International Family Childcare Association -

Ottawa Citizen

OTTAWA — The City of Ottawa should be giving subsidies for child-care space to families rather than child-care agencies, according to an audit released Wednesday.

Auditor General Alain Lalonde’s audit of children’s services found that those families most in need are not necessarily getting the help they need in the current system. Ottawa is the only city in Ontario that gives the fee subsidies to agencies rather than families in need.

The report also says the current centralized waiting list doesn’t accurately reflect the true need for the service in the city.

OECD Reports:

Full-day kindergarten, on the other hand, is to be available to any Ontario family that wants it, regardless of its situation. Besides being inefficient, universality of this sort can actually have a perverse impact on inequality, the OECD suggests, “since scarce resources to combat inequality are spread more thinly.”

Given looming constraints on social spending budgets across Canada, it makes sense to spend the limited funds that are available on those children who really need the help.

This email was sent to all MP’s in Canada and unfortunately we only got one response, see email below.

Women are stepping back from the career track to do the mom-and-family
thing - not because they must, but because they can

Margaret Wente speaks the truth about women and work. Unfortunately
governments and advocates don’t see it that way.

My story is a bit different from the “so called professional women” in
society today. I’m referred to as the uneducated baby machine who relies
on her husband to keep her pedicures and manicures coming. Though I’ve
never had a pedicure or a manicure in my life, most people find what I
do just above the welfare line.

Since I was little I wanted to be a mother, not a doctor or a bus driver
just a mother. I worked odd jobs over the years and attempted at a
financial career going after a trader position but when it came down to
the crunch I could not do both, so I went back to just being a mother.

Now my children are all in school. This is the dilemma, no education, no
real experience and no hopes for a pension plan beside Old Age Security
& CPP.

All because I wanted to be just a MOTHER.

http://choiceforchildcare.blogspot.com/2009/09/untold-truth-about-women-and-work.html#links

–
Thank you,
Sara Landriault
stay at home mom
*President*, National Family Childcare Association
www.careofthechild.com
www.incomesplitting.org
landriault@ripnet.com

Dear Sara,

Thank you very much for your email. It is a wonderful thing to know at such an early age what will truly bring one happiness. Many people search their entire lives for this. In Canada, it is a great privilege for many women to be able to choose to stay home and care for their children. Sadly, many women do not have this privileged choice and are forced to work to provide the basic necessities for their families. There are also many women who choose to work as well. With women in such different circumstances, it is the government’s responsibility to look after the most vulnerable in the population. The most vulnerable women are those who are forced to work in order to make ends meet. Having affordable childcare would be the first step in making sure these families do not fall below the poverty line.

I also firmly believe that women who are fortunate enough to be able to stay home and raise their children should not be left with little hope of work or pension later in life. Government supported programs to retrain women after taking time off paid work to raise children or look after elderly, ill or disabled family members should be made a priority.

Thank you again for your email.

Sincerely,

Irene Mathyssen

Back to school for the kids, and a full life change for mom
During the summer months I heard parents discussing how early the children were heading back to school. Before Labour Day after Labour day, they debated whether it was good or bad and the whole time I couldn’t of cared less what the actual day was they started.
My mind was set on , the last summer I am needed as a “stay at home” mom.
Grade one is a full time position and my youngest daughter will be attending grade one in a week from now. [As I write this my body feels numb at the thought of school actually starting.]
When the summer started and school ended last year I felt excited about the thought of all the children in full time school, but now as the time inches closer and closer I’m terrified. For 10 years I’ve been attending the needs of my children and yes my own needs as well, we’ve adapted together as a family to survive and now I feel a bit overwhelmed it will end. Not that the children don’t need a mother anymore, they always will. The end to me is 24/7 caregiving, that will change to 24/7 constant worrying.

My changes are trying to find full-time employment, something that can full-fill me emotionally but above all something that will fill our wallets so we can pay the bills and so far it has not happened. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy waitressing. There are plenty of emotional highs and lows which help me get through the day and the pay with tips aren’t too bad but there are only limited hours that come with the tips. Ontario Labour Laws only allow us to start at $8.25 an hour and most restaurants do not give raises. Tips are the reason the politicians give us less an hour than the rest of the population. The problem with tips are they only come at a specific time in the restaurant. 80% of a servers time is spent cleaning, polishing, shinning and organizing the restaurant until a meal time arrives and then a server turns into “the flash” and keeps going and going until the last table is served. Some dinner rushes we can make almost $100 and others we can go home with $15 in our pocket. A lot of people tip their servers based on the service but in the same breath a lot of people just don’t have the money to appropriately tip them. For me whether it is a big tip or not the tables are equally served. The job is enjoyable for me but the financial stability does not cover the needs of our household finances, nor does the shift work.
What other choice do I have?

