Well written, extremely accurate and on point. The Liberal party has turned 11 years of complete abject failure into a platform; our 9 years of incompetence is magically all caused by the US in the last 2 months. VOTE US!!! And there are a large number of completely gullible, low IQ people with a vote that will fall for it. (My mother-in-law being one, the unionized public sector a massive second.)
Thank you for crystalizing a MAJOR issue in Canada Melanie, something I would have expected from Jenn but that seems sadly out of her wheelhouse lately so very glad they are getting in guests like you to bring out real grass roots issues and talk about them. This may be the single biggest problem Canada has. We can fix pipelines, we can deal with too many crim-igrants, we can address waste BUT no one in government is addressing affordability and growing the true working sector of Canada; get them a home they can afford and a tax structure that lets them have a family without punishing both of them for that "privilege". Thank you for highlighting Pierre's compassion towards young families. He, of all Federal leaders, at least knows somewhat you speak since he and Anaida have done that same journey.
Decades ago I had 3 children and worked full time while having a career and paying for very expensive daycare. I never regretted having 3 children while having a career and they are all adults with families and careers.
Now as a grandmother I get toenjoy every minute I spend with my 4 fun, happy grandchildren. My son and his wife had 2 children and decided they couldn’t afford a third child even though they have a house and good jobs. Daycare is so expensive as they could not get the government supported daycare so pay full cost.
My daughter and her husband have 2 children and want a third. They have a house and good jobs with daycare costs it’s a lot. It will be up to them to decide.
Canada and the last 10 years of Liberals have made it extremely costly to raise children and lots of young people want children however don’t have good housing, jobs and the lack of childcare is a challenge.
Shame on the Liberals for criticizing Pollievre’s comments. Once again he is right. Without young families committed to Canada and being rewarded for working hard Canada will be doomed.
Liberals and Carney’s policies are not helping. The current poor child care policies work for a very small number of people.
Awesome piece and so true. We are not talking about or creating structures in society which promote having children. Your points are true and accurate as was the opinion expressed by Polievre.
Not sure what you're implying about intelligence and age here, but I am a boomer, I agree with the tenets of the article, and I have been able to follow along with the downward progress of the Liberals not once but several times in my life. Perhaps you meant those who live in the Maritimes, the GTA, and the upscale neighbourhoods of the major cities, but Statscan says if I recall that only 16% of the population is over 65, and unless every one of that group gets out to vote (highly unlikely) and they all vote Liberal, I can't logically conclude that it will have that big an influence. Best extend your IQ test to include other demographics.
I am also a boomer. Politicians and the media play on peoples emotions to their strategic advantage. My comment was not intended as an insult to any particular demographic but I see the disconnect between voting tendencies and wanting grandchildren. I’m alright Jack syndrome exists amongst many of my former colleagues. Canada should be the wealthiest country in the world but quality leadership is difficult to identify amongst the noise. Take care.
Seniors are 25% of adults, and even more once you take out PR and temporary residents who can't vote (who are disproportionately young). Not a small demographic at all.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501. You can do the math yourself. About 17% of the population is over 65, my bad, I was a percent off. About 20% of the population isn't of voting age. That's about 8.5 million. The potential voting pool is therefore about 32.5 million. The number of seniors who technically could vote is about 21% +/- of the total pool. So we can agree to meet in the middle. Do you have a strategy in mind for addressing this demographic?
The "51st state" rhetoric caused every Canadian demographic to look into the void and several of them were so frighted by what they saw that it caused them to run screaming back to the party that most props up their lifestyle.
Boomers saw their massively inflated house prices tank and the introduction of private healthcare.
Atlantic Canadians saw the end of transfer payments, seasonal EI, and entire local economies propped up by the existence of their own provincial governments, and pictured themselves starving to death.
Quebecois saw not only the end of transfer payments but the end of all special treatment based on language, becoming just an incredibly un-competitive and irrelevant backwater where everyone speaks English with an unusual accent.
