There are good reasons that Think Think Think is an Alanon slogan. Primarily, that not thinking things through, failing to carefully use thought to achieve an understanding of what the REALITY of the issue being decided IS and what the consequences of the choices that flow from that reality are, is how you find yourself sinking in the financial quagmire that BC, through its choices and actions, finds itself in.

Continuing to fail or to refuse to think or to consider reality and burying our heads in the sand of wilful denial is how you end up a financial disaster like Greece.

Or, as voters in BC did in June 2011, voting to reduce the services the government of BC (health care, education, etc) provides to citizens of BC by $300 million a year for the next 5 years.

Reducing services by $300 million a year may not be what voters intended to do when they voted to extinguish the HST. But by failing to invest the time and effort required to achieve an understanding of the HST and the consequences of extinguishing the HST, then voting to extinguish the HST, voters voted to reduce services provided by the BC government to citizens by $300 million a year for the next five years.

In order to understand how, in voting to extinguish the HST, voters were voting to reduce government services by $300 million a year for 5 years let us review the history of the HST in Ottawa and Victoria.

In late 2009 and early 2010 the BC Liberal government found itself in need of $458 million ($600 million final bill) to replace the roof on BC Place and a $billion$ or $two$ to replenish government coffers depleted by spending on the Olympics.

In Ottawa the federal government had just wrapped up its negotiations with Ontario as to the size of the bribe, I mean compensation, Ontario would receive from Ottawa to cover the costs of harmonizing Ontario’s sales tax with Ottawa’s GST.

With Ontario on board to bring in the HST, Ottawa turned its attention to getting Quebec and BC to harmonize their sales taxes with the GST; offering Quebec and BC $1.6 billion bribes, ahem – compensation, to bring in the HST.

Cash strapped as a result of Olympics costs and facing the need to pay for the new BC Place roof, BC’s Liberal government agreed to accept the – compensation – offered by Ottawa and bring in the HST.

When the BC Liberal government announced they would be bringing in the HST the citizens of BC jumped to the conclusion that the Liberals had lied during the provincial election, during which the Liberals had said they would not be bringing in the HST. With citizens citing the fact that politicians “ALWAYS” lie as ‘proof’ that the Liberals knew at the time of the election they would be bringing in the HST.

As to the matter of politicians lying. Voters point their fingers and accuse politicians of ‘always’ lying as if voters have nothing to do with politicians behaviour. For decades voters have been wilfully denying the Reality of what IS the state of affairs in BC (and Canada), wilfully denying the implications of the Reality of the state of affairs and the consequences that would (have to and do) flow from ignoring the Reality of what the state of affairs IS –  in favour of what voters WANT to be the Reality of the state of affairs.

In choosing to dwell in wilful denial, voters rewarded those politicians who told them what they WANTED to hear and punished any politician who dared to speak of what voters NEEDED to hear and consider. Only wilful denial would cause someone to be surprised that after decades of this behaviour, politicians now tell voters what voters want to hear – saying whatever is required to avoid telling voters anything that voters do not want to hear.

‘Politicians lie’ because voters have voted anyone who does not lie – particularly those who insist on addressing the Reality of the issues facing our cities, provinces, territories and country – out of office and out of public life. Thus voters themselves have voted to have politicians lie to them. A situation allowing voters to avoid facing financial Reality.

In the scheme of things it doesn’t really matter what Campbell and the Liberals knew and when they knew it, they had no choice but to say yes. Given the financial state of affairs in BC it would have been financially irresponsible not to take the $1.6 billion from Ottawa – and the additional revenue the HST would generate.

Feeling they had been lied to (ignoring their own culpability for politicians use of doublespeak to avoid telling voters what they don’t want to hear and to instead tell voters what they want to hear) voters condemned the government for implementing the HST.

Presented with the opportunity to exact a pound of flesh from Campbell and the Liberals – whose existence, by presenting an alternative to the NDP, led to the demise of the Social Credit and Bill Vander Zalm’s notoriety as the leader who killed the BC Social Credit Party – Bill Vander Zalm jumped on the anti-HST bandwagon and helped propel the issue to referendum.

While the political fallout suffered by the Liberals and Gordon Campbell’s resignation no doubt  were very satisfying to Vander Zalm, his actions in helping to extinguishing the HST have resulted in painful financial consequences and the financially driven need to reduce government services to citizens.

In an ironic twist of heroic size, Vander Zalm’s action put Gordon Campbell in London England as Canadian High Commissioner and allowed him to exit BC politics as the leader who lead the Liberals into power and left the Liberals in power with a majority. It also allowed Campbell to exit before financial realities began to place tighter and tighter constraints on what a BC government can do, what services it will have the revenues to supply and the need to cut services.

Which would have me, if I was in Mr Campbell’s shoes, enjoy a very merry last laugh.

