cheryl santa maria

 Earlier this year I took a writing course and one of my assignments involved pitching and writing a magazine article.  I’ve always been horrified by the number of Canadians that are considered to be of “working poor” status.   Despite what reports imply, the economy isn’t booming yet.  New grads who want to  break into the work force tend to feel the pinch the most.  I chose to write about this topic, and I sought out the opinions of new grads, young professionals and retirees.

The consensus?  We’re living in uncertain times. 

A (somewhat) recent study by Canadian labour economist Erin Weir suggests that average hourly wage increases are lagging behind inflation costs, rising by 1.8% and 1.9% respectively.  This, combined with cost of living increases across North America, as well as a slow-to-recover job market, is creating challenges for young professionals in the 25-30 year-old age bracket – many of whom are struggling to save enough money to purchase their first home, start a family and become financially independent.

 My parents bought their first home in 1976 for $35,000.  During that time, they were making a combined annual income of $25,000.  Today, that same house would probably be worth closer to $275,000.  Paying off a mortgage was a lot easier to do in the 1970s compared to today, where a home in Ontario goes for about $329,000.00.  I couldn’t find stats on the incomes of families in Ontario, but the average Canadian  household income is about $83,300.00 – roughly four times the cost of real estate. 

 So, is there anything we can do about it? 

Wait and see, I guess.  The recent introduction of the HST tax here in Ontario has only served to fuel speculation and insecurity, for the time being.  Many of the people I’ve spoken to are hesitant about the stock market.  Others are holding off real estate purchases until they can get a better “feel” of the economy.  The only advice that I have is to be conscious of spending.  It’s a good rule to follow in any economy, but it’s especially important nowadays.

If you don’t know where your money is going, it’s easy to start accumulating debt. This is a trap that many new grads fall into.

Being money smart is the best way to ensure financial independence.  Simple advice, I know – but it’s pretty airtight.

Earlier this week a BP chairman announced that the company will suspend payouts for the remainder of the year and set aside $20-billion to help compensate victims of Gulf oil spill.  President Obama noted that the $20-billion isn’t “a cap” on the amount that will be paid out and that all affected parties will be compensated.

Except for the countless animals that have died as a result of our negligence, of course.  There’s no payout for those little critters.

President Obama has conceded that BP and its subsidaries have acted “recklessley” on the Gulf coast but noted that North America’s “oil addiction” is the larger problem.  Personally I’d love to place all the blame on the shoulders of evil corporate giants but Obama is right.  The North American lifestyle has necessitated off-shore oil drilling.  Consumers have demonstrated their insatiable need for fuel and most of us aren’t willing to pay higher prices for it, meaning that  environmentally sound methods of extraction won’t be implemented any time soon.

We Canadians need to pay special attention to the response efforts of BP and the safeguards it intends to impose.  Earlier this month BP Canada quietly began drilling in British Columbia’s Rocky Mountains,  a “controversial” project that has worried local residents.  According to Ryland Nelson from the environmental group Wildsight, BP’s new exploratory well, which will be drilled between Banff National Park and Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park (an area of 500 k.m. that spans from Alberta and Montana) is home to countless bears, wolverines, foxes and deer.

BP Canada has, of course, promised to preserve the pristine landscape, claiming that they went so far as to consult with local residents and indigenous groups for a period of three years  prior to drilling in an attempt to minimize environmental/economic risks.

Keep in mind however, that they sung similar praises when they began drilling in the Gulf.

We all know how that’s been unfolding.

[photo source]

A Toronto woman is suing Rogers Communications Inc. for $600,000 (CAD) after the company “bundled” her cellphone invoice with her husband’s Internet and telephone bills without her prior consent.  Gabriella Nagy’s invoice – which was delivered in a package addressed to her husband – provided evidence of an extramarital affair, leading to the breakdown of her marriage. Ms. Nagy is suing the company for breach of contract and invasion of privacy.

Apparently Nagy isn’t the only person who’s been burned by Rogers’ allegeded privacy breaches.  Since initiating her lawsuit in mid-May she claims that 12 others have come forward with similar stories and four of them have signed affidavits in support of the suit. 

While I don’t condone what Nagy has done, I think she has a soild case.  The fact that an established company like Rogers may have breached a client’s privacy suggests the need for more comprehensive, across-the-board legislation within Canada.  Should this case go to court, there is the potential that a new legal precedent could be set and it may affect how Canadians interact with businesses in the future.