For 10 years my resume states raising my own children as well as other related experiences like, cleaning, cooking (though my husband cooks all dinners), laundry, serving, nursing, dog grooming, hair stylist, renovator, lawn maintenance and much much more. Though none of these experiences will mean diddly squat on a resume to apply for a full time job. How do you truly explain running a house hold as enough experience to run a small business or managing an office without an employer laughing at you for attempting it.
In my previous resume I focused on my ‘at home’ experience and applied for a reception job. The resume showed computer skills and organizing attributes through other employment but mainly it was focused on how well I did ‘at home’. There has been no interview calls or interests in my resume, that is based on my “at home” experience.

Obviously I’m a bad speller but not an unimaginative person when it comes to attracting attention as you can tell through the history of my blog. Thus I have revamped my resume and focused on my political attributions of running the NFCA now IFCA.

The changes of my resume consists of focusing on my organizing skills through the IFCA and my political agenda.

My work history was down played and my skills were upgraded to over shadow any work history, my ‘at home’ agenda was deleted and in place and enthusiastic show of a professional attitude.

 Organizing Multiple Conferences
 Public/Government/Media Relations (Press Releases)
 Fundraisers
 Microsoft office
 Internet & Email, Mass Mail, & Telephone Marketing
 Public Networking
 Sensitive & Discretionary Documents
 Public Speaking
 Food Beverage Customer Service
 Elderly & Children Care

This resume will be sent forth to any administrative positions that arrive in the near future in hopes of finding our family more time stability and a bigger pay check. Will I personally be gratified with a position like this, absolutely not. Waitressing was one position I enjoyed and gave me the emotional satisfaction I needed on a daily basis, but it won’t pay the bills and it won’t allow me to spend quality time with my children.

Is there a Career in my future, not a professional one.

Growing up in the 80’s and 90’s there wasn’t any money for schooling due to the fact our family wanted to eat. The high tech business boomed just as I was having children which in fact gave my husband a career and I am very grateful for that but it did not allow me to grow with the industry due to being busy giving birth.
As the years went by I tried having a career in the financial industry. Trading stocks and bonds really did intrigue me but studying for a CSC course as your baby is trying to be potty trained was just too much for me. I put down my stocks and bonds and dove into a potty training teacher position. Though my career was in the toilet I was at home “hip hip hooraying” for whatever my daughter put in the potty, talk about the ‘irony’. As my daughter grew so did our family, a few more children appeared and many more ‘cheers’ came from the potty training teacher. Without noticing my career became my family life (without the pay of course), I was enjoying every moment of it. There were great times and scary as hell times. My second daughter was in the hospital with breathing problems quite a bit as a child, she caught a bronchial flu while still a toddler and has had puffers as a result from it. Constant ear infections as a baby also kept her up all night screaming in terror of the pain. As she grows the puffers slowed down and the ear infections have stopped but the memory of ambulances and her on breathing machines will haunt us for the rest of our lives.
To articulate the good parts would take up years of writing on this blog but I can say simply that smile and hug just before the children fall asleep is worth more than all the gold in China!

This whole experience of growing with my children is overwhelming to say the least. Words cannot explain how I feel about the change of direction in my life and not being needed as a full time caregiver. I’m scared and slightly excited with what the future holds for my family but I am still resentful as to how the governments around the world treat parents who have and will experience the wonders of caring for your own children.

Would my life be better if I had chosen the career over full time caregiving, I don’t know. What I do know is the government would have treated us better financially and put forward more peer support to me as a woman to pursue an economical future.

‘Stay home’ cost me dearly through my economic worth in society, but if I could go back and change anything I would not.
It is the government who needs to change not me.

This blog was not written in pity or out of desperation for attention but through a learning experience from a very ‘big mouth stay at home mom’ who is about to retire and start a new chapter in her life.