Nothing about this fear is rational, but to these demographics it feels existential.
"Atlantic Canadians saw the end of transfer payments, seasonal EI, and entire local economies propped up by the existence of their own provincial governments, and pictured themselves starving to death."
I've been living on PEI for over 50 years and my question to you is how far did you have to bend over before you pulled that 'existential' load out?
You think PEI would do well as part of a contiguous Canada-sized US state?
Even if they broke Canada up into smaller units there is no way that province wouldn't get combined with NB and NS (and let's face it probably NL as well). Full market forces unleashed. Pleasant place but it would be deeply uncompetitive.
Again, there is a zero percent chance of this happening, and I don't in any way want this to occur, but I'm just running the thought experiment I think a lot of people did.
I'm not sure what Duhh means to you, but older Liberal voters ought not scare so easily .They are so conservative that they reject any new ideas that might give the next 2 generations a chance at a decent life. Voting Liberal and piling up the nation's debt is their blind spot.
Then apparently 55% of boomers are Liberal Boomers in that case. If they don't collectively smarten up they will deliver the Trudeau/Carney regime its biggest and most undeserved victory.
Jesus, they really don't believe in 'try before you buy'.
If he was opposition leader for several years, and they still love him then, great, they've made an informed decision. But this guy was parachuted in and we don't even know his views on like 80% of topics. He has zero credibility behind any promises he makes, particularly ones that go back on multi-year LPC policies that suddenly became unpopular.
Carney voters are entirely supporting him based on good vibes and liking the cut of his jib. Yeesh.
Poilievre should lean into this. Why not? We need to see some big-swing policy that the Liberals recoil in horror from. He's on track to lose anyway.
Pledge to reduce immigration by 75% and introduce a suite of pro-birth policies. Give our demographics some room to breathe. The ones who would react badly to this aren't voting Conservative anyway.
Wow. That was an excellent article. You got all the major points. Thank you. I am going to share this with my MP, even though he never responds to my emails. I have to try. How else can I help?
This is a monumentally important intergenerational issue that you have brilliantly spotlighted:
Tax and benefit policies that leave the maximum amount in parents' bank accounts enable the want-to- be mothers and fathers to realistically build families, free of the odious choice of being a child-poor family.
As a fellow early 40s mom, I agree with some of this. I don’t think Poilievre should be attacked for this statement from a women’s right point of view - housing is definitely a factor in deciding when to have children. But he wasn’t proposing any of the other ideas you suggested; they aren’t on his radar either. Many of the things you mention are also provincial jurisdiction- certainly anything health care related (I do think there should be health care minimum standards across the country but that’s a whole other discussion). There are so many tentacles from the things you are suggesting though, at least from my view; covering in home care postpartum = agree except shouldn’t we also then cover in home care for seniors or disabled parents which would then allow those who want kids/more kids but are helping to care for aging parents the space to have them? I know that was a consideration for myself and a close friend. Villages aren’t just for new parents and families with young children.
Many of these other ideas are social programs or reworking systems; just cutting taxes or increasing the child benefit so “we can spend it how we want” isn’t going to be enough to cover the $24000/year our friends paid for 2 kids in daycare. They wanted more kids but even owning a home and both having a good job it really didn’t work. We can claim most of the daycare costs on our taxes but it’s very little benefit. Much of it is piecemeal as you said - I live in a city that offers lactation consulting, a postpartum visit and other supports through municipal public health. Changing systems and institutions is a steep hill most don’t want to go near.
I guess my point is that I think many of your suggestions are on point but are not quite that simple. Poilievres equating the decision to hold off on having children to the housing crisis simplifies it even more. The actual complex ideas are all likely low on the priority list if anywhere at all.
I’m not sure you’re completely in the know about Pierre Poilievre’s radar. Unless, of course, you’re part of his inner circle or campaign team. Villages of all types are acknowledged by Pierre Poilievre all the time using a variety of descriptors.
