Just say no to homelessness...

It is finally time for innovative solutions for the homeless in our province. Years and years of throwing money at the problem hasn’t worked – the number continues to grow and taxpayers are weary.

In fact, what we’ve done is develop a whole network of government and non-profit agencies devoted to helping the homeless stay homeless. They provide emergency food, emergency shelter, and emergency medical care.

There is an old adage in economics: if you want to encourage something, subsidize it; if you want to discourage something, tax it.

Right now, in a sad way, we are encouraging homelessness, making it “bearable” to be homeless by providing these “emergency” services.

Now, before you get all twisted up, I’m not saying it is pleasant to be homeless and I’m not saying anyone wants to be homeless.

But let’s not forget we have built up a substantial industry of well-meaning people who make their livelihoods and defend their funding on the basis of supporting a homeless population.

The 2005 GVRD counted the total homeless population (in a 24 hour counting period) at 2174. I would suggest the number is higher, just because of survey techniques. I doubt the counters climbed through the bushes in Stanley Park enumerating all the tent dwellers, for instance.

Let’s say 3000 people in the GVRD are homeless. These, of course, are the truly homeless without access to a friend’s spare sofa and not knowing from night to night whether they will be sleeping in a crowded, fetid shelter or over a vent at Georgia and Burrard.

From the GVRD research, they are likely medically or mentally ill and struggle with some form of addiction. Most startling was the information that 55% of homeless had some form of income support from welfare, a pension or disability benefits.

So here is one radical idea and I’m sure there are more.

Why don’t we gather together each and every homeless service organization at BC Place along with each and every homeless person? Why not take each person, one at a time, diagnose the issues at the root of their inability to find or maintain housing and then put a plan in place for each?

More money for homeless services isn’t going to rid us of homelessness. In fact, it will do the opposite. If we take those funds and direct them to removing each person individually from the streets, we may actually make some lives better.

In the short-term, we can house them at BC Place while we sort it all out.

It is not right to help people stay on the streets. The only moral course of action is to remove them, forcibly if necessary, and assist them in building a new life.


As seen today in 24 Hours.

Paying Us Back

If the Government of Canada were a bank, do you think they would stand for only 17% of their outstanding loans being repaid or would you expect to have some heavy handed knocking on doors demanding the money be returned?

Over the past 23 years, more than $18 billion has been loaned to various corporations and businesses – and only 7% of that total has ever been recouped. It is important to understand that this $18 billion does not include distributions through other
departments, or the three primary federal regional development agencies in Atlantic Canada Quebec, and western Canada, or through other government sources.

This $18 billion comes solely from Industry Canada.

The first question is why have successive governments lent almost a billion dollars per year to business?

Now, in fairness, some of these transactions take place as loan guarantees for Canadian companies operating abroad and some of this grand total is for grants that are not expected to be recouped.

Loan guarantees shouldn’t cost taxpayers a cent, unless the Canadian company defaults.
Grants are a policy decision by government to encourage certain behaviours, like locating to a certain province or hiring unemployed workers.

But with both of these out of the mix, we are still left with $7.1 billion of payable loans handed over to corporate Canada, of which just over 17% has been returned to government coffers.

The worst offended is a program called Technology Partnerships Canada (TPC), which the Liberal government formed in 1996. In ten years, it has given out $3 billion and seen only $169 million returned – less than 6%. When TPC was formed, the government of the day predicted that $1.74 would return to Ottawa from every dollar doled out.

The Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation (CTF) calls the whole scheme “Corporate Welfare” in a scathing report issued last week. The report is a stunning tale of handouts gone terribly wrong and a general lack of accountability and oversight – all things, of course, that were brought to light in the 2005 SponsorGate scandal that help to topple the Liberal government.

According to the CTF, the Technology Partnership Council requires loans over $10 million be authorized by Treasury Board. Their report reveals that just about 10% of the funds distributed fall suspiciously under this threshold and therefore don’t require political approval.

