Engaged citizens make a difference

Global pandemic. Economic collapse. Partisan politics. Albertans may well have reason to despair as we face 2021.  But there is hope. Hope that comes in the form of people like you and me.

Engaged citizens are ordinary people who do ordinary things to make extraordinary change. Engaged citizens build a better world by engaging with social issues, working with each other and transforming their communities.

Being informed about current issues and how they relate to us and our communities is the first step to being engaged. What are the problems? What are the proposed solutions? Do they fit with our values, our vision for a better life for all Albertans and our desperate need to sustain the planet that human life depends upon? Understanding and caring about the problems facing us can take us a long way down the road to addressing them.

Next, we can connect with like-minded people who care and want to make change. Whether this be through a group of friends, colleagues or one of the many organizations that exist in our communities. Collectively we can make our voices louder, make the work lighter and support each other in reaching our goals. What one person can achieve alone is limited, but working together we make so much more possible.

Engaged citizens volunteer their time, skills or knowledge to improve their own lives, the lives of people in their community and the resilience of the living world. They participate by voting in elections, volunteering in political campaigns of people who will represent them well in government and by running for office themselves. Ordinary citizens bring skills, experience and caring to political office that may be otherwise lacking in career politicians.

Engaged citizenship is about giving democracy legitimacy and strength. Thousands of ordinary but engaged Albertans took action in the past several months to object to funding cuts to education, health care and Alberta’s provincial parks. Through protests, meetings with their elected representatives and the media, they let the government know that Albertans’ interests were not being represented.

Engaged citizens held their government accountable and made them focus on serving the needs of the people. They provided a necessary counterbalance to elected officials who, between elections, may forget who they serve.

Engaged citizens make communities stronger, healthier and more connected.

Engaged citizens are also a necessary counterbalance to powerful corporate interests that threaten to undermine our democracy. Corporations organize to lobby for their collective interests with government, and if we don’t counteract this power, we risk our voices and interests being drowned out by the ultra-rich and powerful. In a democracy, government must be of the people, by the people and for the people.

Engaged citizens make communities stronger, healthier and more connected. They can meet needs of others in their community in a way that cannot be replicated by business or public services. In turn, engaged citizens enjoy an enhanced sense of belonging and well-being and a sense of agency in their ability to make change.

Engaged citizens can demand more direct involvement in decisions and policy-making. Through citizen juries, community advisory boards, and participatory budgeting we can ask that our values and experiences get incorporated directly into policy decisions.

Several municipalities in Brazil allow thousands of citizens a direct say in setting the municipal budget.  The result is improved quality and access to public services, increased support for democracy and increased tax revenues as citizens appreciate the value they receive for their contributions. Several major cities across the globe, like New York, Paris and Madrid have followed suite with participatory budgeting.

These are tough times in Alberta and it is only understandable if we find our strength and resolve wavering after these long months of hardship.  But let us remember this: together we are stronger and we can harness our collective power to make a difference.

By Vamini Selvanandan© 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. This article was originally published in the Rocky Mountain Outlook on Thursday January 21, 2021. Photo credit: Belle Co on Pexels.com

Recommended further reading:

COVID-19 vaccine brings hope for the new year

Last week, Health Canada announced approval of the first vaccine against COVID-19 infection for use in Canada. The development of highly effective vaccines against a virus that we couldn’t name a year ago will surely go down in history as an unequalled biomedical triumph.  

The vaccine development process normally takes decades, not months, to accomplish.  However, unprecedented levels of collaboration between international governments, researchers and pharmaceutical companies led to the production of COVID-19 vaccines at astonishing speed.

It is perfectly justifiable to wonder if this is too good to be true. Is the approved vaccine safe and effective? Have corners been cut in the vaccine development process? Are approval processes for COVID-19 vaccines rigorous enough? 

We know that the recently approved Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine cannot cause disease.  It does not contain SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19 infection.  The messenger RNA vaccine works by instructing our own cells to make spike proteins found on the outside of the disease-causing virus. These proteins in turn stimulate our bodies to make protective antibodies.