Despite the fact that our country has defined privacy laws, companies have struggled with compliance.  In 2007  for example three Canadian giants – Winners, HomeSense and CIBC – admitted to security holes after more than 2 million Canadian credit card numbers were stolen from their databases.

It’s startling that the biggies can’t get security/privacy right.  If that’s the case, what are some of the smaller businesses doing?

I’ll be following Nagy’s closely.  It’ll be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Thanks to the ongoing garbage strike (now in its 6th day) the extremely stinky city of Toronto (no really, you should see it – trash cans are overflowing) has decided to cancel its Canada Day festivities.  Taken from an article on the CBC website:

“Without the unionized workers the shows can’t go on — so the city is pulling the plug on about a dozen planned festivals, a sports tournament and even the traditional Canada Day fireworks display at Ashbridge’s Bay.”

Yay for patriotism.

As much as we Canadians like to rag on the Americans, I don’t think anything could stop them from celebrating the 4th of July.

Cancelling Canada Day in one of the country’s most populated cities is an absolute disgrace and it really says something about the city’s priorities.

I’m almost embarassed to call myself a Torontonian right now.

For those of you who don’t know what’s been going on, let me fill you in: Last monday at midnight, roughly 24,000 workers walked off the job when talks between the City of Toronto and CUPE Local 416 and CUPE Local 79 – the Toronto civic employees unions that represent various municipal employees, including librarians, garbage collectors, and daycare workers – collapsed.

At issue, among other things, is sick pay practices. Currently, union employees are allowed to bank and cash out unused sick time when they quit or retire. The city wants to phase this out, arguing that it has, and will continue to, cost Toronto taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, before you go and start attacking the city workers, let me explain something: as disappointed as I am about the Canada Day festivities, I’m siding with the union. What the press keeps forgetting to report is that while David Miller and his people have decided to phase out the sick pay practice for the 24,000 city workers who are now on strike, they’ve decided to maintain their own cushy compensation and benefits packages meaning that if the city gets its way, the top of the food chain will get to keep enjoying the benefits they’ve always had while the bottom of the food chain will not.

In my opinion, all city workers’ contracts should be subjected to the same rules and regulations. Yes, I’m pissed about the mounting garbage and strange smell that’s starting to inhabit the lobby or my apartment building, but I think they city workers have a legitimate reason to be pissed off.

The current situation that’s stinking up my city is reminiscent of the summer of 2002, when garbage collectors walked off the job for 16 days. After a week of trash piling up on the streets and rotting in the hot sun, residents began illegally dumping their garbage wherever they could – including public parks and parking lots. The mayor and the union couldn’t get their act together and come to an agreement so back-to-work legislation had to be introduced.

It looks like this strike is going to be a long one, too. Talks are going on as we speak, but they’re apparently moving at a slow pace.

If you need me, I’ll be in Mississauga – dumping my garbage at my parent’s house. THEIR Canada Day celebrations are still in tact. Of course they are – Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion would never let this ridiculousness occur on her turf.

Faced with the possibility of an LCBO strike, Ontarians went into a buying frenzy last night as they swarmed stores and emptied shelves in a scene that many patrons would later describe as “chaos.” LCBO parking lots across the province were filled to the brim as people crammed into outlets, filling their baskets and crates. The lineups at the checkouts curled around the stores, with many people waiting for up to an hour and a half to pay for their goods.

“Every customer had a basket, and every basket was filled with at least two hundred dollars worth of alcohol,” a caller to CFRB’s John Moore Show said. “I can’t believe people are willing to spend that much money in this economy … it really says something about people’s priorities.”

Umm … indeed.

Even if  a strike were to happen, Ontario would not go completely dry. The Beer Store, Vineyard Estates, The Wine Rack, the province’s estimated 125 wineries, as well as all bars and restaurants with liqour licenses would continue to serve booze.

But that didn’t stop people from going half way to crazy and making a collective $60 million dollars worth of purchases for the day – an all time record for the LCBO.

So, Ontarians are drunks, apparently.  And it also appears that we like to jump the gun. It turns out that yesterday’s mass hysteria was just a tad premature.