In the words of the John Williamson, the National director for the CTF: "By getting out of the subsidy and regional development business, Ottawa could reduce the corporate tax burden. Savings of $2- to $4-billion could be realized annually if Ottawa recognized that corporate welfare was not a suitable role for the government.”

You can read their full report at: The 30-page report can be viewed at:
http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/2007_corporate_welfare_report.pdf

At What Point Comes "The Past"?

Do we bear, collectively, the responsibility for the historic wrongs of Canada?

How do we weigh the claims of past discrimination by the government and society towards our aboriginals, Chinese migrant labour, Japanese interred in war camps, and Dukabours stripped of their children, among others?

The majority of these less than savory moments occurred long before most of us were born or even lived in this country.

Jack Layton was back in BC this week and called again for an official apology for the Komagata Maru incident. MP Ujjal Dosanjh said that the Liberals would have done it, but they just didn’t get to it during 11 years of majority government.

For background, almost 93 years ago a ship of primarily Sikhs from India attempted to land in Vancouver. Held in the harbour for months, they were finally sent back to India, where there was a skirmish with police and 20 died.

At that time in our history, Canada had “Exclusion Laws”, which made it almost impossible for non-whites to immigrate to Canada – mostly as an effort to protect jobs of white Canadians in factories and lumber mills.

The laws of the time said that Indians had to have $200 to enter BC and must travel non-stop from India – highly unlikely as the average daily wage in India at the time was 10 cents and there was no ship making direct passage that would sell tickets to Indians.

A wealthy Indian businessman, Gurdit Singh, chartered a Japanese boat to make the journey, via Japan, in an attempt to circumvent the unfair laws. It didn’t work.

This scenario just wouldn’t happen today. We have policies in place to assist refugees seeking asylum and we have immigration rules that don’t discriminate on the basis of race.

Given that we have learned from our mistakes, is it necessary to formally apologize for the Komagata Maru or pay redress, as we have done with Chinese head tax survivors?

At some point, we have to close the books on the past and build on our legacy of an open, tolerant nation or risk playing pandering, race-card politics.

Almost any group in Canada can claim some kind of systemic discrimination. Women, for example, couldn’t vote until 1918. Should Canadians of the female gender receive an apology and compensation for this? Frankly, it doesn’t particularly bother me; we’ve learned from history and I can vote and my daughter isn’t in any danger of losing that right before she turns 18.

But in the race for seats in a minority parliament, sometimes politicians grasp for dangerous straws. A country must be about more than just the sins of its past.

Let’s move forward together rather than picking at the wounds of history.

Nurses Union: Politics Before Debate?

In the midst of the provincial government’s landmark “Conversation on Health Care”, the BC Nurses Union has shown that it has no interest in trying to find solutions to BC’s health care conundrum and would rather play politics with court cases.

On December 20th, the BCNU filed a revised argument in BC Supreme Court that basically called for a moratorium on private involvement in our health care system.

Fair enough opinion I guess from an entrenched public sector labour group whose driving aim is to grow its membership working in public facilities like hospitals and clinics.

It would be one thing if the government was cutting the health care budget. It isn’t. In 2006, the government spent $3.6 billion more on health care than just six years ago. The total health spending now sits at $12.8 billion or approximately 40% of the provincial budget.

It is no secret that we could spend more on health care. That’s one option. Of course, it would mean spending less on public transit, or education, or policing or welfare.

I don’t see the BCNU’s Supreme Court filing addressing those tough budget decisions instead they are rehashing old, tired rhetoric.

This overly politicized environment does nothing to serve the future sustainability of our health care system. It makes for good headlines, but doesn’t actually do much to deal with the looming spectre of an aging population reliant on public health services.

The average spent by government on health care for a 45-64 year old is $2364. This increases tenfold to $20,878 per senior 85 years and older. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know about the aging baby boomers who are starting to hit retirement age and approaching the time of their greatest impact on our system.