I’m not commenting on Pierre Poilievres agenda specifically nor is that a knock against him. My point and the point of the article is that these systemic issues don’t seem to be near the top of any parties agenda. The article and my comment isn’t about Poilievre really. My village comment is in response to the articles notes on the lack of village mentality around family building that is part of our society now - which I do actually agree with but just pointing out that the social village concept actually needs to extend further out as well.
Scandinavian countries have birth rates only a touch higher than Canada's, despite having far more pro-natal programs and policies in place along with their wider social safety net. It's not clear to me or anyone else that such policies can appreciably increase birth rates in developed countries.
Every single one of those countries has a housing crisis for young adults, much like Canada. The perception they have a strong safety net is not necessarily matching the ability to deliver.
Either way, "a touch" matters when you're talking about growth. The difference between Canada's 1.25 fertility rate and something like 1.5 (much less the upper end of what you see in wealthy countries which is more like 1.9) is the number of babies halving in 1.5 generations compared to 2.5. Huge difference in terms of ability to sustain safety nets.
Fair point. I don't think there's a housing crisis in Japan (given the depopulation), and they've had 30+ years of experience trying to raise their birth rate. It's been hovering around 1.3-1.5 for decades, and I'm not sure if any of the slight variations are due to government programs as opposed to broader cultural/social trends that no one really controls. But then South Korea is a good example of how housing, gender equality, and economic concerns can really drive the birth rate down in the first place.
As far as I'm aware, there's not really any successful example of a developed country appreciably raising it's birth rate through intentional policies/programs.
Japan is kind of weird because it was already very dense when its population peaked and many of its cities are still growing as the general population isn't (i.e., living spaces are small, and high housing costs in cities coexist with increasingly-vacant towns). Certainly not claiming there's a silver bullet solution here or that the economic part always outweighs gender equality and other cultural factors, but the range of birthrates in wealthy countries seems to mean it should be policy-sensitive to some degree.
Depends what 'appreciably' is. Hungary's fertility rate was on a decade-long upward trend before the pandemic, although it's still low. Many of these policies are probably expensive for the outcome, but I think there's been less focus on the general economic situation of young adults (vs subsidies for parents specifically).
That is true. I do think finding solutions for some of these things could make it more attractive/easier for those who want to expand their families, which can only be beneficial.
The response from some Liberals reminds me of the worst attributes of the Trudeau-era Liberals. Out-of-touch, lecturing, worrying more about words than actual problems, ignoring young Canadians, and illiberal all at once. Poilievre said nothing remotely controversial here: biological clock is a real thing, not a value judgement, and the implications he shouldn't bring that up because he's a man, or it's somehow pro-life-adjacent or whatever are just ridiculous.
The Liberals successfully twist issues into Boomer era motivators like abortion, "standing up" to the Americans and planning citizens' lives through social spending. The real world has moved on from the 1970's, yet the Liberals yearn for an idealized past.
Yes Melanie! My wife and I are 40-ish parents of two kids, and everything you describe is right on the mark. All levels of government can and should be doing more of this. I’ll be sharing this article with my local candidates.
Please keep writing about this! You do it well and it will take sustained effort to make change.
That was so well written, especially with the personal aspect being part of it. I'm a boomer and I have to agree that the Liberal party has virtually made it impossible to raise a family. Instead they are pushing the immigration levels to beyond reason and said immigrants have even bragged about have 'lots' of children. Just what we don't need. Bravo to you Melanie!
Most immigrants are Canadians too. When we talk about improving conditions for Canadians wanting families, we are talking about immigrant families too.
The best line: This country treats parenting like a private hobby. So very true.
After reading Bowling Alone I wanted to get back into the community and looked for volunteer opportunities. This is when I discovered that all the prenatal and postnatal classes and activities I enjoyed some 20 years ago were now subsumed by the private sector. Community-based, volunteer run support systems are essentially gone. If you don't pay, you don't play. Even the tour of the hospital where you'll give birth now costs money.