For the time being, the province’s 608 stores have decided to remain open and the strike deadline, originally set for today at 12:01 a.m., has been extended indefinitely.

Not that it really matters anymore, anyway.

By the sounds of it we Ontarians now have enough booze in our basements to keep us liquored up until 2015 at least.

Alberta Finance Minister Iris Evans was forced to apologize yesterday for the “controversial” statements she made during a speech to the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto.

Her statement?

That children are better off when they’re raised with one parent at home, and one parent at work.

Iris’ assertion has sparked outrage everywhere, particularly in government circles.

NDP house leader Rachel Notely, for example, is spitting mad:

“Her view is old-fashioned, biased and totally unacceptable for a minister to be expounding,” Blakeman told the Edmonton Sun. “It’s shocking. It’s really disappointing.”

Um.

Let me get this straight: arguing that children are better off being raised by their own parents is “shocking”, “disappointing” and “old-fashioned”?

Am I missing something here?

Back in the 1970s, by boyfriend’s parents bought their first home for $30,000.00.  Between the two of them, they were making $50,000.00 annually, meaning they could have, theoretically, paid off their home in one to two years.

Fast forward to today.   Even if I could afford a house, it would keep me in debt for the next twenty years at least.

Yes, times have changed.  People can no longer survive on one paycheque.  Banks, government and “inflation” have made sure of that. Back in the day you could have it all and pay for it in cash, so long as you were smart with your money.

Today you’re bound to rack up at least a little bit of debt in your lifetime, no matter how savvy you are.

Most of the mothers I’ve spoken to would rather stay home with their children.  It’s a truly sad situation – especially when you consider the fact that despite the long hours we spend at work and away from our families, 55% of Canadian workers are living paycheque to paycheque, while 80% of Canadians can only manage to save $100 or less per month.

But here’s the thing:

NOTHING, and I mean nothing, will change the fact that children ARE better off being raised by their biological parents.  Yes, most of us can no longer afford this luxury but that doesn’t change the fact that children belong at home with mom and dad.

Calling this notion “disappointing” is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.  It’s also a testament to the sad, debt and consumer-driven times we live in.

On his show this morning, John Moore summed it up best:

“I think the reason people get so angry about this issue is because of the guilt some people feel for having to go to work.”

Nobody wants to spend the majority of their life stuck inside a cubicle while their child is being raised by someone else, but most of us have no choice.

But anyone who honestly believes that a child is better off in the hands of another person is, by far, more “shocking” and “disappointing” than Ms. Evans could ever be.

The story of the eight-year-old girl who was taught to hate made headlines in Canada last month. The girl and her three-year-old brother were removed from the home by Child and Family Services (CFS) after a social worker observed the girl saying horrible things like, “everyone who is not white should die.”

CFS is fighting the parents for permanent custody of the children.

I’m not one to condone hatred – especially in terms of discrimination - but I, and the Canadian Charter of Rights, also won’t condone censorship.  This poses a bit of a problem and it begs an interesting question:

Should a person’s freedom of expression be revoked when that right is used to exercise hate?

According to the Charter, every Canadian has four fundamental freedoms:

Naturally, the parent’s lawyer is using this angle in the custody battle and, because the parents have only spoken about violent acts but haven’t actually committed them, this may stand a chance in court (although I’m not sure how one would define the term “peaceful assembly”. Perhaps this could be used as a counter-argument against them).

One of my girlfriends argues that there should be reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression, especially when that expression has the potential to violate human rights, like in this case. I agree to a certain extent, but where do you draw the line?

I, for example, could argue that the Catholic church violates the human rights of homosexuals and that they, through their condemnation of birth control and condoms, have directly contributed to the AIDS outbreak in Sub-Saharan Africa.  Nobody is going to rush into the homes of strict Catholics and remove their children, though.

Also, check out some of the signs from the American tea bag protests back in April. Sure, the crazies pictured must have been the minority (even for wack-job right-wing conservatives) but how is their public spewing of hate any different from the little girl, and her parent’s, public spewing of hate?

And here’s a sad fact: If I want the opinions of others censored, then I have to be OK with the law censoring my own (potentially offensive) opinions – like the belief that there is absolutely nothing shameful or wrong about homosexuality, that prostitution and marijuana should be legalized, and that women have the right to be pro-choice.