I beg you, please let the parents decide on what to choose when it comes to childcare. Whether it be at home, a daycare or neighbor allow that choice to be only the parents choice and not be financially bribed by the governments ‘nanny state’.

Jack Mintz: The art of research
Posted: May 19, 2009, 7:20 PM by NP Editor
Jack Mintz, Federal Budget, research
If Canada wants to be a leader in R&D, the solution isn’t more government money; it’s a smarter approach

By Jack Mintz

T

he federal government’s recent budget has taken a lot of heat over its support for research, including in a letter signed by 2,000 researchers dependent on government support. Not only is the heat unfair but it is also contradicted by the facts.

The real issue is not the amount of money being spent but whether the government’s approach is the best innovation strategy. Researchers could help a lot by framing the discussion in this way.

Much of the criticism laid against the Harper budget reflects reduced funding provided to three granting agencies following a federal strategic review. Arguably, the purpose of a review is to improve the program’s efficiency, reducing expenditures that are overlapping or not effective. The 3.4% cut is being redirected to other research funding, including graduate scholarships, and, in fact, the 2009 budget provides for a substantial increase in research funding.

While much fanfare has been made about the newly-found U.S. budget commitment to research, it must be remembered that this only follows a secular decline of 50% of research funding for physical sciences as a share of GDP in the past 25 years. In other words, the United States is now in catch-up mode. Yet a close look at the U.S. budget numbers for research and development suggests less than meets the eye. In a recent review of the Obama budget, the Office of Management and Budget shows that federal funding for research and development will be $147-billion in 2010, just slightly more than the Bush administration’s $144-billion in 2008 and less than an estimated $165-billion in 2009 (including stimulus spending).

In comparison, the Harper government in its 2009 budget will increase science and technology funding by $5.1-billion on top of $2.2-billion in new funding in the previous three budgets. Adjusting for size of the economy, this is more than the U.S. spending increases. Over $2.75-billion is devoted to repairing post-secondary infrastructure that has seriously impaired scientific research and teaching due to inadequate facilities. A further billion dollars is spent on clean energy, clearly one of the most critical areas for research in the coming years. Other funds are devoted to various programs, including the National Research Council’s successful Industrial Research Assistance Program to assist corporate innovation and the hiring of graduate students.

The recent report by the Science, Technology and Innovation Council does an excellent job laying out information about our research performance. In 2006 (the latest year of available data), public expenditures on research and development as a share of GDP was 0.9% in Canada, more than the 0.8% share in the United States. Further, once the research and development tax credit is included, Canadian funding of business research was 0.23% of GDP compared to 0.22% of GDP in the United States (2005, the latest year available). Much of our support is provided through the tax system while the United States directs most of its public support through grants given to defence, health, space and energy industries, among others.

And, more of our population has post-secondary education than in the United States, although Canadians favour colleges over universities compared to Americans. Given the differences in education structures, it is not entirely clear whether some Canadian college education is much different than certain types of U.S. universities — for example, Canadian colleges like Ryerson have become universities recently.

The problem is research intensity as a country. Total public and private research and development spending in Canada is still lacklustre, just slightly better than the OECD average. Although research and development expenditures have improved from 1.6% of GDP in 1996 to 1.9% of GDP in 2006, it is still less than the 2006 G-7 average of 2.2%. Our mediocre performance is primarily a result of low business-funded research, which is only 1.1% of GDP, compared to 1.8% in the United States for 2006. Even after accounting for differences in industrial structure, resource-rich Canada’s position improves little.

So if we are graduating lots of students, and governments are coming to the table, why is research and development performance so mediocre? Clearly, the effectiveness of public programs, not the size of spending, is the heart of the matter. To illustrate, Canada’s public support for business research is one of the highest in the world, primarily delivered through R&D tax credits. The advantage of a tax credit program is that reduces the complexity involved with grant applications as well as leaving it to the private sector as to where to best spend research money.

The United States is able to achieve much greater success with its grant-based regime, which is focused more on communications and transportation industries. In contrast, Japan provides far less government support for business research than the United States and Canada, it is more reliant on fiscal incentives like Canada and it has an even better R&D record than the United States. Obviously, our generous tax support has not done the job.

Canada has done admirably well in recent years funding new professors and graduate studies. Yet, fewer students graduate with PhDs compared to other countries. Further, insufficient support is given to post-doctoral fellows who must take a salary cut (including losing tax-exempt status of scholarships) when completing their doctoral studies.

