START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,276,178 people care about Politics

U.N. to Canada: Ignoring Hunger Won’t Make It Go Away

  • 4 of 4

On the other hand, Toronto Star Business Columnist David Olive wrote, “I feel ashamed to be a Canadian today.” Acknowledging Canada’s need to address problems of poverty, growing income inequality and food insecurity, he continued:

No, what shames me is the churlish response of my federal government to the U.N’s honest, good-faith call to action.

…If anything, De Schutter was overly diplomatic about the challenges we face. Three million of us are enduring some measure of deprivation, from dire poverty to struggling to make ends meet. That includes more than 600,000 children.

We not only have a growing gap between rich and poor, but it’s growing faster in Canada than most rich countries. Our middle class hasn’t seen a pay raise in 30 years. Meanwhile, Brazil has been narrowing its income gap, by an average of 1.5 per cent a year, over the past decade.

Doug Cuthland, in a special to The Star Phoenix, wrote:

The Conservative strategy is clear. Have an Inuit politician parrot the party line, thus making the issue internal to aboriginal people. In the House of Commons question period she was answering questions directed toward Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan.

Sadly this is a federal government that would rather fight and turn people against one another than deal with the very important issues of poverty and malnutrition.

Food Security Falls on Volunteer Shoulders

While the federal government struts like the emperor who had no clothes, volunteers around Canada struggle to keep food insecurity from becoming starvation for the thousands of families who turn to food banks, soup kitchens and other non-profit initiatives. Those responses to poverty sprang up in the 1980s as a temporary measure during an economic downturn. Successive governments have seen them as a solution to food insecurity rather than what they are, a stop-gap measure that should be embarrassing to a rich country.

Across Canada, thousands of committed volunteers support organizations like Food Secure Canada, Food Banks Canada and the many local and regional groups working for a just and sustainable food system.

Meanwhile, in Ottawa, the well-fed architects of Canada’s shattered safety net throw barbs at a UN envoy who is only speaking the truth.

Related Care2 Stories

U.N. Investigates Canada’s Right to Food Record

More Hungry Canadians: Canada’s Food Bank Use on the Rise

Food Justice Is Racial Justice

 

  • 4 of 4

Read more: , , , , , , ,

Photo credits: 1,3 and 4 Thinkstock; Photo 2 from Walter Schwabe (@fusedlogic) via Flickr Creative Commons

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

199 comments

+ add your own
12:25PM PDT on Aug 21, 2013

And here I thought Canada was perfect; thanks for bursting that bubble. Seriousness: I don't think Canada's necessarily at fault here; and how does the UN have any say over the matter?

11:25AM PDT on Jun 7, 2012

Very well said ... but is anybody listening?!!!!!!!!!!!

8:23PM PDT on May 26, 2012

Hi Amber,

The discussion of power-sources arose in a discussion of how to set up off-grid economies. One of the major issues with food-supplies is getting them to markets. They are extremely bulky and spoil, and the supply absolutely must be kept steady. On top of that, extreme-rural groups in Canada tend to be seriously poor. A functional small-scale economy permitting local production and wealth would go a long way towards improving conditions in general, though, after looking at the numbers, I still don't think Canadians actually have a problem with access to food whatever the UN Special Rapporteur says. I brought up the Gen4 reactors because they are designed not to need refuelling or repair for a decade, making them very good for powering off-grid economies and helping Canada's poorest people.

Hi Shirley,

The original industrial revolution nearly destroyed the artisan-class. However, the products were just repriced to be affordable to the poor. While the poor certainly had a smaller share of the wealth and power, looking at the goods and services to which they had access, they very quickly recovered the pre-industrial level of real personal wealth. For example, one of the major differences between the two periods, just before and after the revolution, is access to socks. Only the wealthy had them before. We don't generally think of it now, but socks move moisture away from the feet and prevent rubbing on the skin, preventing fungal and other infections as well a