The design and size of the study proving the vaccine’s safety and efficacy meet the rigorous standards of testing required for vaccine approval.  The vaccine was studied in a randomized controlled trial enrolling over 43,000 people from United States, Germany, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina.  Data show that the vaccine is 95% effective and the effect is consistent across gender, race, ethnicity and age. We can have confidence that the vaccine will work in different populations, under various conditions and in places with higher and lower rates of COVID-19 infection. 

Implementing vaccine roll-out will be challenging but there are promising signs that we can do this successfully.

The swiftness of approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is also unprecedented.  The United Kingdom, first to approve the vaccine, had several teams conducting assessment of the vaccine simultaneously, to ensure speed and rigor in the process. In our country, Health Canada was able to review safety and efficacy data expediently because they received data from vaccine manufacturers as it was collected.  The regulator concluded that the evidence met strict standards for quality, safety and efficacy.

However, there is still work to be done. Trials are needed on vaccine safety and efficacy in pregnant women and children before approval in these populations. It is also too early to know how long immunity will last after vaccination or what long-term side effects, if any, there might be. A Health Canada vaccine registry to monitor and collect data on those being immunized will help answer these and other questions.

Implementing vaccine roll-out will be challenging but there are promising signs that we can do this successfully.  The federal government is coordinating and paying for vaccine administration and will ensure that Canadians across the country will have access to the vaccine. Provinces have agreed that those who need the vaccine most will get it first and will follow national guidelines on how to prioritize populations. 

Governments, community organizations and health care professionals will work to make sure that people have accurate information that they can trust about the safety and the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine. Everyone deserves the best information to ensure they can protect themselves and their loved ones.

For some of us, getting the COVID-19 vaccine will be the best Christmas present we receive this year.  For the rest, the gift is the promise the vaccine brings for better things to come in the new year. In the meantime, we need to continue taking care of ourselves and others by following all public health restrictions in place and knowing that it is up to every one of us to keep each other safe.

By Vamini Selvanandan© 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. This article was originally published in the Rocky Mountain Outlook on December 17, 2020. Photo credit: Thirdman on Pexels.com

Further reading:

Privatizing health care is no panacea

Alberta’s UCP government is looking to privatization as a cure for what ails Alberta’s public health care system.

Bill 30 allows for-profit corporations to bill the government directly for medical services and 30% of surgeries conducted in Alberta will be done in private facilities by 2023.  Despite ample evidence suggesting the opposite, the Kenney government believes that private health care will cut costs and decrease wait times without compromising quality.

The Canada Health Act legislates that all Canadians should have equal access to publicly-funded, medically-necessary physician and hospital services. Health care is to be provided on the basis of need and not ability to pay. To receive federal health transfer payments, provinces have to abide by the principles of the Canada Health Act.

But several provinces are allowing a private health care system to exist alongside the public one and turning a blind eye when private clinics charge patients user fees in blatant contravention of the Canada Health Act

Private health facilities are not the cheaper alternative.  When Alberta contracted with the private Health Resources Centre to perform orthopedic surgeries under the Stelmach government, Albertans paid more per surgery than for procedures delivered publicly, and were left with outstanding costs when the business declared bankruptcy. Private businesses tend to take the profit but leave the risk with taxpayers. 

Private clinics can also choose less complicated patients to serve, leaving more complex (and costly) patients to be looked after by public facilities.  Private clinics further add burden and cost to the public system when patients who develop complications from privately delivered surgery have to be admitted and cared for in public hospitals. All these factors do not add up to cost savings for governments.

The primary obligation of for-profit businesses is to maximize profits for their shareholders.

Private health care does not decrease wait times.  Health care professionals for public and private facilities are draw from the same finite pool.  Moving surgeons from the public to the private sector does not mean that procedures will be done faster. 

