Category Archives: Federal

Federal, Issues, Media, Municipal, Provincial

Voting age

Leave a comment

How would you know…?

…that the BC Liberals (and NDP) parties are allowing those under the age of 18 to vote for the leader of the Party?

Could the first clue be the fact that the leadership candidates are suggesting, or jumping on the bandwagon, that the voting age be lowered to 16?

Talk about putting a whole new spin on the tradition of kissing babies for votes…

We have graduated drivers licensing for young drivers, those under 18 (the current voting age) are not allowed to purchase alcohol and the legal age of majority is 18.

So are the leadership candidates saying that voting is a less important or requires less judgment and maturity than driving a vehicle, buying alcohol or being considered to be legally an adult?

“Liberal leadership contender Mike de Jong says he wants to lower the voting age in B.C. from 18 to 16 in a bid to attract more voters to polls.”

Since the polls are in schools it would certainly be easy and convenient for students to vote which may well lead to a higher turnout percentage among this new group of voters – at least as long as they are in school and it is easy and convenient – artificially inflating the voter turnout numbers.

If the goal is simply to increase voter turnout why don’t we move the polls to more convenient locations? Malls, grocery stores, bars etc. Making the polls more conveniently located so that people do not have to make an effort to go and vote will also raise voter turnout.

Of course moving the polls out of the schools, thus reducing the ease and convenience for the new voters to vote will undoubtedly significantly reduce turnout among the proposed new voters to levels more in keeping with the turnout in the rest of the population.

Besides, does not a ‘fair’ election require that no group of voters have a significant advantage in the opportunity to vote? In the interest of fairness and not conferring an advantage should not voting be equally inconvenient for all voting populations?

If someone cannot go 5 or 10 minutes out of their way to vote – do we really want them voting?

If the goal is to increase voter turnout might I make a suggestion? Instead of lowering the voting age or moving polls to convenient locations we might want to try a truly radical solution – giving voters something (someone) to vote for.

I keep myself informed on what is happening in BC, Canada and around the world; keep informed on what the issues are and the events effecting the issues; give thought to what information experience/history provides on the issues; think about the future and what actions we need to take.

I am a person engaged and prepared to give informed consent on how I want the city. the province and the country to be governed.

Unfortunately (for the province, country and world) I also have nothing and/or no one I want to cast my vote for.

Being interested and engaged in the issues of government and governance I often ‘talk politics’ with others who keep themselves informed who complain of being in the same position – being informed and engaged they also find they to have no one they consider deserving of their vote.

Those among this group who feel they have to vote, having nothing and no one to vote for, find themselves condemned to holding their noses and voting for the lesser of evils. Political discussion on the ‘Net and comments made to the media by voters suggest that a significant percentage of those who do vote in provincial or federal elections are confronted by the dilemma that if/when they vote they are not voting for the direction or the policies they want the province or country to be pursuing but either 1) voting to prevent something (i.e. a Conservative majority government) or 2) voting for the lesser of evils (i.e. a minority government).

I am old enough that I can remember when elections were about issues, not about spin, mudslinging, saying as little as possible and telling the voting public what it wants to hear.

On the flipside I can remember a time when voters applied thought to the policies and politicians they voted for – not just whether they hear (or think they hear) what they want to hear.

While giving the above collection of voters something to vote for would help to stop the decline in the percentage of voters, in order to significantly increase the number of voters it is necessary to re-enfranchise the more than 50% of voters who are currently disenfranchised.

Disenfranchised? What else would you call it when the votes of these voters have no effect on government behaviours and policies that impact their lives. When voting is pointless – you have seen that your vote makes no difference to what happens to you – why would you bother to vote?

Since the number of disenfranchised voters continues to grow every election, basic mathematics tells you that voter turnout will continue to decline every election.

Governments, politicians and pundits prefer to use the term apathy to explain the decrease in voter turnout. As in ‘the voters don’t vote because they are apathetic’, an explanation politicians, pundits and the public find more palatable than the harsh truth: that the majority of voters don’t vote because nobody speaks or will speak for them.

If you are wealthy, well to do, a businessman, a corporation etcetera – the BC Liberal party (Conservatives federally) will act to advance your interests.

If you are big labour/union or one of a number of special interest organizations/groups that contribute to the political interests of the NDP, the BC NDP (federal NDP) will act to advance your interests.

[The federal Liberals, due to a lack of leadership and ideas, have become the: ‘I don’t want a Conservative government; I don’t want a NDP government; that leaves the Liberals’ party.]