And venture capital funding has been poor, providing less than 2% of 2007 funding for small and medium size businesses. Our labour-sponsored venture capital credit has been ineffective yet governments cling to it. A capital gains tax regime to encourage the rollover of investments in new investments is not leading to high rates of small business growth.

If our policies are not working well enough to achieve better research performance, perhaps it is time for the federal government to put some of our best brains together to figure out how we can improve our innovation performance. Just spending more is not the answer. Spending wisely is.

Financial Post
Jack M. Mintz is the Palmer Chair in Public Policy, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary.

Photo: Getty Creative

Sara Landriault has been published in Australia regarding the International Childcare Crisis.

Childcare is a worldwide problem, says the National Family Childcare Association, a Canadian organisation advocating for equality in all childcare choices.

This policy is initially written for Canadian laws, but can easily be configured to an International status. Childcare is a worldwide problem that needs a solution that suits the needs of the child.

Our policies are as follows:

Primary Advocacy

*
Family Tax Fairness to be adopted by the Finance Minister of Canada (Income Splitting)

Long Term Advocacy

*
Parental choice should be available through financial equalization factors and taxation by way of a model of a childcare benefit voucher system similar to the Australia model recognizing the four parental choices of: parent/partner/guardian in the family home; care by a relative; regulated private-home day care; licensed day home, child care centre, nursery school or preschool/kindergarten facility. The signatories agree that parental choice is the cornerstone for all decisions
*
Taxation must view the family unit as a whole and follow a ‘family taxation’ policy giving stay-at-home families and single parents the opportunity to equalize taxation and must also allow families of dual income to income splitting. All policies must be voluntary to family perspective.
*
All tax credits must be provided for provisions for equalization of all parents regardless of parental choice in childcare.
*
Governments must separate funding parental childcare choice initiatives from capital funding plans, thereby demonstrating the necessity to address childcare in both contexts.
*
Expansion of licensed childcare spaces should follow the model established in Nova Scotia (circa 2007) with low cost loans and cost-sharing grant, encouraging the development of both commercial and non-profit programs licensed programs. This model provides credible accountable use of taxpayer money and expands parental choice options.

Increasingly stay at home parents are being treated like second hand citizens because of the “privacy law” in Canada, and the decreased amount on how the government treats them.

Tax laws, credit departments, banks and even the Revenue Canada Agency does not recognize parenting at home as a economic value and constantly decreases the value of a parent when taxes are raised, and credit are added.

Childcare in Crisis logoTax laws
Mortgages
Bank Accounts
Credit Bureaus
Hydro Smart meter
Tax Credits
Resumes
Pensions

These are just a few problems parents at home face and we must come together to alleviate the strain on parents just because they childcare their own children.

Parents who use daycares are also finding financial restraint due to over prices costs and unavailable childcare spaces across Canada and the World.

Moms, dads, grandparents, neighborhood care, friends, centers, are all childcare to us. We need to stand together and work with any government to ensure our children’s need are met.

Sara Landriault is a stay at home mom (sic) of 3 beautiful girls. In raising her children, she has grown with them and has learned as much from her daughters as she has taught them. Sara finds arguments between daycare vs stay at home moms very disrespectful to all involved. An advocate for equal respect and financial rights for parents who choose daycare, staying at home and everything in between, Sara is President/Founder of the National Family Childcare Association in Canada.

Just a quick note letting you know we are now an International group, and are quickly becoming the International Choice.

Australia Openforum

Dear Minister J. Flaherty,

I have written this letter to you, as a mother and President of the
National Family Childcare Association, (NFCA).

The key purpose of the NFCA, a now International group, is to ensure equality for all parents. We, at the NFCA, strongly believe that parental choice is the best solution for Canadian children, especially since choosing childcare is an extremely delicate matter. Ultimately, a parent’s choice of any kind, affects not only a child’s early development, but also that of their future and this great nation. Parental choice is something that is a human right, must be optional and is certainly not to be taken lightly.

Policy revues by professional economists, activists and parents clearly states that “funding the child” is the best possible way to raise children within the “UN rights of the child”.

Your acknowledgment of lowering taxes to boost the economy is fully supported by the NFCA. (On a personal note and being a mother of three young children in this economic time, I know that we all could use more money in our pocket to ensure future of our children).