Cataract surgeries have been performed in private clinics in Alberta for many decades, yet wait times are higher than the national average and less than half of Albertans receive their surgery within the 16-week national benchmark. 

Also, training physicians and surgeons comes at a considerable cost to the public purse.  Allowing for-profit businesses to siphon valuable human resources from the public system amounts to providing them with generous subsidies to erode the public workforce.

Private health care does not encourage quality care. The primary obligation of for-profit businesses is to maximize profits for their shareholders. If private facilities are paid no more than public facilities, in order to turn a profit, they have to reduce their expenses by cutting corners or increase their revenue by charging patients.

There is evidence that both these strategies are used. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen higher death rates in private long-term care facilities that cut corners with lower staffing levels and over-crowding of residents. Private clinics often charge patients overhead or facility fees up to two times higher than overhead costs incurred by private hospitals in order to increase their revenue. 

How then can we strengthen the health care system in our province? 

We can encourage our government to adequately fund upstream efforts in health promotion and disease prevention because we know that prevention costs less than cure.  We can insist that our governments look closely at publicly-funded medical services and cover only necessary and effective therapies.  Finally, we can encourage the government to collaborate with physicians to implement fair and efficient models of physician compensation.  

Albertans are fiercely proud of our world-class publicly funded health care system. We need to make sure that it endures for future generations.

By Vamini Selvanandan © 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. This article was originally published in the Rocky Mountain Outlook on November 19, 2020. Photo credit: Karolina Grabowska on Pexels.com

Further reading:

National Pharmacare: A prescription for change

Canada is the only developed country with universal health care but no national pharmacare program.  In the recent throne speech, the federal Liberals pledged to change that.  But Canadians have heard this before from our government with little action to date. It is time that we hold them to their promise.

Drugs account for the second largest component of health system expenses (behind hospital care) and are the fastest area of cost increase.  Currently, prescription drug coverage in Canada remains an incomplete patchwork of federal, provincial, territorial and private plans that leave a significant number of Canadians with no insurance.  Approximately 1 in 10 Canadians cannot afford to take their medications as prescribed.  

Public plans pay for 42% of drug expenditures and private drug plans account for 36%, leaving 22% percent of prescription drug costs to be covered out-of-pocket by patients.  Approximately 11 percent of Canadians have no prescription drug coverage whatsoever, while many with private or public coverage face significant deductibles or other user fees.  

Public support is also overwhelmingly in favour of a national pharmacare program with 91% of Canadians supporting universal prescription drug coverage. 

When people cannot access the prescription medications they need, studies show that they are at risk of getting sicker or dying prematurely.  Without prescription drug coverage, people report worse overall health status, more people with HIV infections die and the number of premature deaths from diabetes increases. 

Other health care costs such as hospitalizations or emergency department visits also go up.  Lack of comprehensive prescription drug coverage leads to increased financial burden on patients, difficulties with access to lifesaving drugs and higher overall costs to the health system.

These are not new insights.  Numerous commissions since the 1960s have recommended a national pharmacare program to provide coverage for medically necessary drugs for all Canadians. 

Experts in the medical field including physicians, nurses, and academics have endorsed national pharmacare for decades.  Public support is also overwhelmingly in favour of a national pharmacare program with 91% of Canadians supporting universal prescription drug coverage.  

So why do we not have a national pharmacare program today? 

Some think it is because the costs of a universal prescription drug program will be prohibitive.  However, the weight of evidence suggests that universal prescription drug coverage will in fact save Canadians money.  With a single-payer universal system, administrative costs are reduced, purchasing power is increased through bulk procurement and Canadians will stop paying some of the highest prices for medications in the world.  

Costs to governments are estimated to increase by $1 billion with national pharmacare, while the private sector (i.e. you, me and our employers) would save $8.2 billion, resulting in estimated net savings of $7.3 billion or 32% per year. 

There is good news for governments too, because increased costs to them will be offset by improvement in health outcomes and reduced demand on other health services which have not been included in the above calculation.