There are other factors in the increase of provincial health costs: more expensive drugs and new technology are among them. Fortunately, people are surviving health crises that even ten years ago would have killed them due to these phenomenal advances. We don’t want to turn back the clock, but we need to figure out some ways to lesson the impact on public coffers so that those who need services get them in a timely manner.

The BCNU is obviously mistrustful of the “Conversation on Health Care”.

Because the government is engaging directly with the public who aren’t traditional special interests, they can gain ideas untainted by public sector agendas.

This is probably quite nerve wracking for the BCNU who seem to have decided that instead of constructive solution making, court cases would make better public policy.

Find out more about the Conversation on Health Care at : www.bcconversationonhealth.ca. The BCNU filing can be found at: www.bcnu.org

Common Sense and Green

For some reason, the left gets all the credit about environmental progress in our country.

Stephane Dion, the newly elected Liberal leader waltzes in a green agenda that he couldn’t advance when he was actually the Environment Minister and now most of the media are acting like Canada will be saved from our mess of emissions and air pollution.

Let’s not forget that Canada has some of the worst air pollution in the OECD and some of the highest emissions of greenhouse gasses. We have all sorts of excuses, but the fact remains we need to do better.

You are right in thinking that this isn’t news, but we didn’t exactly see a lot of concrete action under the last Liberal government, even when it was propped up by Jack Layton’s NDP.

The fact remains that a significant amount of practical environmental legislation has been brought in by conservative governments, rather than ones on the other side of the fence.

It was John Fraser and Brian Mulroney who were able to leverage well-developed relations with the US into a successful bi-lateral acid rain treaty. A key issue of the 80s, emissions causing acid rain were responsible for devastation of Eastern and Central Canadian lakes and forests. While recovery has been slow, it took decisive action to end the degradation and begin the clean up.

The last conservative government in Canada also brought in the Environmental Protection Act, a thoroughly practical and common sense piece of legislation aimed to protect Canada from environmental problems like chemical dumping and water pollution.

History has shown that large, international environmental treaties are not effective in combating major pollution and environmental problems. One could argue they don’t accomplish much in the realms of child poverty, peace or disease either. They do make for interesting travel schedules for Environment Ministers, though.

The Kyoto Treaty is a very good example. While well-meaning, it has had to address so many competing agendas and various national development levels that it isn’t going to solve anything. It just isn’t practical.

The Federal Liberals, with Dion at the cabinet table, wasted over a decade and untold millions trying to make this treaty work when instead they should have just strapped on some guts and tried to improve Canada’s dismal performance in practical ways that wouldn’t hamstring industry job creation.

Perhaps the difference is in approach. The Liberals want the big-ego boosting bang that comes with pats of the back from around the world, even if it doesn’t actually fix anything for average Canadians and our precious environment.

The Conservatives don’t care so much about the glory or gratuitous pandering to voters around environment issues, they just want to get the job done in a common sense fashion.

What Maketh a Canadian - Part 2

Last week, I wrote about “Canadians of Convenience” – those citizens living abroad but keeping a Canadian passport as an insurance policy against civil strife or natural disaster. These dual citizens contribute nothing to Canada, but are happy enough to jump on a Canadian vessel when the bombs are falling, only to return to their true “homes” the next month.

There was no shortage of reader comment on that column. Some of you agreed whole-heartedly, some disagreed so vehemently my computer sizzled when the email arrived. Some readers felt I was bashing dual-citizens living here in Canada instead of those who have no intention of being “Canadians” but like the cache of the blue passport.

However, I also received two separate letters that have haunted me since they showed up in my inbox last weekend.

They were both passionately written by individuals who had wanted to immigrate to Canada.

They sold their homes, gave up their jobs, amassed their life savings, pulled their children from their schools and friends and launched themselves towards the great land of Canada.

Both were highly educated as engineers; both were confident after a short period of adjustment, they would find work and be able to support their families.

It just didn’t work out that way.

In a country crying out for skilled workers, their qualifications were questioned and their professional designations denigrated. There was no way to gain credit for their existing education and skills and support their families at the same time.

