 89% of Canadian parents would prefer home-care for their children, and 75% of dual income families would rather have one parent stay home, than use daycare. That’s why the CHP’s Family-Friendly Tax Credit makes so much sense. It would benefit families, instead of the daycare industry.

 But, of course, families don’t make contributions to the Liberal Party’s Campaign funds.