Some fear that the profits and livelihoods of private insurance and pharmaceutical companies may be threatened by a national pharmacare program.  But private insurance companies have showed us their resilience before when Canada adopted universal coverage for hospital and physician services.  They pivoted, diversified and expanded into other areas of health benefits and remained a viable industry. 

Similarly, evidence from other countries shows that pharmaceutical companies will not abandon Canada as a place to do business or decrease their important contributions to research and development.

A national pharmacare plan is essential to the health of Canadians and in ensuring that everyone can access life-improving and life-saving medication. Federal, provincial and territorial governments must collaborate to fill this prescription for change.

By Vamini Selvanandan© 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. This article was originally published in the Rocky Mountain Outlook on October 15, 2020. Photo credit: Miguel Á. Padriñán on Pexels.com

Further reading:

Basic Income: An idea whose time has come

The Canadian Emergency Relief Benefit comes to an end in a few weeks, putting many Canadians in a state of anxiety and insecurity about how they will pay for basics such as food, housing and transportation.

Rather than moving back to the Employment Insurance program fraught with problems, the Government of Canada has the opportunity to move forward towards an income support program that reaches everyone in need and lets people live their lives with dignity.

Income and wealth are known to be strongly associated with health.  People with lower income suffer from mental and physical illnesses at higher rates than those with higher socioeconomic status.  They are at higher risk of developing diabetes, experiencing chronic stress and even dying earlier than their wealthier counterparts. Poverty also affects a person’s ability to access education, employment, safe housing and nutritious food.  

Unfortunately, current income support programs do not provide adequate funds for people to lead a healthy and dignified life.  They are restrictive in their eligibility criteria, leaving many people in need without support.  Current programs trap people in poverty by requiring them to deplete savings and other resources before being able to access social assistance.

The idea of a basic income, also known as minimum income or guaranteed income, has been around since the 1960s.  It refers to unconditional payments from governments to individuals regardless of employment status.  Some basic income models are contingent upon need while others are universal, providing a basic amount to every individual.   Canada has examples of both for some populations:  the Canada Child Benefit which has lifted hundreds of thousands of families out of poverty is income-tested, but old age security payments are universal for Canadian residents aged 65 or greater.

We all deserve to live with dignity and basic income

can help achieve this.

Basic income pilot projects conducted in Manitoba in the 1970s, and more recently in Ontario, have shown the benefits of this approach to poverty reduction. In Manitoba, the MINCOME project decreased the high school drop-out rate and reduced hospitalizations for accidents, injuries and mental health problems.  Participants in the Ontario pilot project reported fewer visits to the emergency room, increased physical and mental well-being and less use of alcohol and tobacco.

Many argue that providing a basic income reduces incentive to work.  This was not the case in the Ontario basic income project where 83% of the participants continued working and, of those who stopped, nearly half went back to school or university to upgrade their skills and increase their employability.

It may seem daunting or even impossible to use public funds to finance basic income for Canadians.  But experts have crunched the numbers and shown that Canada can indeed afford a basic income program.  Rolling current income support programs such as employment insurance, child benefits and senior payments into one basic income program will provide access to these existing financial resources and reduce administrative costs.  In addition, shifting resources from refundable and non-refundable tax credits into basic income and modifying the current taxation system to make it fairer, will provide sufficient funds to pay for Canada’s basic income program.

Reducing income inequities benefits rich and poor alike: more equal societies have less mental illness, fewer crimes, less substance use and more trust among strangers.  The current global pandemic has shown us that even those who had good jobs or healthy businesses can have our financial security threatened severely and unexpectedly.  Having a robust social safety net that provides the necessities for a healthy life and is respectful of who we are is more important now than ever before.  We all deserve to live with dignity and basic income can help achieve this.

Vamini Selvanandan© 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. This article was originally published in the Rocky Mountain Outlook on September 17, 2020. Photo credit: Suzy Hazelwood on Pexels.com

Further reading:

Impact of COVID-19 on children

Seniors are at highest risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 infection but children may suffer effects from the pandemic over an entire lifetime.