The majority of Canadians and BC residents have no party, no politician or candidate for office that will advance their interests.

Disenfranchise: 1. to deprive of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship 2. to deprive of the right to send representatives to an elected body 3. to deprive of some privilege or right 4. to deprive of any franchise or right.

Represent:: 1. to stand or act in the place of, as a substitute, proxy, or agent does; 2. to act for or in behalf of (a constituency) by deputed right in exercising a voice in legislation or government.

Politicians, pundits and the enfranchised public will no doubt deny this uncomfortable reality as the current state of affairs is to their advantage. Especially in light of the fact that if those who are currently disenfranchised and do not vote were to found a party and recruit candidates to represent them, the politicians, pundits and currently enfranchised public would suddenly find themselves suffering the consequences of their interests and needs being disregarded.

Clearly a situation politicians. pundits and the enfranchised public have no desire to find themselves in.

Think about it: when experienced politicians in the BC Liberal party addressed the question of increasing voter turnout they avoided addressing increasing turnout by re-engaging the non-voting voters and turned to finding new voters and that the NDP have shown no interest in addressing voter turnout.

The disenfranchised majority needs leadership and representation to emerge and give voice to their best interests.

Addiction, Caveat emptor, Federal, Provincial

Seek an Understanding, not an Enabling Abettor.

Leave a comment

The fact a judge, or retired judge, tells a forum what those in attendance want to hear does not make what is said factual, useful, informed or reflective of reality. They can be as misinformed as anyone. A fact Judge Craig demonstrated repeatedly as he spoke at October’s crime forum in Abbotsford.

Craig said the concept of rehabilitation has replaced the idea of penal consequence when it comes to sentencing, and described it as an abstract process where judges try to transform evil into docility and tractability.

Those who deal with the human cost resulting from the actions (and inactions) of the legal system can tell you that, other than paying lip service to the concept, the legal system is NOT about rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation may be the buzzword currently in vogue in the legal system but the legal system fails to provide anywhere near the levels of housing, programs, services and supports that are needed for recovery and rehabilitation. This failure to provide what is a needed to grant a person a significant opportunity for, or probability of, recovery and rehabilitation reflects the systems lack of an actual commitment or interest in rehabilitation.

An actual commitment to rehabilitation would see increased funding to the corrections branches, not cuts as were made at the federal level.

What the legal system is actually about, as defined by its actions not its words, is cost control.

The system is currently operating at or beyond its capacity. Increasing the level of capacity would require major ($billions$) capital investment in physical plant and significant ($billions$) yearly increases in operating expenditures.

Since this would require either yearly tax increases or large reductions in funding for popular programs such as healthcare, governments have so far talked the talk but failed to provide the needed funding.

The legal system is forced to operate within the constraints imposed by capacity and economic reality and so has become about cost control rather than either rehabilitation (the least costly policy over the long term) or incarceration (a prohibitively costly policy over the long term). These constraints have made cost control the operational imperative of the legal system.

The ‘revolving door’ cited in levelling criticism at the legal system results from cost management – there is no money in the system for incarceration of an ever increasing number of people for longer periods of time.

Judge Craig also said any ideas of legalizing marijuana as a way to stem the tide of money to gangs was ludicrous, and cited the horrific burden on Canadians from alcohol consumption.

This statement leads one to conclude that Judge Craig is sadly lacking an ability for logical analysis and/or that Judge Craig believes that illegal marijuana imposes no cost or burden on Canadians.

If one is to use the costs/burden of marijuana on Canadians as the basis for making the legalization/keep illegal decision you need to be comparing oranges (marijuana) to oranges (marijuana) not oranges (marijuana) to apples (alcohol).

The important burden/cost comparison is what the costs/burdens of having marijuana illegal (which would include the cost of gangs, legal system, incarceration etc) versus the cost/burdens that would result from marijuana if marijuana was legal.

The cost/burden of alcohol has no bearing on the cost/burden of marijuana analysis and therefore should have no bearing on whether marijuana is legal or illegal.

Judge Craig’s statement assumes that the costs/burden of legal marijuana would be higher that the costs/burdens associated with marijuana when it is illegal; a highly questionable conclusion.

Given Judge Craig’s statement that “Alcohol is already a madness on society,” one is left wondering why Judge Craig is not calling for alcohol to be made illegal as marijuana currently is?

If, as Judge Craig asserts, alcohol is a costly burden on Canadians and keeping (making) something illegal (marijuana) results in a lower cost/burden shouldn’t Judge Craig be seeking to add alcohol to the list of illegal drugs?

