Category Archives: Provincial

Finances, Provincial

Budget Realities Establish Shelter Realities.

Leave a comment

I was at a meeting focusing on shelter needs in Abbotsford, what the shelter needs of Abbotsford are, whether the shelter needs are being met (are their gaps in shelter services) and what is the solution to meeting those needs.

Some members of the homeless, those with mental health issues, those with addiction issues community became aware of this meeting and felt their interests needed to represented and protected from any negative consequences resulting from this meeting.

I attend the meetings to represent one subset of the homeless/addiction/mental illness/poverty community who have concerns about their needs, wants and priorities being misrepresented by another subset of the homeless/addiction/mental illness/poverty community presenting their concerns as those of the entire community – when in fact the concerns being discussed at the meeting represent only the point of view of the one group whose voice is loud because they have organized and branded (labeled) themselves.

Which is why one of the tenets in the Tao of James is that when you are dealing with issues or problems involving people the idea that there is A SOULUTION is a fallacy.

The major component in the puzzle of providing shelter for those without a place to hang their hat or in addressing the issues of homelessness/addiction/mental illness/poverty is people

This does not mean you cannot address the issue(s) or work on ways to resolve these issues. What it means is you need to be cognizant of not squandering resources that could be used to address some important aspect of the issue trying to find or achieve a non-existent solution.

People feel that the provincial government is nickel and diming them to death with small increases in fees, taxes (i.e. the carbon tax) etc.

The governments is – because the cost of providing some of the most popular services government provides are increasing by double digit percentages every year; and while citizens demand government provide those services, citizens also demand the government continue to provide those services without tax increases.

An irrational and impossible demand which has created a host of negative consequences, but a demand that underscores the point that people as a factor in an issue or problem (such as the provincial budget)  introduces complexity, dilemma and unreality to the point that the idea that there is A SOULUTION is a fallacy.

Because of the (to me irrational) actions of BC voters in voting to return the $1.6 billion to Ottawa, for the next 5 years $300 million off the top of the budget will be going to Ottawa – leaving $300 million less to provide government services to the citizens of BC; $300 million that will have to be cut from the budget. Coupled with the fact that healthcare costs are increasing at double digit rates, you are looking at struggling to hold onto your piece of a shrinking pie, fighting for funding that is becoming scarce, much less increasing your share of that shrinking pie.

Shelters are not cheap to run. You have the rental cost of a space to use as a shelter, salaries for staff, food and food preparation costs, laundry facilities and supplies, repairs and maintenance, utilities, heat, cooling, water, costs of office services needed to keep the shelter running, insurance, etc.

The cost to house a given number of persons increases as the size of the shelters decrease and the number of shelters used to house that given number of people increase. Which is why the shelters opened in Vancouver over the past 5 years, particularly the cold wet weather shelters, are designed to house as large a number of clients as possible in any one shelter.

The additional cost for the shelter at the Salvation Army’s Centre of Hope to house 20 clients rather than 12 is not that significant because all the major costs remain the same and it is only additional costs such as food that are required to increase in order to raise the number of clients from 12 to 20.

However if one decided to split the 20 beds leaving 12 at the current shelter for people who are sober and open a separate shelter of 8 beds at a new shelter with minimal – if any rules – for those in their addiction……

The cost savings realized at the existing shelter by reducing the number of clients and available to fund any new shelter you open…….would probably not cover the cost of food at the new shelter (the cost of food to feed 20 at one location being less than the cost of food to feed 12 at one location and 8 at another).

The rental cost of a space to use as a shelter, salaries for staff, food preparation costs, laundry facilities and supplies, repairs and maintenance, utilities, heat, cooling, water, costs of office services needed to keep the shelter running, insurance etc would remain the same at the Centre of Hope shelter. Which means you would need to find funding to cover the rental cost of a space to use as a shelter, insurance, salaries for staff, food preparation costs, laundry facilities and supplies, repairs and maintenance, utilities, heat, cooling, water, costs of office services needed to keep the shelter running, insurance etc at any new location(s).