After six months, one was working as a security guard for $12 an hour, a long way from the career his education – and Canadian Immigration – had suggested would be his. They tried to stick it out, became Canadian citizens, enrolled their children in schools and tried to assimilate.

And, finally, after a number of hard years of not getting ahead, both letter writers returned to their native countries where they would be able to raise their families to a higher standard of living.

Both feel utterly betrayed by the Canadian government which encouraged them to apply, levied large immigration fees and didn’t breathe a hint of the challenges that would face them.

We all know nurses who are working as house cleaners and doctors who are driving taxi cabs. There is something very wrong about encouraging skilled workers to immigrate to Canada, and then refuse them the opportunity to work in their fields once they arrive.

There have been some efforts recently to right these inequalities. There is a plan on the table to put in place a process for the recognition of international educations and skills.

I don’t know how many of our citizens living abroad are those that chose to leave because they were mislead by the promise of Canada but I appreciate the letter writers who reminded me that not all who leave Canada are cut from the same cloth.

What Maketh a Canadian?

Sometimes an issue permeates to the top of Canadian consciousness so gradually that before you know it, everyone seems to be talking about it – and with a large measure of agreement.

The issue du jour? Dual citizenship.

It began last summer with the embarrassing spectacle of “Canadians of Convenience” clambering onboard whatever ships our government could commandeer during the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon only to turn around and return once the rockets had stopped falling.

We were shocked with the level of entitlement that these non-resident, non-taxpaying “citizens” showed.

How big a problem could we have?

Unfortunately Statistics Canada only tracks dual-citizens living in Canada – and there were just under 700,000 of these in 2001. However, as the Lebanon conflict showed, there are hundreds and thousands of Canadians living in other countries happy to avail themselves of the comforts of Canada when expedient.

As a state, we don’t track the citizenship status of Canadians living abroad. Goodness knows how many potential Lebanons are lurking in the future.

A great number of people from Hong Kong became Canadians during the days leading up to the take over of that region by China, with many staying and building lives for themselves here. However, many also returned to Hong Kong and currently about a quarter of a million Canadians live there. Close to a million Canadians live in the US. What if they needed to exit in a hurry?

Just to be clear, my quibble is not with those Canadians working or living abroad, but remaining engaged citizens of our great country. Instead I take exception to those who consider themselves nationals of another country first – but like the cachet or benefit of an extra passport in their pockets.

A Canadian citizenship, which doesn’t require military service or tax collection on foreign income, is a handy insurance policy to have. Canadians are also able to enter a significant number of other nations without entry visas.

And, as this summer’s events demonstrated, paying $85 million to evacuate “Canadians of Convenience” was not what we were aiming for with our very liberal citizenship policies.

In the perplexing Stephane Dion red herring case, the issue of his being both a French and English citizen is pretty much moot as there is a section of the French civil code that disallows French citizens from holding government or military positions in another country.

What isn’t known is if this was enforced during his time in the Chretien and Martin cabinets but it would certainly come into effect if he ever became Prime Minister.

Stephane Dion isn’t the problem. He is clearly Canadian, with his life and roots here.

The problem is the hundreds of thousands of “Canadians” who are Canadian in passport colour only.

The Final Choice

Such variety of riches is laid before the Liberal membership this weekend.

Oh but who to chose as leader?

Who best to unseat that evil pretender Stephen Harper and return milquetoast and liberal values to a nation crying out – screaming, really – for safe, comfortable, paternalistic leadership?

There are four noble knights arrayed before us in hues ranging from pinko orange to deep, majestic, federalist blue.

From left to right we survey the contenders – or from top to bottom, if you prefer, after all the Post-Martin Liberals are nothing if not completely flexible in position, as well as principle

First due mostly to his capture of key Ontario seats and the easy scoop of those time-honoured gimme votes from long time party glitterati who mustn’t dirty themselves with something so…democratic….as a delegate selection meeting, is the academic Ignatieff.

