Homeless in Abbotsford, BC

2012-01-14T20:41:00.000-08:00

Canadian Society

Metaphorically Speaking

2012-01-03T03:47:00.000-08:00

From the 'We're Doomed File'
Given that the definition of operation is 1) an act or instance, process or manner of functioning or operating; 2) the state of being operative, should not the sign state 'Hours of Non-operation' since closed is a state of non-operation?

And what does it say about the state of literacy - or should that be the state of illiteracy/functional illiteracy - in our society that this sign was posted at Clearbrook Library and presumably written by a librarian? When the keepers of our literacy do not or cannot use correct language in their communications with the public - are we not Doomed to sink into a new dark age?

And while this may seem to be a little picky.......there is a reason it is said: "We think in generalities, but we live in detail" and "In the successful organization, no detail is too small to escape close attention."

Language - or the failure to think about what the language used by politicians, pundits and the media actually means or meant*; being unwilling to search out, examine or pay attention to the details and our wilful denial of the reality revealed by the details are what have created the society and government that exist today - and have us rushing headlong off a cliff like a pack of lemmings.

*For instance: the Harper governments 6% increase in funding for healthcare is not the same as increasing healthcare by 6% or even maintaining current levels of healthcare services. When the cost of healthcare services are increasing at a rate greater than 6% (as is the case in Canada) a funding increase of only 6% is a reduction of healthcare services; since a reduction of healthcare services is required to reduce the cost of healthcare services to the level of funding provided. Thus Harper's and the Conservative's election promise to increase healthcare funding by 6% was in fact a promise to cut healthcare services to Canadians.

Still.........like the blank pages of a book yet to be written, the days that will make up the new year of 2012 lie open before us.

We can refuse to learn from the consequences of our actions and doom ourselves to recklessly continue down our self-indulgent path of self-destruction.........

OR we can take the binders off, abandon our wilful denial of the financial, economic and ethical cataclysmic fiasco we have created the potential for - and continue to strive, through our actions and non-actions, to bring about - choosing to instead to tenaciously do what is necessary to put our financial house in order and to build a society that reflects what it is to be Canadian, rather than reflecting the values of wannabe Americans.

"To create something exceptional, your mindset must be relentlessly focused on the smallest detail". Giorgio Armani

I am proud to be a Canadian and living in Canada, but that does not preclude me from wanting my Country, my Home, to be exceptional rather than just "we are doing better than Greece."

Let's acknowledge the Emperor's new clothes for what they are - a fanciful, wilful denial of reality - and begin to do - tenaciously - what is necessary to move from 'good enough' and/or 'since it's not a disaster - yet - we don't HAVE to do anything' to the pursuit of not just excellence but of exceptional.

2011-12-15T06:24:00.000-08:00

The Bare Facts December 15, 2011

2011-11-19T09:12:00.001-08:00

P3 - What's really going on?

Participating in the all candidates meeting and listening to all of the incumbents, with one notable exception, toe the party line about the desperate need for more water right NOW citing the report. THE REPORT. They did not cite any facts or figures, they just cited the report.

I have no doubt that the City of Abbotsford has purchased an excellent rep[ort to support its desired course of action. And before staff, mayor, council or chamber begin throwing Deloitte & Touche around as the preparers of the report let me respond with Arthur Anderson. Arthur Anderson who was once one of the 'big five' accounting firms with PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Ernst & Young and KPMG providing auditing, tax, and consulting services. Arthur Anderson that no longer exists because it provided a client what they wanted in exchange for the extremely large fees the client was paying.

There were several items contained in the report in fine print that the counselors willfully have chosen to ignore because these items were counter to what they want to hear. When the effect these fine print points would have on the cost of a P3 were raised and questioned at the all candidates meeting every Council incumbent chose not to respond, ignoring the fact the fine print in the report would significantly increase the cost of the P3.

In other words, council used the parts of the report that supported its desire to use a P3 and ignored the parts of the report that would negatively affect council’s desire to use a P3.

The one noticeable exception to united front presented by council, the united citing of THE report and the desperate need for water NOW, was Patricia Ross.

I felt sympathy for Ms. Ross as the other candidates piled onto Ms. Ross because she sits on the Abbotsford/Mission joint sewer and water commission which had unanimously recommended looking further into using a P3 to upgrade the water supply.

To the jabs her fellow counselors were throwing at her, seemingly for daring to not toe the party line on the P3, Ms. Ross made the most intelligent comment about the P3 I heard from any of the incumbents over the course of the entire evening.

Ms. Ross stated that she had voted to proceed with an examination of using a P3 to upgrade the water supply, but that the more she had learned about P3s the more she felt that a P3 was NOT the way to proceed in upgrading the water supply.

That rather than following mayor, council and staff off a cliff like a lemming Ms. Ross, actually paid attention and took the time to think about and look into P3s. Discovering what anyone who takes the time to look into and think about P3s does....

......reports that explains why P3s are so much more expensive than other ways, particularly well managed public projects, of accomplishing projects. You also find the experiences others around the world have had with using P3s for their water systems. There is analysis available that clearly shows that the idea the private sector is more cost effective and efficient at constructing and bringing online capital projects than the public sector is a myth; that the private sector can be as bad, or worse, than the public sector at constructing capital projects; that P3s can be less efficient, and cost effective than even poorly managed public projects; and that a well-managed public project is always more efficient and cost-effective than any other method for constructing and bringing online capital projects.

I was against using a P3 from the very beginning. Having spent 25 years as a Chartered Accountant I have the financial experience and experience negotiating contracts to know/calculate/understand a P3 is the most costly option and that the nature of a P3 has the private partner maximizing the amount charged and minimizing what is delivered to meet the contract. You pay the most and get the least.

Reading the article addressing the P3 question with the economics PhD from the University of the Fraser Valley I was left with the impression that he went out of his way, had to go out of his way, and was being be very, very careful not to say that the P3 was a bad choice to upgrade Abbotsford’s water.

My background did let me understand the major point the economics professor made about the reality that because the contract is negotiated using words to set out the work to be accomplished rather than precise plans, once the design is produced reality (the difference between the design/plans drawn up on the basis of word versus the actual physical needs to upgrade Abbotsford’s supply) exerts itself. In order to bring the proposed design up to snuff (to meet the actual needs of the task rather than meeting the task set out by the words describing the task) the contract will require add-ons. Which is how a negotiated ‘guaranteed’ contract price easily soars from $291 million to half a billion dollars.

Listening to John Smith speak about how the price would not go up and how many contingencies (35%) had been built into their estimated price caused a flashback that had my blood running cold. Mr. Smith and fellow councilors had used almost exactly the same words about Plan A and we all know how that ‘guaranteed’ contract price worked out – it doubled. Listening to John Smith talk about contingencies and how the price would probably be less than the estimate of $291 million, told those who have followed this mayor and council’s actions and gaffes that Abbotsford will be in serious trouble if the P3 is not voted down with loud NO.

As I say I was against the P3 because I understood the financial realities of a P3.

One of the abilities I seek to bring to council is listening to what others are saying well enough to actually hear and understand the point or points they are making.

We have a retired city engineer telling us we are nowhere near running out of water on the time schedule the city is screaming ‘the sky is falling’ about, that in fact Abbotsford has enough water to last into the next decade; we had Henry Braun drawing attention to the fact that peak water usage has declined 33%; others have spoken about conservation – which mayor, council and staff blow off saying “conservation isn’t capable of being the whole answer” – making a significant contribution to our overall water supply situation; that I have heard from the contracting sector of Abbotsford’s business community about this not being necessary, that there are things we could do that would be far cheaper to increase peak capacity,

One of the advantages of water, as opposed to electricity, is that it is easy to store. You can process your water overnight pump it into reservoirs and if your peak demand exceeds your processing capacity you simply draw down your reservoir levels. I grew up in southern Ontario where all the towns had water towers which allowed them not to have to build water processing systems that could meet peak demand. Overnight, the towns would fill the water towers, and during the day any demand above the system's capacity to process water was met by drawing down the water levels in the reservoirs a.k.a. the water towers.

No matter what assurances Abbotsford’s mayor, council, staff and the federal government make – their behavior has demonstrated their lack of trustworthiness on issues they have a vested interest in. Now I cannot say who is right Water Watch or our politicians on the question of water exports. What I can say is that Canadians will only know the answer when the question is decided by the Supreme Court of Canada and that if Water Watch was proven correct it is too late to do anything about it. I believe that on matters of this importance the only course of intelligent action is to not run any risk by the simple expedient of not going down that possibly disastrous path without compelling reasons. Especially in light of the reality that the cost and nature of a P3 provide compelling reasons not to use a P3 for the upgrade.

Mr. Lowen and others went on about how we had almost lost the Norrish Creek water source in 2003, a fact that was also cited by the Chamber of Commerce in support of the incumbent mayor, council and the continuation of business as usual at Abbotsford City Hall.

If an alternate water source, is that important why have they been unconcerned about providing an alternative water supply until now? If an alternate water source, is that important, why did council assure the citizens of Abbotsford during their plan A hard sell sales campaign that there was no need to address the water infrastructure?

Why was it that when council didn’t want to do anything about the water infrastructure our water supply was fine with no concern about needing a second source; yet now that council is desperately seeking to sell the P3 to voters suddenly there is a great concern about and need for a second water source?

What has happened between plan A (a point in time, much closer to the 2003 near loss of Norrish Creek) and now that suddenly, a second source of water is a desperate necessity. What had happened since our last municipal election in 2008 that has suddenly turned a second source of water into a desperate necessity?

Why is it that after eight years of no further interruptions to our Norrish Creek water supply suddenly we’re supposed to be panicking about needing a second source of water?

If there was a real concern about a second source, why have we not heard about this need before? If there was a real concern about a second water source why did mayor, council and staff build plan A?

It is typical behavior for our incumbent council to be suddenly concerned with the need for a second source as an additional threat and/or reason to panic and rush headlong into the P3 Council wants to enter into.

The question that the contracting sector posed to me about the P3 proposal was what’s going on here? To these professionals the P3 proposal makes no sense. The one point they feel sure of is that the cost is likely to skyrocket

Exactly what is going on at City Hall? The evidence is clear we are not going to run out of water in 2016, that we have water enough to run into the next decade. There are numerous ways that would allow us to not have to spend that kind of money we’re talking about. There are things we can do so we do not have to spend that kind of money.

All of which raises the question "What is really going on with the P3?"

2011-11-18T06:22:00.001-08:00

P3 - What's really going on?

2011-11-17T01:35:00.001-08:00

I draw your attention to how careful George Peary was in choosing his words when answering the reporter's question about the legality of the Heat contract.

First he implied that Mr Dimanno was bringing this matter up in a last ditch attempt to get onto council.

I share the belief that the contract Mayor Peary and our current council have to subsidize the Heat is not legal and thus it is only Mayor Peary and the current council's desire to subsidize the Heat that results in millions of taxpayer dollars ending up in the pockets of the owners of the Heat.

With the provincial government refusing to enforce the law it wrote to protect taxpayer's pocketbooks from council - unless taxpayers go to court and prove it is illegal first and since Mayor Peary and council can use unlimited taxpayer dollars to defend themselves who could afford to prove the contract illegal? - bringing public attention to this matter in order to embarrass the provincial government to do its job is the most viable option Abbotsford's impoverished taxpayers have to force the provincial Liberals to act on behalf of Abbotsford's taxpayers rather than continuing their policy of abandonment. In the same manner the Liberals were finally forced to act to protect developmentally disabled from government itself at Community Living BC.

Having had discussions with Mr Dimanno on the Heat subsidy, rather than a desperate bid for council Mr Dimanno has taken advantage of the election to bring the Liberal Parties failure to protect Abbotsford's taxpayers from Mayor Peary and our current council's subsidy to the Heat - to protect mayor and council's egos from an empty (and far less costly to taxpayers) Arena.

Second Mayor Peary's chose his words soooo carefully when addressing the question of illegality by stating council felt the contract was legal.

Very carefully avoiding any mention or reference the fact that the reason council feels the contract is legal is because they feel they have circumvented the law.

But then acknowledging the truth - that mayor and council feel free to circumvent laws that get in the way of doing as they please with taxpayer's dollars - would turn a very public spotlight on the fact this mayor and council are so lacking in integrity they circumvent rather than obey the laws of this province.

To the point the Liberal government might just have to act to protect Abbotsford taxpayers, with unpleasant consequences for mayor and council and pleasant consequences for taxpayer pocketbooks..