The charter of freedom is a bit of a double-edged sword. On one hand it is what makes places like North America great, and on the other hand it permits public demonstrations of racism and segregation.

I am interested to see how the trial of the racist little girl and her family pans out. If the parents are charged with wrongdoing, the ruling could have interesting implications on the rest of us and on our own fundamental rights.

Also, the sky is blue.  And water is wet.

Who knew?

Anyway, take a look at this.  It’s from today’s Toronto Star:

“An eHealth Ontario consultant billed taxpayers for tea from Tim Hortons and a dessert square at the Edmonton International Airport while earning $2,700 a day at the embattled agency, documents show.

… The Star also learned yesterday that the eHealth agency, which has been under intense scrutiny over high-priced consultants and executive perks, spent $27,000 to sponsor an out-of-province conference, including an evening reception Sunday.”

Well, duh.

Everybody knows that rich people pay for nothing. That’s why they are rich, and we are not.

I used to work for a law firm. A prosperous, extravagant, law firm. There were about 500 lawyers there and all of them were extremely well paid.

Our office had a “lawyers only” lunch room/lounge that served catered lunches and dinners, five days a week, free of charge. The meager assistants and support staff were banished to the food courts, where we had to purchase our meals.

If a lawyer ran downstairs and grabbed a coffee while working on a file, that coffee would be charged to the client (but if his or her assistant did the same thing s/he would have to pay out of pocket). These lawyers would quietly charge everything to their clients: Photocopies, staples, taxi chits … even the “complimentary” coffee and cookies that were offered to clients when they came in for a meeting.

Gouging your client is an acceptable, and even standard, business practice. The comments that accompany the Star article suggest shock and outrage which seems strange to me, because I bet at least half of those mighty keyboard warriors would do the exact same thing if given the opportunity.

This eHealth consultant doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The only thing unique about this incident is that it’s been reported. The government may launch an investigation (at taxpayers’ expense) to placate the public, but even if wrongdoing is found, I doubt anything will change.

The truth is that the government has been hiring high priced consultants for decades, and we taxpayers will continue to fund their coffees, their meals, and whatever else they decide to charge to the public purse forever, whether we like it or not.

A couple of nights ago I had a chat with a friend who had recently finished reading the book Three Cups of Tea, a memoir by mountain climber-turned-humanitarian Greg Mortenson who, after falling ill during a climb, decided to relocate to Pakistan and build schools in rural areas.

My friend said that he’d like to move to Pakistan and do the same thing. This is of course, fantastic, but his remark got me thinking.

People flock to the third world to build houses and schools and to work with children, while others send money through programs like World Vision. This is a wonderful and extremely selfless thing to do but I’ve always wondered why people will help the poor on the other side of the world before they’ll help the poor in their own community.

Here in Toronto nearly 36,000 children go to school hungry every day and thousands more are forced to endure abuse at the hands of alcoholic and/or drug-addicted parents.

They need help, too.

And helping out in your own community puts you at an advantage because you have a better understanding of the society the children have been raised in. It’s not uncommon for a Westerner to go over to the third world without taking the time to understand the culture and the beliefs of the people they are trying to help, which can drastically diminish the positive effect they can have on that community.

Poverty is not just a lack of money. It’s a combination of many things, including cultural beliefs, geography, politics, and religion. You can go into a small, third world village and build schools ’till the cows come home but if you’re doing it in a country where girls are married off as soon as they can bear children and the boys start working in landfills at four because their parents are too poor to feed them, the classrooms will remain empty – regardless of the fancy facilities you’ve donated.

And there’s another (potential) problem with self-righteous Westerners heading over to the third world to spread money and good will:

Third world countries don’t always want to be helped.

We Westerners tend to view poor countries with misinformed, pigeon-holed ideologies that some people find insulting. Take for example, the recent ruling in the Madonna adoption case.

Many of us presume places like Malawi are lacking in resources, but Madonna’s application to adopt her second Malawian child was denied because, according to a statement released by the Human Rights Consultative Committee : “We should not create a picture that the state has failed to care for children and therefore that orphans should be taken away from their communities to other countries.”

Don’t get me wrong, though. If you want to go to another country to help the disadvantaged, more power to you. Just take the time to understand the culture of those people beforehand.

And don’t forget that there are thousands of kids in your neighbourhood that could use your help just as badly.