The direct impact of COVID-19 on children is usually asymptomatic or mild infection with only rare hospitalization or ICU admission.   But, the impact of school closures, economic shutdowns and social disruption on the health and well-being of children are substantial and may be long-lasting.

School closures have had a big impact on children and their families.  The switch to on-line learning likely affected school performance, particularly for children who may not have had access to computers, internet connections or parents able to support home learning. 

Some educational experts predict a “COVID-slide” of up to 50% in mathematics and 30% in reading skills from grade level by the time children return to school in the fall.  They also warn of an increase in high school dropouts if teenagers are not engaged by distance-learning opportunities. These losses can affect lifetime earning potential and economic productivity for today’s children.

Schools are not only places where children receive education but also where many children receive nutritious meals, have a safe place to play outside and receive key public health services such as immunizations, dental care and mental health services.  

We all have a part to play in making sure that this generation of children has every opportunity to reach their full potential.

Optimal childhood development requires social interaction, play and physical activity particularly in the early childhood years.  Daycare and pre-school closures during the early months of the pandemic limited access to early childhood education for many children.  

The economic slowdown and job losses have increased the risk of childhood poverty, food insecurity and precarious housing.  Driven by isolation, anxiety and a higher risk of witnessing or experiencing abuse in the home, children have also been turning to helplines and counseling services for help in higher numbers since the onset of the pandemic.

Given the overwhelming benefits of school for children’s short-term and long-term well-being, the Alberta government has announced its plan to re-open schools this fall for classroom learning.  I applaud the province for recognizing the needs of children during the pandemic and the importance of school in their development and success as adults. 

Alberta Health has provided safety guidelines and school divisions are developing protocols to comply with physical distancing, enhanced cleaning and masking to keep students, staff and the community safe.   There are robust plans in place to test, isolate and trace contacts should outbreaks occur at school.  Some school divisions are also offering at-home learning options that may be appropriate for children with serious underlying medical conditions.  

As parents, educators and community members, we can all support a safe return to school.  Parents can continue to reinforce proper hand hygiene, physical distancing and mask use with their children and keep them at home when sick. 

Educators can follow the guidelines for COVID-19 safety set out by public health agencies and reinstate vital services that children receive through schools such as mental health support.  They can ensure that children who were disadvantaged during home learning are given the extra support they need to catch up to grade level. 

Community members have to do their part in keeping schools open by following measures to keep infections rates low. 

Governments have the responsibility to make sure that children do not fall into poverty as a result of parents losing jobs or income.  Guaranteed income support will ensure that children have access to nutritious food, safe housing and resources for learning. 

Governments also need to bridge the digital divide by providing access to affordable, high speed internet services for children, particularly those living on indigenous reserves and in other rural and remote areas.

Governments need to restore supports for special needs and disabled children both in the home and in schools to full capacity and have contingency plans to avoid disruption if there is a second wave of COVID-19 infections.

COVID-19 threatens to leave a scar on a whole generation of children unless we recognize their unique needs and make sure that we balance our economic, social and health priorities with children in mind.  We all have a part to play in making sure that this generation of children has every opportunity to reach their full potential.  We know that it takes a village to raise a child. 

Vamini Selvanandan© 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. This article was originally published in the Rocky Mountain Outlook on August 20, 2020. Photo credit: Pixabay on Pexels.com

Further reading:

Public policy determines health and well-being

If you have read my previous commentaries, you may have found yourself wondering why a medical doctor would write about public policy.

In the first twenty years of my career, I worked in clinics, emergency rooms and intensive care units.  Sometimes, it seemed that no matter how hard I worked or how much I cared for my patients, I was spinning my wheels.  Some problems my patients faced were simply not resolvable with the tools and knowledge I had as a medical doctor.