2011-11-10T16:32:00.001-08:00

Concerned about Council's P3 NOT Citizen's Pocketbooks or Wellbeing

Note: An Addendum has been added at the end of this piece.

On November 19th the voters of Abbotsford will be voting Yes/No on using a P3 to finance, design and build an upgrade to Abbotsford's water supply/infrastructure.

The use of a P3 has proven highly controversial and generated a great deal of opposition to private control of Abbotsford's water supply and the higher cost to taxpayers of using a P3 to finance/design/construct the upgrade.

The large sign pictured is one of two that are erected at the corner of George Ferguson Way and Tretheway Street in Abbotsford, diagonally across the civic plaza and employee parking lots behind Abbotsford City Hall and was up as incumbent councillors were in the all candidates meeting (November 8th) denying the city was using intimidation and threats, or deceptive information to mislead voters to believe the vote on November 19th was about whether the water supply would be upgraded or not, in order to get voters to vote Yes to the P3'

The smaller sign sprouted on the corner of Clearbrook Road and Maclure Road on November 10th.

Given: that the November 19th in Abbotsford vote is only about whether or not to use a P3 to finance, design and build an upgrade to Abbotsford's water supply/infrastructure and that the November 19th vote has NOTHING to do with whether Abbotsford needs to, or should, upgrade its water supply.

Then: the clear intent of this sign - "On November 19 Say YES to Water" - is to deceive voters into voting yes for Abbotsford's Mayor and Council's P3 proposal by misleading voters into believing the vote on November 19th is about whether or not to upgrade Abbotsford's water supply/infrastructure.

And that: the appearance of the second, smaller sign makes clear that there is an organized attempt being made to deceive the voters of Abbotsford into believing that the P3 vote on November 19th is about whether Abbotsford's water supply is upgraded/expanded and thus deceive voters into voting Yes to the P3 based on the false belief created about the purpose of the November 19th by this organized effort to decieve.

1. Who are the 'concerned citizens ' who paid for these signs which are clearly designed to trick/deceive voters in Abbotsford into voting yes to the P3 by causing them to falsely believe that the November 19th vote is about whether or not to upgrade the water supply, when in truth the vote is only about whether to use a P3 to finance, design and build the upgrade?

2. How many more of these signs are posted around Abbotsford to deceive voters into voting yes to the P3 proposal put to referendum by Abbotsford's Mayor and Council?

3. Can any group of 'concerned citizens' put up signs designed to trick and deceive voters into voting the way the 'concerned citizens' want them to vote during a municipal election and/or on referendum issues?

4. Or are the signs of these 'concerned citizens' being treated in a special manner because the signs refer people to the City's site promoting the P3 and the signs are intended to deceive voters into voting Yes to the P3 proposal of Abbotsford's Mayor and Council?

5. Does not the existence of these misleading signs bring the validity of a Yes vote and approval of the P3 into question as the signs will cause people to vote Yes based on false information?

6. If anyone can post misleading and/or deceptive signs or the 'concerned citizens' posting the signs are not required to identify themselves - do we not require the laws governing municipal elections to be changed to prevent the use of clear deception to bring about a desired result on a referendum or who is elected to civic office?

Addendum:

The signs referred to in the story have suddenly been joined by numerous other signs that have appeared across Abbotsford. Given the cost the signs represent it is clear that someone (or several someone's) is spending a great deal of money in an attempt to deceive voters into voting Yes to the P3 by creating the false belief that a yes vote is a vote to increase the water supply while a no vote is a vote against expanding Abbotsford's water supply.

It appears someone (or several someone's) is prepared to spend a great deal of money and go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the mayor and council's P3 plan is approved.

Which raises several new questions:

Who are these wealthy 'concerned citizens'?

Why are they spending so much money to ensure mayor and council's P3 passes?

What, if any, effect did these 'concerned citizens' and their deep pockets have on the decision to go with a P3 despite the overwhelming evidence it was the poorest choice to u for the upgrade?

2011-10-27T05:56:00.000-07:00

P3 versus a Partnership with Mission

The $$$ Numbers

Summary:

Going with a Partnership with Mission would save the taxpayers just over $96 million dollars ($96,366,367).

The best plan the mayor, council and staff have stated they could devise will cost the taxpayers $96 million more than abandoning the P3 approach to continue in Partnership with Mission would have.

Given that Mission was to pay 33% and that the federal grant represents a recovery of only 22.5% one would think that one of: two retired school principals, a current school principal, a retired banker, a real estate agent would have recognized that 33% is higher than 22.5%.

There are no engineering plans drawn, no company (or companies) chosen to design and build the P3 project that mayor, council and staff are obsessed with using to the point they are using fear, intimidation, threats, statements that are so inaccurate that they fall apart with the most basic examination with logic, irrational statements and claims - not to forget $200,000 taxpayer dollars - to scare Abbotsford voters into approving using a P3 as they want - even though the P3 will be significantly more costly to use while delivering an inferior product compared to other methods available to accomplish the water system upgrade.

The one area in which the P3 clearly stands above other choices is that it requires no real effort or work of mayor, council and staff other than paying whatever it costs (with no regard to what it should cost) and raising the tax and water rates to whatever stratospheric levels will be required to cover the bloated final cost.

If voters elect new councillors who are competent and looking to the best interests of voters, the water system infrastructure can be upgraded at least as quickly, if not quicker, using a more cost effective and efficient approach. Numerous studies have shown that a well managed public project achieves significant cost savings over a P3.

P3:

· Project type: P3 - design build

· The cost: $291 million

· Contribution: Government Grant¹ $65.7 million 23% (65.7/291)

Partnership with Mission:

· Project Type: Public managed - Project designed, then tendered to construct.²

· The cost: $291 million³

· Contribution: Missions share of the cost 33% (1/3)

Cost to Taxpayers

Partnership with Mission:

Total cost - Mission share = Abbotsford's Taxpayers share

$291,000,000 - $97,000,000 (291,000,000/3) = $194,000,000

P3:

Total Cost - Federal Grant + (-) I = interest costs (interest savings) + (-) A additional costs (savings) = Cost to Abbotsford Taxpayers

$291,000,000 - $65,700,000 + $35,066,367 + $30,000,000 = $290.366,367

Cost (Savings) to Abbotsford Taxpayers of using P3 instead of Mission Partnership = Cost of P3 - Cost of Mission Partnership

$290,366,367 - 194,000,000 = $96,366,367

I - Interest cost:

Payment: Monthly; Amortization Period: 25 years; Interest Rate 7%

Principal borrowed: $31,300,000.00 Regular Payment amount: $221,221.89

Total Repaid: $66,366,567.00 Total Interest Paid: $35,066,367.00

Total interest paid as a percentage of Principal: 112.034%

A - Additional Costs:

P X C = 30 X $1,000,000 = 30,000,000

P : The project period of operation is 30 years

C: The consultant's report commissioned by the City noted that it would cost an additional $1,000,000 per year to operate the project as a P3 than it would if the project were a public project.

It is Important to Note: Michael Maschek, PhD, from the University of the Fraser Valley’s department of economics stated in the local newspaper interview asking him about using a P3 for the water upgrade:

"Maschek believes the contract is the key to any successful P3 plan. “If you could write the perfect contract, there would be no problem.”But it is unlikely that every possible situation can be accounted for in the agreement and because of the lengthy term, the contract is usually reworked.“Renegotiation is highly likely for two highly related reasons: One, the long duration of the contract period, and two, the fact that PPPs are prone to contractual incompleteness. The contract itself is very difficult to negotiate; economists refer to this as a high transaction cost,” he explained."

Translated from economic speak Dr Maschek stated that it is highly likely any P3 contract will need to be renegotiated. This renegotiation results from the nature of P3s where the original contract is based upon words which results in renegotiation when the drawings/design/drafting plans emerge and what it is that will actually be built becomes tangible plans rather than imprecise words.

Which means the price is highly probable to rise when the ambiguity of words as the defining element are replaced with the precision of engineering plans.

If the cost rises above $291 million under a P3 there will be no additional federal funds forthcoming. Under a Partnership with Mission, if the costs rise Mission will cover 33% of the cost increases.

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

¹On October 25, 2011 Ed Fast was quoted in the local papers as saying the Abbotsford would qualify for up to $65.7 million dollars in federal P3 funding.

² From 'Abbotsford's Water Infrastructure Upgrade' : an examination of the type of project to use to upgrading the water infrastructure.

'That we do not use current councils preferred method of design/build. Under this system the builder maximizes their profit by delivering the least project they can at the lowest cost they can at the highest price they can.

Water is far too important a resource to go with a design build. We need to be able to ensure the upgraded infrastructure meets not just current but future needs, is robust enough for the years of service it will need to deliver and delivers the highest quality water.

To do that council and the public need to have an opportunity and sufficient time to study the plans to discover and correct any errors and omissions.

It has been my experience that the skills, knowledge and insights a group of people such as the citizens of Abbotsford and Mission possess, can be surprising and serve to ensure nothing gets missed in the plans for the water infrastructure upgrade. Letting people share their thoughts and ideas can lead to valuable insights. At least for a council willing to actually listen with an open mind, accept and act on good ideas.

Going with this approach requires far more of council than simply saying build me one of these. But if the mayor and council are not willing to put in the time and effort required to ensure the needs and best interests of taxpayers are met – exactly why are they in or running for office?"

³ Reality does not care what you want to be fact, reality does not care what you believe to be fact, Reality simply is what IS fact. Tao of James

In their attempts to scare, intimidate, mislead voters into approving a P3 plan, mayor, council and staff have all inaccurately, falsely, claimed that using another approach than a P3 would be more expensive.

The use of P3s is part of the ideology the federal Conservatives operate on in spite of the considerable differences between that ideology and the real world. In order to serve their ideology and bring about the use of P3s the federal Conservatives had to make infrastructure grants available exclusively through the use of P3s.

Without a financial incentive large enough to offset the additional costs that arise from the very nature of P3s no competent municipal management would choose to use a P3. At a grant level covering 25% of the cost of the P3 the project will save a small amount, break even or cost a small amount more. As the percentage the federal grant contributes to the project falls below 25%, the extra costs the P3 inflicts on those who are mathematically and financially challenged to the point they do not comprehend that the P3 is, rather than reducing the cost, increasing the cost to those who must pay the bill.

2011-10-22T09:59:00.000-07:00

Your Abbotsford Tax Dollars at Work

It would appear that the $200,000 taxpayer dollars City Hall is spending to hire PR and sell the P3 to the public is working.

Friday's Global News Hour Final's unbalanced reporting on the water system upgrade issue in Abbotsford was not only a one sided promotion of the current mayor and council's position on the P3 issue, but did a great disservice to the taxpayers of Abbotsford by implying that the Mayor and Council are correct in their assertion that the P3 is the most cost effective way to upgrade Abbotsford's water system.

Several people have performed and written about calculations that document that only under the most optimistic assumptions (everything goes perfectly and not a single tiny thing fails to go according to assumptions) does the cost of the P3 - possibly - come in under the cost of proceeding with the upgrade as a public project.

Failing to inform the citizens of Abbotsford that there are analysis that show a P3 is not the most cost effective way to accomplish the water upgrade (even with a $65 million grant from the federal government) gave Abbotsford's citizens the impression that City Hall's financial claims are correct is a great disservice to the citizens of Abbotsford.

The knowledge that there is serious doubt as to whether the City's proposed P3 is the most cost effective (lowest cost) way of proceeding with the water upgrade is vital to citizens making an informed choice on November 19th.

The report also failed to note that the federal Conservative government is ideologically wedded to the idea of P3s and that the purpose of the grants is to make the cost of proceeding with P3's competitive with the cost of a public project. And to tempt financially challenged politicians into fixating upon the idea of all those $millions$ of federal dollars and ignoring any evidence that demonstrates the cost of the P3 exceeds the cost of a public project - even after you subtract the federal grant dollars.

It is also important to know that as the cost of the water upgrade increases the savings to be found in using public financing increase. Given the nature of P3's and Abbotsford's mayor and council's record of pie in the sky financial forecasting and cost overruns.....the probability of the cost soaring past the current number of $291 approaches certainty.

However, all those arguments are based on Abbotsford's mayor and council's insistence on going it alone on the water upgrade.

As I point out as part of my platform in seeking election to Abbotsford's council if we return to the original partnership with Mission and the announced 2/3 and 1/3 split of the cost of the water upgrade Abbotsford Mayor and council plan to spend an additional $127 million in order to get a $65 million dollar federal grant. (see http://www.jameswbreckenridge.ca/?p=2176 for the calculations).

