Marginal Notes

Celebrate the Opening of the Ninth BP Birthplace Forest?

The BP BirthPlace Forest program plants a forest each year to represent Calgary’s newborns.

Tomorrow, the City of Calgary celebrates the opening of the ninth BP (yep, BP Oil) 'Birthplace Forest' in Calgary. The invitation reads:

"Thank you for supporting Calgary’s BP BirthPlace Forest and for teaching your children about the importance of taking care of the environment through this living legacy."

This is grotesque "greenwashing." I hardly think Calgarians need a company like BP to mentor them in educating their children about environmental responsibility. The City of Calgary needs to critically consider the motives of its partners.

We need to become more conscious and critical of the propaganda of oil companies and their efforts to paint themselves as "green." It's laughable and tragic when a corporation like BP can lay claim to "the largest ‘greening’ initiative in the city of Calgary."

The Calgary 2010 Municipal Election in the Context of Neoliberal Urbanism

With the Calgary 2010 Municipal Election fast approaching, I think it's worthwhile to develop a context in which to consider the issues and the candidates.

In 'Municipal Malaise: Neoliberal Urbanism and the Future of Our Cities,' Fanelli and Paulson discuss neoliberal restructuring of Canadian cities:

The 2008 Annual Report by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, written when the Federal government was pulling in nearly $14-billion in budget surpluses, paints a grim picture of the coming collapse of Canada's municipal infrastructure. The report found that Canada has used up 79 per cent of the service life of its public infrastructure and has set the price of eliminating the infrastructural deficit at $123-billion. While that figure is already large, the chronic underfunding of municipal projects appears much worse when framed not in terms of the cities we have, but the cities we want to live in: the funding gap would have to take into consideration a range of issues including poverty and affordable housing, environmental protection, urban redesign and renewal, and expansion of the arts, cultural centres and other public spaces. Of course, fiscal crises in our cities are nothing new; the last three decades have been characterized by increased service demands, population growth, tax-shifting, pressures brought on by amalgamation, and federal and provincial offloading. Yet the ongoing recession has become a pretext for consolidating and intensifying processes of “neoliberal urbanism.”

 

Neoliberal urbanism broadly refers to a range of punctuated and uneven urban processes taking place in the communities where we live and work. This includes the privatization, restructuring, and elimination of public goods and municipal services; the shifting of the cost of maintenance of public resources onto the working class; the increasing precariousness of work; the devolution of responsibilities onto local governments without matching fiscal supports; the scaling of regulatory capacities upwards to regional or international institutions (characterized by little transparency, accountability, or public consultation); the reining in of the power of municipal unions and community groups; the scaling back of social entitlement programs; and expansion of so-called “public-private partnerships” that aim to create new zones of accumulation and shift a significant part of the responsibility for urban governance to corporations.

...

Yet our cities, time after time, are taking it on the chin. While the federal and provincial governments have a variety of relatively flexible revenue sources (such as income, sales, corporate, resource and import taxes – tools which remain at their disposal, whether or not they choose to use them), only 8 cents on every dollar collected go back to Canada's municipalities. For our cities, property taxes remain the major source of funding, and from this, they must provide for their public utilities, public works, parks and recreational facilities, waste management, transit services, public housing, and a whole range of other social and community services and local initiatives. However, since the 1980s successive governments at both the federal and provincial levels looked to ‘correct’ their budget deficits by transferring greater amounts of fiscal responsibility onto municipalities, without providing for additional fiscal capacities. This process, commonly referred to as service ‘downloading’ (or the ‘devolution revolution’), expanded the fiscal requirements of cities without any increases in revenue sharing or generation. This is particularly clear in the fiscal crisis of Canada's largest city; if, as some have argued, Ontario represents the pre-eminent neoliberal province, Toronto has likewise come to epitomize municipal neoliberalism at the urban scale.

