DeLong’s answer — despite being completely and utterly inane — is reflective of the attitude of the provincial government towards poverty in Alberta. It generally sees poverty as an individual’s issue and responsibility. Moreover, the answer illustrates an ideological reluctance on the part of government to take any meaningful role in the economy, particularly in terms of providing the economic foundations necessary for authentic social rights of citizenship. Consequently, this ironclad reluctance has an impact on the development of comprehensive social policy and has implications for all Albertans, not only those experiencing poverty.
The above is considered in greater depth throughout the coalition’s movie, which premiered on July 31 at the Calgary Public Library, an event attended by over 70 people. The video itself was collectively created by members of the coalition, a group of individuals and agencies concerned about poverty issues in Calgary, and was the result of close to two years’ work. Group members had an initial two-day course in filmmaking and went from there in terms of scripting, filming and editing. According to Arya Boustani, the film’s editor, the process of making the piece was “very collaborative and very organic… people used their natural instincts. It was interesting to see the process of reaching agreements and each did what ever they could to make it happen.”
Although the film deals primarily with the decision of the government to distribute between $1.2 and $1.4 billion dollars of the provincial surplus to Albertans in the form of $400 “prosperity cheques,” the undercurrent is about the failure of social policy in the province. The movie not only chronicles the lot of people who are not “happy campers” and don’t particularly enjoy living in poverty, but also considers the broader theme of how society determines its social priorities. It also offers a poignant look at the daily struggles of some of our fellow citizens. As stated by one of the people in the film, after going over her income and expenses, “when you don’t get enough, you don’t get enough.”
Longtime anti-poverty activist Fred Robertson noted that the movie evolved from the booklet Stretching Your Dollar written by members of the coalition. “People with physical or mental health problems came together to do their stories, which boiled over into the video... we thought it would be neat to find out what people were doing with the $400 cheques and get a better perspective on how low-income people feel about that kind of largesse.”
Sure, the prosperity cheques were welcome and gave a certain amount of succor, particularly for lower-income residents. Bills were paid, debts were honoured, fridges were filled and vitamins were bought. But this was a mere stopgap measure. Ultimately, the participants in the video argue that the funds would have been better applied collectively for the support of public goods such as education, health care, the environment and social services.
Overall, the film provides a graphic illustration of the contradictions occurring between the multibillion dollar surplus created by the increase in the value of our collective natural resources, the excitement occasioned by the government’s unusual decision to give $400 cheques to each Albertan and the continuation of structurally created poverty in Alberta. According to Lindsay, one of the filmmakers, “I thought the prosperity cheques were not about prosperity, but more about disparity. A lot of people used our cheques for groceries. It wasn’t about prosperity but about survival.” Certainly, some people bought expensive vases and trips to the mountains, but others used it to meet basics and cover the usual shortfalls in their monthly expenses. After all, you can’t really make the $402 per month received by a person on social assistance, or even the $1,050 for those on AISH, stretch very far.
Robertson suggests “while $400 is a nice gesture, problems are not going to be solved in that kind of fashion. It’s almost like Ralph said ‘we’ll give ’em $400, and they’ll be fine. Give ’em $400, and leave us alone.’” However, he argues “we don’t want charity. We want equal treatment. We want opportunity.” Robertson notes, “the problem can be solved, but it needs a quantum leap on the part of the understanding of the general public. If the public leads, the politicians will follow.”
Therefore, Robertson suggests that the idea behind the film was to increase understanding of the issue, and show “what’s really happening to the individual poor.” One of the people interviewed in the movie argued that there is “an innocent ignorance” on the part of broader society regarding poverty. Lindsay also suggests that we are “imbued with statistics, but what do those numbers mean in human terms? We wanted to get beyond statistics, get the message out in a non-threatening way and empower the community to take action.” Ideally, the video will help tear off that veil of ignorance — innocent or otherwise — and put more of a human face to poverty.
Lindsay understands that there might be some resistance to the video, perhaps even an element of compassion fatigue. “’Oh, here we go again, another poverty film.’ But… it has a bigger view and looks at the bigger issue of government spending that affects every Albertan.” Summing up the video, Robertson argues “it was honest. Might have a lot of rough edges, but it’s honest.” And that’s a great place to start the debate.