And here's another loss that might surprise Matt & Jen (who sometimes don't understand the scope of our 'trans' situation): the decimation of La Leche League. The thriving, community driven, fully volunteer-led organization that I knew, is no more. Turns out, male 'mothers' who show up at meetings expecting to watch new mothers breastfeed their children affects the comfort level of those said women. Or worse yet, feel compelled to expose their breasts lest they be called transphobic in the midst of one of the most vulnerable stages of a woman's life: post-partum. Try letting your milk down now.
Sure, I'm all for funding the support systems that young families need. But money alone will not solve this. And now it turns out bringing back 'community' is near impossible. Those days are gone.
What an excellent article and a real eye opener . I am an aging Boomer with a house that no young family can afford and yet I know several young couples who are not starting a family because their apartment is too small and a house is beyond reach . And not to mention the whole issue of fertility and pregnancies.
This has given me a whole new perspective and an understanding of the age split in this year’s election
As my doctor noted: “Biology is all powerful. Despite all the wealth and connections imaginable, Paul McCarthy’s wife Linda still died young of cancer.”
One thing threatening China’s economic dominance is a demographic time bomb: not enough babies due to misguided policies.
Great article. Liberal supporters have already been raging against Poilievre's sensible comments on the FACT that many Canadians who want a family simply can't afford to and have no support from Government on prenatal and postnatal issues.
Well written, extremely accurate and on point. The Liberal party has turned 11 years of complete abject failure into a platform; our 9 years of incompetence is magically all caused by the US in the last 2 months. VOTE US!!! And there are a large number of completely gullible, low IQ people with a vote that will fall for it. (My mother-in-law being one, the unionized public sector a massive second.)
Thank you for crystalizing a MAJOR issue in Canada Melanie, something I would have expected from Jenn but that seems sadly out of her wheelhouse lately so very glad they are getting in guests like you to bring out real grass roots issues and talk about them. This may be the single biggest problem Canada has. We can fix pipelines, we can deal with too many crim-igrants, we can address waste BUT no one in government is addressing affordability and growing the true working sector of Canada; get them a home they can afford and a tax structure that lets them have a family without punishing both of them for that "privilege". Thank you for highlighting Pierre's compassion towards young families. He, of all Federal leaders, at least knows somewhat you speak since he and Anaida have done that same journey.
Very nice work. Thank you. Other take note.
Thank you and you are exactly right.
Decades ago I had 3 children and worked full time while having a career and paying for very expensive daycare. I never regretted having 3 children while having a career and they are all adults with families and careers.
Now as a grandmother I get toenjoy every minute I spend with my 4 fun, happy grandchildren. My son and his wife had 2 children and decided they couldn’t afford a third child even though they have a house and good jobs. Daycare is so expensive as they could not get the government supported daycare so pay full cost.
My daughter and her husband have 2 children and want a third. They have a house and good jobs with daycare costs it’s a lot. It will be up to them to decide.
Canada and the last 10 years of Liberals have made it extremely costly to raise children and lots of young people want children however don’t have good housing, jobs and the lack of childcare is a challenge.
Shame on the Liberals for criticizing Pollievre’s comments. Once again he is right. Without young families committed to Canada and being rewarded for working hard Canada will be doomed.
Liberals and Carney’s policies are not helping. The current poor child care policies work for a very small number of people.
Well written Melanie! Thank you for sharing your personal perspective. You might want to send this to legacy news as well for a wider audience.
Awesome piece and so true. We are not talking about or creating structures in society which promote having children. Your points are true and accurate as was the opinion expressed by Polievre.
Excellent article. According to current polls the Liberals are being supported by baby boomers?
This election really is an IQ test for voters.
Not sure what you're implying about intelligence and age here, but I am a boomer, I agree with the tenets of the article, and I have been able to follow along with the downward progress of the Liberals not once but several times in my life. Perhaps you meant those who live in the Maritimes, the GTA, and the upscale neighbourhoods of the major cities, but Statscan says if I recall that only 16% of the population is over 65, and unless every one of that group gets out to vote (highly unlikely) and they all vote Liberal, I can't logically conclude that it will have that big an influence. Best extend your IQ test to include other demographics.