The financial reality is that by splitting the current twenty beds between two shelters – 12 beds and 8 beds – you double the cost of providing 20 shelter beds in Abbotsford.

The call for another, separate, shelter for those with substance use issues appears to revolve around the assertion that it isn’t ‘fair’ that those in their addiction have to obey minimal rules of civil behaviour, cannot use as they like, come and go as they like and behave as badly as they want. That it isn’t ‘fair’ that the sober clients have to endure the bad behaviour of those in their addiction. Or at least those in their addiction who take no responsibility for their actions.

But what about the best interests of those who are in their addiction but accept that an addiction or a mental illness does not absolve you of responsibility for your behaviour and the exercise in self control.

This group feel it would be unfair to force them into a shelter where the ‘inmates are running the asylum’. They feel that stricter standards of behaviour – for everyone – need to be set and enforced; that their rights are currently violated by the tolerance shown those who act out.

Does being ‘fair’ require a separate shelter to serve every groups needs?

Where is all this money going to come from, given the budget reality the BC government is facing?

It is imperative to keep the reality that the government of BC has less money available in the forefront of one’s mind and discussions to ensure that discussions address the question of priorities. If you face increasingly limited opportunities for funding to increase resources or services it is vital you set priorities – or you will find yourself with a new service or resource that is nice and without a service or resource that is vital.

Given that people are a major part of the puzzle seeking ‘perfect’ shelter resources is as fruitless as chasing a mirage. So the question becomes ‘Do you want to spend your limited resources or increases in resources chasing a mirage or should those scarce resources be spent on other needs with higher priorities?’

The financial reality is that any monies the provincial government found to open an additional shelter or shelters is going to come at the expense of some other program(s) in Abbotsford. A scenario that has repeatedly played itself out in the mental health services provided by Fraser Health in the Fraser Valley.

As to question of ‘fair’:

  • There’s never going to be a system that is fair to everyone. Shannon Miller
  • If the world were so organized that everything has to be fair, no living creature could survive for a day. The birds would be forbidden to eat worms, and everyone’s self-interest would have to be served.  Unknown
  • Life isn’t fair. It’s just fairer than death, that’s all.William Goldman
  • Life is not fair; get used to it. Bill Gates
  • I know the world isn’t fair, but why isn’t it ever unfair in my favour? Bill Watterson

The provincial government and the citizens of BC have been living beyond our means on borrowed money and borrowed time. The BC government sought to pay back the $1.6 billion owed to Ottawa vis-a-vis HST over 5 years out of fear that borrowing the entire amount would result in the province’s credit rating being downgraded – driving interest costs up. The BC government can no longer deny or avoid financial reality by borrowing.

We have one shelter in Abbotsford and the reality is that one shelter is going to have to serve a variety of needs, to be multifunctional.

And before voices of accusation spake words along the lines of ‘that’s easy for you to say’ – I was a client of the shelter while Homeless in Abbotsford. A time when there was no cold wet weather protocols, no extra beds opened during inclement weather. You were out in the weather and had to hunker down and survive – or not.

The William Booth Emergency Shelter is the name of Abbotsford’s Shelter.

Emergency: a sudden, urgent, usually unexpected occurrence or occasion requiring immediate action.

In an emergency – such as a fire – that damages your home, emergency services will put you up in a hotel for 5 nights. During that period you are expected to assess the situation and make arrangements for any housing needed beyond the fifth night. The 5 day stay at a hotel is to allow you to catch your breath, get a handle on what you need to do and to take the first steps to get on with what you need to do to recover your life.

At the shelter you get 5 nights then must wait 30 days before you get another 5 nights. Without the 5 day limit the shelter would fill up and nobody else would be able to get in until someone failed to return on time or found other housing arrangements.