This is not surprising because only twenty-five percent of health outcomes are determined by the health care system consisting of hospitals, clinics, doctors and nurses.  The remainder is shaped by public policies adopted by the society in which we live – policies related to employment, housing, education, etc.  Collectively known as the social determinants of health, the conditions in which people live, work and play influence health to a far greater degree than diagnosis and treatment by a health care professional.

An eighteenth-century physician by the name of Rudolf Virchow said, “Medicine is a social science, and politics nothing but medicine at a larger scale.”  He believed that physicians were obligated to expose social problems and contribute to solving them by entering political life.  Virchow acted on his belief by becoming a member of the Municipal Council of Berlin.  He was instrumental in bringing about water and sanitation improvements in the city along with other civic reforms.

Governments at all levels are unduly influenced by business interests at the expense of public health and well-being.

In more recent times, the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion underscores the importance of healthy public policy in achieving health for all.  It calls on public health professionals to make elected officials aware of their responsibility in creating and maintaining health and the consequences of their decisions on the health of their electorate.  

Policy is often made on the basis of political ideology or under the influence of powerful business lobbies that represent major corporations.  In Canada, like in the United States, we place the marketplace as the primary institution of society; governments at all levels are unduly influenced by business interests at the expense of public health and well-being.  

But there is a better way to create public policy.  Social scientists and researchers analyze and identify policies that are effective in achieving public goods such as health, equality and security.  Governments at all levels can improve the use of data and research findings to inform their policy decisions in the same way as doctors use evidence from clinical trials to prescribe effective treatments. 

Politicians need to fulfill their responsibility to the people they serve by intentional selection of policies that work together to promote health.  They need to choose policies that have proportionately more benefits for those with greater needs.  Creating healthy public policy is at heart a non-partisan activity, based on evidence, a sense of fairness and a long-term view.

Community members support healthy public policies when they inform themselves about important issues in their community and about policy options that are known to favour health and well-being.  They need to engage in conversations with fellow citizens and elected officials about local problems and solutions that promote public over corporate interests.  

When it comes down to it, politicians and community members have far more control over the health of populations than do health care professionals.  This is worth remembering next time you find yourself at the ballot box.

Vamini Selvanandan© 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. This article was originally published in the Rocky Mountain Outlook on July 16, 2020. Photo credit: Deepak Digwal on Pexels.com

Further reading:

A new vision for our towns and cities

Our small mountain towns are joining the ranks of world-class cities in pedestrianizing streets in the downtown core.  The Towns of Banff and Canmore are mirroring actions in big cities like Paris, New York and Milan to make more space on downtown streets for people to maintain social distance while enjoying the commercial and recreational activities that our towns have to offer.

Whether this should be a short-term reaction to an immediate problem or an enduring solution towards addressing deep-rooted challenges in our towns is worth considering.

Across the world, measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic have yielded inadvertent but welcome environmental benefits:  cleaner air, decreased carbon dioxide emissions, decreased pressures on wildlife.  People and policymakers have seen what their cities can look like without traffic congestion and air pollution.  Liking what they are seeing, and feeling that it was a state worth preserving, they are taking bold action now. 

Milan has accelerated its Strade Aperte (Open Streets) plan by a decade from 2030 to 2020 to transform 35km of inner-city streets, prioritizing pedestrian and cyclists over motor vehicles. Likewise, Paris is reserving 30 streets and 50km of car lanes for pedestrians and cyclists, respectively, and Mayor Hidalgo has predicted that some of these changes could become permanent.  

In Canada, several large cities are seizing the window of opportunity presented by post-COVID-19 recovery to accelerate changes to make cities more sustainable, equitable and livable.  The 2020 Declaration for Resilience in Cities, signed by Mayors and Chief City Planners from Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Victoria among others, calls for responsible use of land, decarbonization of transportation systems and sustainability in built and natural environments. 

Let’s demonstrate that when our house is on fire, we can and will act quickly, decisively and effectively. 

