Shame, Shame, SHAME …

… on that naughty Lynn Perrin. Imagine Ms Perrin daring to think that the purpose of the short 15 minute question period at the end of public council meetings was for … … asking council questions.

Why should council be accountable to citizens or have to answer the questions of citizens? What do people think Abbotsford is – a democracy?

Why should council be expected to explain:

·Why it is that while council always cries it has no money to do anything about housing for Abbotsford’s poorest citizens it has millions of dollars to purchase a professional hockey team/franchise for wealthy Abbotsford citizens.

·Why it is council pleads poverty when it comes to building affordable housing yet it can find $45 – $50 million to cover the cost overrun in building the arena.

·Why should citizens have any right to expect council to explain why the arena cost was almost (as far as citizens know) 100% over budget and why council felt free to spend double the amount council guaranteed citizens was the maximum cost and to hold council accountable for the doubling of the cost.

·Why would citizens expect the mayor or councilors not to vote on matters that directly affect the profits of companies or people who have contributed money to their election campaigns? The fact that these companies or people have made payments, make that contributions, and may possibly make future payments, I mean contributions, surely would not have any influence on how the mayor or councilors vote. You wouldn’t let the fact someone gave you money make a difference in how you voted on a matter of interest to them– would you? Although it does make one wonder whether any of the ownership group of the Abbotsford Heat made any political donations to members of Abbotsford council.

·Certainly citizens have no right to expect the mayor and council to respect the intent and spirit of legislation governing BC’s municipalities rather than finding ways to circumvent the legislation in order to obligate the taxpayers of Abbotsford for a $75 million dollar liability.

·Just because watering restrictions began April 1st and a total ban began July 1st, even though this was a wet cool spring, citizens certainly have no rights or reasons to question council about their actions, or lack thereof, in preparing to meet Abbotsford’s current and future water needs. I have no doubt that should there be a need for rationing water from the municipal system City Hall will find any monies necessary for bottled water for city hall.

·Why would citizens question how or why it is that in just two short years Abbotsford has gone from being debt free to BC’s most indebted municipality?

No, citizens should not be asking council questions they should be grateful to mayor and council. After all:

·The unfunded $75 million liability council committed taxpayers to covering is now down to only $67.5 million.

·The $7.5 million reduction in this unfunded liability only cost the taxpayers $2.6 million. Well $2.6 million in direct subsidy payments to the Heat ownership plus the additional $2.5 million cost of the operating loss absorbed by the city as the cost of operating the arena for the Heat to play in.

·Council will no doubt get on top of the water supply issue – hopefully before the taps run dry.

·Even if there are no restaurants or coffee shops or any other such amenities open latter in the evening people, couples looking for something to do in Abbotsford later in the evening can always go to ARC and workout in the gym until midnight.

·Look at all the money saved by council not doing proper maintenance at Matsqui pool and then using the condition of the pool to close it.

How dare Ms Perrin force council to cancel the public’s opportunity to ask council questions by asking them questions.

Of course Mayor Peary is quite correct – council bears no responsibility for cancelling the question period simply because they cancelled the question period to avoid taxpayer/voter questions.

Ms Perrin should have known that the purpose of the question period was not the questioning of the mayor or council but to provide an opportunity for people to praise councils decisions and behaviours.

Of course that would be a lot easier if the decisions and behaviour of the mayor, council. councilors and city management were not of such a questionable nature and they had accomplished anything praiseworthy.

Thoughts on the Toronto G20

While Mr. Harper may consider a meeting that produces a piece of paper that is no more likely to be acted upon that any of the past G20 meeting agreements a success, it is understandable how Canadians living with the impact the financial downturn and Mr. Harper’s policies have had on Canadians living in the real world regard Mr. Harper’s $billion$ dollar photo-op as a failure and a profligate waste of money.

Going into the meeting Mr. Harper was seeking agreement on switching from stimulus to austerity in the name of deficit reduction and to avoid any topics he did not want to talk about (the increasing levels of poverty and homelessness, the lack of a national housing strategy and the disproportionate negative effect these issues have on women and children in Canada).

Obviously Mr. Harper is hoping that getting the G20 to call for a switch to austerity will provide political cover for the budget when it begins to inflict pain on most Canadians – ‘It is not my (Mr. Harper’s) fault, the G20 decided on this’.

I say most Canadians because, while these cuts will be devastating to the poor and painful for average Canadians, the budget will undoubtedly be generous to wealthy Canadians and Corporations – after all Conservative ideology is that you have to preferentially treat business and the wealthy.