Describing the Toronto case, the authors write:

Decades of growth on Bay Street, coupled with the casualization of employment (particularly in the low-wage service sector), have taken their toll on Toronto's poor. To make way for gentrification, the homeless and low-income populations were forced out of the urban core long before the recession. Toronto's official unemployment rate stands at 9.5 per cent, but the 'real' number – including those who need more work than they can find just to make ends meet – is much higher. With more than 180,000 tenants living in poorly-funded public housing, and another 70,000 on a ten-year wait-list, welfare caseloads have risen nearly 25 per cent when compared with 2008. People of colour, women, single-parent households, the differently-abled, students, and seniors continue to fair far worse as their skills are apparently ‘uncompetitive’ given the need to maximize profits. The criminalization of poverty and homelessness, however, continues full steam ahead with the Toronto police force's operating budget skyrocketing from $541-million in 1999 to $855-million just ten years later (roughly 35 per cent more than the rate of inflation). Austerity does not, apparently, extend to the need to patrol the gentrified urban core. This can hardly be understood as anything other than a transfer of resources from the maintenance of public goods to the publicly-funded protection of private ones.

I invite readers to read the full text of the article to see how Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa have downloaded costs onto citizens by increasing property taxes, increasing service fees such as parking and transit costs and privatizing services. Another common thread is the undermining of unions, especially those representing civic employees and lay offs of these workers.

For a discussion of Calgary, I recommend Miller's book chapter - 'Modes of Governance, Modes of Resistance: Contesting Neoliberalism in Calgary.' He discusses the decline in public revenues at the provincial level with the implementation of the flat tax and changes to the royalty regime. He notes that provincial transfers of public revenues stood at 21.9% of total municipal revenues in 1988, but dropped to 15.9% by 2001, despite increased municipal responsibilities.

How do we respond? Fanelli and Paulson suggest:

 While we certainly need to be pushing the burden of the fiscal crisis onto the capitalist class and off the backs of workers, and we can (and should) argue for greater commitments by the federal and provincial governments to alleviate the fiscal crisis of the cities, it should be clear that the management and funding of Canada's municipalities is fundamentally broken.

Fixing them requires a new kind of broad social movement unionism, and a great deal of collective capacity building in order to bring together workers, social justice activists, and community groups. In short, we ought to stop treating cities as the backbone of capital and treat them as the places that most of us live, work and play. Our collective struggles have tended to take the form of demands of the city, while they ought to be based in class consciousness – and urban consciousness – and demand instead the opportunity to restructure the city to serve our needs rather than those of capital.

With the onset of 2010 Calgary Municipal Election, we need to use our understanding of neoliberal urbanism to frame our understanding of issues and solutions. Public services in the city are inextricably tied to provincial and federal funding and the influence of corporations. 

Both ImagineCALGARY and Vibrant Communities Calgary offer policy papers on issues ranging from sustainable planning to a living wage. In my view, these initiatives are far superior to The Better Calgary Campaign which places less focus on social, economic and environmental justice.

I believe it would be beneficial for these initiatives to work with a campaign at the provincial level such as Join Together Alberta. This would allow for the building of a citizen's movement making synchronized demands at both provincial and local levels.

Ultimately, we need change at the provincial level before we will seen any meaningful change in the City of Calgary. Climenhaga makes a strong case that the Alberta NDP should emphasize an urban agenda. For instance on the issue of social services, Climenhaga writes:

When Tories cut social services, who pays? Urban taxpayers, that’s who! We pay more for policing, health care, basic services required just to keep our fellow humans from freezing to death. We pay in crime, run-down neighbourhoods, foregone business opportunities and illness, physical and mental. And ever-higher municipal taxes, of course. Rural-based, rural-focused parties like the Conservatives don’t really give a hoot. By speaking up for social services and an end to downloading costs as city issues, the NDP would be speaking up for urban taxpayers, safer cities and a better life. They'd also be fighting for the socially disadvantaged, which is as it should be.

As the 2010 Calgary Municipal Election approaches, we need identify and support candidates who can stand up to corporations and who can explain to people that the imagined savings of the flat tax only lead to higher taxes and fees in the city. We need people who envision Calgary as a place to live as opposed to a place for sale.

With a provincial election expected in 2011 or 2012, we can hope for the strong presence of MLAs who will fight for the necessary legislative changes needed to support cities in becoming more inhabitable places for citizens!

 

Additional Resource:

Calgary Democracy website developed by Grant Neufeld

Alberta Government Fails High Risk Populations and Puts Public at Risk

The Alberta government initiated its H1N1 vaccination program on Monday, October 26 with no priority given to high-risk groups. On Tuesday, it opened one clinic at the University of Calgary for high-risk groups only with students, faculty and staff of the university being able to use the clinic after the first 48 hours of service.