Would anyone - other than Abbotsford's mayor and council - give someone $127 in order to get $65 back?

2011-10-15T03:59:00.000-07:00

Jay's Words of Extortion and Nonsense.

General Manager Economic Development and Planning Services Jay Teichroeb had this to say about the referendum on the proposed P3 water project:

“It’s important that the public understands what is in front of them. It is not an either/or question … The choice is the model proposed or nothing,” said Teichroeb.

That means the public either says yes to the P3 water supply or no. The traditional design/build is not one of the options. He said if people don’t understand this then “we have not served the community.”

“It is the best of 19 potential options we examined, and were closely analyzed by teams of engineers and financial experts.”

If the public says no to the P3 proposal, Teichroeb said the city would have to “limit new development” and “use water rates to create a financial motivation to conserve.”

If this was the best of 19 options that city staff could come up with, it is time to do a thorough housecleaning and hire some competent staff.

If Mr Teichroeb actually believes what he says above and is not merely using threats, intimidation and scare tactics (old favourites of City Hall staff, mayor and council) to stampede taxpayers into panicking and doing what staff, the mayor and council want them to - vote for the excessively expensive, flawed and problematic system, the City's inept P3 proposal - that would explain why the City derives at best minimal benefit from the $892,000 it budgeted for Economic Development and Planning Services.

Rather than accepting Mr Teichroeb's Chicken Little 'the sky is falling' routine let us proceed in the matter Mr Teichroeb, city staff, mayor and council clearly don't want the public to, by thinking about what he said rather than being intimidated.

"The choice is the model proposed or nothing,” It is not " or nothing,” It is a choice of overpaying for a flawed and problematic system by $100,000,000+ (a Hundred Million Plus dollars - a phenomenal waste of taxpayer dollars even by current staff, mayor and council's standards of waste, waste, waste) OR saying 'enough' and demanding a financially responsible and operationally sound plan for upgrading the Abbotsford/Mission water supply system.

“we have not served the community.” OK, I cannot dispute that. Plan A and the numerous costs staff and council were aware of and did not reveal to the public until after the referendum; Plan A with its massive cost overruns; not obeying the law (Community Charter) which was designed to protect taxpayers from being saddled with multi-million dollar subsidies to private business, which staff, mayor and council worked to circumvent so they could burden already overburdened taxpayers with ten years of million(s of) dollar(s) subsidies to the Heat's owners; usury fees for the use of city facilities to subsidize a professional hockey team; and so on and so on....

Clearly Mr Teichroeb is correct in stating “we have not served the community.”

“It is the best of 19 potential options we examined, and were closely analyzed by teams of engineers and financial experts.”

The public is certainly entitled to have a list of the 19 options as part of evaluating the "best of the 19 options." It is vital to a proper evaluation of the options for the public to have the list of names of those who were members of the "teams of engineers and financial experts.” and their analysis.

Please none of this 'we cannot give out the names' usual city claptrap and excuse mongering. Unless the City is saying the members of these " teams of engineers and financial experts.” are not willing to stand behind their analysis. Which would inform the public just what that analysis is worth - nada, nothing, less than the paper it was written on.

The public is entitled to the 19 options, the names of the engineers and financial experts and the analysis of each of the 19 options. Or Mr Teichroeb's resignation.

"If the public says no to the P3 proposal, ...... the city would have to “limit new development” and “use water rates to create a financial motivation to conserve.”

Really? This is the best staff, mayor and council can come up with? They are going to take their ball and go home and sulk?

Clearly, if giving up and sulking is the best option that city staff, the mayor and council could come up with, it is time to do a thorough housecleaning and hire some competent staff and elect a competent and effective mayor and council

On November 19th, save your pocketbook and Abbotsford's water future.

Vote NO to the P3 - another mayor and council debacle in the making.

Vote YES to elect James W Breckenridge. You can examine James W Breckenridge's proposed approach to upgrading the water infrastructure at: http://www.jameswbreckenridge.ca/?p=2176 http://www.jameswbreckenridge.ca/?p=2176

Feedback and ideas are welcome. I never have met a good/better idea I was not willing to....ummmmmm....adopt.

2011-10-07T10:01:00.001-07:00

Water Infrastructure Upgrade

Here is the James W. Breckenridge plan to upgrade the water infrastructure supplying Abbotsford's water.

On November 19, 2011 - the day of municipal elections across BC - the voters of Abbotsford vote NO on the P3 referendum, defeating the P3 proposal.

On November 19, 2011 - the day of municipal elections across BC - the voters of Abbotsford vote for James W. Breckenridge and elect him to council.

The new council passes a resolution apologizing to the mayor, council and citizens of Mission for the bullying, intemperate words and unacceptable behaviour of the prior mayor and council on upgrading of the water supply infrastructure.

Abbotsford and Mission turn their attention to working together to upgrade the current water infrastructure, a shared water infrastructure. That, as originally planned Abbotsford pay 2/3 of the cost and Mission pay 1/3 of the cost of the water infrastructure upgrade.

That we do not use current councils preferred method of design/build. Under this system the builder maximizes their profit by delivering the least project they can at the lowest cost they can at the highest price they can.

To do that council and the public need to have an opportunity and sufficient time to study the plans to discover and correct any errors and omissions.

We share a bus system, waste management and the Norrish Creek water supply with Mission. Abbotsford and Mission will need to continue to work together managing these systems into the future.

Mission and Abbotsford share many issues jointly, a sharing of issues complicated not just by the fact they are linked by transit bus but by their proximity. Issues such as homelessness and affordable housing are not specific to one city but flow between the cities as the homeless and those in need of affordable housing do.

Abbotsford's mayor, council and staff should be seeking ways to improve the working relationship between the cities. Not seeking to drive a wedge between the cities.

Undoubtedly Abbotsford's mayor, council, staff and $200,000 sales pitchmen will seek to drown Abbotsford voters in numbers as well as confuse the voters and the issue with Abbotsford City Hall doublespeak.

Here are several important items to remember and question.

Abbotsford will continue to need to work with Mission even if Abbotsford proceeds alone, rather than in partnership with Mission on upgrading the water infrastructure. Abbotsford needs permission to run a new water pipeline across Mission to get water to Abbotsford. If Abbotsford wants to tie into the current shared water delivery system, would not such an action require permission from Abbotsford's partner in that system - Mission?

The working relationship between Abbotsford and Mission is too important to act in a way that negatively affects the working relationship, merely because Abbotsford's mayor, council and staff insist on getting their own way.

Why should the taxpayers of Abbotsford once again be forced to pay millions of dollars extra in order to feed the mayor, council and staff's egos? Are not the friendship garden and the sports and entertainment complex sufficient City Hall ego taxes on taxpayers?

City of Abbotsford's cost estimate for cost of water infrastructure upgrade $291 million, less the maximum (we do not know the actual amount) of federal subsidy $61 million, leaving Abbotsford 's best case cost at $230 million.

City of Abbotsford's cost estimate for cost of water infrastructure upgrade $291 million, less Missions 1/3 share $97 million, leaving Abbotsford's cost as $194 million.

The City of Abbotsford needs councillors and a council who comprehend (as the current mayor. council and staff continue to demonstrate they do not, and seem incapable of learning) that increasing the cost to Abbotsford taxpayers from $194 million to $230 million is a net cost to Abbotsford's taxpayers of $36 million. That the $61 million dollars 'savings' (federal grant) our current mayor, council and staff are chasing is only an illusion of 'savings', an illusion that will cost taxpayers $36 million more than they have to pay. Actually $66 million extra when you add in 30 years of $1 million per year increased operating costs that result from using a P3, as set out in the report prepared for the city.

The taxpayers of Abbotsford cannot afford to spend $66 million extra because mayor, council and staff cannot grasp basic financial reality.

On November 19, 2011 vote NO to the P3 and the $36 million more than necessary the P3 proposal will cost taxpayers in upgrading the water infrastructure.

On November 19, 2011 vote to elect James W. Breckenridge to council; vote to pay (actually save) $66 million less to upgrade our water infrastructure.

2011-10-03T11:54:00.000-07:00

Facts? Balance? Thoughtfulness?

Facts? Balance? Thoughtfulness?
Sadly, as the September 30, 2011 Global News Hour Final stories on the Abbotsford Heat and Abbotsford's need for upgrading the city's water system made clear, traditional broadcast media coverage all too often has little or nothing to do with facts, balance or thoughtfulness.

While the segment on the Heat did reference the $1.4 million subsidy paid directly to the Heat ownership for last year's (2010/2011) season under the ten year revenue guarantee made by Abbotsford's mayor and city council, it ignored or missed several important points.

Points such as: the indirect subsidies taxpayers pay for items such as the Heat banners adorning city lampposts or the advertising materials that adorn city facilities and buildings or the use of city staff to conduct business on behalf of the Heat.

Nor was there any mention of the yearly multi-million dollar operating subsidy to the Heat in the form of subsidizing the operations of the Sports Complex, the Heat's home.

But the truly criminal aspect of Global's story was the failure to address Abbotsford's mayor and council signing an agreement to subsidize the Heat's ownership that is illegal under the Community Charter that governs municipalities in BC.

No reference was made to Chilliwack's mayor and council not entering into the same type of agreement to keep the Bruins (who moved to Victoria) in Chilliwack because as Chilliwack’s Mayor Sharon Gaetz stated “Under the province’s Community Charter, the city is not permitted to fund private business with taxpayers’ funds. This is deemed to be an assist to business and is strictly forbidden.”

Nor did Global say anything about Abbotsford's mayor and council's acknowledgement that the subsidy agreement with the Heat violates the Community Charter or their claims of having circumvented the law rather than obey it.

Global failed to question a mayor and council who, when a law forbids them from doing something they want to do, ignore/circumvent the law. Or ask just what else was circumvented or ignored behind the closed doors mayor and council prefer to operate from.

Later in the same broadcast Global's story on Abbotsford's need for a new water source left one wondering if some in Abbotsford were questioning the need to spend money on the City's water infrastructure, while failing to address the true issue(s) of concern citizens have with Abbotsford's mayor and council's proposed upgrades to the water supply.

Contrary to the impression fostered by Global, nobody is disputing that Abbotsford needs to upgrade its water supply infrastructure. Indeed, many of those Mayor Peary labels as 'naysayers' - meaning they disagree with him - were calling on council to upgrade the water supply infrastructure before it built the 'great white elephant' AKA the Sports and Entertainment Complex.

There are major differences between the mayor and council’s intentions and the wishes/wants/best interests of the citizens of Abbotsford.

Council insists on using a P3 to upgrade the infrastructure, with Mayor Peary and council liking to talk about the $61 million grant they will get for going with a P3. Mayor Peary and council don’t like to talk about what prior 'savings' by mayor and council have cost the taxpayers (considerably more than the 'savings') or the fact that the increased costs associated with a P3 will be more (millions, tens of millions of dollars more) than the $61 million 'savings'. Leaving Abbotsford taxpayers (once again) paying out of pocket for council chasing a mirage they call 'savings'.

One significant cost the mayor and council like to overlook is that operating costs under a P3 would be at least a million dollars a year more expensive. Ironically this additional cost was included in the report commissioned by mayor and council to sell the project to the citizens of Abbotsford.

The mayor and council’s insistence on using a P3 ignores, as did the Global broadcast, the reality that around the world municipal governments are choosing not to use P3s on vital city resources such as water for a variety of good reasons, including keeping the control of vital resources such as water with the municipal governments.

Then there is the history and experience citizens have with the mayor and council's promises as to what the total final cost of a project will be. The last time council told taxpayers the price was guaranteed by the contract with the builder (the last project council sold to the citizens) the cost of the project doubled. Costs that run over the cost promised by council by millions or tens of millions of dollars are simply normal operating procedure for mayor and council.

Keep in mind this is a mayor and council that built new Highway 1 interchanges where the roundabouts have signs telling drivers not to get in beside a truck because the design has trucks needing the entire roundabout to manoeuvre or where trucks tip over if they try to transit the roundabouts at or near the posted speed limits. A mayor and council that, with a short window for construction, a window that was open during the late fall/winter/early spring, thought hiring a firm that had never built a pool tank was a good idea.

Water is far too important a resource to go with a design build as the mayor and council want to. Yes, designing the system first in order to ensure it meets not just current but future needs, is robust enough for the years of service it will need to deliver and delivers the highest quality water requires far more of council than simply saying build me one of these - but council could always go back to meeting weekly to earn the salaries and perks they have voted themselves in recent years. More importantly, if the mayor and council are not willing to put in the time and effort required to ensure the needs and best interests of taxpayers are met - exactly why are they in office?