So, with Mr. Harper hosting a G20 meeting from which he wanted to achieve an agreement to move from stimulus to austerity what does Mr. Harper do?

He wastefully spends $1.2 billion, the lion’s share of which includes spending 30 times more on security than has ever been spent for security at a G20 meeting before and splurging on fake lakes, false backgrounds for reporters to use to file their stories and other luxuries.

At a G20 meeting where Mr. Harper’s agenda was about imposing austerity on the average citizen, about creating more poor, more poverty, more homeless, more social inequity – Mr. Harper spent as though cost was no object.

Why is it that when politicians talk about the need for austerity and deficit reduction, that austerity never applies to them? When the actions of the government result in job losses or lower salaries why aren’t government MP’s laid off and the salaries or the golden pension of the remaining MP’s reduced?

I wonder: if the members of the government were forced to share the pain their decisions and policies caused, just how much less cavalier and more thoughtful these decisions, not just decisions on austerity but all decisions, would be?

At the very least, if you are holding a G20 meeting about the need to end stimulus and impose austerity that meeting should be austere not a billion dollar luxury boondoggle.

You hold it at a military base were security is already in place.

Not enough accommodation for all the staff that wants to attend? Bring smaller entourages.

No luxurious accommodations? Base housing, barracks, military meals … it would serve to remind the leaders and the attending civil servants about economic and housing realities in the lives of real people. A reminder that this G20 meeting demonstrates is badly needed by Mr. Harper and his government.

Holding it on a military base or somewhere other than the downtown core of Toronto would not have turned downtown Toronto into a ghost town, shutting down businesses and disrupting the lives of millions of Canadians. Unless, of course, you’re a Politician of Mr. Harper’s nature – then your wants outweigh the needs or good of millions of ordinary Canadians.

Mr. Harpers comments on “the invading vandals heading to the nearest large city” highlight Mr. Harper’s preference for seeing what he wants or needs to see to justify the decisions made.

Having those whose only aim is vandalism and rioting head for the nearest city is exactly what you should want to achieve as it will separate out those whose only purpose is violence from the legitimate protesters who will be on location at the G20 meeting site. Proper planning would ensure that when the vandals show up on city streets – without the cover of thousands of protesters to hide in – police could move in and arrest them.

Toronto’s mayor is correct in asserting that the federal government should not only be compensating businesses for lost business as a result of closing down downtown Toronto but should bear the costs of cleaning up the mess of the rioting and should be compensating businesses for any costs they are out of pocket as a result of the riots.

All of these costs resulted from the poor judgment shown by Mr. Harper’s government in choosing to hold the G20 meeting in downtown Toronto and so are the responsibility of Mr. Harper’s government.

What makes spending any money on the Toronto G20 spendthrift, and the amount actually spent obscene, is that the history of agreements arrived at during G20 meetings indicate that this current agreement has all the worth of what it is – a bunch of politician’s promises that are no more likely to be kept than the promises made at previous G20 meetings or during elections.

Given that the US is worried about a double dip recession and plans on continuing stimulus spending to avoid stalling the US economy into that second, possibly deeper and longer, downturn the so-called agreement is not worth the cost to print it.

In fact reality may yet intrude on Mr. Harper’s ‘successful G20 meeting’ as the latest economic numbers, together with what is taking place in the equity markets and developments in other nation’s economies suggest the worldwide economy is still in a very fragile state.

Which raises the disturbing question: is this what Success has become?

Watching the politicians, pundits and media falling all over themselves to proclaim what a success the G20 meeting was engendered a ‘we’re doomed’ response from this writer.

Generating a piece of paper covered with fancy words and political promises (and we all know just what those are worth) at a G20 meeting when the words and promises of prior G20 meetings were relegated to the scrapheap as soon as the meetings were over, is not a success.

Landing a man on the moon and returning him to earth was a success. The performance of Canada’s athletes at the Vancouver Olympics was a success. Creation of the Charter of Rights and freedoms was a success.

In each of these instances something concrete and valuable was achieved.

Reducing poverty instead of increasing it; reducing homelessness instead of increasing it; providing leadership on the issues of mental health and addiction instead of ideology that ignores both knowledge and reality; creating more financial equity in Canada rather than increasing the inequity by robbing from the poor to give to the rich; increasing the social equity in Canada rather than creating a class structure; providing leadership that helps citizens strive to be Canadians rather than wannabe Americans; would be concrete and valuable goals and achievements.

A billion dollar photo-op is not a success – unless your goal is to bankrupt Canada both financially, ethically and of the Canadian Spirit.