In the Bow Valley we do not have big cities with big city problems.  However, we have small towns with significant visitation that gives rise to traffic congestion, parking problems, and reduced enjoyment for visitors and locals alike. 

What can we learn from the experience of other urban centres who experience similar problems? 

Reducing vehicle dominance and replacing car-oriented urban spaces with people-oriented spaces have economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits.  Bars, restaurants, retailers and artists all benefit from the increased foot traffic, liveliness and sociability of pedestrianized spaces.   

Our towns also have good intentions for environmental sustainability and written plans for decarbonization, waste diversion and ecosystem preservation. Dates for achieving key targets have been set out to 2050. 

But what we saw in the COVID-19 crisis is that when we are faced with a potentially devastating public health emergency, we can act swiftly and collaboratively in days to weeks to make sure people’s health, lives and livelihoods are protected.  Why don’t we leverage this success to treat climate change like the public health emergency it is? Let’s demonstrate that when our house is on fire, we can and will act quickly, decisively and effectively. 

Finally, we need to reinvent our towns so they do not perpetuate the inequities that currently exist. Built environments such as sidewalks, public buildings and parks need to be accessible to all residents throughout their life.  Children, seniors and people with different physical abilities should feel safe moving about towns during winter and summer. 

Decent, affordable housing is needed to create mixed-income neighbourhoods that reflect the wider population and bridge people from different walks of life.  Food security and high-quality public transportation benefits everyone, but are essential for people with low incomes to ensure that they have access to good nutrition, employment and recreational opportunities. 

In the Bow Valley we don’t have the cachet of urban centres like Toronto, Paris and New York.  But we can learn from them and we too can seize the window of opportunity in the post-pandemic recovery period to re-imagine and re-invent our communities. 

Vamini Selvanandan © 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. This article was originally published in the Rocky Mountain Outlook on June 18, 2020. Photo credit: Ksenia Chernaya on Pexels.com

Further reading:

Re-imagining Work: We can do better

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a great revealer.  While creating new challenges, it is also shining a light on those problems in our society that we have chosen to ignore.   The pandemic has opened our eyes to the plight of seniors in long-term care, inadequate housing on reserves, and crowded shelters for the homeless.

As a result of the pandemic, we now see and appreciate the essential workers in our community – grocery clerks ensuring we can access food, cleaners keeping our facilities virus-free and health care aides caring for our seniors. 

The pandemic has also made us see all too plainly how we have undervalued our essential workers.   We ask frontline workers to work for low wages in physically-demanding jobs and under conditions that put their health and the health of their families at risk.

The pandemic has highlighted the need for fair payment for essential frontline work and the importance of providing safe working conditions.  Paid a living wage, health care aides would not go from job to job in senior care facilities carrying the lethal virus with them.  Given safe working conditions, or at least proper attention when they sounded the alarm, meat packers in High River would not have suffered the largest COVID-19 outbreak in North America.  

We in the Bow Valley have largely been spared the ravages of coronavirus infection with 4 cases in Banff and 18 cases in Canmore and area as of May 15, 2020.  While many parts of the province are seeing a decline in COVID-19 cases, the real danger to Bow Valley communities is just beginning.  The economic relaunch means large numbers of visitors could flood in, bringing with them the risk of infection.  Being in close proximity to Calgary, the largest reservoir of coronavirus in the province, we need to be vigilant and prudent in re-opening our economy. 

Let us build an economy that lives within its means.

We have frontline workers in the hospitality industry who are about to be exposed to new risks.  They deserve fair treatment and safe working conditions like essential frontline workers.  A 2018 study showed that hotel workers in the Bow Valley suffered a 48% higher rate of physical injuries requiring time off work or modified duties than hotel workers in the rest of Alberta.  Bow Valley hospitality workers suffer from mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and substance abuse.  They face social challenges including isolation, workplace discrimination and lack of social support.