By its nature design build is a poor choice as the way to build a project, since the builder maximizes his profits by delivering the least he can, at the lowest cost he can, and meet the specifications of the contract. Design build is how you get roundabouts with signs warning cars not to enter beside trucks.

Abbotsford's water infrastructure is too important to be built to the lowest standards and costs permitted by the contract.

Those are the major points of disagreement on upgrading the water infrastructure in Abbotsford. The disagreement is not whether we should upgrade, but about taxpayers wanting to ensure the upgrading is done correctly, managed well and has appropriate financial controls and frugality. As opposed to council’s take the easiest way out by going with a P3 and paying whatever the cost comes to.

All levels of government in Canada (municipal, provincial and federal) have a need to deal with a number of serious, complex issues at the same time they are constrained by the need to get their financial houses in order.

Unfortunately politics today are about politicians holding onto their power, perks and overly generous salaries by getting re-elected and has nothing to do with providing good governance and taking care of the people’s business.

Just as unfortunate is that traditional media is not about facts, balance or thoughtfulness. It is about the bottom line and best interests of whichever conglomerate the media in question is part of.
More unfortunate is that with the traditional media having become conglomerate owned and controlled, there is no media outlet for disseminating and discussing differing ideas, points of view and thoughts on what our priorities should be, the issues we need to address and how we should approach those priorities and issues. At least until such time as newer, open internet media such as The Tyee or Abbotsford Today are more well established and the public has an awareness of the new, emerging, information driven media world online.

I say more unfortunate because without information, knowledge and at least basic understanding you cannot make good choices and the functionality of democracy will continue to deteriorate.

With politicians focused on re-election and their own best interests and the public residing in wilful denial, media's failure or refusal (or inability to recognize or understand?) to raise important issues, challenges and differing points of view in the public forum makes media partners with politicians and citizens clinging to wilful denial in our current sad state of affairs and the inauspiciousness of our future.

Media's 'news' should, at the very least, resemble a broadcast containing facts, balance and thought, rather than having every appearance of being a promotional video for, in this case, Abbotsford's mayor and council members seeking re-election in November.

2011-09-25T16:13:00.000-07:00

Transcript: Bare Facts September 22, 2011

Welcome to the inaugural E-cast of the Breckenridge Zone's Bare Facts. I am your host, T. R. Ursidae.

We ask your indulgence for any lack of smoothness as we learn and build experience in E-casting.

Our goal is to peel away the spin, the doublespeak, the gobbledygook, to ask the obvious unasked questions and to remind people of the reality they so often live in willful denial of.

We seek to bring critical thinking and logic to bear on public policy by generating open debate based on the bear facts that are exposed by peeling away the layers of machination and subterfuge.

Because as it says in the Tao of James: Reality does not care what you want to be fact, reality does not care what you believe to be fact, Reality simply is what IS.

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

At the bare facts we very much enjoyed the Freudian slip contained in the BC Liberal's attack ad aimed at BC Conservative leader John Cummins.

"Just what we need, another unprincipled politician." The context another is contained in seems to imply that it is not just one other BC politician that is unprincipled but that all, or nearly all, BC politicians are unprincipled.

A conjecture supported by the unprincipled duplicity demonstrated by the BC NDP since their successful support of extinguishing the HST. Since then the air waves have been full of NDP mla's crying crocodile tears and condemning the BC Liberal government for the budget tightening, leading to program cuts, that is the consequence of ripping Billions of Dollars out of the BC budget by extinguishing the HST.

Except for Mr Dix who seems to be avoiding visibility in order to avoid reminding voters of the sight of \ Mr Dix going around thanking people for helping the NDP extinguish the HST; seeking no doubt to avoid attracting voter anger at the budget cutting (program cuts) needed to reduce expenditures as a result of the financial fallout from extinguishing the HST

If the NDP was all that worried about program cuts they should not have been playing politics by supporting extinguishing the HST.

Rather Unprincipled behaviour that continues as they blast the government for the consequences of the NDP's successful support of extinguishing the HST.

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

Speaking of the outcome of the extinguish the HST referendum and the painful financial fallout of extinguishing the HST it would appear the voters of BC are seriously in need of being told to 'Get Real".

After voting to rip billions of dollars out of the budget and return $1.6 billion to Ottawa the voters of BC are demanding - at an increasing rate - that the provincial government spend, spend, spend, ignoring or in wilful denial of the fact voters have reduced government revenue by billions of dollars - a reality which requires belt tightening and thus program cuts.

Just what did the voters think was going to happen after they ripped billions of dollars out of the provincial budget.

Is it that they DID NOT THINK or that they live in a fantasy land where there is a grove of money trees growing out behind the legislature?

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

Of course the Media is as guilty or perhaps are the most guilty - given the major part media played in successfully extinguishing the HST - of ignoring the financial reality the province must deal with as a consequence of extinguishing of the HST.

The fallout, budget cuts and program closures, makes it easy for media to find lots of budget cuts and program closures to report on in order to increase their bottom lines.

I suppose, when you thinks about it, we shouldn't be surprised that media is not reminding those demanding more services or the continued funding of programs that the citizens of BC voted to substantially reduce the funds the province has to provide services any more than it was not surprising that Media avoided reminding voters of the very significant consequences of extinguishing the HST.

Reminding people of the reality - either of extinguishing the HST or of the state of BC's finances as a result of having extinguishing the HST - would only serve to cut into the ease of getting bottom line improving theatrical 'stories'. Not to forget running the potential risk of having voters suffering the consequences of the belt tightening necessary - of the important role Media played in extinguishing the HST by playing up the street theatre aspects of the extinguish the HST campaign while effectively ignoring the financial consequences.

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

The current media street theatre circus compounds the difficulty of dealing with the financial realities BC faces because the BC Liberal caucus clearly lacks backbones. This lack of backbone and the overriding desire to get re-elected and continue feeding so handsomely from the public trough - at any cost - has led to policy and decision making based on the theatrics of the presentation made by media rather than basing the hard decisions involved in living within the new means imposed by extinguishing the HST on priorities and careful thought

the Reality of the dire state of the provinces finances and the fact BC is in a financial straightjacket means there is no extra funding to reinstate programs. The funding that keeps the recycling program in Maple Ridge or the program at Douglas college going into next year comes from other programs and/or areas of the budget.

Rather than vigorously patting themselves on the back for the reinstatement of funding - Media and voters - might want to consider who it is that is going to suffer paying the price for reinstating that funding and what that price is.

The potential for Irony is mindboggling. How - poetically justice ironic - if the practice of robbing peter to pay paul ( in this case appeasing the media and the public) leads in a few months to the Maple Ridge recycling program etc being back in the spotlight - having lost their funding to reinstate some other program that lost its funding to reinstate the funding and so on and so and so on..... *******************************************************************************************

If we don't stop and at all levels of government (municipal, provincial and federal) take a hard look at what the financial realities are, then make plans that reflect that financial reality. Plans based on priorities, hard thought and ethics - letting go of greed and 'me first' we are going to find ourselves going around in circles and ending up where we started having accomplished nothing but wasting resources.

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

Finally, might we suggest to Vancouver's Rock 101 and the firm advertising their electrical services on Rock 101 that we at the Bare Facts (and I suspect most consumers) have no interest in what someone is 'not afraid to tackle' . when we are looking for an electrical contractor what we are interested in is what they are competent to tackle. You can live with whatever fear someone competent might have given the fact that with electricity - incompetence can kill you.

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

That's the Bare Facts for Thursday September 22, 2011.

Remember your best defence against Politicians, Media, Big Business and others seeking to bamboozle you and manipulate you - is thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJgxH0h0JBI

2011-09-20T01:33:00.000-07:00

BC Liberal Attack Ad a Revealing Freudian Slip?

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?

2011-09-16T03:08:00.001-07:00

Taxpayer Terror

Experience has made " making profits" and " saving taxpayers money" words and concepts that strike terror into the hearts of Abbotsford's taxpayers when spoken by members of Abbotsford City Council.

Paying to cover the losses of Council's 'profitable' get rich quick schemes or the costs of repairing, completing, redoing or living with the consequences of Council's 'saving taxpayers money' has (and continues to) impoverish the taxpayers and citizens of Abbotsford, not just monetarily but also in terms of City services, infrastructure, amenities, the cost to use facilities etc.

One would have Hoped (Prayed) Council would have learned, after all their costly squandering of taxpayer dollars, to consider possible consequences of their actions instead of simply doing the math to arrive at the dollars that would be earned or saved IF and ONLY IF everything went absolutely perfectly.

What makes council's recent announcement of their latest plan to reap big profits from electronic billboards notably worrisome is not the fact that once again council has, behind closed doors, created a fantasy world of imagined big profits that has little or nothing to do with the real world that rules existence outside the confines of City Hall. Nor is it that council still refuses to hear or consider any questions or objections raised by those who don't share council's fantasies.

No, what raises dread about council's latest get rich quick 'sit back and let the $millions$ roll in' scheme is that, apparently unable to find any new financial disaster to pursue, council has RETURNED to the electronic billboards business.

Remember, council had to have a big, multicoloured, all the bells and whistles billboard for ARC because council could then simply 'sit back and let the $dollars$ roll into city coffers'?

Since its installation no advertising dollars have materialized - none, zero, zip, nada. The ARC billboard has only been used, until recently at least, to deliver information about ARC's programs and events that a smaller, simpler, far less expensive billboard would have sufficed to deliver at a substantial savings to taxpayers pocketbooks.

Yet in spite of the fact that none, zero, zip, nada of the advertising revenue promised by council ever materialized, council has returned to electronic billboards as a source of 'profits'.

[Recently the billboard has been used to increase the dollar value/cost of council's hidden subsidies for the Abbotsford Entertainment and Sports complex by advertising upcoming events at the AESC.]

In light of Mayor Peary's statements concerning the City's agreement with the Pattison Sign Group one has to wonder if it is the ability to use the billboards to provide new, major advertising subsidization for the AESC and the Heat that led to the agreement?

The black hole that AESC is for taxpayer's dollars - multi-million dollar subsidies to the Heat ownership group, multi-million dollar operating subsidies so the Heat have an arena to play in and the growing cost of council's hidden (from taxpayer's) subsidies - would seem about to consume millions more taxpayer dollars thanks to city council's agreement with the Pattison Sign Group.

What makes me say that? Two things.

First is that councils big fancy digital billboard at ARC failed to attract advertising; that the only non-event advertising on the Tradex electronic billboard is City advertising; that the display on the Automall's very large, easily seen from Highway 1 electronic billboard is........the time and temperature.

If there is no market for your product, in this case advertising on large electronic billboards, you are going to find yourself stuck holding said unsellable product.

Second, whatever else people have to say about Jimmy Pattison, they acknowledge that he is a sharp businessman.

The Pattison Sign Group is about to spend millions of dollars erecting 3 large electronic billboards in Abbotsford, were the lack of advertising dollars being spent on existing electronic billboards suggests there is a strong possibility that the Pattison Sign Group's billboards will fail to generate sufficient revenue to break even on the billboards and their multi-million dollar cost.

Given council's demonstrated willingness to provide revenue guaranties (a la the Heat) and the sharpness of Jimmy Pattison as a businessman - I want to know just how much Abbotsford's taxpayers are potentially on the hook for when the billboards, which will operate in the real world and not council's fantasy worlds, fail to generate enough revenue to cover their costs?

Unfortunately, what this agreement can cost Abbotsford's taxpayers to pay for council's latest get rich quick scheme's 'profits' is undoubtedly something council considers taxpayers 'don't need to know' and since it involves a private business they can (and will undoubtedly) refuse to disclose this information to taxpayers (as they do with the Heat).

Sigh

I wonder how long it will be before council decides the problem with the AESC, as it would appear they did with ARC's billboard, is that it is too small and that building a three or four times larger complex will have umpteen tens of $millions$ rolling in?

It is well past time that, if council wants to gamble on get rich quick schemes, they use their own money.

And if they cannot, as the BC lottery ads put it, learn their limits and play within them......

Because councillors are elected to take care of the City's business and taxpayer's best interests, not to be impoverishing taxpayers pursuing nonexistent business 'profits'.

2011-09-05T22:44:00.000-07:00

Do as I say......

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".

2011-09-03T00:57:00.000-07:00

Aesthetically Pleasing?