To remind people high-risk persons fall under one or more of the following six categories:

• Pregnant women.
• Children from six months to five years of age.
• People who live with children under six months old.
• People under 65 with underlying medical conditions.
• Immuno-compromised people and those caring for them.
• People living in remote and isolated communities.

I myself fall under two of these categories. I have a primary immune deficiency called Common Variable Immunodeficiency and I suffer from additional underlying medical conditions: severe allergies and asthma. Moreover, I am two weeks post-surgery and recently finished a course of antibiotics for treating an infection that developed following surgery.

Having NOT been informed that the province was running out of vaccinations, I chose to wait until I had received my blood infusion (or immunoglobin replacement therapy) on Thursday before braving the H1N1 lines. My reasoning was simple: my immune system is strongest following replacement therapy which I receive every four weeks so I would be more resistant to a virus (of any kind) that I might contract amid the crowed clinics.

Today, I arrived at the so-called high-risk clinic at the Olympic Oval at 10:30 a.m. Once I found the back of the line, a security guard briskly approached me and told me that I could not line up for the vaccine because no more people were being taken. I explained to him that I am at very high-risk and just had a blood infusion yesterday. He rudely told me and others that had begun to come behind me to leave.

I then went to the clinic at the Brentwood Mall. Here, those of us who were past the "cut-off point" were kindly told that we could stay in line but that they could not guarantee that we would receive the shot.

I wished that I had gone to Brentwood first which is closer to my home. I believe that if I had not gone first to the "high-risk" clinic, I would have been in line at Brentwood well before the cut off point.

This afternoon, I was interviewed by CBC Calgary in an attempt to shed light on the dangers for the general public of not prioritizing the vaccination of high-risk groups. By not vaccinating those most susceptible to the flu, we quite simply risk more cases of the flu and increased likelihood of it spreading. Moreover, in the case of persons with chronic illness, they will likely have longer hospitals stays. They may take longer to recover from the swine flu and the underlying conditions that put them at risk in the first place may be exacerbated leading to longer hospital stays and/or more frequent trips to emergency rooms.

I should note that many of the people who receive similar treatments to me can simply not stand in lines. Would you expect a chemo patient whose immune system has been wiped out to stand in line? How about a guy suffering from liver failure?

The Alberta government has failed to take measures to vaccinate the most vulnerable populations and in doing so has put the entire public at risk. It will not only mean less medical space and care for everyone who contracts swine flu, but every person who needs medical attention and hospital care. How will we cope with sports injuries, car accidents, and other medical emergencies?

Vaccinating high-risk populations is much more than compassionate care; it is about a pragmatic and strategic approach to reducing cases of the swine flu; controlling its spread; and reducing its impact on the overall well being of Alberta, including our health care system and our economy.

Dr. Judy MacDonald of Alberta Health Services appears on television asking high-risk groups to come forward. We have and we have been turned away. People who do not fall under high-risk are not staying home and, frankly, it is understandable. People want to feel safe.

The only way that high-risk groups will get vaccinated is by opening more clinics with longer hours. Please call on the Alberta government to open more clinics; earmark a portion of vaccines for high-risk populations; and create a vaccination strategy that is logistically sound and accounts for accessibility issues, including the impossibility of standing in any length of line for some pregnant women and some chronically ill people.

UPDATE: On Global Evening News, Ron Liepert actually had the nerve to blame Albertans who are not "high-risk" for long lines and failure to vaccinate high-risk groups, arguing that the message has been all along that the clinics were to first serve high-risk populations. Really?! It seems to me that the opening of a "high-risk clinic" at the Oval on Tuesday signaled the failure to plan for high-risk groups and sent an implicit message that the other four clinics were open to those who are not in the high-risk category. Indeed, Liepert may want to have a chat with his bud Stelmach who told the Calgary Herald that "many of the waits are due to the fact that the province is giving all Albertans first crack at the shot, not just high-risk groups. He noted in other provinces where long lines haven't been an issue that the vaccine is only to be offered to high-risk groups for now, while the general population must wait."

Have the decency to take ownership, Liepert, and not blame ordinary Albertans who are looking out for loved ones.