During the Oct 2008 election, parents of disabled children were promised income splitting. The NFCA, an international group of 250,000+ individuals, and supported by other like-minded groups, are in full support of income splitting and would like to ensure that your government follows through on this specific promise. We also request that income splitting be extended to all Canadian families with children. Making this type of adjustment to the current tax system would not only equalize the current inefficiencies for families, Canada would prosper socially, economically and surpass its present reputation in the eyes of the United Nations and the rest of the world.

The NFCA requests that you understand all Canadian parents hardships during these economic times. Everyone is feeling the pressure and suffering due to the inadequacy of the current Canadian tax structure. Let us help you to resolve this issue for the good of all Canadian parents and their children. There is a real opportunity here to work to correct this current injustice in the present Canadian tax structure; let us not waste it.

The NFCA is humbly suggesting the following measures are to be seriously considered for your 2009 Jan budget:

*Income splitting for families with children
*Lower taxes
*A truly National Childcare plan that financially meets the needs of all families of children, “Fund the Child”.

Canadian parents are anxiously awaiting your Jan 2009 budget release as a result.

–
Thank you,
Sara Landriault
stay at home mom
President, National Family Childcare Association
www.careofthechild.com
www.incomesplitting.org
landriault@ripnet.com

–30–

Press Release

2008-10-17

National Family Childcare Association (NFCA)

The NFCA would like to address Minister of Social Services in Ontario Madeleine Meilleur, comment on Grandparents loosing funding for fostering their own kin.

Reported from the Toronto Star

TORONTO–The Ontario government’s move to cut off funding for grandparents with temporary custody of their grandchildren was done out of spite, the New Democrats charged today, while likening Social Services Minister Madeleine Meilleur as a modern day Marie Antoinette.
Hamilton New Democrat Paul Miller first raised the issue of grandparents in Hamilton and Ottawa being cut off from the $200 to $300 in temporary care assistance funding they received each month to help raise their grandchildren.
Ms. Madeleine Meilleur comment was,
“Grandparents have the same rights as every other person in Ontario who is in financial difficulty,” Meilleur said.
“They can apply for and receive … welfare.”

“Ms Meilleur is misrepresenting her position by saying the Grandparents have the same rights as every other person in Ontario with financial difficulty. Facts are foster parents, and young families with 2 incomes using subsidized daycare are treated on a higher financial regard then any other parent/legal guardians in Canada. Grandparents are generally over the age of 60 with special needs of there own and cannot go out and join a union paid job, so they stay at home and protect their already abused grandchildren from any future nightmares.”

The NFCA would like to call on Ms. Madeleine Meilleur to fully reverse this decision on the funding cuts or resign from her position as Minister of Social Services.

Betty Cornelius of Cangrands has sent special notices to Grandparents across Canada to help fight Ms. Meilleur’s decision to cut funding to our most poverty stricken citizens.

Please contact Betty Cornelius
www.cangrands.ca
613-474-0035

“About 90% of Cangrand children are special needs, Grandparents are loosing their retirement savings, homes and going to snowsuit funds to keep their grandkids warm. In Ontario foster parents are paid over $1200 a month to help raise a child that is not kin, but if you a kinship of the child you are left at the food banks begging. This is not fair.”
Says Sara Landriault

Please contact for local grandparent contacts,
(Ottawa area grandparents are available to speak with the press)
–
Thank you,
Sara Landriault
stay at home mom
President, National Family Childcare Association
www.careofthechild.com
www.incomesplitting.org
landriault@ripnet.com

Queen’s Park Bureau Chief

VANCOUVER–The New Democrats will today unveil an ambitious new $17 billion child benefit plan that will pay families up to $400 a month per child, sources told the Star.

NDP Leader Jack Layton will announce the cornerstone pledge of his Oct. 14 election campaign when he launches the party’s platform this afternoon in Toronto.

Under the plan, which expands the $100-a-month “baby bonus” program the Conservatives introduced in 2006, every Canadian family would receive a monthly cheque.

Sources said the scheme “gives everyone a raise.”

“(But) families who are most in need will receive greatest increased benefit.”

Families with a household income of $38,000 or less would receive $400 a month per child.

Those earning less than $188,000 a household would get $250 a month per child.

And families making more than $188,000 a year would receive $100 a month per child.