People who are in need of a place to stay for a night or two to permit things at home to cool off; those in recovery homes who had a slip and need a place to stay for several days until they can return to their program; people who are travelling and find themselves in Abbotsford (with no money) in need of a bed for a night before continuing their journey; those who are visiting someone, have no money to spare and need someplace to stay; those who have to come to Abbotsford Hospital for treatment yet lack money for a place to stay; all those who needed emergency access to the shelter for a few nights would find themselves without a place to stay because the shelter was full.

Yes, there is a need for the ability to stay more than 5 nights. Because Abbotsford’s shelter has to be multifunctional to serve the variety of client needs, those who need to stay more than 5 nights to achieve their goal can talk to a Case Manager about their goal and what they will do to achieve that goal. Case Managers can extent the clients time in the shelter – as long as the client is working to achieve their goal and complying with the rules.

Someone can be removed from their plan if they do not take the actions/do the work they agreed to do to achieve their goal (it is not unusual for a client to agree to a plan to get extra nights and then do nothing to achieve their goal); if they fail to be there at 6 PM when the shelter opens (unless they have  a reason and an agreement with the Case Manager as to returning later) or if their behaviour results in them being removed from the shelter (although a behaviour agreement addressing the behaviour issues may allow them to remain on their plan).

Those on their way to treatment are provided the nights required for them to get into the facility they are seeking treatment in.

The major problem/issue/barrier facing the Abbotsford shelter is the lack of accessible, affordable, supportive and healthy housing for clients using the shelter to move into.  Abbotsford lacks housing for those who remain caught in their addiction or mental illness or other issues. Without such housing to move onto/into, clients cycle in and out of the shelter.

Experience has demonstrated that having the stability provided by housing helps people move forward in dealing with issues having a negative impact on their lives. Even for those who will not change significantly, stable housing is beneficial – and results in significant $$$$$ savings to taxpayers.

My personal concern with a focus on shelter is ending up with the situation developing in Vancouver with shelters becoming an easy, cheap way to house the homeless/addicted/mentally ill by warehousing them.

Without unlimited resources we must set priorities, work with and get the most out of the resources we have.

Caveat emptor, Provincial

BC Liberal Attack Ad a Revealing Freudian Slip?

Leave a comment

 

Listening to the BC Liberal’s radio attack ad on BC Conservative leader John Cummins what struck me was the use of the phrase  “Just what we need,another unprincipled politician.”

According to Freud, slips of the tongue reveal a ‘source outside the speech’; a manifestation of the unconscious, guided by the super-ego and the rules of correct behaviour.

The use of the word ‘another’ is a rather damning Freudian slip of the tongue. The definition of Another: being one more or more of the same; further; additional.

The Liberal statement does not just say, or stop at saying, that Conservative leader John Cummins is unprincipled.

In the use of ‘another’ the Liberals are stating that BC politics already contains at least one unprincipled politician. Indeed the context and usage of ‘another’ in “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” suggests that BC politics is infested with ‘unprincipled politicians’.

In fact “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” can be read as a statement that all or nearly all of BC’s politicians are ‘unprincipled’.

Is the statement “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” a manifestation of an unconscious acknowledgement by the BC Liberals that the behaviour of the BC Liberals and the BC NDP has been, is and will continue to be ‘unprincipled’?

Is “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” an honest (being subconscious) statement that the only way out of the increasing quagmire BC is in is to turn out our current politicians with their unprincipled behaviour and to seek out new principled leadership and representation?

Consider, Federal, Municipal, Provincial

Do as I say……

Leave a comment

Just a few days ago Richmond BC resident Selina She Yin Tsui, who had held herself out as a “holistic healer”, lost two properties she owned after both were “declared instruments and proceeds of unlawful activity” under the province’s civil forfeiture laws.

What was unusual was not that someone collected money, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars for something they didn’t, couldn’t (Tsui had no actual medical training) deliver; rather it was that her ‘marks’ got some restitution.

Most often the reports are about how the con men (or women) made promises or claims, took people’s money, delivered nothing and kept the money or there were no assets or funds to repay the ‘marks’..

