Child Poverty Cup Comes Home - Again
OK. We didn't win the Grey Cup.
But we have won another sweepstakes.
For the fourth year in a row. Yay, BC!
HIGHEST CHILD POVERTY RATE IN THE COUNTRY.
21%
Employment & Income Assistance Minister Claude Richmond, who has managed to secure comfy public purse jobs for himself for many years now, say the statistics are out of date. Of course that's what he said last year and the year before. And the year before that.
At the same time, the Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has announced that the Ministry of Children and Families is doing very little to implement Judge Ted Hughes' recommendations to improve matters for...well, children and families.
Hughes made 62 recommendations. Minister Tom Christensen (whose resignation I have called for in these pages twice in recent months) has implemented 18. He's working on the others.
Slow to do anything substantive about helping children and families, which apparently is his mandate and duty, Christensen was quick off the mark to write a letter to Turpel-Lafond disagreeing with her assessment.
Only catch is the Minister didn't send his letter to the recipient. He had it tabled and read at a government meeting yesterday. Before Turpel-Lafond even knew it existed.
Children and families are going begging and child poverty is soaring in this province boasting a raving happy economy.
But once again we ask, where or where is the Premier?
Oh yes, he's in Asia. Doing business.
Elect a different government.
One that takes notice and care of its children.
2 comments:
David, I think I heard Wally Oppal on the radio saying that all of Turpell-? 's recommendations will be implemented. It's not his department but he may have more sense that the others. Just checked with his office and her recomendations will be implemented in the spring legislature. Don't know about the one's Christenson is supposed to look after. Cheers
David,
I haven't disagreed with you in awhile but I do here, at least tangentially. Walter Schultz has a somewhat different take on this new report.
What it really comes down to is this: What precisely constitutes living in poverty? Lack of shelter and food I'd understand.
But lack of a car? Lack of a cel phone? Lack of a TV? Lack of a Cable TV package? Lack of a video game system? Lack of high-speed Internet? None of these are "essentials" and I live without them very well ... by choice I might add. But some of them seem to be included as necessities. To me, that invalidates the credibility of these advocates.
Post a Comment