Unlike the current Tory “universal child care benefit” policy, the money wouldn’t be taxed.

Also, the eligibility threshold would be extended from the existing cut-off when a child turns 6 to 18 years old.

“It’s to help every family,” said a senior New Democrat yesterday, adding parents need financial help for child care long after kids are 6.

“This will help with everything from daycare to hockey (fees).”

When fully phased in by 2012, it should cost $17 billion a year – up from the $13 billion the Conservatives spend on various child benefits, including tax credits and the monthly baby bonus.

Layton was coy when asked about his platform yesterday after a rally with more than 600 raucous supporters at the historic Commodore Ballroom.

“I’m very excited about the platform that we’re releasing. It’s balanced. It’s really going to offer a very different choice for Canadians,” he said.

“We’ve made a commitment that every year the budget needs to be balanced and that’s the record we would take.”

Big-ticket items in the NDP platform will be funded by the planned cancellation of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s $50 billion in corporate tax cuts.

By offering “mainstream” policies designed to appeal to a wide swath of the Canadian electorate, Layton believes he can supplant the Liberals as the viable progressive alternative to the Conservatives.

The NDP leader is tied with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion at 21 per cent apiece in the latest Star-Angus Reid poll, well behind Harper at 40 per cent.

However, New Democrats believe they have the momentum – they claim the Liberals are tanking and the Tories have reached a plateau.

Layton has been drawing large crowds on this four-day swing through British Columbia, where the NDP holds 10 of 36 seats and hopes to pick up several more as a result of a collapsing Liberal vote here.

On Wednesday in Kamloops, 400 people packed a town-hall meeting at Thompson Rivers University. A similar forum in Victoria on Thursday also attracted 400 people.

He said the enthusiastic audiences are because “people are taking a deeper look” at the NDP.

“I think that people are coming to the conclusion that there isn’t just the same old set of choices and they’re opening their door to the idea that maybe there isn’t just one party that has the entitlement to perpetually be the alternate to the Conservatives,” said Layton.

“I think that’s because we’ve seen many years of problems. Some of the same problems that we talk about today emerged, as I’ve often said, over the past 25 years, not just the past 25 months.”

Here is a Nice offer!!

Roy Green was doing a one hour radio show on AM900 CMHL Sunday Sept 14 at 4pm EST.
This show was regarding childcare and the 2008 election. Roy featured, Yvonne Coupal, Helen Ward, Michelle Olson and Sara Landriault as guest panels discussing childcare.

Each of us run our own group and/or association but most of all we are all mothers.

Click here for more info
(I will like all of your sites to your names)
Yvonne Coupal
Helen Ward
Michelle Olson
Sara Landriault

During the show Helen Ward, President of Kids First Canada explained how she called each of the political parties to discuss their policies in childcare.

On Sept 12, 2008 mid afternoon Helen called,

Conservative Party
In which they did not respond to Helen’s phone call

Liberal Party
The Liberal representative explained their childcare views politely and professionally to Helen. Though Helen does not agree with the Liberal childcare plan, she is grateful for the respect they have given to her.

Green Party
Helen had a long indepth conversation regarding childcare policies in which the Green showed interest in expanding their minimal childcare policy already in place.

NDP Party
Helen discussed in length with Ian Capstick the importance of the NDP acknowledging parental care in all of its form through childcare.
At one point Helen Ward stated “every mother is a working mother”
Ian Capstick, who is the press secretary to Jack Layton leader of the NDP, slammed back at Helen with a sharp tone “THAT IS POPPY COCK AND YOU KNOW IT!”.

Well you have it all now folks, beer and popcorn has been bumped and poppy cock leads the way!

I spoke with Helen Ward and she was flabbergasted that the NDP would even have such an opinion on motherhood in that form.
Helen emphasized to Ian Capstick that she personally supports many other NDP’s policies and has been raised in an NDP family environment.

Helen also said this after our conversation,

“The purpose of our advocating is to generate discussion about the issue. Is every mother a working mother, and does childcare include parental care?”

Feel free to email Ian Capstick
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

New Democrat Campaign Headquarters:
Ian Capstick
Senior Campaign Press Secretary
613-720-6400
ian@ndp.ca

My personal view,

Just because you do not belong to a union or bring home the bacon, does not mean you do not work. EVERY MOTHER AND FATHER ARE WORKING PARENTS!