Just how does one make a 10 X 20 foot electronic sign that is designed to be obtrusive and get your attention 'aesthetically pleasing’?

And given that electronic signs have two sides would it not be more accurate to say Abbotsford is getting six signs? Or at least getting the visual pollution of six signs?

“stems the proliferation”?

To stem is ‘to stop, check or restrain’. I am not aware of the city being inundated with this type of visual pollution or of any proposals to visually pollute our cityscape with eye assaulting electronic billboards?

Council’s actions would seem to encourage others to consider the money to be made from this visual pollution; encouraging, not stemming the proliferation of visual pollution around our cityscape.

The attempt to use Amber alert as a justification is facetious since there are already signs on Highway One and around Abbotsford capable of giving an Amber alert.

No, what this is about is Council's desperate search for sources of revenue so they can continue their spendthrift ways.

Business as usual for Council were it is all about Council's wants and needs and 'who cares about' the wants or needs of Abbotsford's citizens.

Council is suppose to focus on managing Abbotsford in the best interests of citizens, not on commercial business ventures.

The question that should have been asked is not how much money the city can make, but whether we want this type of visual pollution sprouting up like weeds around Abbotsford.

While other cities in BC fight to protect their citizens from this type of visual pollution Abbotsford council, with dollar signs glowing in their eyes, happily sell Abbotsford's citizens out; opening the door to visual pollution the extent of which only time will reveal.

Abbotsford, where the cityscape is littered with brightly glaring Signs of Council's mismanagement and blatant disregard for the needs and best interests of Abbotsford citizens.

2011-08-30T08:33:00.001-07:00

So Bill, Adrian...

On the Monday (August 29th) news there were calls for BC Community Living to find money to keep care homes for the developmentally challenged open. Over the weekend there were calls for the government to find the money to open the top two floors at Vernon Jubilee Hospital's new tower. Earlier this year there was a call to find the $10s of millions needed to build a new hospital on Haida Gwaii.

Calls by BC citizens, the media, the NDP for the government to spend more funds are a daily (or near daily) occurrence.

Yet with media acting as cheer leaders and Mr Vander Zalm, along with Mr Dix (and his NDP), acting as Svengalis - British Columbians voted to extinguish the HST and rip $2.6 to $3 billion out of government coffers over the next three and a half years.

On the heels of the announcement of the results of the vote, completely ignoring (refusing to accept?) the serious financial consequences of extinguishing the HST, British Columbians, the media, the NDP are all back calling for the government to 'find the money'.

Perhaps, rather than patting themselves on the back or running around thanking people for helping them extinguish the HST, Mr Vander Zalm and Mr Dix (and his NDP) will finally share with the public what $1.6 billion worth of health care and education services they want to cut to offset the $1.6 billion repayment (forfeiture) to Ottawa they fought so hard and successfully for? Or the cuts they favour to offset the $1 billion revenue reduction in the first two years of the return to the PST?

Cuts to services, since Mr Vander Zalm, Mr Dix (and his NDP) fought so hard to extinguish the GST because it 'raised taxes' so one would not expect them to want to raise taxes to cover these massive revenue shortfalls.

Why speak only of cuts to healthcare and education? Because even drastic actions such as cutting all the gaming grants given to organizations in the province or cutting subsidies to BC Ferries and forcing them to balance their books through service cuts are simply too small to achieve a re-balancing of the budget without significant reductions in healthcare services and education. Healthcare and education being the only budget areas large enough to provide the Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in cuts needed.

Not that I am opposed to making as many smaller cuts as possible to offset the revenue forfeitures Mr Vander Zalm, Mr Dix and the NDP so successfully (and disasterously) fought for.

I am very much in favour of eliminating the government pensions of Mr Vander Zalm, Mr Dix and the NDP as well as cutting the salaries of current NDP MLA's to $32,667 (1/3 of their current $98,000). Since the behaviour of Mr. Dix and the NDP MLAs clearly demonstrates their outrageous salaries and gold plated pensions have resulted in them being totally out of touch with the economic and financial reality of British Columbia and most British Columbians

The leadership Mr Vander Zalm, Mr Dix and the NDP showed in extinguishing the HST, should be shown in living with the consequences.

It is just unfortunate that those consequences cannot not be limited to Mr Vander Zalm, Mr Dix, the NDP, the media and those British Columbians who voted to extinguish the HST - but will instead fall on, and be suffered by, all British Columbians.

2011-08-22T05:14:00.000-07:00

More ad hominem Mayor Peary?

I see mayor Peary has changed the negative label he applies to any who dare disagree with him.

'Naysayers' have now become 'critics'. Perhaps because the use of 'naysayers' reminds citizens that the predictions of the naysayers about the outcome and consequences of building the AESC have proven fairly accurate. Especially in contrast to the wildly inaccurate 'everything will be wonderful' predictions, claims and promises made by city staff and council.

When did critical review and evaluation of expenditures that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars become a bad thing?

Without the feedback provided by critical review and evaluation companies, countries, provinces and municipalities can easily end up wasting millions upon millions of dollars on projects that become white elephants and money pits. At least companies, countries, provinces and municipalities lacking papal infallibility.

Admittedly one needs solid self esteem to accept and examine the feedback provided by critical review, acknowledging oversights or mistakes and making changes as needed.

Personally, I must acknowledge that in my analysis and evaluation of the proposal to build the AESC I did not foresee that council would saddle taxpayers with a $75 million dollar liability for the Heat (of which $60 million remains for the 8 years the revenue guarantee has left).

Fortunately (or should that be unfortunately?) taxpayers are only out $5 - $6 - $7 million rather than the maximum possible $15 million for the first two years of the revenue guarantee.

I admit I failed entirely to anticipate that council would ignore the law - flout the law -break the law - and put taxpayers at risk for $75 million dollars by signing an illegal revenue guarantee with the Heat ownership.

As to Mayor Peary's latest derogatory term for those who disagree with him:

Labelling me a critic or naysayer does not change what I am.

A person of common sense with an appreciation of financial reality and the need to act in a financially responsible manner.

A person who believes council should be acting in the best interest of and to address the needs of the city and its citizens and not council's ego.

A person of ethics who believes that when subsidizing a hockey team is against the law council should respect the law rather than, as this council chose, ignoring or finding ways to circumvent the law.

A person who feels that if the only benefit (or beneficiaries) of an economic impact report is the re-election campaign(s) of elected officials, payment for the report should come out of the pockets of those seeking re-election and not out of the pockets of taxpayers.

2011-08-14T10:25:00.001-07:00

Facts???? We're the Government.

The response (below) to my call for the provincial government to stop bedevilling British Columbians struggling to survive serious health challenges (and the poverty that so often goes with it) has me pondering whether the government pays attention to what you say or, spotting a few key words - Air Miles®, PharmaCare - reply using a rote response or form letter.

Nowhere in the reply were the facts or points I raised addressed.

Of course the reply didn't contain any facts or evidence to support the government's assertion 'the government was subsidizing the incentive programs'. Further, the government's reasoning (more accurately what passes for reasoning in government and the bureaucracy) is based on multiple coulds.

Could. And based on the speculation of could, the government took a benefit from the seriously ill who practiced good fiscal management.

Although......basing policies on what government insists on believing, on the speculation of could, rather than facts, does explain the sad state of BC's finances, healthcare, education, housing, deficit, debt, etc.

Those collecting points were maximizing the bang for the taxpayer buck. By collecting points they got the medications taxpayers paid for and through the collection of points they got $20 worth of food or gas to supplement their (inadequate) support (and if the politicians and bureaucrats feel it is adequate, I propose we set the salaries of MLA's and bureaucrats at this 'adequate' level).

So, not only is the government's incentive program policy not saving the taxpayers any money, it is wasting the cash value of the rewards that are no longer collected.

I also found myself wondering if, after the Bureaucratese of the reply had been slapped together, anyone had bother reading what had been written.

Take the lecture on the free market. While it might be suitable as an introduction to economics in middle school its simplistic view fails to capture the complexity of the free market as it functions in the real world.

Such as the difference in the economics of standalone pharmacies versus pharmacies contained within (or part of) a retail operation such as grocery stores or London Drugs; or the consequences of a pharmacy being part of a larger entity (Safeway) which has an incentive program that applies to the goods of the entire store.

So, we have government policy based on the speculation of could and economics and finances suitable to middle school but not for application in the real world.

Then we have this beauty:

" pharmacies set their drug prices and dispensing fees based on what they believe the market will bear – or more specifically on what they believe their customers will pay."

" While PharmaCare does not have the ability to “shop around” it does set maximum amounts for which government will pay."

PharmaCare sets out what (the maximum) it will pay. Therefore the pharmacies have no need to base their prices on "what they believe their customers will pay." If the pharmacies know what PharmaCare will pay, then by the governments own assertion that is what the pharmacies will charge for medication for those on PharmaCare.

According to the government reply, the amount PharmaCare would have been paying when British Columbians in need were allowed to collect Air Miles® (or other incentive programs) was the maximum amount PharmaCare had set for each specific medication being taken.

According to the government reply, the amount PharmaCare is paying now that government policy prevents the collection of Air Miles® etc is the maximum amount PharmaCare sets for each specific medication being taken.

So, according to the governments own rational it does not matter whether Air Miles® (or other incentive program points) are collected or not, knowing what the maximum amount PharmaCare will pay for any specific medication, means that (the maximum) is what pharmacies will charge.

By the governments own rational, changing the policy on incentive program points collection has not saved the taxpayers any money. Conversely the collection of incentive program points did not cost the taxpayers any money.

The effect of the change in policy is to fail to obtain the maximum bang for the taxpayer buck by not collecting the rewards that are available as a result of taxpayer dollars spent on medication.

And then::

"Rather than offering loyalty rewards, if a pharmacy sets its drug price or dispensing fee at a lower amount to attract customers, then customers, PharmaCare and all taxpayers will save money."

Setting aside for the moment the fact that, according to the government's own rational, the price charged to PharmaCare (loyalty rewards or no loyalty rewards) will be the maximum that PharmaCare has set out as the amount it will pay for a specific drug, consider the following points.

In the free market cutting prices to attract business leads to price wars. Incentive programs tend to be offered by large retail chains/organizations (such as Safeway Wal-Mart) who have the financial wherewithal to win such a war.

When was the last time (if ever) you heard or read advertizing for pharmacies that was based on the prices for prescription drugs?

Even if a pharmacy does charge a lower unadvertised price how are people going to find it? Do you check around to find the lowest price ever time you get a prescription?

If you are on PharmaCare it makes sense to make an effort to fill your prescription somewhere you earn rewards that are useful to you or your survival. If you cannot collect rewards, are you not going to choose a pharmacy based on convenience or cost savings realized by using that pharmacy?

Also affecting the decision as to which pharmacy to use - I always get my medication at the same place. They have my records and we have a year's long relationship. As a safety measure I have no interest in going to a strange, unknown pharmacy. (I have had my pharmacy catch and correct what could have been a fatal error in medication prescribed).

Then there is the question of how people are suppose to check prices. Pharmacies do not quote prices over the phone - you have to go to the pharmacy. How reasonable is it to expect people living on extremely limited budgets to spend their gas budget driving from pharmacy to pharmacy to compare prices - particularly after you have taken away the $20 reward they used for gas at the end of the month? How reasonable is it to want people to compare prices when market forces dictate that all pharmacies will be charging the same amount - the amount set out by PharmaCare.

I do not have the information to properly analyze how PharmaCare sets the maximum price it will pay for each medication it covers. However I would assume that PharmaCare behaves at least semi-rationally (I know - a dangerous assumption when referring to government). Meaning that PharmaCare would set its maximum rate based on the wholesale cost (the cost to pharmacies) of the specific medications.

Unless PharmaCare is allowing for a ridiculously large mark-ups (if it allows any mark-up at all), then pharmacies make little or no money on the mark-up over cost on filling PharmaCare prescriptions. Thus if PharmaCare is behaving in a fiscally responsible manner in setting the maximum it will pay for a specific medication, a pharmacy will need to charge the maximum PharmaCare will pay.

Once again, incentive or no incentive program, the amount charged by a pharmacy is going to be the maximum amount PharmaCare has set out as what it will pay.

If the government has evidence to support its claim that the collection of points in incentive programs is costing taxpayers dollars they need to present that evidence.

Evidence based on facts, not the speculation of 'could' or fairy tales. Because, if the government of BC insists on making policy based on speculation and fairy tales, I want to know why the government hasn't solved all its financial and service woes by having Rumpelstiltskin in the legislature basement spinning straw into gold?