Citizens are always complaining that politicians lied or that they did not keep their promises.

The new television season of Holmes on Homes begins tonight, where Mike Holmes rescues homeowners from builders or contractors who made promises about what they would do, took the money to do what they promised, didn’t deliver what they promised and kept the homeowners money.

And on the news last night, there was Christie Clark coyly smirking about getting out of repaying Ottawa the $1.6 billion BC took to implement the HST.  Undoubtedly most British Columbians are cheering for Clark to be 100% successful in reneging on British Colombia’s written agreement with the federal government on implementing the HST.

As a society we like to talk the talk about integrity, morals, ethics, and principles as long as it isn’t costing us, as individuals or a society, anything or any inconvenience.  But as soon as it becomes inconvenient or is going to cost us effort, or worse money, we walk away – ignoring integrity, morals, ethics and principles.

We had an agreement with the federal government on the HST whereby the province of British Columbia would receive payments totalling $1.6 billion dollars in exchange for implementing the HST.

In that agreement it was clearly set out that we had the right to change our minds and extinguish the HST. It was also clearly set out that if we chose to change our minds and not participate in the HST, the $1.6 billion would have to be repaid to Ottawa.

The fact the $1.6 billion would have to be repaid to the federal government if we voted to extinguish the HST was oft cited in the discussion leading up to the referendum on keeping or extinguishing the HST. Prime Minister Harper clearly and definitely stated that if British Columbia chose to extinguish the HST the province would have to repay the $1.6 billion dollars to the federal government.

Knowing that a major consequence of choosing to extinguish the HST would be repaying Ottawa that $1.6 billion dollars, British Columbians voted to extinguish the HST – we voted to return the $1.6 billion to Ottawa.

That may be an inconvenient truth, but for a people or a society of integrity, morals, ethics and principles there would be no option other than returning the money.

***********************************************************************************************

The news has recently been full of the fact none of the rioters from the Game 7 debacle has been charged, much less meted out any punishment or consequences. About how the rioters needed to pay the penalty for their decisions and actions; and on the same broadcast we have Christie Clark sitting there acknowledging her efforts to get British Columbia out of the consequences of voting to extinguish HST.

Harper may well decide to forgive all or part of the $1.6 billion repayment due the federal government from British Columbia. Not because it’s a good idea, but as a matter of politics – an opportunity to buy votes in British Columbia. If Harper were a leader instead of a politician, he would clearly be saying “No, we had an agreement.  You made a promise, a commitment, to the federal government. We, the federal government, made the promised payments to British Columbia. But the province of British Columbia chose to change its mind and not participate in the HST. In the agreement it was clearly set out that if British Columbia chose not to participate it was required to repay the$1.6 billion.”

“It would be unfair to the other provinces and territories not to require British Columbia to repay these funds.  More importantly, it is necessary to require the repayment of these funds in order to protect the integrity of agreements made between the federal government, the provinces and territories, as well as agreements between the provinces and territories themselves.”

Consider the effect upon healthcare should the agreements between provinces, territories and the federal government become ‘flexible’ (not worth the paper they’re written on). Definitely a path we don’t want to start down, a can of worms we don’t want to open.

If Christie Clark was a leader instead of a politician, or if Stephen Harper was a leader and not a politician, there would be no question about the agreement between Ottawa and Victoria being kept as this is the best course for Canada and ultimately for British Columbia. It is in the fact they are politicians and not leaders that the possibility of a portion, or the entire $1.6 billion, not being repaid per the agreement lies. Because the question for politicians is not what is good for the country or province but what political gain is available to be had.

The reason we have politicians who lie to us rather than leaders, is that we are not a People or a Society, not a province or a country, of integrity, morals, ethics and principles as we like to lie to ourselves we are.

True integrity, morals, ethics and principle are not things one puts on when it is convenient and sets aside when they are inconvenient or uncomfortable or require sacrifice or the paying of a price.

As Martin Luther King Jr. stated “the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy”.