Sitting in a hotel room this week, counting and recounting votes, must be a disheartening task for man quite sure that 20 years in the US teaching liberal radicals at Harvard had prepared him for the difficult task of waltzing away with one of the biggest rings in Canadian politics.

Unfortunately, Alberta Liberals (all eight of them) and those in BC felt quite differently. Hence the tough math lesson – similar to the one faced by Preston Manning and Jean Cherest in their quest for leadership glory. Just because you are convinced you are the right choice, doesn’t mean those pesky commoners are going to vote for you.

BC Liberal delegates are strangely attracted to Bob Rae. Not strangely, of course, if you consider our penchant for radical mid-stream conversions on the political road to Damascus.

Forget Bob Rae, the NDPer who brought Ontario to its knees, a la Ujjal Dosanjh. Think, instead, of Bob Rae the underdog battling against the odds of an unlikely comeback and an electorate trying to erase from their minds the sight of his naked knees on national tv diving into frigid waters with Rick Mercer.

Yep. That sounds like great Prime Minister material.

It is hard to place Gerard Kennedy on the winner’s podium. As a good critic, sure, battling it out the House of Commons but Liberals are not as keen to see him caretaker of our great nation.. He might be better, perhaps, as an earnest, geeky science teacher in a crowded middle school classroom..

I’ve held out hope that Stephane Dion will cross the line first. I predicted as such, even up until a month or so ago. But the tide has turned in Liberal Quebec and now I am not so sure. Distinct society, regardless of the name, steels the soul of the Quebecois.

A deal with the devil will be struck. Someone will emerge victorious. Balloons will fall and ringing speeches given. People will kiss – some on both cheeks.

It is hard to imagine any of these men strong enough for the heavy yoke of Canada.

Only Nixon Can Go?

The politics of China have broken more careers of warriors and statesmen than any other nation.

For some reason, the behemoth that is China threatens and fascinates business leaders, politicians and royalty alike. There is a strange mythology, especially in the four decades since Nixon’s surprise visit, that one shouldn’t criticize the world’s most populous nation.

There are two stark theories circulating in respect to the biggest remaining communist state and how we frame our relationship with it.

One is to pretend China is an open democracy like the rest of us and trade away, hoping that the flow of wealth and a growing middle class will bring true freedom to the nation.

In other words, if we get enough BMWs into the hands of the Chinese people, maybe they will spontaneously rise up and slough off the stain of communism.

The other option, which is currently out of favour by most observers, is to shut off the tap of metals, timber and coal and stop importing goods manufactured in China. In other words, force revolution by starvation.

Both theories are dangerous and remain just that - theories.

But there is a reality about China we have to face as freedom and truth loving people.

Although its progress in terms of developing a strong middle class is marvelous, China operates political prison camps for those opposed to the regime, suppresses religious freedom (including the plucky Falun Gong it calls a cult), displays aggressive and possibly genocidal policies in Tibet and, most importantly of all, does not allow free and fair elections.

Stephen Harper’s visit to Asia this last week has highlighted the gulf between the two approaches and the political risk in even a moderate shift in how Canada engages with China.

Unlike the previous obsequious approach taken by Canada, Harper was not willing to meet with the Chinese Leader, Hu Jintao, unless they could discuss human rights issues.

Hu initially declined to “lose face” and the Chinese propaganda machine kicked into high gear. Remember, these are the people that denied the slaughter of students in Tiananmen Square – they can spin pretty much anything. Finally China backed down and Harper got his meeting, but not before Bill Graham and the rest of the Liberal caucus gleefully brought out the knives.

For some reason, the Federal Liberals bought the Chinese spin that China should not be held to account for the imprisonment of Canadian citizens and the organ harvesting allegations of its own.

Stephen Harper put his reputation on the line in the international sphere because he believes otherwise and reminded all of us that sometimes standing up to the bully is the first step to building a better relationship.

Stumbling and Running Towards Montreal

Two more desperate weeks of campaigning lay ahead for the Federal Liberal leadership candidates as they eye the finish line in Montreal at the end of the month.