The government needs to remember it is suppose to help, not persecute or hinder, the Wellness of citizens in need.

It should be maximizing the bang for the taxpayer buck, rather than wasting the rewards that accrue to the dollars taxpayers spend on medication by allowing the collection of reward/incentive points - points that cost the taxpayer not one additional cent.

Perhaps if the government ceased to waste time and resources chasing mirages of nonexistent savings or dreaming up ways or excuses to abuse British Columbians in need of help, the government COULD address major issues such as the rationing and cutbacks of healthcare.

Whether malice or maladroitness it is time the government ceased to tyrannize British Columbians suffering from serious health issues and a lack of personal resources by allowing them to collect Air Miles® (or participate in other incentive programs).

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

Dear Mr. Breckenridge:

I am writing in response to your emails of July 11 and 18, 2011, regarding the restriction on incentive programs such as Air Miles®. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Honourable Michael de Jong, QC, Minister of Health.

As you are aware, the British Columbia PharmaCare program is the publicly funded drug insurance program operated by the BC Ministry of Health. The purpose of the PharmaCare program is to assist British Columbians, particularly those with lower incomes, with the cost of eligible prescription drugs and designated medical supplies.

Community pharmacies in BC are retail enterprises that operate in a free market. A free market is defined as an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. Like other retail businesses, pharmacies set their drug prices and dispensing fees based on what they believe the market will bear – or more specifically on what they believe their customers will pay.

There is a wide variation on what pharmacies in BC charge for prescription drugs. If people purchasing prescription drugs at the higher cost drug stores shopped around, they could save up to 25 percent on their annual drug bill.

For example, people taking commonly prescribed atorvastatin (generic Lipitor) 10 mg once daily could pay over $40 for a 30 day supply of the drug at the more expensive pharmacies in the province. The same amount of the same drug could cost less than $30 dollars at less expensive pharmacies. PharmaCare currently reimburses up to $31.56 for a 30 day supply.

Incentive programs encourage people to shop at a particular pharmacy or pharmacy chain by enticing them with such things as loyalty points, coupons, discounts, goods, rewards and similar schemes rather than with lower prices. Incentive programs cost retailers money, which they build into the price they charge consumers. Customers, particularly those where an insurer pays all or part of their drug costs, may become more concerned about the rewards they are receiving than the cost of the drug. Over time this can contribute to price escalation.

This new policy respects the right of pharmacies to offer incentive programs for customers, but takes government out of the business of subsidizing them.

PharmaCare is also a community pharmacy customer, spending as much as $1 billion annually on prescription drugs for its beneficiaries. While PharmaCare does not have the ability to “shop around” it does set maximum amounts for which government will pay.

While PharmaCare sets a maximum amount it will pay, not all pharmacies bill at the maximum amount. Rather than offering loyalty rewards, if a pharmacy sets its drug price or dispensing fee at a lower amount to attract customers, then customers, PharmaCare and all taxpayers will save money.

Please be aware that the restriction on inducements only affects the portion of a prescription paid by PharmaCare. You may still choose to get your prescription from a pharmacy that offers incentives so you can accrue points/rewards on the amount you pay out-of-pocket.

Further information on PharmaCare’s policy on inducements has been posted on the PharmaCare website. The Information can be viewed at:

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/pharmacare/pdf/inducements.pdf.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns, and trust that this explains the rationale for restricting incentive programs.

Sincerely,

Bob Nakagawa, B.Sc. (Pharm.), ACPR, FCSHP

Assistant Deputy

2011-08-06T02:22:00.000-07:00

Insult to Insult to Injury

Over the years many people have compliment me on my willpower for my dedication in swimming 5 – 6 days a week. The truth is that it is not so much willpower or dedication as it is being highly motivated.

As the years have accumulated all the contact sports, injuries etc have come home to roost with a vengeance. To maximize, to maintain, mobility and minimize pain I need to swim those 5 -6 days a week.

Which is why the sizable surcharge imposed on the users of the Abbotsford Recreation Centre (and the City’s other facilities) to pay the multi-million dollar subsidy for a professional hockey team and a multi-million dollar subsidy to the well connected members of the Heat ownership group is so painful both as a citizen of Abbotsford and physically.

The surcharges have pushed the cost of a pass for ARC from affordable (with planning and frugality) to out of reach for the best part of Abbotsford’s citizens – as well as propelling the cost of using public facilities well past the cost of using private facilities. Only in Abbotsford would you end up with the public facilities affordable only for the well-to-do and the private facilities affordable to the general public.

[The reason I have not followed so many others to the private recreation facilities is that I am a length swimmer and it is only the public facilities that permit 25 metre lengths.]

The limitations on swimming imposed by being able to afford to swim only during toonie swim times means that since pool fees moved into the stratosphere my mobility has been decreasing and my pain levels have been increasing.

Struggling stiffly, slowly and painfully up to start the day serves as a daily reminder of city council’s practice of serving the needs of council’s egos rather than the needs of the taxpayers – with the notable exception of well connected taxpayers.

Adding insult to the injury of the usurious surcharge is the decision to abuse perfectly fine walls with paint to caricature a mural - as opposed to using the money frittered away on the mural to keep the cost of admission less extortionate.

A mural that seems to have a great deal in common with a Rorschach inkblot adds yet another layer of insult. Filling balloons with paint and having patrons throw them at the walls would have gotten much the same look, at a negligible cost.

Council, in typical council fashion, painted murals in a building where the cost of painting the murals pushes the admission cost up leaving people unable to afford to use the facility and see the murals.

The purpose of public facilities is not to fritter away money on murals or to provide funds to provide multi-million dollar subsidies to/for a facility for a professional hockey team or to provide multi-million dollar subsidies for an ownership group to buy themselves (themselves – not the city that is paying the subsidies) a professional hockey team.

The purpose of public recreation facilities is to provide amenities that all citizens can afford to access.

2011-08-04T02:43:00.000-07:00

The media coverage of the HMCS Vancouver setting sail to Libyan waters to relieve HMCS Charlottetown, which has been in action off the Libyan coast since March, underscores Mr Harper and his Conservatives lack of an ethical base.

Mr Harper justified the involvement of the Canadian military in Libya by stating that the Canadian military was there to ‘protect the Libyan people from Mr Gaddafi.

According to Mr Harper Mr Gaddafi killing citizens of Libya is such a grievous offence that military intervention by countries from around the world is required to put an end to this killing.

Conversely Mr Harper is perfectly fine with Canadian business (with the approval and support of the Canadian government) to kill Libyans and citizens of any other country by exporting asbestos – a substance whose use is banned in Canada because it causes death, cancer and asbestosis - profiting from the export of death.

Obviously Mr Gaddafi’s mistake was that he should have used Canadian asbestos to kill his victims; Mr Gaddafi's sin lay in his failure to contribute to the profitability of the Quebec asbestos exports and thus to the electability of Mr Harper’s Conservatives in the province of Quebec.

2011-07-31T06:02:00.001-07:00

AESC Economic Impact Report

Not really surprising that with an election only a few months away the mayor and council felt the need for an economic impact study on the AESC.

After all, with the AESC's appetite for consuming taxpayer dollars, its multi-million dollar subsidy to a professional hockey team, its multi-million dollars subsidy for well connected local citizens to buy themselves said professional hockey team and the consequences of council's decisions driving property taxes, facility admission costs, field rentals and other city fees and charges into the stratosphere - mayor and council were desperate for something - anything - that would allow them to claim the AESC was in some way good for the community.

In exchange for pouring tens of thousands more taxpayer dollars into the AESC's black hole, mayor and council got a report with numbers they could point to and claim the AESC was positive for the community.

Of course......given that the methodology used to calculate the economic impact made it impossible not to get numbers that could be claimed to be positive, while ensuring no negative impacts would be recognized......means the report is meaningless in terms of assessing the impact of the AESC on Abbotsford.

Not much of a surprise that paying big bucks for an impact report resulted in the use of methodology that served mayor and council's need for numbers that obscure and/or ignore actual impacts.

Methodology that resulted in an increase in economic impact in this second impact report on the AESC, over the first report prepared before the AESC opened.

Despite the fact that none of the promises made by council as to the financial performance of the AESC has materialized economic impact increased. Which is what happens when you use 'multipliers' to calculate economic impact - the higher the expenditure you apply the multiplier to, the larger the economic impact becomes.

In other words - the bigger a disaster, the more of a money sucking black hole the AESC becomes, the higher the number for economic impact becomes.

As to the report's claim of the creation of 305 FTE jobs, the report did include the information that FTE jobs meant full time equivalent jobs.

What the report did not include was information on how the number 305 was arrived at. From the information contained in the report the number 305 appears to have been plucked out of thin air.

Even if 305 could be supported, what full time equivalent jobs means if that a lot of different people got a few hours of work here and a few hours of work there. As anyone who is looking for work or trying to survive in Abbotsford can tell you what is needed in Abbotsford is not full time equivalent jobs but full time jobs paying wages sufficient to live on.

Another non-surprise concerning the report is that the City's news release as well as Mayor Peary's comments omitted to note or draw the attention of taxpayers to the $15,208,000 Abbotsford portion of total AESC expenditures.

Or that - since if you read the report on economic impact you would discover the methodology used, the lack of any support for the claimed 305 FTE jobs and the $15,208,000 Abbotsford portion of total AESC expenditures - if you wanted to read the report it was not easily available on the City's web site but required on to request a copy of the report from city hall.

Finally concerning mayor Peary's statement "The critics of the sports centre either don't understand, or choose not to understand, that there are some benefits."

The question is not whether there are some benefits to the centre, obviously the ownership group and their businesses derive substantial benefits from the centre and from the pocketbooks of Abbotsford's beleaguered taxpayers.

The question is about a) the benefits that the taxpayers should receive for their $15,208,000 portion of total AESC expenditures and b) how anyone with common sense, an understanding of fiscal reality and who behaves in a fiscally responsible manner could or would be expected to place any value on the expensive drivel contained in this new report on the economic impact of the AESC.

2011-07-28T20:08:00.001-07:00

'Public' facilities not very public accessible

I ran into an acquaintance I had not seen in a while who, knowing how I feel about City council's priorities and behaviours, felt I would provide a sympathetic ear to his need to vent.

Both he and his wife work and even though they are frugal it is difficult to make ends meet these days - a struggle an ever increasing number of Canadians and Abbotsford citizens share.

The fees the City of Abbotsford charges for the use of its athletic fields has pushed the cost of playing soccer (and other sports) to the level that, while they might be able scrimp enough to pay for one child, paying for two kids is not possible. Leaving, in fairness, none of the kids playing soccer.

I pointed out that council needed as many dollars as possible to pay the multi-million dollar subsidies for council's ego/vanity projects - the ASEC and Abbotsford's professional hockey team - and their subsidizing the purchase of a professional hockey team for a group of well connected citizens.

His reply involved several anatomically challenging, if not out and out impossible, suggestions. When he inquired as to how one qualifies for City subsidies to purchase a professional hockey team I had to inform him that since the makeup of the 'ownership group' was deemed knowledge to important (to damning?) to let the taxpayers (the people footing the bills for all the multi-million dollar subsidies) know, there was no way to know the relationship between councillors and the Heat ownership.

Sadly he is not the only person I know who has children that cannot participate in sports because of the cost Abbotsford charges to use its fields. Growing numbers of young people are being denied participation in sports activities because their families cannot afford the fees.

Ironic is it not? The airwaves are full of government advertisements about the fact children need 60 minutes of physical activity a day to be healthy and the City of Abbotsford is making it impossible for growing numbers of children to participate in physical exercise.

Personally, I think that a City's priority should be the participation of young people in sports and activities. If we are going to give multi-million dollars subsidies to sports facilities it should be facilities for the young and other citizens - not for professional athletes and certainly not to subsidize the purchase of a professional hockey team by well connected citizens.

But then I also think that the purpose of public recreation facilities is to provide an affordable place for citizens to exercise. Unlike the current council which uses public facilities as another source of funds to subsidize (to the tune of several millions of dollars per year) a facility for professional athletes to use and to provide multi-million dollars yearly subsidies for the purchase of the professional hockey team.

Council talks about the need for amenities to attract new citizens to Abbotsford and to encourage young people to remain in Abbotsford rather than moving elsewhere. Yet the fee's council charges for the use of amenities are prohibitive.

There is no difference between having no amenities and having amenities nobody can afford to use or can afford to use only infrequently.