Links:

"Calgary H1N1 Clinics Close Lines Early" via CBC

Related Video Clip

Illegal War is Not Good Policy

I have lived in Calgary for my whole life...I have always struggled with the Conservative culture, but it is rare that it overwhelms and shocks me. I feel incredibly sad that The University of Calgary would honor Condoleezza Rice by inviting her to be the keynote speaker at the opening of its new school of public policy. This is ugly. This is wrong. How can the deaths of so many innocent people be called "good policy"? I feel like I am in Wonderland; Dr. Mintz's words are nonsensical. How do these people fool their minds and hearts that pillage of other lands for resources is good in any way?

How can The University of Calgary support this decision? How is it that a graduate student like myself has to go through all sorts of hoops to get a small study approved by an ethics board, but Dr. Mintz is supported in his invitation of someone who has behaved unethically and harmed millions? Is there any such thing as academic integrity or are things like ethics boards just part of an empty process to pretend that we are doing everything OK? I hope not. I hope that University of Calgary students and faculty will resist and protest this decision with the support of members in local and international communities.

Petition to Dr. Harvey Weingarten, President of The University of Calgary:

The University of Calgary has announced that it has invited former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be the keynote speaker at the opening gala of its new school of public policy. The director of the public policy school, Dr. John Mintz, celebrates Dr. Rice as “a good example of what a school of public policy can achieve.”

We, the undersigned, are a group of academics, activists and concerned persons who stand with global human rights organizations and the International Criminal Court to condemn the atrocities that were committed under the Bush administration's Iraq invasion and occupation. The evidence is overwhelming that Dr. Rice was a principal participant in the planning and propaganda efforts of an aggressive occupational war waged in violation of international law.

Multiple estimates indicate that over 1.2 million Iraqi people have died as a result of the war. According to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, over 4 million Iraqis have been displaced from their homes. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has devastated the lives of people across America. Along with those who have lost family and friends, all suffer from the trillions of dollars spent on an illegal war, which is now resulting in drastic budget cuts to fundamental domestic policy sectors, infrastructure, and essential services.

The outcomes of Dr. Rice’s policies should be held up and identified as an example of the horrors that result when policy is made at the service of the military industrial complex, oil cartels, and geopolitical gain. These policies should not be honored at an institution of higher learning. Dr Rice's participation will not only undermine the credible standing of the new school of public policy, but tarnish the reputation of the University of Calgary as a whole.

We, the undersigned, strongly urge The University of Calgary to rescind its invitation to Dr Rice to open its new school of public policy. To do otherwise sanctions and celebrates violations of international laws, including illegal war causing the deaths of millions.

Links:

Please sign the electronic version of this petition.

Please contact me if you are in Calgary and able to collect signatures; I will send you a hard copy of the petition.

For extensive documentation of Rice's activities, see Stanford Says No to War here.

Me and My IVs

...still writing papers so blogging is still sub-par to the less-than-interesting-anyways entries that I dish out these days. Oh well.

I recently updated my Facebook status to:

1. Get to the doctor. 2. Finish last paper of this freakin' degree. 3. Suck it up and write the petition against U of C hosting Condi Rice. 4. Resume data collection and finish my thesis. 5. Become a vigilante.

One of my cheeky friends commented: "Do vigilantes make priority lists though?"

To which, I was able to offer the following response: "You would not be taunting me, if you saw me get in a fight in the blood infusion room last week. Some guys were saying that the non-Western world needs to realize that it will continue to get its 'ass whooped' and then went on to suggest that we privatize health care. I spoke up...One started swearing at me. I was very close to pulling out my IV and stabbing him with it. If there weren't sick people around (besides us), he would have been a dead man. But, yes, I suppose the same 'ol, same 'ol, average vigilante does not make priority lists."

What I didn't mention in this Facebook exchange is that I HAVE pulled out my IV before. Last fall, I was stuck in emergency for close to a day (which eventually ended up to be a series of days) and I was waiting over two hours for the nurse to remove my IV, so I finally decided to take it out myself. I learned quickly that there is a very good reason to get the cotton dressing over the injection site AS SOON AS the IV is removed. Otherwise, a LOT of blood gushes from your vein. Fortunately, I was heavily medicated and managed to find a bunch of cotton dressing and the bleeding stopped with about five minutes of applied pressure. After I cleaned the blood off of the floor, one could hardly tell that an "incident" had occurred.