Of course US prohibition demonstrated clearly the high cost of making a widely used popular product, for which there is a strong high demand, illegal – gangs, gang wars and creation of a highly profitable criminal business.

The high cost being paid by Canadians in dealing with addiction and illegal (or legal) substance use is a direct result of trying to use the legal system to address what is a health issue by criminalizing the human weakness of addiction.

We might as well try to solve obesity and the burden the growing epidemic of obesity imposes on society by making being overweight a crime.

Since the legal system was never designed to address health issues the high costs and failure to make headway should be no surprise to anyone.

There is no such thing as ‘criminal’s rights’. There are ‘Canadian’s rights’ set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that all in Canada are entitled to – rich or poor, male or female, young or old, Anglo-Saxon or other ethnicity, law-abiding or law-breaker, Canadian born or immigrant, citizen or visitor – these rights belong to all.

Before you tell yourself that you are not a criminal and don’t need your rights protected consider those released from prison, after years or decades, when it was found they were wrongly imprisoned. Consider incidents such as the lower mainland resident who was assaulted by police when they went to the wrong door and had the wrong person. With all the inquiries into police and government behaviours, with the changes in technology it is ever more important to have OUR rights protected.

The rights that are being protected are OUR rights, the rights of all Canadians. Equal Rights were created for everyone, which includes those accused (and those guilty) of wrongdoing.

To paraphrase Carl Sagan “with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.”

I say darkness because when the rights of the victim, the victim’s family or society are evoked it is not rights that are being spoken of but vengeance.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Gandhi

Vengeance speaks to the darkness inside us, is rooted in destruction and is a very unhealthy, unwise choice to use as one of the basis of a society.

I have a friend who is so focused on vengeance that this friend wants to bring back the death penalty so Clifford Olson and others can be put to death. When I pointed out that what happened to Guy Paul Morin and others clearly demonstrated that if we had the death penalty innocent people would have been put to death by us (the government on our behalf) this person said it was an acceptable price to pay so Clifford Olson could be executed.

This person goes to church and considers themselves to be a good Christian and feels that killing innocent people is fine if that is what it takes be able to kill Clifford Olson and others like him.

Christian as in Jesus Christ who when asked said to turn the other cheek, who preached forgiveness and love your enemy as thyself.

Focused on vengeance on Clifford Olson and others who have committed heinous crimes this person, and many other Canadians, are willing, even eager, to accept the death of innocent victims as an acceptable price to pay in order to put Clifford Olson and his ilk to death.

To execute Clifford Olson (a killer of innocent victims) they are willing to become killers of innocent victims; in essence to gain vengeance on Clifford Olson et al, they are willing to become Olson – killers innocent victims.

Vengeance is a poison that destroys from within whether it be a person or a society.

Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. Confucius

What we need to know, to the core of our being, is that what we need to base the discussion on is not the addicts, the criminals and crime but on ourselves.

Talking about what ‘they deserve’ is merely a way to justify our inaction; a justification to let ourselves off the hook for doing what is needed to aid rehabilitation, recovery and wellness.

The decisions we make and the actions we take in dealing with these issues is not about Them, but about Us and the society we want to create, live in and pass to the next generation. The real question is whether we will base our society on the worst in ourselves or the best in ourselves.

Addiction, Federal, Issues, Municipal, Provincial

It is a BUSINESS.

Leave a comment

It is not about gangs and crime – it is about business.

Abbotsford Chief Constable Bob Rich’s statement at the recent gang forum in Abbotsford that one average-sized grow operation in the Fraser Valley can net a gang between $500,000 and $1 million a year underscores that above all else the illegal drug trade is not about gangs and crime but about BUSINESS.

Indeed the illegal drug trade is currently the big, highly profitable, international business whose operations and operating principles reflect pure unfettered capitalism. Indeed the illegal drug trade is more purely capitalistic than the legal drug trade.

Choosing to ignore the reality that the illegal drug trade is a business as the legal drug trade is, simply results in flawed public policy on the issues involved.

Consider that even though the cigarette business results in the death of one third of its users it continues to be profitable because, despite the negative health hazards (including death) people ignore the negative consequences and create a demand for cigarettes which the cigarette industry is happy to provide – corporate profit being more important to the business than the cost to people or society.

The alcohol industry also imposes heavy costs on users and society but again people ignore the negative consequences and create a demand which business is happy to provide – corporate profit being more important than the cost to people or society. Do not overlook the irony of the beer industry campaigning against California’s proposition 19 (legalize marijuana) to protect its profitability from a legal marijuana industry.