This race has been running so long that most of us can only remember the highlights: Volpe’s kiddy cash donations, Ignatieff’s professorial chats about Israel, Bob Rae’s naked plunge off a dock with Rick Mercer, and the only westerner Hedy Fry’s abrupt entry – and exit- from the contest.

But now, we’ve got the nasty little mess that the Liberals have contrived for themselves on the never-ending, party-splitting topic of Quebec nationalism.

This issue has torpedoed more politicians than any other – the wreckage left by the Charlottetown Accord and Meech Lake are excellent reminders of how foolish the Liberals are being to taint a shiny new leader just trying to get out of the gate.

The Federal Liberals have been masters at massaging the issue of Quebec’s status in Canada since the days of Trudeau’s one-fingered salute.

By balancing that province’s need for ready cash with their ambition for recognition within our sometimes precariously balanced country, the Liberals have managed through slush funds, alternating Francophone and Anglophone leaders and sheer dint of determination to hold a commanding presence in the vote-rich province.

So why the Liberal membership felt it a good idea to bring forward a policy proposal to give Quebec official “nation” status within Canada is beyond most political observers in the country.

First of all, who knows what it even means?

Would the proposal actually give Quebec something new? Is it a fresh take on Confederation and a gutsy move to re-open potentially painful constitutional debates?

Or is the proposal, brought forward by the fiery Quebec wing of the party, just an attempt to staunch the vote bleeding in that province?

Let’s not forget the last twelve years were not happy ones in Quebec for Liberals, capped off as they were by the sponsorship scandal which exchanged political donations for taxpayer money.

And stumbling front-runner Ignatieff, who embraces controversial and weighty issues as opportunities to pull on his gown and cap for sophomoric lectures, has fallen for the bait with his comments this week that back up the proposal.

Surely his campaigners know better than this.

Unless they have some pretty good tracking showing this is the only way to pull second round votes off of the other candidates, they’ve made a serious error in judgment.

Or maybe, just maybe, the whole thing is a devious plot hatched in some dark backroom to flush the candidates out from behind their well-constructed message machines.

In which case – it’s good to have the Liberals back.

What's wrong with fat kids?

This week US medical journal, Pediatrics, released a startling study reporting that our kids aren’t just obese, they are packing on the pounds in their abdominal region.

We no longer have middle age spread, we have primary school spread.

Which means that formerly age-related conditions like diabetes, hardening of the arteries and liver disease are expected to balloon among our young.

One can of pop a day can cause weight gain of 15 pounds a year in an adult. Just imagine what it could do to a child.

Add to that a small bag of chips or a so-called energy bar, and the caloric needs of your child are met and they haven’t even gotten to dinner yet.

The solutions aren’t easy, and require more than government taxing junk food or banning vending machines in schools, though those are a good start.

It comes down to this: moms and dads need to step up to the plate and stop feeding their kids too much. We aren’t growing prize winning pigs, here.

The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends 90 minutes of physical activity per day for each child and limiting “screen time” to less than an hour a day. They also suggest five servings of fruits and vegetables a day.

Before you say that your kid won’t eat them, remember a serving is a medium sized apple or a handful small carrot sticks.

Pop can be a treat, like birthday cake or an unexpected day of sunshine in November.

And perhaps talk to your children about health and nutrition. As an overweight teenager myself, I could have used stricter guidance from my folks about eating habits.

I am amazed how much kids today already know – the schools are doing an excellent job of teaching the right way to eat. But right after the lesson, many are pulling high calorie, high fat, high sugar snacks from lunch boxes packed by their loving parents.

Because of changes to our lifestyles and our increasing access to food, long gone are the days when we could coast through our days with a natural balance of food and exercise.

The underlying message from the Canadian Pediatric Society and the Canadian Medical Association, among many others, is this: there is no easy way to navigate through the new food world. Just as we discipline our children to not hit or steal, we need to discipline them to get regular exercise and eat consciously.

Or there will arise two classes of people: those who are healthy and long-lived and those who die young, plagued by disabling side effects and chronic pain.