The nurse was so unaware or jaded from her Third-World-like working conditions - yay, Alberta health care system - that she either did not realize or care that I removed my own IV. 

Anyway, when I returned home that night and lay in bed super ill, I suddenly began to get paranoid about how IVs work. I kept thinking: "How come there was no needle to pull out? Where is the needle? Is it still in my arm? Oh my God, they will be so angry if I have to go back and admit what I did. OK, wait, the needle just gets the IV in...Is that right?"

Fortunately, I found a website that night for nurses which had a discussion topic on tips for removing IVs. (Yes, it is scary that these nurses are not getting the tips from senior nurses on the job!) 

I was relieved to realize that the needle itself is only used to insert the plastic tube. So, for all of you who have always wanted to know how IVs work, there you go - mystery solved.

Mmm...OK...hopefully this final paper will be a little more captivating than this so-called blog entry. Over-and-out.

Calgary Courts Warn Women Not to Drink

The message is loud and clear: don't drink or you can be raped without consequence.

And, it makes no difference if you're a 14-year-old girl who is assaulted by an adult male.

Drunk teen sex ruled no crime: Judge says evidence insufficient to prove girl involved didn't consent

By KEVIN MARTIN, SUN MEDIA

Having sex with a drunken 14-year-old he had plied with alcohol was not a criminal offence by former Calgary man, a judge ruled yesterday.

Justice Peter McIntyre said there was insufficient evidence the girl didn't consent to having sex with Trevor Byron Niebergall.

But McIntyre did find Niebergall guilty of sexual assault for placing his genitals on the girl's face after she passed out -- an act the offender captured on his cellphone camera and showed to co-workers.

McIntyre said the fact the teenage complainant didn't remember her sexual encounter with Niebergall at a December 2005 New Year's Eve party did not mean she hadn't consented.

He noted one witness said she appeared to have the capacity to consent when she and Niebergall went to a washroom in his brother's apartment, where they had sex. And the Queen's Bench judge said the girl willingly consumed large amounts of alcohol supplied by Niebergall even after he made lewd sexual comments.

She said on three occasions the accused said he would drink with her if she performed a sexual act on him.

"The accused's lewd comments towards her did not compel her to leave," the judge said. "The complainant was not forced to consume alcohol -- she drank ... beer willingly and then switched to alcohol. It is not at all clear why she drank so heavily."

Niebergall, then 19, showed photographs of the teen, naked and passed out, to co-workers the following day, bragging he had had sex with her six times.

But in his testimony he said they only had sex twice, one in the bathroom and later when other partygoers had left and both times with her consent.

McIntyre said because the girl drank so heavily and had little recollection of events at the party, he could not accept her claim she didn't agree to have sex.

"Her evidence was not reliable after she started drinking," he said.

Crown prosecutor Susan Kennedy said a 45- to 60-day jail term is warranted for the incident which occurred after the teen passed out.

Defence lawyer Pat Flynn has requested a pre-sentence report before making his full submissions. The case returns to court on Oct. 14.

Two months in jail? Did the judge, Peter McIntyre, not think to ask why the rapist was buying drinks for a minor in the first place?

Can women and children in Calgary not expect protection from sexual violence?

Maybe, Trevor Niebergall would like to have drinks on me.

UPDATE: Please read Matttbastard's excellent follow-up - "How To Get Away With Rape in Canada" - at Shakesville.

The Driver on the Bus is Sent on Back

Many of my jobs have involved working with kids. Among my favourite songs to sing with them is 'The Wheels on the Bus Go Round and Round':

The wheels on the bus go round and round,
round and round,
round and round.
The wheels on the bus go round and round,
all through the town.

The wipers on the bus go Swish, swish, swish;
Swish, swish, swish;
Swish, swish, swish.
The wipers on the bus go Swish, swish, swish,
all through the town.

The Driver on the bus says "Move on back,
move on back, move on back;"
The Driver on the bus says "Move on back",
all through the town.

I'm not sure how we can amend the verse for Calgary kiddies now that we will have temporary foreign workers (TFWs) driving the city buses.

