“I don’t think there was any recognition of that in the budget. The best way to help the homeless is make sure they have the opportunity to find a job” Dave Hayer, MLA for Surrey-Tynehead, said Thursday the budget focuses on giving people opportunity to grow out of the lifestyle of living on the streets.

I sent the above quote to our Abbotsford Mal’s Mr. De Jong and Mr. Van Dongen asking if this was in fact the government policy and whether they agree with this policy. At this time they have not extended me the courtesy of a reply, perhaps it is that they do not view the homeless as constituents. Now I had planned to point out the ideological government doublespeak in referring to homelessness as a ‘lifestyle of living on the street’. The idiocy and ignorance of suggesting that homelessness is something one can ‘grow out of’. That before throwing the word opportunity around they might want to look up the definition:

Opportunity n. a possibility due to a favourable combination of circumstances; “now is your chance”

Chance n. 1. the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause; 2. a favourable set of circumstances; an opportunity; a chance to escape.

Apparently this government’s ideology is so bankrupt of ideas that to get back onto their feet the homeless are to rely on ‘the unknown and unpredictable element’. Although how they are to take advantage of ‘a favourable set of circumstances’ when faced with barriers such as no fixed address, no telephone, no access to bathing for personal hygiene, no laundry for clean clothes, no transportation, etc I do not know. Maybe, since chance implies luck the government expects the homeless to be walking out of (their once in awhile access to) a shower, in clean, presentable, donated clothes and have an employer bump into them and exclaim “You are just the man/woman I am looking for! You’re hired!” Fat chance. I guess the homeless are just on the wrong side of the Liberal’s ideological spectrum.

But forget all that. I was reading Vaughn Palmer’s column in the Saturday March 11, 2006 Vancouver Sun about Partnerships BC. The person heading up Partnerships has a base salary of $329,000 and with bonuses can make nearly $600,000. His last salary reported by the government was $499,134. Fat cat. There are 38 employees at Partnerships BC and the budget is for an average salary of $160,000. Nice work if you can get it. Obviously these people are on the right side of the government’s ideological spectrum.

Mr. de Jong. Mr. van Dongen. Mr. Hayer. Never mind about programs that would help me and other homeless be prepared to take advantage of opportunities to get employed and back onto our feet. Forget that. How do I get one of those Partnerships BC (or similar type) jobs??? Who needs a little help when they can belly up to the public trough and pig out on fat salaries $$$,$$$. I am positive that with even an average salary of $160,000 I would have no trouble ‘growing out of the lifestyle of living on the streets’. Better yet I would not have to depend on the unknown and unpredictable whim of luck or accident. Just hand me a Partnership BC salary opportunity and I will seize the opportunity for lifestyle chance.

Carpe Diem! Carpe Pensio! Carpe Spolium!!!

Dear John van Dongen; Mike de Jong:

I am currently preparing an article for the Homeless in Abbotsford Website on the current provincial governments actions/attitudes towards the growing number of people caught up in homelessness. The only quote I have come across on this matter is:

“The best way to help the homeless is make sure they have opportunity to find a job,” Dave Hayer, MLA for Surrey-Tynehead said the budget focuses on giving people opportunity to grow out of the lifestyle of living on the streets.

Would you say that this is an accurate statement of the Governments position and policy on the homeless? Would you agree with the statement? Is there any comments or points you wish to make with regard to the homeless and policy? Any questions you have about the homeless that I could answer for you?

Below are the address(es) to find the Homeless in Abbotsford site and its connected pages and links to other news websites on the World Wide Web. I include these in order that you have an opportunity to review and gain understanding of the background on homeless in abbotsford.

http://www.homeless-in-abbotsford.blogspot.com/
OR
www.geocities.com/homelessinabbotsford

Since the focus of the website is the homeless in Abbotsford I feel it is only fair to give the Abbotsford MLA’s an opportunity to comment. Please be advised that I am wont to use articles as a basis for Letters to the Editor for our local and national papers.

I thank you for your attention and look forward to reading your thoughts on this growing social problem and how to begin to address it.

Sincerely

James W Breckenridge

I do not know why the government wants people to remain on welfare, NOT working but it is obvious they do. This government claims it is interested in getting people off welfare and into the workforce – it is lying or incompetent. OR, I suppose, both incompetent and lying. They pay lip service to getting people off welfare and back onto their feet but their policies and actions actually prevent people from returning to the workforce from the welfare rolls.

