‘Mother and Child’ by Todd Jason Baker
He was a little First Nations child, born with a genetic defect which kept him in a hospital bed for the first two years of his life. His parents, realistically unable to care for their special needs child, reluctantly gave him up, on the promise of better care from others.
But what transpired was a bureaucratoc wrangle between two levels of government – over money – which lasted two more years. In the end the small child, Jordan, never made it out of hospital alive.
To prevent such mindlessness on the part of our officials, one of the people I serve with in the House of Commons today introduced a “child-first” motion which would compel human needs to be addressed before those of governments. Jean Crowder, an NDP member from Vancouver Island, believes the time is right to ensure another Jordon is never sacrified on the alter of regulations. And I agree.
I had an opportunity of asking Jean about Jordon in the foyer of the House. To view the video, click here.
18 comments ↓
Or, gee, maybe they were trying to make me look like a crazed dork.
Well if the shoe fits, you wear it well Garth
Bravo Garth! I agree, by all means, lets put the welfare of children above jurisdictional wrangling.
Well, looks like the CONs can’t go a few days without stepping in it. Looks like they are being called to task for their book of dirty tricks. The people wanted this parliament to work – now we have proof positive, in a bound CON manual no less, on how the CPC is doing all that it can to prevent this parliament from working.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/18/tory-document.html
Honestly, have we ever had a government which has displayed this much incompetence and arrogance in such a short period of time? Without a doubt, Harper will go down in history as the most bumbling, incompetent and arrogant PM in Canadian History.
Let’s go further. Let’s overhaul the whole system with regard to children. Right now the system penalizes many things to do with children.
Geo, I don`t know if you`ll get back to the `law and order and optics` thread so I`ve included the link.
Dads disposable income goes up a whole bunch, mom’s as she has the kid, drop like proverbial stone.
I do think your stats (damn stats and lies) are suspect tho
By Georgine on 05.18.07 4:14 am
http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2007/05/15/law-order-optics/#comments
Geo, you are a riot. First you site fabricated results from a study and then go on to call credible studies lies, roflmao.
The study you`re referring to with mens disposable income `going up a whole bunch` has been proven a hoax. The last time you made this false claim I even supplied the link. The authour has claimed it was a `computer problem` that caused the error. The same data used in the original study without the `computer error` shows nether party benefits but in fact suffer equal losses in the majority of cases. The only winners in divorce is the justice industry.
For further proof on how `dads ` are fairing after divorce the provinces that collect the most child support % wise also suffer the highest % of youth problems.
The obvious conclusion is that child support is creating high numbers of dead broke dads unable to afford to be a father. Remember fatherless children is the primary indicator of youth crime, lol, don`t say it, I know, more `suspect stats`.
Have you noticed who is behind more child support with more enforcement even though it`s a proven youth crime generator? The AG`s that are the public face of the justice industry.
I rest my case
btw if you want to discuss suspect stats how about the article I posted on the thread that said crime rates were down when in fact crime is up, only arrests are down.
This is no surprise at all. The last people I would trust to do the right thing for anyone is governments.
Very sad, and I cannot imagine what the parents must be going through. I hope that these same people who bungled this so bad, can find it in their hearts to help the parents out somehow.
Good to see this non-partisan action from our MPs.
Which federal government is to blame for this debacle? The last Liberal government or the current Conservative government that inherited the Liberal civil service, I wonder?
Garth, I hope you are not trying to dredge this situation by creating another guilt trip for the Canadian voter. Personally I think that Ottawa needs a good enema to flush out all the Liberal civil service boondoggles and screwups and that can only be done with a majority Conservative government … and you know it.
Here’s something I don’t get: The opposition is critical of the Conservative budget because it is ‘the biggest spending’ budget in Canadian history. Yet, in Hansard, the opposition hammers away at the Conservatives for cutting programs. To me, this seems like a contradication. Is it not impossible to have it both ways? Either you increase, or you cut, but you can’t do both at the same time. What gives?
Best to put a finer point on that.
The opposition and many of Harper’s former supporters are critical of the current government’s increased spending because it runs contrary what’s represented by the Conservative party brandname. Notably, the budget calls for 6.4% ($11.4B) more program spending for the fiscal year than was promised during the election campaign. Let’s the Conference Board off the hook.
Its not the cuts they are being criticized for so much as its the choice of cuts. The cuts-de-jour is the funding for student employment since even though everyone saw it coming from a mile away couldn’t say much about until the numbers were out.
Yet, in Hansard, the opposition hammers away at the Conservatives for cutting programs. To me, this seems like a contradication. – Deb
You’ve got that right and it happens to every government. Why;
1. The opposition parties favour the programs they put in place vs. the new programs of the new government. See child care spaces as an example.
2. The opposition knows that some people are pissed that government support is being cut for their program and wants to make hay over it.
3. Maybe the opposition believes that cutting that program is the wrong thing to do. See the program for funding student jobs at not-for profit organisation.
4. The opposition just wants to embarrass the government. Harper did it in opposition, Dion’s returning the favour.
Here’s something I don’t get: The opposition is critical of the Conservative budget because it is ‘the biggest spending’ budget in Canadian history. Yet, in Hansard, the opposition hammers away at the Conservatives for cutting programs. To me, this seems like a contradication. Is it not impossible to have it both ways? Either you increase, or you cut, but you can’t do both at the same time. What gives?
By deb on 05.18.07 5:27 pm
That’s silly. Of course you can have it both ways. You cut the spending on programs you don’t like and spend more on the ones you do. It’s not a contradiction at all. It’s sheer stupidity, but certainly not a contradiction.
I work for one of the non-profits that has benefited in the past by having a summer student. This year, we were turned down. Funding for the summer job experience program was drastically cut, so as a result, fewer students have a summer job, fewer non-profits have the extra help they need, and the government saves a few bucks. I wish they would do some research before blindly cutting programs that benefit a great number of people.
Average households do it all the time. except maybe Conservative households, what with their claim to a superior knack for finances and all.
Which federal government is to blame for this debacle? The last Liberal government or the current Conservative government that inherited the Liberal civil service, I wonder?
Actually you could also consider that the Liberal government inherited a conservative civil service that’s nearing retirement age from Brian Mulroney’s era, since most retire after 20 years of service.
Wow, I had no idea about this child Jordon dying in a foster home just because two levels of government where fighting over money (it reminds me of those horrible cases where two married people fight over who pays for what: all the while a child is left in the balance).
As the Director of Youth Organizations within the NLF Party, it appals me how bureaucracy and the provincial-federal freud can hinder the constitution call for the federal government to deliver, “Peace, Order and Good Government.”
Indeed, here in NL, we too have experienced an increase in bureaucracy within our Healthcare system as well (according to a friend of mine within the NLF Party).
So ya, in my opionion (and this is my personal opionion and not that of the NLF Party), I believe one of the opposition parties should introduce a non-confidence motion with the following wording:
‘ We the three opposition parties in the 39th Parliament motion a non-confidence motion as the Current Government of Canada is disrupting the functions of Parliament, its committees and its governance. Because in doing so the Current Conservative Government violates the section of the 1982 Constitution Act calling for “Peace,Order and Good Government”, we move a non-confidence motion.’
So ya, try that one!
We believe we have a Constitution. We believe we live in a democracy where we (the people) have some say in how this country operates, and in what direction it is developing. All false beliefs! How could Elizabeth be our Queen (let alone Adrienne her proxy) when England sent us off on our own in 1931, and gave us our complete independence from them when the Statute of Westminster was signed? The Statute of What? You ask! Its a small piece of paper … with huge power …our power. Where is the “Canadian Constitution” we hear about? What document is that? When was it written and by whom? Some insist it’s what used to be called the British North America (BNA) Act. There’s some twisted history for you … because the BNA was canceled, along with English rule, right there in the Statute of Westminster as well! Since that time, scour history as much as you like, there is no record of the people of Canada drafting and approving an actual constitution! All of which addresses the third falsehood … What democracy? In a democracy the people write and collectively ratify the rules (a constitution) …then elected ‘employees’ live by those rules! That’s the way a “democracy” works …should work. Not in Canada apparently. The “rules” have been written along the way by those for whom the ballot tolls …the politicians. And since we have never written or ratified a constitution since 1931, we have never given ‘government’ a set of rules to operate within on our behalves.
http://feudal-serf.spaces.live.com/?_c11_blogpart_blogpart=blogview&_c=blogpart&_c02_owner=1&partqs=amonth%3d4%26ayear%3d2005
section 146 of the Constitution Act, 1867
By Jordan on 05.19.07 10:35 am
While we`re on the fictitious Constitution
http://www.uni.ca/library/constitution.html
VI. Distribution of Powers 91.
in relation to all Matters *not coming within* the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces
3. The Raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to matters coming within the Classes of Subject
2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
==========
The federal government is collecting a direct tax for provincial purposes. In fact this Tory government has admitted to it by awarding Quebec $3 billion in transfer payments. They are repaying tax Ottawa from Quebec they should not have collected in the first place.
Direct taxation of Cdns by Ottawa is illegal which is why Revenue Canada has not won a single tax arrears case that used the constitutionality of income tax as a defense.