The financial services industry sold worthless paper to the public (and each other) all in the name of corporate profit, extravagant salaries and bonuses while ignoring the cost (in the end ¾ of a trillion dollar cost) to society and the disastrous cost that many individuals paid (bankruptcy and losing their homes).

Asbestos use is banned in 52 countries, including Canada. Yet the Canadian asbestos industry exports 200,000 tonnes of asbestos a year to developing countries and crusades to keep the substance off the international list of hazardous materials. These exports are killing people, giving them asbestosis, but what does that matter – it is profitable.

North America is dotted with toxic wastes sites; Abbotsford was stuck cleaning up a toxic waste site when the operators walked away after sucking all the profit out of the operation they could; illegal dumping of toxic waste continues to plaque the environment and governments – all in the pursuit of profit.

It is irrational to expect the illegal drug business to operate on principles, or lack of principles, any different than legal businesses – maximize profit at any cost.

It follows therefore, that to end the illegal drug trade requires taking the profit out of the business.

The cost of doing business must rise to a point it makes the business unprofitable or the cost of being in the business must rise to the point that no one wants to be employed in the business or the demand for the product must be reduced to the point that the costs of doing business are no longer covered.

Reality in the illegal drug business is the fixed nature of the demand (rising prices do not proportionally decrease demand) for the product (drugs). This results in an extremely elastic price; resulting in the price of the product rising to offset any increased costs of doing business and maintaining the high profit margins of the business.

More resources for the police, more success for the police simply drives the price of the product higher to cover the increase in costs, with the higher product prices resulting in increasing crime to cover the increased cost of drugs – a classic catch-22 situation.

The elastic nature of the price means that the cost of doing business cannot rise to the point of rendering the business of illegal drugs unprofitable.

The high profit margins, the decreased economic fairness/opportunity and the fact we have created a consumption society where individual’s worth is based not on the person but on the person’s possessions makes available an unlimited labour pool whose members are focused on attaining money/possessions at any cost. A labour pool to whom incarceration and other possible negative outcomes are simply part of the cost of doing business.

That as a society we have made human life the cheapest commodity on the planet and possessions the measure of a persons worth means that you can run all the ‘gang members are losers’ advertising campaigns one chooses – with the labour pool desperate for making big $$$$$ that our society has created, the illegal drug business will have no difficulty finding replacement and/or new employees.

The reality that you cannot render the illegal drug business unprofitable (or less than highly profitable) and that you cannot deny the business a ready supply of employees means that, in order to have any significant, long term effect on the illegal drug business you need to decrease demand to the point that the costs of doing business are no longer covered and/or the wages available are not sufficient to offset the costs of employment in the business.

Pouring ever more resources into police services, the courts and locking more and more people up for longer and longer periods will accomplish nothing except to steadily increase taxes (or fees, premiums, etc) and/or add substantially to the debt and/or force reductions in funding for other areas (healthcare, education).

An ironic twist is that cutting the social programs that governments consider soft or easy to cut will increase the demand for products supplied by the illegal drug business, resulting in increased costs far higher than any costs ‘saved’ through program cuts.

As Alcoholics Anonymous, an organization with a great deal of experience with addiction, says “Doing the same thing, the same way, over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity”.

Rather than learn and change what we are doing, governments, and far too many citizens, advocate spending more to do more of what isn’t working. Is that not insanity2?

This pointlessly insane and substantial resource wasting behaviour results from overlooking or ignoring the fact that whatever labels you choose to apply to the illegal drug trade, the trade is at its core a business.

In order to achieve positive desirable outcomes when dealing with this business, it is a MUST that policies reflect that it is a business.

It does not matter what we as a society believe or what we as a society want to be the case – an analysis of the illegal business reveals that the only effective approach that will make permanent, long term inroads in the illegal drug business is to focus our resources on reducing demand, getting customers of the business into recovery.

Analysis of illegal drugs as the business it is reveals that it is pointless insanity to continue to increase the resources we waste on current policies.

Reducing demand is the only approach that will reduce the illegal drug business by reducing demand.

[‘Only approach’ short of fundamentally changing the nature of the business through legalization; an approach that, no matter how rational, is unlikely to occur until current policies inflict so much financial cost, financial pain (and that point will come), that no other option is left but legalization.]

Unfortunately demand reduction, requiring patience, commitment and time, is not the fast, easy, miracle solution governments and citizens want.

Meaning both the problem and waste of resources will continue to grow, until financial pain forces policy change.