I am also a boomer. Politicians and the media play on peoples emotions to their strategic advantage. My comment was not intended as an insult to any particular demographic but I see the disconnect between voting tendencies and wanting grandchildren. I’m alright Jack syndrome exists amongst many of my former colleagues. Canada should be the wealthiest country in the world but quality leadership is difficult to identify amongst the noise. Take care.
Populists find that kind of thinking inconvenient. Best to just pick an identifiable group and vilify them!
Which kind of populists ? The far-left wingers or the far-right wingers ?
Why not both?
Seniors are 25% of adults, and even more once you take out PR and temporary residents who can't vote (who are disproportionately young). Not a small demographic at all.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501. You can do the math yourself. About 17% of the population is over 65, my bad, I was a percent off. About 20% of the population isn't of voting age. That's about 8.5 million. The potential voting pool is therefore about 32.5 million. The number of seniors who technically could vote is about 21% +/- of the total pool. So we can agree to meet in the middle. Do you have a strategy in mind for addressing this demographic?
The "51st state" rhetoric caused every Canadian demographic to look into the void and several of them were so frighted by what they saw that it caused them to run screaming back to the party that most props up their lifestyle.
Boomers saw their massively inflated house prices tank and the introduction of private healthcare.
Atlantic Canadians saw the end of transfer payments, seasonal EI, and entire local economies propped up by the existence of their own provincial governments, and pictured themselves starving to death.
Quebecois saw not only the end of transfer payments but the end of all special treatment based on language, becoming just an incredibly un-competitive and irrelevant backwater where everyone speaks English with an unusual accent.
Nothing about this fear is rational, but to these demographics it feels existential.
"Atlantic Canadians saw the end of transfer payments, seasonal EI, and entire local economies propped up by the existence of their own provincial governments, and pictured themselves starving to death."
I've been living on PEI for over 50 years and my question to you is how far did you have to bend over before you pulled that 'existential' load out?
You think PEI would do well as part of a contiguous Canada-sized US state?
Even if they broke Canada up into smaller units there is no way that province wouldn't get combined with NB and NS (and let's face it probably NL as well). Full market forces unleashed. Pleasant place but it would be deeply uncompetitive.
Again, there is a zero percent chance of this happening, and I don't in any way want this to occur, but I'm just running the thought experiment I think a lot of people did.
Duhh... No , get a grip.
KRM is correct.
I'm not sure what Duhh means to you, but older Liberal voters ought not scare so easily .They are so conservative that they reject any new ideas that might give the next 2 generations a chance at a decent life. Voting Liberal and piling up the nation's debt is their blind spot.
Not by this Boomer. You could not pay me to vote Liberal.
Liberal boomers support the Liberals. A lot of other boomers don't.
That is the most rational boomer comment I've heard. Thanks.
Then apparently 55% of boomers are Liberal Boomers in that case. If they don't collectively smarten up they will deliver the Trudeau/Carney regime its biggest and most undeserved victory.
They won't smarten up. They say things like, "Carney is a gift to the country." I'm embarrassed for them.
Jesus, they really don't believe in 'try before you buy'.
If he was opposition leader for several years, and they still love him then, great, they've made an informed decision. But this guy was parachuted in and we don't even know his views on like 80% of topics. He has zero credibility behind any promises he makes, particularly ones that go back on multi-year LPC policies that suddenly became unpopular.
Carney voters are entirely supporting him based on good vibes and liking the cut of his jib. Yeesh.
Poilievre should lean into this. Why not? We need to see some big-swing policy that the Liberals recoil in horror from. He's on track to lose anyway.
Pledge to reduce immigration by 75% and introduce a suite of pro-birth policies. Give our demographics some room to breathe. The ones who would react badly to this aren't voting Conservative anyway.