7:28PM PDT on May 25, 2012

Yoo hoo Stephen,
Non-muscle power may make manufacturing cheaper ...but it can't purchase the goods it makes...ever. If the "muscle power" is put out of work for the sake of efficiency, honey, no one can buy the goods. Most of North American manufacturing has been put out of work based on that idea and on the fact that 3rd world workers are cheaper, and haven't the labor or health and safety protections that we consider part of the 20th century.The manufacturing cost of most 3rd world products is peanuts, the workers earn peanuts but the goods are sold at just enough cost to keep North American manufacturing dead. Lack of environmental law, means off-shore manufacturers aren't responsible for the messes they create and leave behind. Henry Ford understood that workers need to earn enough money to purchase the products they are making. That idea is the basis of all North America's past prosperity. In the 1970's, Trade barriers were dropped to allow a prosperity sell out of N.A. by our own governments.
Our own manufacturing corporations then moved off shore to participate in the easy wealth created by putting North Americans out of work. These ex-pat manufacturers are now super rich 1% and are not being taxed while the economy is progressively destroyed. There is a greater disparity of wealth now than in the Victorian era
Purchase of all the "goods" made above falls to accessing the good old North American consumer who 30 years ago was the envy of the world, and is

11:48AM PDT on May 25, 2012

Amber - scroll back and read the whole thread and it will make sense. The fact is, oil drives just about everything, including farming and food availability.

11:39AM PDT on May 25, 2012

@Stephen B.: What does THIS have to do with FOOD?! I donlt see that oil/nuke power has a damned thing to do with food unless you;re talking about that to GROW more food for those Candians suffering food insecurity.

12:20AM PDT on May 24, 2012

Hi Shirly,

Sorry about the cutoff:

There may be fairly good ways of doing this: I ran the numbers a while back and found that if the U.S. coal-plants went nuclear and used the waste-heat to turn coal into synthetic oil, they would roughly meet 10% of U.S. demand, which is about the same as Canada's oil-consumption or about 2% of global demand. It doesn't sound like much, but that is equivalent to Libyan or Albertan production. More importantly, China uses 3x as much coal as the U.S. and with a command-economy, it would probably have an easier time converting to nuclear. Of course, conversion on that scale would require that Australia open up its vast uranium and thorium reserves to mining.

12:16AM PDT on May 24, 2012

Hi Shirly,

Industrialization originally came from the steam-engine and the mechanization of farms that it allowed. That created a massive labour-surplus, eliminating labour-shortages and creating unemployment, tipping the labour-market to the buyer's (employer's) favour and allowing the creation of factories. The steam-engine's non-muscle-based energy and the relatively lower compensation of labourers allowed vastly increased production, leading to the modern economy (though with unions and specialization of labour the market has tipped back quite a lot). Oil is not necessarily central, but non-muscle-power is.

Companies say the break-even price of Alberta oil is $50-$75 per "barrel" (~160 liters). That would put it at below $0.50/liter. I don't know if the low end includes things like wages, property-tax, other fixed costs, transport-costs, or accounts for any special tax-credits, but it still seems so much lower than current prices (~$90-$100 / barrel) that even with those they should be fine even below current prices. ($1.3 billion per year in the oil sands would translate into $2.7 per barrel., or about $0.02 per liter) I do want to see a move to greater efficiency and other viable sources, but in the meantime the best bet is probably to increase the oil-supply until those other sources are mature and in place. There may be fairly good ways of doing this: I ran the numbers a while back and found that if the U.S. coal-plants went nuclear and used the waste-heat to tu

5:18AM PDT on May 23, 2012

Shirley H. If you are not already involved in politics, you should be!
We need bright intelligent young people who are capable of searching for rational solutions. Unlike the present government based on greed and American style politics! I would vote for you!

4:26AM PDT on May 23, 2012

Get to work UN!

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

Excellent choice Wanoa family! Excellent way to teach your children what the holiday is SUPPOSED to be…

Thank you for sharing, he wasn't a terrorist he was a very sick deranged person, he wouldn't even listen…

meet our writers

Steve Williams Steve Williams is a passionate supporter of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) rights, human... more
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.