The Driver on the bus is "Sent on back,
sent on back, sent on back;"
The Driver on the bus is "Sent on back",
get out of town.

The Calgary Herald provides a rosy report through the eyes of a CEO, but this excerpt captures some important info:

The City of Calgary's plan to hire temporary foreign workers to ease staffing woes will be monitored by cities across the country, immigration lawyers say.

"In the rest of Canada, the municipalities will watch this closer than the carbon tax," Vancouver immigration lawyer Richard Kurland said Thursday.

However, Kurland worries that foreign workers hired to work as bus drivers in Calgary won't be able to handle roads encrusted with ice and snow.

Right now, the city is going to the United Kingdom to find workers, but is open to looking to other countries as well.

"The only hole in the fence is safety," Kurland said.

"In parts of England or the U.K., where's the snow? And who's going to be taking the risk?"

But Calgary immigration lawyer Michael Greene said newcomers from warmer climates can be trained to drive in Prairie winter conditions.

"We're going to have long-term, critical labour shortages in Alberta. And something has to be done about it," Greene said.

"It's no surprise that governments are experiencing exactly the same thing private industry is experiencing. In fact, the problem may be more acute for governments, because their wages aren't as flexible as private industry. They're often locked into long-term union agreements, they're locked into wage increases."

With municipal departments already short-staffed and numerous retirements looming, the City of Calgary plans to take advantage of the federal temporary foreign workers program and will search overseas for urban planners, heavy-duty mechanics and up to 200 bus drivers.

Mayor Dave Bronconnier and a contingent of 20 other city staff will travel to staff recruitment fairs in London and Leeds in June. The trail-blazing plan could soon be expanded to emergency medical workers and other government departments.

Eventually, the city hopes the temporary foreign workers will be able to stay in Canada permanently through the provincial nominee program.

The temporary foreign worker program allows outsiders to work in Canada for a limited period if employers demonstrate they can't find suitable Canadian or permanent residents to fill the job.

Provincial government forecasts say Alberta needs 400,000 new workers by 2015. Although private-sector employers have flocked to the federal temporary foreign worker program to deal with their shortages, Calgary is likely the first municipal government to hire temporary foreign workers directly.

Labour leaders and immigration agencies have raised concerns about the abuse and exploitation of some workers, who are allowed into Canada only at the behest of an employer. Union leaders have also said the program keeps wages artificially low.

But there are many fans of the program. Howie Kroon, CEO of Palliser Lumber Sales Ltd. in Crossfield, has hired 56 temporary foreign workers from the Philippines, and they now make up about a third of his workforce.

Continue reading about the 'fans' of the program here.

Strangely enough, even the right-wing magazine The Economist is critical of Canada's Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP):

Heeding the call of employers needing less qualified, lower-paid workers, the government has introduced a series of measures over the past two years designed to make the hiring of foreign workers simpler. No longer are employers obliged to place an advertisement in local newspapers for six weeks for local applicants before searching farther abroad; just one week in a federal job centre will now suffice. Instead of being allowed to stay for only one year, foreign workers are now often getting visas lasting two.

At the same time, the requirement for a “labour market opinion” (LMO) on whether a worker from outside the country is really needed has been scaled back. The federal government has launched a pilot scheme specifically aimed at bringing in low-skilled workers. And special teams of federal bureaucrats have been set up in Calgary, Vancouver and Montreal to help guide employers through the process of hiring foreign workers.

Over the two years to December 2006, these changes contributed to a jump of more than 40,000 in the number of temporary foreign workers in Canada, bringing the total to 166,000. This is sure to be dwarfed by the 2007 figures, when they are released; applications for LMOs (of which about 85% are normally granted) are already up nationally by more than a half since 2006. In Alberta they have more than tripled to over 60,000. “All of this has been allowed to happen without public debate,” Gil McGowan of the Alberta Federation of Labour says. “It was not discussed in Parliament. It was not debated in the last election campaign. It was just done, quietly.”

In the past, Canada's foreign workers have tended to fall into three categories: seasonal agricultural workers; live-in nannies and care-workers; and highly skilled specialists such as academics, entertainers and doctors. But foreign workers are now being sought, too, by small- and medium-sized businesses, particularly fast-food restaurants and hotels, which have trouble both in attracting and retaining local employees. In some of these businesses, anyone who lasts longer than three months is regarded as a “veteran”, says Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Foreign workers are a “massive relief”, not least because they are usually tied to their employer for the duration of their visa.