Wow. That was an excellent article. You got all the major points. Thank you. I am going to share this with my MP, even though he never responds to my emails. I have to try. How else can I help?
Ms. Paradis,
This is a monumentally important intergenerational issue that you have brilliantly spotlighted:
Tax and benefit policies that leave the maximum amount in parents' bank accounts enable the want-to- be mothers and fathers to realistically build families, free of the odious choice of being a child-poor family.
Absolutly brilliant article Melanie. Thank you for so eloquently baring your soul.
As a fellow early 40s mom, I agree with some of this. I don’t think Poilievre should be attacked for this statement from a women’s right point of view - housing is definitely a factor in deciding when to have children. But he wasn’t proposing any of the other ideas you suggested; they aren’t on his radar either. Many of the things you mention are also provincial jurisdiction- certainly anything health care related (I do think there should be health care minimum standards across the country but that’s a whole other discussion). There are so many tentacles from the things you are suggesting though, at least from my view; covering in home care postpartum = agree except shouldn’t we also then cover in home care for seniors or disabled parents which would then allow those who want kids/more kids but are helping to care for aging parents the space to have them? I know that was a consideration for myself and a close friend. Villages aren’t just for new parents and families with young children.
Many of these other ideas are social programs or reworking systems; just cutting taxes or increasing the child benefit so “we can spend it how we want” isn’t going to be enough to cover the $24000/year our friends paid for 2 kids in daycare. They wanted more kids but even owning a home and both having a good job it really didn’t work. We can claim most of the daycare costs on our taxes but it’s very little benefit. Much of it is piecemeal as you said - I live in a city that offers lactation consulting, a postpartum visit and other supports through municipal public health. Changing systems and institutions is a steep hill most don’t want to go near.
I guess my point is that I think many of your suggestions are on point but are not quite that simple. Poilievres equating the decision to hold off on having children to the housing crisis simplifies it even more. The actual complex ideas are all likely low on the priority list if anywhere at all.
I’m not sure you’re completely in the know about Pierre Poilievre’s radar. Unless, of course, you’re part of his inner circle or campaign team. Villages of all types are acknowledged by Pierre Poilievre all the time using a variety of descriptors.
I’m not commenting on Pierre Poilievres agenda specifically nor is that a knock against him. My point and the point of the article is that these systemic issues don’t seem to be near the top of any parties agenda. The article and my comment isn’t about Poilievre really. My village comment is in response to the articles notes on the lack of village mentality around family building that is part of our society now - which I do actually agree with but just pointing out that the social village concept actually needs to extend further out as well.
Scandinavian countries have birth rates only a touch higher than Canada's, despite having far more pro-natal programs and policies in place along with their wider social safety net. It's not clear to me or anyone else that such policies can appreciably increase birth rates in developed countries.
Every single one of those countries has a housing crisis for young adults, much like Canada. The perception they have a strong safety net is not necessarily matching the ability to deliver.
Either way, "a touch" matters when you're talking about growth. The difference between Canada's 1.25 fertility rate and something like 1.5 (much less the upper end of what you see in wealthy countries which is more like 1.9) is the number of babies halving in 1.5 generations compared to 2.5. Huge difference in terms of ability to sustain safety nets.
Fair point. I don't think there's a housing crisis in Japan (given the depopulation), and they've had 30+ years of experience trying to raise their birth rate. It's been hovering around 1.3-1.5 for decades, and I'm not sure if any of the slight variations are due to government programs as opposed to broader cultural/social trends that no one really controls. But then South Korea is a good example of how housing, gender equality, and economic concerns can really drive the birth rate down in the first place.
As far as I'm aware, there's not really any successful example of a developed country appreciably raising it's birth rate through intentional policies/programs.
Japan is kind of weird because it was already very dense when its population peaked and many of its cities are still growing as the general population isn't (i.e., living spaces are small, and high housing costs in cities coexist with increasingly-vacant towns). Certainly not claiming there's a silver bullet solution here or that the economic part always outweighs gender equality and other cultural factors, but the range of birthrates in wealthy countries seems to mean it should be policy-sensitive to some degree.
