Resume page 2
Action speaks louder than words
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.
You call that News? Reporting?
CBC News Vancouver was at the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre as part of being “on the road to visit communities around Metro Vancouver and in the Fraser Valley”. The promotions touted that they would be examining the stories of import to the citizens of the community they were visiting that day.
Did CBC News Vancouver address issues of local import or was their claim of addressing issues of local import simply more media hype?
I can only knowledgably address whether CBC News Vancouver addressed stories of import to the citizens of Abbotsford during their visit to the AE&SC.
During a record setting wet spring Abbotsford was the only lower mainland community to impose water rationing (or in politician speak: watering restrictions) beginning April 1st with the imposition of tighter rationing July 1st.
Given: Abbotsford city council is offering tax holidays to promote growth, even though the water delivery system is inadequate to meet current needs even under favourable (record wet spring) conditions; that council has stated they no intention of bringing needed upgrades to the water delivery system on line before 2018; the large capital cost involved in upgrading the water delivery system and the financial bind/disaster that city council has placed the City of Abbotsford in; the importance of water to the liveability of modern cities.
The issue of the water supply for the City of Abbotsford is of prime, if not the primary, interest to the citizens of Abbotsford. Did this item of considerable consequential importance receive even a mention on the CBC News Vancouver when they visited the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre?
No.
Given: Abbotsford city council has raised fees for sports fields, rinks and other sporting venues such that more and more children cannot afford the fees to participate in organized sports in Abbotsford; the fees for the cities exercise facilities are higher than the fees for private facilities; the city pleads poverty in addressing any of the growing social issues plaguing Abbotsford; that Abbotsford city council acknowledges that the act governing municipalities is designed to prevent the type of agreement entered into between the Abbotsford Heat and the City of Abbotsford but proudly claims to have legally circumvented this prohibition.
Did CBC News Vancouver ask mayor Peary about the fact Abbotsford City Council is purchasing, or at least contributing millions of dollars to the purchase, of a professional hockey team for a few wealthy, and obviously well connected, Abbotsford business people?
Did CBC News Vancouver ask Mayor Peary how or why a mayor would be proud of circumventing the intent of the act legislating municipal governance?
No and No.
Given: even the most cursory research on usage of the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre would reveal that the facility is seldom used; that the usage by other that the Abbotsford Heat is decreasing, tending to zero; that the AE&SC has become, for all intents and purposes a private facility for the Abbotsford Heat.
Did CBC News Vancouver do even minimal due diligence before professing the AE&SC ‘well-used’?
No.
No, No and No, No. Is CBC News Vancouver guilty of false advertising for the claim that they would be examining the stories of import to the citizens of Abbotsford when they broadcast from the AE&SC?
Is No, No and No, No merely further evidence that broadcast television has for years misused the term ‘news’ instead of the more accurate and reflective of reality: ‘stories that will sell the most advertising, maximizing the contribution of the stories department to the bottom line’?
Or does No, No and No, No attest that the over-the-air broadcast stories (aka ‘news’), in its focus on pursuit of profit over useful or needed information delivery, made itself as redundant1 as the over-the-air Canadian broadcast television currently is?
I would answer Yes, Yes, Yes. But Readers must consider the information and decide for themselves.
1Footnote: The over-the-air Canadian broadcast television is a Sunset Industry as it evolved to rebroadcast foreign, primarily US, television programming to Canadians in an era when there were no alternative ways to cost effectively deliver this programming. Cable, internet, phone lines and satellites can now deliver programming, more programming, more efficiently than over-the-air broadcast television. This is why maintaining the over-the-air Canadian broadcast television as it is currently constituted requires a permanent tax subsidy imposed on Canadians by the CRTC. Without this permanent subsidy the industry will be forced to contract and re-invent itself in alignment with the market for over-the-air broadcast television services in Canada.
Reality begins to set in.
I was watching the 11 PM CTV news on Saturday September 18 and got a certain satisfaction as well as a chuckle from their report on the anti-HST campaign where the CTV Vancouver news department, for the first time by any mainstream media, began to ask people about the $1.6 Billion that the federal government paid to the BC government to enact the HST and that would return to federal government coffers if the HST were to be repealed.
The people they interviewed on camera both felt that it was better to keep the HST than to return the $1.6 Billion to the federal government. The report also cited emails from people who had signed the anti-HST petition asking how they could get their name off the petition now that they were aware of the $1.6 Billion consequence of repealing the HST.
Of course the organizers of the anti-HST, are trying to obscure the reality of the $1.6 Billion dollar cost by speaking of negotiating with the federal government even though there is nothing to negotiate as the purpose of the payments to BC were specifically for the purpose of inducing the BC government to implement the HST.
The first payment was tied to the introduction of the HST legislation, the second was tied to the day the HST came into effect and the final $475 million is payable on the first anniversary of the HST becoming law.
Clearly the federal government made the $1.6 Billion payments to the BC government for the enactment of the HST and is entitled to a refund if BC violates the agreement by repealing the HST; the same contract law that applies to individuals and corporations applies to governments as well.
There is no need for the federal government to negotiate if the HST is repealed in BC. If BC reneges on its HST agreement with the federal government they can reclaim, would be entitled to reclaim, any monies due them by the simple expedient of reducing transfer payments to BC by the amount they are owed.
Since the federal government makes transfer payments for healthcare and education exceeding the $1.6 Billion level they don’t need to ask the BC government for repayment, they can simply deduct any monies due the federal government for repeal of the HST from the transfer payments.
That is the reality of the consequences of repealing the HST and no matter how Mr. Vander Zalm, Carole James, the NDP and the anti-HST campaign wiggle or obfuscate this will remain the reality.
Which one hopes will leave Carole James and the NDP to explain how it is that they propose to increase spending on education and healthcare at the same time they are advocating, championing, cutting the $ 1.6 Billion in federal HST funds out of the BC budget.
And Mr. Vander Zalm et al to explain why it was they failed to address this major consequence of repealing the HST as part of their anti-HST campaign.