Either Vander Zalm, sensing blood in the water, seized the opportunity to inflict a wound on Campbell and the Liberals OR Mr Vander Zalm is notably intelligence challenged. The implication, should Mr Vander Zalm possess a minimal level of intelligence, is that Mr Vander Zalm wanted his pound of flesh so badly he did not care how much financial damage extinguishing the HST of the fiancés of BC.   

Presented with the opportunity to score political points the NDP leaped on the bandwagon of a referendum and extinguishing the HST. Campaigning to reduce government revenues, even as the NDP called for the government of BC to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more on healthcare, education and other voter wants (as opposed to needs).

We are faced with another either. Either the NDP want power, to form the government of BC, so badly that they will do and say anything – no matter how much financial damage their actions inflict on the finances of BC OR the NDP are so financially incompetent that they see no conflict in advocating ripping $1.6 billion out of the finances of BC (giving it back to Ottawa), reducing sales tax revenue by extinguishing the HST – and being able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more on healthcare, education etc.

When voters exercised their right to extinguish the HST in a fit of temper, they surrendered their right to demand increased services from the government and surrendered any right to expect the same level of services from the government. Because in choosing to extinguish the HST, voters chose to reduce the dollars the government has available to purchase services (healthcare, hospital beds, classrooms).

Of course, living in wilful denial the voters of BC simply refused to acknowledge they had voted to reduce the funding available to the government to purchase services. The day after voting to rip $1.6 billion out of BC’s finances and to reduce government sales tax revenue voters were once again demanding more, more, more, more.

Which is how we arrived at the financial state BC is in today.

In light of the reality that Ottawa transfers more than $1.6 billion to BC every year, not repaying the money to Ottawa was not an option. Thus the BC government found itself forced to negotiate the repayment of the $1.6 billion over the next 5 years. Borrowing the $1.6 billion, and repaying Ottawa immediately was also not an option as it would have caused BC’s credit rating to be downgraded – pushing interest rates and the cost of servicing the provinces debt up.

Given the effect of debt levels on the provinces ability and cost to borrow; the sputtering state of the economy; the uncertainty of the economies around the world; voters refusal to pay to cover the cost of the services they demand (and receive) from the government: the funds available to the government of BC to purchase and pay for services for the citizens of BC will remain approximately what was available in the 2011 – 2012 financial year.

What does that portend for BC and its citizens over the next five years?

The monies available to purchase services for citizens will, for the next 5 years, be reduced by $300 million. In other words, in order to repay Ottawa the government of BC will have to reduce the services it provides to citizens by $300 million a year or manage to raise $300 million extra to offset the repayment to Ottawa. This is one of the consequences of voting to extinguish the HST.

Healthcare costs consume the biggest piece of the provincial budget. Unless – miraculously – the cost to purchase the same services next year as purchased this year remains the same (for the first time ever), the province will need to increase spending on healthcare  – just to hold services provided at the same level of services as this year.

People demand new operations, procedures, drugs, equipment, hospitals, hospital rooms, etc and ask why they are not available. Simple – no budget for these services means there is no money to pay for these services, ergo no services.

Healthcare was estimated at $15.7 billion for the 2011 – 2012 fiscal year. Over the past decade healthcare has increased 6.4% a year on average. Which leaves the government needing an additional $1 billion to pay for health care in the 2012 – 2013 fiscal year.

With the money cut from the budget by extinguishing the HST and no significant increases in revenue where will the money come from to pay for healthcare? or education? the courts?

Reality: if there ain’t no (enough) money, their ain’t no (the desired level of) services.

The report prepared on what Ontario will need to do to avoid becoming the first Canadian political jurisdiction to become a ‘Greece’ included pegging annual healthcare funding increases at 2.5% even though cost increases are running at 5%. In other words Ontario is faced with being forced to cut healthcare services provided to citizens because it has failed to keep its financial house in order.

Healthcare, Education, Justice system are all poised to devour substantially more dollars. But the dollars to pay substantially more for Healthcare, Education, Justice System do not exist.

Mr Dix can demand the government spend hundreds of millions, a billion of two, more dollars on healthcare, education and the courts. It will no doubt win the NDP points towards winning the next election. But no matter how hard Mr. Dix huffs and puffs……his demands are meaningless, pointless grandstanding when the money cupboard is bare.

With the government limited in the amount that it can borrow (without the cost of borrowing reaching levels where the more you borrow the less dollars you have to spend) and without significant increases in revenue, Financial Reality is threatening to force citizens out of their state of wilful denial and face to face with financial reality.

BC can begin to set priorities, begin to chose what we spend our limited funds on (healthcare versus pointlessly locking more and more people up), begin to acknowledge reality and make rational decisions based on what IS rather than what we BELIEVE or WANT to be.

Or we can bury our heads more deeply in the sands of wilful denial until suddenly we find ourselves on the international news as the latest political jurisdiction to have hit the Greece’d plunge into financial hardship and a bleak future for citizens.

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.