Addiction, Federal, Municipal, Provincial

“And how will you be paying for that?”

Leave a comment

The interesting thing about reading and watching the reporting on the Abbotsford town hall meeting was not what speakers such as Abbotsford’s Chief Constable Bob Rich or Ed Schellenberg’s brother-in-law Steve Brown had to say, nor the comments and statements from the public – it has been said before in other forums on crime and will be repeated again and again at future public forums on crime, often by the same people.

When boiled down the refrain from speaker after speaker was – more, more, more, more, more, more ……

The 800 pound gorilla that only one group raised and that everyone else ignored and/or failed to address, the 800 pound gorilla that renders all comments, statements and calls for action moot without it being addressed, is $$$$$$$. How are we going to pay for the more, more, more, more, more, more ……?

During Abbotsford’s budget process for the coming fiscal year a fiscal reality facing the City of Abbotsford is that leaving the funding for the Abbotsford Police Department (APD) at the same level as last year would necessitate cuts to the APD.

In order to just maintain the APD at the same level of operations as this year’s level will require an increase in the APD budget. Increasing the activities of the APD would require an even larger increase to the APD’s budget.

Increases to the APD budget are not measured in just the increased in property taxes; it is important to consider the costs to other city services that are forgone or cut to fund the APD budget appetite for yearly funding increases.

The Abbotsford Fire Department is undermanned for a city the size of Abbotsford. Yet the hiring of new firefighters is on indefinite hold because of the voracious appetite the APD (and the other lower mainland police departments) have for increases in funding.

Recall that in Vancouver, and other metro Vancouver cities, cuts were made to the staff and equipment of fire departments in order to have money to meet increase police funding needs.

At what point will the need to decrease the investment in fire departments to fund increases to police departments result in significant increases in fire losses and the cost of fire insurance?

It is not just the fire departments; cuts will need to be made across the board on city services to avoid large property tax increases – all to meet the increasingly voracious appetite of police services.

Cuts that will be required year after year as police costs devour an ever increasing percentage of city budgets.

And police costs are the cheap part.

Faster court processes, more trials, less plea bargains and more incarceration – these all require significant increases in resources both provincially and federally – resources that come at substantial cost.

The federal conservatives speak of spending $9 BILLION to build new prisons. And building the prisons is the cheap part. Operating the prisons is the costly part of increasing the prison space in the country, requiring as it will year after year after year of increasing expenditures.

Interestingly, at a time the federal Conservatives are speaking of the need to incarcerate ever increasing numbers of people, the conservative government has made cuts to the current years Corrections Canada’s budget. If the government finds it necessary to reduce the costs associated with the current levels of incarceration – just how do they propose to fund the ever increasing costs associated with increasing levels of incarceration?

The sizable funding increases needed to pay for substantial increases in incarceration levels have to be paid for somehow.

How will you choose to pay for increasing levels of incarceration – large tax increases to provide the $billions needed to fund this course of action OR do we fund the $billions needed through major cuts to healthcare and other programs?

Realistically healthcare and to a lesser degree education, are the only budget areas with sufficient funds to begin to offset the costs of a policy of incarcerate, incarcerate, incarcerate. Indeed, given that healthcare costs are consuming an ever increasing percentage of provincial budgets (threatening, at least mathematically, to require 100% of provincial budgets) and that a policy of ever increasing levels of incarceration will consume ever increasing levels of future provincial and federal budgets (unless taxpayers are willing to pay annual tax increases to cover the costs of incarceration) then at some point a decision, a choice, will be required between funding healthcare or funding the incarceration of increasing numbers of people.

“Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.” George Santayana

The only thing that kept the state of California from bankruptcy was the fact it was a government. The main driver of California’s budgetary debacle was its policy of incarceration, incarceration, incarceration and the prohibitive costs associated with that policy. Addressing California’s budget crisis is why governor Schwarzenegger proposed legalizing marijuana.

The state of New York recognized and publically acknowledged it too was on a path where, without massive tax increases, all the state’s budget would soon be spent on the policy of incarcerate, incarcerate, and incarcerate. New York State chose to back away from incarceration in order to avoid a financial/budgetary disaster.

Smaller states had already found that they could not afford to pursue a policy of incarceration, incarceration, incarceration and abandoned policies that require ever increasing levels of incarceration.

It would be … to be blunt … STUPID to waste resources, in particular the resource of time, to follow a policy that simple mathematics and results of following the policy in other political jurisdictions demonstrate to be economically unfeasible to the point of budgetary meltdown.

