November 7, 2000
Kamloops Daily News


I'll vote for any political party who will reduce the
deficit.  I don't mean the financial deficit, I mean the
deficit in food to feed Canada's starving children.

No, I'm not exaggerating when I say starving.  Television
images of stick-like children from Africa lead us to believe
that starvation happens elsewhere, not in Canada.  A new
study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal
paints a picture of hunger so profound it affects children's 
health. The study concludes that children in 57,000 Canadian
families go hungry on a regular basis.

Those children are four times as likely to suffer health
problems than poor children who don't go hungry.  And
they're nearly twice as likely to suffer from asthma. 
"Hungry children lack of school readiness and proper growth
and development," says Dr. Lynn McIntyre, author of the
study and professor at Dalhousie University.

Mothers are fearful that their starving children will be
taken away if they publically admit to the problem.  "There
is times that I try to keep enough money out of my cheques
to buy groceries and have food in the house for the
children.  I've seen myself go two or three days without to
give my kids something to eat," said one such mother to CBC
TV's The National. 

The Liberals and the Alliance party  don't offer solutions
to this food deficit.   I fact, they don't even admit that
the problem exists.  They are too busy trying to outdo each
other in tax cuts -- despite polls that show that tax
cutting is a low priority.  A poll by Decima Research shows
that Canadians are willing to have their taxes go to
national child care. 

Starving children could be given one nutritional meal a day
through a Canada-wide, universal child care program.  Such a
program would help families as well as children.  It would
help parents find and keep jobs.  It would also reduce other
social costs such as welfare.

It can be done.  In Europe, fifteen member states of the
European Union provide preschool children, aged three to six
years, with educational childcare programs regardless of
whether or not their parents are employed or not. 

Canada's budget surplus was created by taking money from
programs that help the poor.  In fact, when you think about
it, there is no budget surplus at all.  A budget surplus is
something you have after all expenses are paid.  If I save
money by not maintaining my car, for example, it creates an
instant surplus, but it also creates a looming future
liability.  If I bragged that I had a budget surplus but
didn't maintain my car, any reasonable person would shake
their head.  The Liberals have created apparent good times
at the cost of future health, welfare and education.

This bogus surplus hurts the poor. "When Canada had a
deficit, the programs that helped the poor were extremely
visible and they were cut, and they were cut very much. Now
that Canada has a surplus, the poor have vanished," says
Julia Bass from the Canadian Association of Food Banks.

The current "surplus" was paid for by Canada's poor and
unemployed through cuts to social programs and employment
insurance.  And now the Liberals and the Alliance want to
give those "savings" to the rich?  It's the Robin Hood
principle in reverse -- take from the poor and give to the
rich.

Canada's surplus was created by the rich, for the rich. The
poor have been forgotten in the glow of what Chretien brags
as the best country in the world.  The best for whom?  It's
the worst of all worlds to a starving child.  Help for the
poor is a long term investment.  A true budget surplus would
be one created through growing economy and by putting
Canadians to work.

Chretien and Day are school-yard boys intent on thowing
throw dirt in each other's face and as a result, they can't
see.   We need politicians with a vision of Canada beyond
the horizon of the next election -- one that realizes the
full potential of all Canadians.   We must give all children
a chance.   The deficit of food and hope is the one we
should be working on.

go back to my Columns in the