Depends what 'appreciably' is. Hungary's fertility rate was on a decade-long upward trend before the pandemic, although it's still low. Many of these policies are probably expensive for the outcome, but I think there's been less focus on the general economic situation of young adults (vs subsidies for parents specifically).
That is true. I do think finding solutions for some of these things could make it more attractive/easier for those who want to expand their families, which can only be beneficial.
Very well said.
The response from some Liberals reminds me of the worst attributes of the Trudeau-era Liberals. Out-of-touch, lecturing, worrying more about words than actual problems, ignoring young Canadians, and illiberal all at once. Poilievre said nothing remotely controversial here: biological clock is a real thing, not a value judgement, and the implications he shouldn't bring that up because he's a man, or it's somehow pro-life-adjacent or whatever are just ridiculous.
The Liberals successfully twist issues into Boomer era motivators like abortion, "standing up" to the Americans and planning citizens' lives through social spending. The real world has moved on from the 1970's, yet the Liberals yearn for an idealized past.
And sadly there are a lot of people who are willing to sign over their future to them.
The Liberals are the real conservatives.
Yes Melanie! My wife and I are 40-ish parents of two kids, and everything you describe is right on the mark. All levels of government can and should be doing more of this. I’ll be sharing this article with my local candidates.
Please keep writing about this! You do it well and it will take sustained effort to make change.
That was so well written, especially with the personal aspect being part of it. I'm a boomer and I have to agree that the Liberal party has virtually made it impossible to raise a family. Instead they are pushing the immigration levels to beyond reason and said immigrants have even bragged about have 'lots' of children. Just what we don't need. Bravo to you Melanie!
Most immigrants are Canadians too. When we talk about improving conditions for Canadians wanting families, we are talking about immigrant families too.
Why is it bad for immigrants to have lots of children?
Why is it bad for "us" to have lots of children ? Because it will decrease the Liberal voting pool ?
Nobody said it was, whereas Barb was quite clear that those pesky immigrants bragging about all the kids they're having is "just what we don't need".
The best line: This country treats parenting like a private hobby. So very true.
After reading Bowling Alone I wanted to get back into the community and looked for volunteer opportunities. This is when I discovered that all the prenatal and postnatal classes and activities I enjoyed some 20 years ago were now subsumed by the private sector. Community-based, volunteer run support systems are essentially gone. If you don't pay, you don't play. Even the tour of the hospital where you'll give birth now costs money.
And here's another loss that might surprise Matt & Jen (who sometimes don't understand the scope of our 'trans' situation): the decimation of La Leche League. The thriving, community driven, fully volunteer-led organization that I knew, is no more. Turns out, male 'mothers' who show up at meetings expecting to watch new mothers breastfeed their children affects the comfort level of those said women. Or worse yet, feel compelled to expose their breasts lest they be called transphobic in the midst of one of the most vulnerable stages of a woman's life: post-partum. Try letting your milk down now.
Sure, I'm all for funding the support systems that young families need. But money alone will not solve this. And now it turns out bringing back 'community' is near impossible. Those days are gone.
What an excellent article and a real eye opener . I am an aging Boomer with a house that no young family can afford and yet I know several young couples who are not starting a family because their apartment is too small and a house is beyond reach . And not to mention the whole issue of fertility and pregnancies.
This has given me a whole new perspective and an understanding of the age split in this year’s election
Agree with you. Biology is reality.
As my doctor noted: “Biology is all powerful. Despite all the wealth and connections imaginable, Paul McCarthy’s wife Linda still died young of cancer.”
One thing threatening China’s economic dominance is a demographic time bomb: not enough babies due to misguided policies.
Great article. Liberal supporters have already been raging against Poilievre's sensible comments on the FACT that many Canadians who want a family simply can't afford to and have no support from Government on prenatal and postnatal issues.