As we relaunch, we have a chance to put this right.  We have a chance to reimagine what work looks like in the Bow Valley and build something better.  Let us begin by acknowledging how hard our frontline workers labour and the risks they take.  Let us pay them a decent wage that allows them to thrive in our communities.  Let us provide them with safe working environments and give them voice and agency in addressing safety concerns in the workplace.  Let us treat our workers with respect and without discrimination.  

Let us build an economy that lives within its means – an economy that recognizes the boundaries imposed by labour, housing, infrastructure and environmental considerations in the Bow Valley.  To sustain our communities, we do not need to create an economy that looms larger than necessary and thrives on the exploitation of people and nature.  As we rebuild our economy, we can focus on making it better, not bigger.  If you agree that we are all in this together, now is the time to show that you mean it.

By Vamini Selvanandan© 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. This article was originally published in the Rocky Mountain Outlook on May 21, 2020. Photo credit: Chelsey Horne on Pexels .com

Further reading:

Confidence during the COVID-19 Crisis

In times of crisis, we reap the benefits of the society we have built around us.  This is why knowing that I live in Canada lets me sleep better at night.  Although the novel coronavirus causing the global pandemic is virtually identical in all parts of the world, it is having dramatically different consequences in different countries. How countries are dealing with this imminent threat is rooted in their social and political fabric.

Good governance can go a long way to mitigating the impact of the virus.  In Canada, we are seeing federal and provincial policymakers basing decisions on available scientific evidence and being consistent in their approach and messaging to Canadians.  They look to experts in public health to guide them with the timing and intensity of health protection measures.

Provincial and federal governments are also putting people’s safety before the economy, instituting strict social distancing measures and travel advisories knowing full well that these measures will grind the economy to a halt.  Opposing parties have set aside political ideology to work together and pass laws quickly for getting money into the pockets of Canadians.  We only have to turn our attention south of the border to see what the consequences of the pandemic could look like if we lacked these aspects of good governance.  

A month ago, few people knew about the discipline of public health.  Today Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s top public health official, is a household name.  She leads the province’s public health system:  a robust mechanism that provides health protection, disease prevention and health promotion. 

Countries with good public health infrastructure are able to identify and isolate infectious cases early in an outbreak, trace and monitor contacts closely and mandate measures such as social distancing swiftly and effectively.  This slows down the spread of disease and flattens the epidemiological curve.  In Italy, where early and effective public health action was lacking, people who might have survived with appropriate treatment are dying because the health care system has become overwhelmed. 

In good times and in bad, we can remind our politicians that the economy works in service of the people and not the other way around.

Here in Alberta, we have become accustomed to receiving daily updates on the extent of infections in our province and the corresponding measures to counteract the spread.  Anyone with an internet connection can get detailed information on case numbers, distribution and demographics. 

When leaders give clear and reliable information to the public, we can better appreciate the gravity of the situation and take measures to protect our health and that of our family, friends and community members. 

Transparency allays anxiety and engenders trust, so when our personal liberties are curtailed, we understand why and are better able to comply.  

One can only wonder if transparency and freedom of speech had been part of the social fabric in China, would the world be faced with this pandemic today?  Instead of muzzling the medical doctor who sounded the alarm on early COVID-19 cases, if Chinese authorities had heeded his warning, the outbreak may well have been contained within Wuhan and never spread outside.

We have many reasons to be confident that our country is dealing well with this pandemic.  But we can do better. 

In good times and in bad, we can remind our politicians that the economy works in service of the people and not the other way around.  We can urge policymakers to restore funding to public health systems that provincial governments have scaled back in recent years.

We can use the same resolve we are showing to combat COVID-19 to rally against other more sustained and disastrous threats like climate change.  And most importantly, we can all work together to address the gaps in our society that create poverty, homelessness and inequality.  Because in our interconnected society, if some of us are vulnerable, we are all vulnerable.

By Vamini Selvanadan© 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. This article was originally published in the Rocky Mountain Outlook on April 16, 2020. Photo credit: CDC from Pexels

Further reading:

%d bloggers like this: