Election promises: whose family benefits?
Two-parent families with children account for only 26.5% of Canadians, Susan Huebert says
In the movie The Sound of Music, the Von Trapp children and their uncle are looking at a program for the upcoming music festival when five-year-old Gretel asks why she is always listed last, after her brothers and sisters. Uncle Max replies it is because she is the most important, and Gretel is satisfied.
The audience, of course, knows Gretel is listed last because, by long-standing convention, children are almost always listed in birth order unless one of them has accomplished something extraordinarily good or bad. Sometimes, however, being listed last or not at all is a sign of something worse.
Many Canadians could be feeling like Gretel during the current federal election campaign, pushed to the bottom of the list and largely ignored because of their circumstances and life choices. Early in the process, the leaders of the Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic parties all made statements pledging their support (presumably financial) for families, but so far, politicians have paid little attention to people who do not fit into that nice, neat category.
To what extent do families even begin to reflect the realities of Canadian society?
The Canadian reality
The term "family" is good rhetoric, since it conjures up images of mother, father and children gathered around the supper table, sharing their lives and helping to support each other in times of need. That type of family life exists for some people, but how closely does it mirror the reality of most Canadians?
In the communities where my grandparents grew up, marriage was held in high regard, but families were far from being the stereotypical two parents with children. Premature deaths resulting from disease, accidents or violence, and the economic and social necessities of working together meant families were often a blend of children from two or three marriages, as well as perhaps a pair of elderly parents, maybe an unmarried or widowed sibling, and possibly an unrelated child or two from a poverty-stricken family in the village.
Life in those communities was far from perfect, but one thing people realized was that they could not separate the nuclear family from the rest of the group and expect to thrive as a society.
Although families are now more likely to be blended by divorce and remarriage rather than by the death of a spouse, the multitude of combinations seem to me to bear a closer resemblance to the families of my grandparents' day than to the nuclear family that typified the mid 20th century.
The new face of the family makes me wonder how well the political candidates really know the people to whom they are making all of these promises. Supporting families is very nice, but who exactly do the candidates intend to support?
What is in a family?
If by "family" the candidates mean two-parent families with children, their support will go to 26.5 per cent of households, slightly under the 27.6 per cent of Canadian households where people live alone. If they mean anyone who is biologically related to a child, that could lead to a whole host of complications in deciding which parent gets financial support and to what extent.
Assigning government financial assistance based solely on a person's marital and parental status can be problematic, especially when some children have the benefit of two parental incomes, while others live with grandparents or in foster homes or other non-family units. Furthermore, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, it is not two-parent families that are most likely to live in poverty, but rather women, whether single parents or those living alone.
They could use as much financial support as other families.
Getting some perspective
I understand the point of giving families money to buy better food, or to find good housing to give their children the necessities of life, but the television ads that I have seen point rather to government sponsorship of organized sports and other extracurricular activities for children.
These may be worthy causes, but surely there are better ways to help parents with young children.
In light of recent events in the Middle East and Europe, I also wonder how far politicians' concern for families really extends. Do they care about parents and children living or dying beyond our borders?
- Father of Alan Kurdi, drowned Syrian boy, describes desperate ordeal to save family
- Little Alan Kurdi, washed ashore, suddenly refocuses Syrian tragedy: Nahlah Ayed
The issue for me is that the government has apparently isolated one small part of some very large problems: a growing gap between the cost of living and people's wages in Canada and the desperation of people in crisis around the world. Instead of giving handouts to a few parents and children, why not invest in Canada's future with increased immigration, a range of housing options for people at every income level, and increased investment in creating stable, high-paying jobs?
Canadians need a government that works for everyone. Unlike five-year-old Gretel, we should question politicians' assurances that they are speaking for us and our place in the Canadian family.
Susan Huebert is a Winnipeg writer and editor.