Abbotsford, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada cannot afford the massive waste of resources that being unwilling to learn from the experience of other jurisdictions who pursued policies of incarcerate, incarcerate, incarcerate – simply because they do not want to hear evidence that makes clear that giving into the desire for vengeance by incarcerating more and more people for longer and longer periods of time is financial and budgetary suicide.

We simply cannot afford to act like children, refusing to acknowledge what the cost of pursuing a policy of incarceration will be because we do not want to hear anything that would interfere with doing what we want to do – lock ever increasing numbers of people up.

Unless of course increased taxes, decreased healthcare and other services while dealing with continued increases in mental health, addiction and the crime associated with these health/social issues is what citizens and politicians are seeking to achieve?

The truth, unpalatable as it may be to many, is that as a society we lack the resources to continue to pursue policies that are ineffective simply because they are based on what people believe to be, or want to be, true.

Truthfully, we can no longer afford to pursue policies that are ineffectual period; our decreasing resources dictate pursuing policies based on effectiveness not on palatability or “but I want to”.

Federal, Issues, Media, Municipal, Provincial

Action speaks louder than words

Leave a comment

For years I have watched as businesses, organizations and other assemblages in Abbotsford, some of which one would have expected more character or compassionate behaviour from, have erected fences and gates on doorways, stairways, walkways, overhangs or other locations were the homeless had sought shelter from the relentless rain of our rainforest/rain-coast weather.

I have listened as governments, politicians, businessmen, unions, churches and people have all spoken about the need to do something about homelessness and poverty – or more accurately the need for SOMEONE ELSE to do something; pointing fingers and declaring it was not their responsibility.

Listened as people and assemblages evoked ‘undeserving’ and other such rationalizations as excuses for turning away from the need for action; ignoring the truth that action or inaction is not about the people in need but about us – our character, the essences of our souls/spirituality, the very nature of the society we have chosen to build.

Watched Abbotsford politicians scramble to say the right words, utter the proper catch phrases and language, while failing to provide leadership on housing – all the while managing NOT to have any affordable rental housing built or even break ground while the communities around Abbotsford have been building affordable rental housing.

Heard ad nauseum from Abbotsford’s politicians that they have no money to invest in housing that poor and homeless citizens can afford to rent; yet these same politicians have $millions$ to spend to buy a professional hockey team for a local hotelier and other wealthy (and housed) citizens.

Watched the gnashing and gnarring of teeth as people, politicians et al wring their hands and denounce society as defective, deficient. As thought the ills of society have no connection to or do not result from the choices made, actions taken (and untaken) of people. Our society did not, does not, spring from a void or the choices and actions of some mysterious group of ‘others’.

Society is the consequence of the additive effect of the choices and actions we all make and or take. Leaving one pondering whether people will ever understand that our society will not improve until we as individuals begin to ‘Let it begin with me’.

Pondering whether poverty and homelessness and other social ills will continue to grow and worsen as people, politicians, businesses, organizations, other assemblages seek to blame others and avoid taking personal responsibility for their choices and actions and the consequences of those and actions – and inactions.

Still, today …

B is one of the homeless living on the streets of Abbotsford. He had been taking shelter under the overhang at a warehouse that had remained empty since it was completed, but which had recently been leased.

As part of managing the move into this new location P had become aware that B was living sheltered by the building and had spoken with B about his situation, the realities of B’s life.

There were no demands that B leave the shelter provided him by the building; no fences or gates to deny B access to the shelter provided by the building; no calls to city hall demanding the city, the police, remove B.

Instead P provided a home for B. Looking at it most people would see a garden shed; unless they looked through B’s eyes or the eyes of those who are or have been homeless. There is drainage, a solid floor, a roof and walls proof against wind, rain and snow that will keep bedding, clothing, other belongings as well as a body dry.

There was no declaration that it was not his responsibility; no screaming about the need for SOMEONE ELSE to do something; no pointing of fingers to assign blame; no wringing of hands about the need for a ‘solution’. P simply took action and provided shelter for B.

Homelessness, addiction, mental illness are people problems and as such they are complex and troublesome issues without fast, easy solutions; looking for a miracle, arguing about who is responsible – someone else – and waiting for someone else to do something allow these problems to grow.

There are numerous best practices that we know work to address various aspects of these social issues; we know that we can, over time, reduce the numbers of homeless, addicts and mentally ill on our streets.

If we commit to addressing these issues, commit to doing what it takes for however long it takes, we can deal with these issues.

The key is, as P did, not to dither but to act.