Currently I am struggling to overcome the negative effects their “assistance” system has had on my job seeking. Those readers who have read the back-story will recall the problems I faced in getting clothing suitable to wear to interviews. I have since found out that there is a $200 limit on their “help”. Pants, suit jacket, dress shirt and tie suitable for making a good impression on the prospective employer for $200 (being rather large I have to go to Mr. Big and Tall for clothing, which raises the price). Even with careful spending the bill came to almost twice that amount. Without this attire I would make bad impressions on any interviewer with the result that I would not find work. Were it not for the generosity of other people I would not have been able to get the suitable clothing required. Remember that the system requires you to have no assets, then has you waiting for several weeks before you receive any money. This means you are past being broke into negative cash flow and any money is always spent before you even receive it. You are thus entirely dependent on the system for anything you need in your job search. When the system denies you financial aid in purchasing clothing suitable to wearing to interviews they are saying NO to you becoming employed (then turn around and accuse you of not looking for work).

Through the kindness of strangers (who knowing of the need for clothing suitable to an interview, wanted to help me find work) I had clothing to wear to make a good impression at interviews. With clothes appropriate to the interview process I did receive a job offer. But now I needed office wear. Fortunately the dress code was office casual so that I could get by with purchasing two pairs of khakis as my sport shirts would serve. I desperately needed those two pairs of pants in order to enter back into the workforce and off welfare. With no acceptable pants (all the pants I own are worn and tattered at this point) I would be in violation of the dress code, resulting in the loss of the job and a return to welfare. What of my request for the two pairs of pants so I could work? NO – I had already received all the “help” they would give, In denying me the clothing needed to keep the job I had struggled/worked so hard to find – the system was saying NO to me being employed.

The system was upset that I was homeless (claiming my homelessness would prove a barrier to employment – it did not) and had threatened to deny the $185. I did get the $185 and being homeless left the full amount for me to use ($325 does not cover housing in Abbotsford and you must use the $185, or a portion thereof, to make up the difference between your shelter allowance and your REAL shelter costs). So in spite of the hardships associated with being homeless it had the advantage of leaving me with the full $185. This was/is very important as timing results in my first pay cheque arriving on the last Friday of January. Surviving until then is complicated by having a major expense I did not have before – food. Not something you can do without. Before I was working I could go down to the Salvation Army for a hot lunch and handouts of fruit, vegetable and bread. My food bill was $0. No longer. I now need to purchase what had once been free. My budgeting suggests that I should expect little of the $185 to remain after purchasing food to eat. Which leaves me with a few outstanding needs. Transportation to work, maintaining cleanliness (washing both myself and my clothes) and someway for my employer to contact me. Bus pass = $40; Bathing pass = $40; Laundry = $20; Phone = $35; total needed = $135. So in order to meet the cash flow demanded by actions to remain employed I needed approximately $100 to cover the period before my wages began to cover these costs. What does the system say about covering these types of expenses in the gap between starting work and getting paid for work done? NO! The system denies any help covering cash outflows required to continue working. NO to being employed.

Based on my own personal experience I can only conclude that the current government wants to keep people from becoming employed and getting back on their feet.

At every turn in my quest to work the government has seemingly tried to block me from working by denying the help required. NO, NO, NO to getting the help needed to find employment. I have only been able to overcome the governments’ obstacles through help from good Samaritans. I have no idea why the government seeks to keep people on welfare. My experience (and that of others I know) is that although they claim they want people working, they are denying people the opportunity to work by denying them the resources they need to attain and maintain employment – saying NO to people getting work and off welfare. It does not matter what the government claims – their actions speak louder than their words, screaming NO at those of us seeking to be gainfully employed.

I frankly have no idea why the government does NOT want welfare recipients becoming employed. Perhaps it is some attempt to hold down wages by maintaining a large pool of unemployed. Perhaps the government feels the need for something they can use to distract the public from their record. Or perhaps it is just a required tenet of their Ideology – those on welfare are bums out to take the system – and to protect their worldview they need to keep people on welfare and not getting employed. The why is not really as important (although I would like to know WHY?) as the effect of the government actions in repeatedly saying NO to helping people off welfare and into the workforce.

Most fortunate for me is that in this arduous life lesson I have found some good people, people who truly want to help, whose actions lend help to those of us in need of a hand to get back onto our feet and on with our lives. So I can say NO to the governments efforts to keep me on welfare, keep me from finding work and from keeping my job.

To the government and system I say – if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. If the government/system truly wants to get people back into the workforce (as opposed to only claiming that as a goal) they need to get some competent people involved, get out of the way and stop saying NO to helping people find work.