Children and youth are mentioned only in terms of being the third-party catalyst to dollars that incentivize or assist adults
Our 2025 federal budget is 493 pages long. The word ‘youth’ appears only eight times. The term ‘child’ appears only six. More than seven million Canadians under the age of 18 who access government services across multiple sectors such as justice, policing, education, national training initiatives, and health care, have somehow been forgotten about in Ottawa.
References to children and youth in this budget are limited to the most extreme efforts of protection or survival. Or, they are mentioned in terms of being the third-party catalyst to dollars that incentivize or assist adults.
This is where we are as a country: The necessities of services to uphold the dignity, needs and human rights of children and youth are not being budgeted for. The most vulnerable, the disenfranchised faction of our population who have no political voice to vote and select their representatives, who rely on the rest of us to provide necessities for them through sound legislation, modernized policies, and yes, budget allocations to action their priorities, have been ignored.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
Within this budget, each reference to ‘youth’ is focused on them being better employed, and therefore generating tax revenue, through either the Youth Climate Corps, Canada Summer Jobs and other skills, employment and work placement initiatives. Let’s remind ourselves: These dollars go to employers to incentivise the hiring of lesser skilled or experienced employees. The subsidies do not increase the take-home pay of the youth. Subsidies lessen the ‘burden’ of hiring youth for the business owner.
For children, the budget addresses bare elements of survival: food, supervision and prevention of online sexual exploitation.
For years, a national school lunch program has been advocated for. It has yet to be implemented universally by all provinces and territories, and demonstrates the blurring of jurisdictional responsibilities. One side argues this is a ‘school program’ while the other argues it is ‘health’ and therefore can be downloaded to the provinces and territories. The lunch program is not discussed as a mechanism to meet the basic nutritional needs of children: It is positioned as a cost-savings mechanism for adults.
Just this week, at the book launch of “A New Blueprint for Government” at The Munk School at the University of Toronto, multiple audience members applauded co-author James R. Mitchell stating “the Feds have no place in a school lunch program.” We are at a time and place where we applaud children being hungry at school because we don’t like the jurisdictional politics. No point then discussing how that food program may be the social safety net feeding a family and child overnight until the next school day because our other community resources are strapped and crumbling.
The endlessly-talked-about $10-a-day Child Care allocation of $900k gets a highlight on an infographic page. Years of press releases about this program have repeatedly discussed the beneficial economic impact of getting caregivers (namely women) back into the workforce. What is never discussed is the actual benefit to children gaining access to care: Speech and gross motor learning, pro-social development, eyes and ears on them to watch for early signs of learning interventions needed and protection support prior to entering the K-12 system. So again, we have budget allocation that is not actually about the best interest of the child, but about getting the parent to be a contributing member of the workforce.
An infographic highlight, as well, is the $6 million allocation to the Canada Child Benefit. There is no mention of the lack of access to this monthly cash support for the countless grandparents and extended family members who are caring for children while parents who remain legal guardians are under investigation by child protection services. In the most critical and vulnerable point of a child’s life, the basic government support allocated for them often cannot reach them.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
Budgeting dollars to strengthen law enforcement for online child sexual exploitation sweeps the issue into the same purview as online fraud, money laundering, and organized criminal networks threatening national security.
Children do not exist as a mechanism to rationalize saving tax-payer dollars for their parents or guardians. Youth do not exist as a catalyst for employers to save on payroll. Children and youth are deserving of the dignity of having their services adequately funded.
What’s the point in strengthening Canada if we’re not strengthening children and youth?
Opinion Headlines Newsletter Take a stand with this regular roundup of the best from our columnists.
Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request.
There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again.
Please enter a valid email address. Sign Up This newsletter is only available for subscribers. If you are already a subscriber, please login now. If you want to become subscriber, please click here Yes, I’d also like to receive customized content suggestions and promotional messages from the Star.
You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply.
Opinion Headlines Newsletter You’re signed up! You’ll start getting Opinion Headlines in your inbox soon.
Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page.