But Mr McGowan and other labour leaders complain that foreign workers are “now a recruitment tool of first choice rather than last resort”. Once in Canada, they say, there is virtually no monitoring of their pay or work conditions, leaving them wide open to abuse. “Every foreign worker needs basic training in his rights and to be told that there's a place to go to if he's being abused,” says Wayne Peppard, a British Columbia labour leader. Last year his union came to the aid of several dozen Latin American construction workers, who were being paid as little as C$3.56 an hour to dig a tunnel for a rail link between Vancouver and the city airport.

Tell me, Mr. Bronconnier, shouldn't the neighbourhood bus driver be granted permanent residence in the neighbourhood?

Links:

'Temporary Workers Keep Business Rolling', The Calgary Herald

'Not Such a Warm Welcome', The Economist

Bums = Bad for Business

The Calgary Downtown Association (CDA) is only one of many groups that belong to what is called the International Downtown Association (IDA). It appears that other members of the IDA are launching anti-panhandling campaigns in their respective cities. Please note that I don't say that the cities are launching these campaigns. These are not municipal bodies, but, rather, private interest groups.

Take a look at the campaign that has run in Denver, Colorado: Please Help. Don't Give.

Perhaps, this campaign took root in the belief that panhandling hurt Denver's tourism industry and 'destination appeal'.

Now, some may accuse me of being a bleeding-heart. And, they may say that we have to be economically smart about how we run our cities.

Fine, I say.  But, don't take me for a dope. 

Feed me a sign that reads: BUMS = BAD FOR BUSINESS

Don't throw bullshit rhetoric at me the likes of "Please Help. Don't Give" or "Your Generosity is Killing Me".

If you don't like panhandlers tell them to "Fuck off".  But, don't for a second kid yourself that by not giving you're somehow being kind.

Links:

International Downtown Association

Has Calgary's Arts and Entertainment Community Sold Out?

Here is an excerpt from a letter that appears in this week's Fast Forward magazine, Calgary's local news and entertainment weekly :

I love the fact that Calgary seems to have a newspaper that leans a little left of centre.  I was shocked, however, that you would run the insulting advertisement created by the Calgary Downtown Association entitled "Your generosity is killing me."

Shame on you.  These images only perpetuate the myth that all homeless folks are addicts.  This is not the truth - some are, some aren't.

I have spent 25 years working alongside the homeless community and here in fat-cat Calgary, over half of those staying at shelter warehouses have full-time jobs.  We have no rooming houses with a door and key so the working poor don't have to suffer the indignity of being called homeless.  Many wonder, "Do I use my meager paycheck to eat or pay the rent?"

I echo this reader's sentiments.  I am shocked, offended, and disheartened every time I come upon a CDA ad while browsing through Fast Forward magazine. I just don't get it.

Apart from Fast Forward itself, I cannot believe that none of the venues and artists featured in the magazine take issue with the ads of the CDA. This is particularly puzzling since most of these venues and artists pride themselves on being oh-so-edgy. 

Do we even have a counter culture in Calgary?  Or, has Calgary's entire arts and entertainment community sold out?

I encourage those of you in Calgary to look at the list (provided below) of arts and entertainment groups affiliated with the Calgary Downtown Association.  If an organization you like and support appears on the list, I would suggest writing or emailing them to ask that they reconsider their affiliation with the CDA in light of its unfair and damaging campaign against low-income Calgarians.  Likewise, consider asking venues, artists, bands, etc. that are featured in Fast Forward to voice concern over the CDA ads.

Links:

Shame on FFWD for running addict ads via FFWD online
A list of arts and entertainment groups affiliated with the CDA
A thorough definition of the term 'selling out' from wikipedia for those who need reminding

More Generousity, More Killing

The latest advertisement from the Calgary Downtown Association:

It occurred to me today that one of the aspects that I find most offensive about this ad is its use of the first person: "Your generosity is killing me". The Calgary Downtown Association claims to speak for the panhandlers. Of course, the true voices of panhandlers and low-income Calgarians are not heard; they are further marginalized and distorted by the mainstream corporate discourse.