That is why in Abbotsford, in the good old days before this spendthrift council, a monthly or yearly membership for the use of city facilities was the lowest (or among the lowest) in the city.

These days, under this spendthrift council, the prices at city facilities are the highest (or among the highest) and fewer and fewer families and citizens can afford to use city facilities.

I have been, until now, a pass holder and regular user of city pools to swim. I have watched as those I had shared the city facilities with over the years became members of private facilities (as I would have if one of them had an appropriately sized pool) - because membership at a private facilities is many $$$$$ less.

I have lost count of how often I have been told by other citizens and families how extremely limited their ability to use 'public' amenities have become because of admission costs.

In other cities, the city facilities ensure the general public access to regular exercise and the private facilities are the haunts of the better off who can afford higher fees.

In Abbotsford it is the private facilities that best ensure the general public's access to exercise, while the city facilities are the haunts of those who can afford the fees at city facilities.

But then in other cities, city facilities are to serve the needs of citizens and not the need of council to pay for its ego/vanity projects.

2011-07-23T08:23:00.000-07:00

Terrorist - the eyes of the beholder?

Prior to the atomic bomb era the deadly atomic weapon in Science Fiction was ‘nuclear dust’. Widespread death was caused by disbursing radioactive dust throughout the atmosphere bringing about death from radiation poisoning.

It wasn't until nuclear science was driven by WWII to create the atomic bomb that the nuclear weapon of mass death and destruction became the atomic bomb

Interestingly we've come somewhat full circle so that among the terrorist scenarios popular for movies (and undoubtedly among the nightmares of those charged with anti-terrorism) is terrorists using dirty bombs; bombs that are designed to vaporize radioactive material into dust form and disburse it into the air of a building, buildings or city.

As in the pre-1945 Science Fiction the radioactive particles are breathed in by the population causing radiation poisoning and death.

Depending on the concentration and radioactivity death can take hours, days, weeks, months or even years - as was the case with the soldiers used in the A bomb tests of the 40s and 50s who developed and died from cancers decades later.

Of course microscopic airborne particles do not have to be radioactive to cause illness, cancer and death.

Asbestos is banned in Canada and other developed nations because it's microscopic fibres stay in the air/environment and cause asbestosis, cancer and death.

Indeed the deadly nature of asbestos is such that if you were to ship Quebec asbestos to the USA and disburse the micro fibres throughout buildings or cities it would be considered an act of terrorism.

Yet Mr Harper and his Conservatives are exporting asbestos abroad, killing people around the world.

Mr Harper has stated he sees nothing wrong with spreading asbestos's deadly micro fibres and death to less developed nations around the world. Nor does it appear Mr Harper or his Conservatives will pay any penalty for this trading in death.

Yet you can be sure that if you or I were to take Quebec asbestos and disburse it's micro fibres throughout the offices or homes of Mr Harper and his Conservatives, they would be screaming for you or I to be arrested and charged for assaulting (or attempting to kill them) with a deadly weapon - asbestos.

Reflecting the sad reality that in Canada, in the world as a whole, some are far more equal than others. Unfortunately those who are far more equal also are oft far more ethically challenged as well. With negative, even deadly, consequences for those who are not numbered among the political class, the wealthy, the connected or the privileged

Find yourself asking what's wrong with today's young people or complaining about the state of society these days?

What do you expect when we have made human life the cheapest commodity of the planet?

2011-07-17T16:36:00.000-07:00

Iniquitous.

One can only hope that it is pettiness and meanness of spirit that has Health Minister Mike de Jong and the government acting in such a contemptible way towards British Columbians coping with the challenges of living with life altering, life threatening health challenges.

Mr de Jong's decision to persecute those ailing from the most debilitating illnesses is unconscionable.

The sickest of the sick? Yes, the sickest of the sick. Consider: we are talking Air Miles which means that, in order to get enough points for a $20 gas card or earn free food, you have to be purchasing thousands of dollars of medication each month. The need for thousands of dollars of medication per month indicates the illness that person is dealing with is, debilitating, life altering and life threatening in major ways.

If you know someone living with Crohn's Disease and /or Ulcerative Colitis you know the intrusive and wide ranging effect it has on someone's life. You also know how the support given to people suffering from such chronic conditions is unrealistic and inadequate to what is needed to survive with any quality of life.

Thus the additional resources that the Air Miles rewards program bestows is not some fancy perk but necessary for survival. A way for the victim of the illness to cover a small portion of the gap between what they need for survival and the inadequate 'support' from government. A 'support' that, as a fixed income, grows more inadequate every month as the costs of living rise and their income remains fixed.

A way that costs the government nothing.

Which is why I said one hopes it is pettiness and a spiritual meanness that has Health Minister de Jong and the government persecuting the most health challenged British Columbians.

Because if, as the evidence frighteningly suggests, Mr de Jong, the government and the NDP cannot see the fallacy, the incorrectness, in the assertion that this is somehow costing taxpayers money.......We are financially doomed.

Although it does explain the financial, budget and service delivery (i.e. healthcare) mess we are in and why, finding ourselves in a deep financial/budget/service delivery hole, we keep digging ourselves deeper - rather than acting to get out of the hole.

Mr de Jong stated that although he did not know how, and thus could not tell voters how, taxpayers must be paying for this somehow because there is no free lunch.

Why is it that Mr de Jong and the government don't apply this 'there is no free lunch' idea where it should be applied (their salaries, perks and pension plan for example) but apply it when it will hurt British Columbia's most vulnerable - and where it has no application.

That is correct, these 'survival bonuses' that were being earned from Air Miles were NOT costing the taxpayers of BC anything.

Should Mr. de Jong have been correct and taxpayers were paying for these programs what should have happened when the government stopped Pharmacare's participation? The promotions should have ended. They didn't. Leading to the (rather obvious) conclusion that this promotion was not aimed at or based on Pharmacare's participation.

Hardly surprising since Pharmacare's payment policies to pharmacies are based on minimizing the costs - and seemingly maximizing the hassles. I rather suspect there are numerous pharmacies that would just as soon not deal with Pharmacare period - if that was permitted.

So why Air Miles? Keep in mind that it is not just the Pharmacy at Safeway that offers Air Miles; Air Miles apply on all purchases made at Safeway.

Air Miles is a loyalty program whose purpose is just that - loyalty - attracting customers and keeping those customers coming back to make future purchases.

Air Miles are a promotion, an enticement to shop and be a loyal customer of Safeway. The cost of the Air Miles promotion is, like advertising, part of the cost of doing business for Safeway.

The promotion is not about Pharmacare and will continue without the participation of the poor who are dependent on Pharmacare for the medication they need to remain among the living.

Because of the nature of the Air Miles program, the rewards earned by those on Pharmacare are effectively earned at NO COST to the government.

The only results from Health Minister de Jong's new policy is to reduce the resources available, to threaten even further the health and survival of the desperately ill.

Why Mr de Jong and the government are punishing people for being financially responsible and creative in maximizing the resources they have every month - at no cost to the taxpayer - is a mystery.

No matter, it is time stop being petty and mean, apologize to these British Columbians the government is suppose to be helping and right the wrong done in introducing this punitive new policy by ending it.

2011-07-13T06:18:00.000-07:00

Choice is not about the taxes

The author of a recent column on the HST stated "I’m sick of the lies…", a sentiment I am sure many voters in BC and across Canada would echo. Although I am not sure why.

After all, for decades voters have been rewarding the politicians who have lied to them and told voters what they wanted to hear by electing them and punishing those who wanted to focus on important issues, who told the truth or told voters what they did not want to hear.

To put it in terms of animal husbandry - we have been selecting for and breeding politicians who lie.

So why is anyone surprised that politicians lie?

When you consider the list of issues and challenges voters don't want or refuse to hear about, or think about and the list of issues and challenges voters 'know all about' - even though the evidence shows what they know is erroneous; the choices or priorities voters do not want to have to choose among or set; the things voters just plain don't want to hear........it is tough to talk about anything without either lying or eliciting the same response from voters that you get taking a stick to a hive of Africanized bees.

Voters want governments to provide all the services voters feel they are entitled to and/or want, they want them provided NOW - and they don't want these services to cost them one penny more than they are paying now.

The provincial Liberal government should have said NO to funding anything but provincial infrastructure (i.e. the sea to sky highway upgrades) for the 2010 Winter Olympics. But then Vancouver would have not hosted the Olympics and then everyone (including the voters) would be blaming the Liberals and saying they should have funded the Olympics. And you can bet that if the Liberals had said NO, the NDP would have flipped and been demanding the Liberals fund the Olympics and raising the Liberals 'losing' the Olympics as an election issue.

And when the BC Liberals were unable to say no to the federal government's HST compensation offer because they needed the $1.6 billion so badly to cover Olympic expenses and Olympic cost over runs. No one who supported the 2010 Winter Olympics should be complaining about the HST because the HST is part of the price of hosting the Winter Olympics.

And to layer financial irresponsibility on top of financial irresponsibility they was all the money wasted on throwing a one year anniversary celebration of the Olympics. Where were the taxpayers then? Oh ya, they were out partying.

About politicians the author also said ".... start performing on our behalf instead of using all their brain power on ways to get all our money."

Politicians are not using all their brain power to get all our money. They are using all their brain power to keep getting re-elected and to form the government. In order to do this they must try to satisfy voters who want more, more, more. Voters who, if they do not get their way, throw a temper tantrum that would put any two year old to shame (as Mr Vander Zalm and the anti-HST forces are doing) and throw out the politicians who dared to suggest that there is such a thing as enough and replace them with politicians who promise voters whatever voters want and tell voters whatever it is they want to hear. You know, the politicians who lie to them.

So it is not that politicians are focused on getting as much money from voters pocketbooks as possible for the sake of getting the money. Rather politicians are focused on giving voters what they want , when they want it - as best they can - in order to get re-elected and remain the government.

It is simply that this course of action requires governments to maximize the amount of milk (cash) the government can get out of people to add to the funds they can borrow so they can give people what they want and are demanding and get re-elected.

2011-07-10T16:37:00.000-07:00

Myths and the HST

An anti-HST supporter was waving around the anti-HST 'Top 7 HST Myths' claiming it was absolute proof that extinguishing the HST was the only choice and that extinguishing the HST would have no negative consequences for BC.

Since he wouldn't let anyone actually read this 'proof' it was necessary to hunt up a copy of a paper with the advertisement in its pages to see what 'proof' the 'Top 7 HST Myths' offered in support of it being worth accepting/suffering the consequences of extinguishing the HST and returning to the PST/GST.

You can find the information allowing you to reach an understanding of the HST, PST/GST, the issues and consequences of extinguishing the HST by going to http://www.hstinbc.ca/media/Its_Your_Decision_GSTPSTHST.pdf and reading the independent panels report yourself.

Because the Extinguish Yes/No decision will have a significant effect on healthcare and other services and the finances of BC it is imperative for voters to invest the time in getting the facts and not the nonsense both sides are vomiting forth.

What is to be found in the "Top 7 HST Myths?

From Myth 1 "...a total tax increase of $1.6 billion per year"; from Myth 2 "...increases taxes for British Columbians by $2.8 billion per year"; from Myth 7" over $28 billion in new taxes in just 10 years" - $28 ¸10 = $2.8 per year and "the independent panel says the HST generated $850 million more than budgeted." [the GST was implemented a year ago - July 1, 2010]

So is the tax increase $1.6 billion a year? $2.8 billion a year? or $850 million a year? DUH!

From Myth 7 "Ottawa collected $300 million more in corporate taxes under HST than under PST"

The HST is a sales tax - 'corporate taxes' are income taxes.

Prior to the HST Ottawa collected the 5% GST (Goods and Services Tax) in BC. When the HST was implemented by BC it was BC that made changes to what its sales tax was collected on; Ottawa made no changes to the rate (5%) nor on what goods and services that rate applied to.

Under the HST Ottawa collects exactly the same revenue it would have under the GST. DUH!

From Myth 7 "The independent panel says the HST generated $850 million more than budgeted."

Where? A question readers can seek an answer to while reading the independent panel report "It's Your Decision". While reading the report one can read the biographic information on the panel members to form an opinion as to how much weight to give the reports information in making one's decision.

The report does say that in budget years 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 the HST will generate addition GROSS sales taxes of $820 and $893 million which will NET out to $531 and $645 [NET = GROSS - the HST rebates and income tax breaks].

It would appear the anti-HST forces have so poor an understanding of this matter - GST/PST/HST - they fail to understand what "It's Your Decision' is actually saying. Reading "It's Your Decision" makes it obvious that $1.6 billion or $2.8 billion or $850 million are all incorrect figures for the extra revenue the HST generates. DUH!

From Myth 5 "Bribes of $175 per child when your cost is closer to $400 a year each makes you wonder if they think all of us failed math as badly as they did."

While reading "It's Your Decision" you can find the information to take $400 per year and determine how much has to be spent per child to generate an extra HST cost of $400 an year. When you do the math - which is rather straight forward and simple - you find that in order to pay $400 more per year per child you need to be spending $33,613.00 per child. Might I suggest that anyone spending $33,613.00 per child per year can afford to pay the extra $400 per child per year in taxes?

Speaking of "...failing math..." - DUH!

From Myth 4 "A onetime rebate of $175..."; from Myth 5 "Bribes of $175 per child...".

There is the possibility that what these statements reflect is that the anti-HST vote is so committed to 'winning' and/or 'punishing the Liberal government' they will lie by omission.

On the other hand, with the degree of ignorance and the lack of understanding demonstrated in "Top 7 HST Myths" by the anti-HST forces, the proponents of extinguishing the HST may be ignorant of the $232 million in HST rebates that will be paid out to British Columbians every year and the $200+ million dollars in yearly income tax breaks British Columbians will benefit from with the HST. DUH

From Myth 4 "Seniors and people on fixed incomes are some of the hardest hit by the HST"; from Myth 5 "Next to seniors working families are among the hardest hit by the HST..."

The HST is a sales tax, a consumption tax. The more you spend, the more you consume, the more things you purchase and the higher the cost of your purchases (designer clothes, Ferraris, etc) - the more HST you pay. Those hardest hit by the HST are the big spenders, the wealthy who can most afford to pay more.

If you are a low income earner, poor, living in poverty, living on a (low) fixed income you get HST rebates and/or income tax breaks.

The lower your income, the better off you are financially under the HST. DUH!

From Myth 7 "We'll owe $1.6 billion if we cancel the HST - False"; BC has received only $1 Billion".

BC has received two payments from Ottawa, one received when the HST legislation was introduced in the BC legislature and one received July 1. 2011 when the HST went into effect totalling $1.124 billion. The final $475 payment was due July 1, 2011 but with the scheduled referendum on the HST has not been paid and will not be paid until the HST is approved in the referendum. The $1.6 billion represents the total compensation BC was to receive for the HST.

While it is true BC will only need to repay $1.124 billion to Ottawa, it will have to 'repay' $475 million to the 2011/2012 BC budget to replace the $475 million it was to have received on July 1, 2011.

No matter how you slice it, BC and BC taxpayers will be out of pocket the $1.6 billion it was to receive from Ottawa for implementing the HST. DUH!

From Myth 7 "the HST generated $850 million more than budgeted......government already has $850 million to repay Ottawa. BC has only received $1 billion and Ottawa collected $300 million more in corporate taxes under the HST than the PST. So it's a wash."

As noted earlier 1) the HST has not generated $850 million more than budgeted; 2) BC has received $1.124 million and will have to forgo the final $475 million dollar payment; 3) Ottawa collected the same revenue under the HST as it would have under the GST - there was NO 'extra' $300 million collected.

It is not 'wash'. If the HST is extinguished the BC budget will be out $1.6 billion, and that $1.6 billion will have to be replaced. Either taxes will need to be raised $1.6 billion OR healthcare, other government services and expenditures will have to be reduced $1.6 billion. In other words voting to extinguish the HST is voting for less healthcare (more beds in the hallways, longer waits for services at hospitals and so on) DUH!

Myth 7 ""keeping the HST would cost British Columbians - over $28 billion in new taxes in just 10 years'

If you use the 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 numbers from "It's your decision", accepting the 25% year-to-year increase in revenue and do the math you get an estimated $10,875 billion which is a far cry from $28 billion ("failed math"?). Duh!

Top 7 HST Myths - the fallacies and WTF are they thinking.

Why would you ever assume that, given our current economy and the demands taxpayers have been making on government, that any HST dollars collected above the budgeted amount remain available to repay Ottawa?

The sluggish economy means that other revenue sources have brought in less dollars that budgeted. The demands taxpayers have been making for more government spending (services) means spending is over budget. Less revenue, more expenses where is the money to cover the budget shortfall to come from? That's right - the extra revenue generated from the HST. Leaving no mythical big pool of money lying around to repay Ottawa the $1.124 billion and replace the forgone/lost $475 million - $1,599 billion that will have to come from the pockets of British Columbians. DUH!

Declining/returning the $1.6 billion from Ottawa.

Most of the $1.6 billion that BC was to receive from Ottawa came out of the pockets of Canadians other than BC residents. Personally I favour letting Canadians living outside of BC pick up the tab for most of the $1.6 billion. For some unfathomable reason the anti-HST forces want to return this money to other Canadians and have British Columbians pay extra taxes to cover the $1.6 billion.DUH!

That there is and will be no need for new taxes to pay for services provided to citizens by the BC government; that if the HST is extinguished the extra funds the HST would have raised will not have to be raised by other taxes/fees.

While the statement "the 'independent panel' says..." would seem to imply the anti-HST forces have read "It's Your Decision" their own words in "Top 7 HST Myths" make it abundantly clear that if they did read "It's Your Decision" they failed, or lacked the capacity, to understand the budgetary and financial realities of the Province of BC.

The report, in plain language, sets out the reality that BC, without extra funds (taxes) from somewhere, is facing the need for significant cutbacks of budget expenditures (services such as healthcare).

Indeed the report specifically cites the way healthcare costs are ballooning and the reality that even with the hundreds of millions of extra tax dollars generated by the HST healthcare costs will outstrip the ability of the province to fund healthcare.

So, whether it be from the HST or some other combination of taxes/fees the province of BC either needs significant increases in revenue or to make significant reductions in healthcare, education and other services.

The real question that needs to be addressed isn't as to whether the HST is raising more money - it is - the question is what are those funds being used for and what are the consequences if those funds are lost.

Finally, the true falsehood revealed by "Top & HST Myths" is the myth that the anti-HST forces understand the issues and consequences involved in extinguishing the HST.

The 'proof' contained in "Top 7HST Myths", set out in the anti-HST forces own words, is that the anti-HST forces lack an understanding (lack the mental acuity to understand?) of the financial and budgetary realties facing the Province of BC or of the nature and workings of the HST.

Disturbingly, if the anti-HST forces cannot comprehend the issues surrounding the provincial budget and the HST - they cannot understand or appreciate the far reaching negative consequences of extinguishing the HST.

Which is at least a more acceptable reason than self-aggrandizement or malice for why the anti-HST forces are working so hard to lead British Columbians off a cliff and int0 self-destruction of the provinces finances, healthcare and other services that would be brought about by extinguishing the HST.

I will be voting NO to the question of extinguishing the HST because of the far reaching consequences.

I urge you to go to http://www.hstinbc.ca/media/Its_Your_Decision_GSTPSTHST.pdf and read "It's Your Decision" - the independent panels report - for yourself. Read carefully, give it careful thought and make up your mind based on facts not 'myths' or hyperbole.

2011-07-03T17:06:00.000-07:00

Unpalatable perhaps - but REALITY none the less.

Reality does not care what you want to be fact, reality does not care what you believe to be fact, Reality simply is what IS fact. Tao of James

I wanted to speak of a reality I have no doubt many will Howl about, deny or want to argue about. Which is fine with me - as long as you read the entire comment and think about why I made the statement of Reality IS in fact - as defined by our actions - not our words but our actions.

It is a source of pride for many of Abbotsford's citizens that Abbotsford has a reputation as the Bible Belt, a very Christian city. False pride as a recent event and the reaction and behaviour of Abbotsford citizens to that event have compellingly proven.

Despite its diverse multicultural and multi-faith nature British Columbia also considers itself a predominantly Christian province. Here also the reaction and behaviour of the citizens of BC to that recent event prove compellingly that British Columbians are clearly deluding themselves as to any relationship between BC and Christianity.

Many Canadians think of Canada as being a Christian nation, a nation of Christian values. Again the reaction and behaviour of Canadians to that recent event have compellingly proven that Canada is demonstrably neither Christian nor does it honour Christian values.

Mr Harper and his Conservatives like to wrap themselves in their moral superiority as Christians. However the depravity of Mr Harper and his Conservatives recent spiritually corrupt behaviour makes clear that the 'christianity' of Mr Harper and his Conservatives is merely "sheep's clothing' to make them more electable and has nothing to do with Christ's teachings.

What was this singular event?

It was Mr Harper stating he and his Conservatives are comfortable exporting death because it is profitable (and undoubtedly helpful in gaining seats in the House in the region of Quebec mining and exporting the asbestos).

Remember you cannot use asbestos in any form in Canada; should you disturb asbestos in a building you must call in specialists to remove the asbestos - wearing full environmental suits, using airlocks and special air filtration units to remove the asbestos from the air, showering off the suits and washing all surfaces down to prevent any asbestos from spreading or being left; and asbestos must be properly packaged up and disposed of in an approved disposal site.

All of this because asbestos is a highly hazardous and toxic material that causes asbestosis, cancer and death.

Yet Canada is exporting asbestos, along with its travelling companions - asbestosis, cancer and death because it is profitable - and opens a political opportunity for Mr Harper and his Conservatives.

What makes Mr Harper and his Conservative's demonstrated distain for human life even more abhorrent, is the fact that Chrysotile asbestos will not be listed as a hazardous industrial chemical that can be banned from import after Canada helped block consensus, despite the fact that the scientific review body of the Rotterdam Convention recommended the inclusion of "white" asbestos on health grounds..

For Christians the question is what Christ would do and say about this export of death for profit and political advantage?

Christ would undoubtedly speak of the need to forgive and love those who engage or allow this trade in death; to pray that those dealing in death or permitting this trading in death find their way out of the darkness and into the light - putting an end to the exporting of death.

But would a Being who preached and lived not just loving your neighbour as yourself, but to love your enemies; to do unto others as you would have them do unto you; spoke not of vengeance, harming or killing others but of forgiveness and love find exporting death for money tolerable?

No.

This export of death is behaviour that is abhorrent to anyone, any being or Being, with honour, integrity and ethics – and to any true Christian.

The actions of Mr Harper and his Conservatives since they first formed the Government of Canada have demonstrated that while Mr Harper and his Conservatives may speak of morals or integrity or ethics, they will not let anything stand in the way of political power for them. Thus it is no real surprise that with a political advantage to be had Mr Harper and his Conservatives will not only support the export of the suffering and death that goes with asbestos, but bloc international attempts to protect people around the world from this export of death that may interfere with their political power and goals.

Mr Harper's statements were made on the day the riot in Vancouver occurred. The airwaves were filled with hours of broadcasting on what was and had occurred on the streets of Vancouver; with righteous indignation, condemnation, outrage........

For what was, when all is said and done, damage to property, ego and a black eye for Vancouver's self-image, image and reputation.

And about Canada exporting asbestosis, cancer and death - Silence.

The people of Abbotsford were not lined up outside Ed Fast's office to demand an end to this trading in death; they were not jamming his phone lines nor stuffing his email to demand an end to this trading in death; they were not demanding that city council pass a motion condemning the export of death and demanding an end to this trading in death.

The so called 'christian' leadership in Abbotsford (BC and across Canada) were silent, apparently undisturbed by the blood of innocents that stains the hands of all Canadians with this exporting of death.

Neither the people of BC nor Canadians were demanding their municipal or provincial governments condemn and demand an end to the export of death; there were NO demonstrations demanding an end to the export of death.

On the question of Christianity in Abbotsford, British Columbia and Canada we have arrived at a syllogism:

To those who practice the teachings and behaviours of Christ, Canada's export of death is abhorrent, corrupt and depraved and must be strongly, loudly, continually opposed until Canada's export of death is ended.

Outside of a very few, the reaction in Abbotsford, British Columbia and Canada was/is quiet acceptance of the continued trade in death.

Outside of a very few, the silence in Abbotsford, British Columbia and Canada evidences the lack of those who practice the teachings and behaviours of Christ and are Christian in deeds, not hollow words.

2011-06-27T03:35:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on the Vancouver Riots.

As Ye sow so shall Ye reap.

There are those who point to the size of the crowd as the reason for the riots in Vancouver following game 7 of the Stanley Cup final.

I suspect that even if you only had 50,000 (or just 25,000) people downtown you would have had a riot.

The problem did (does) not lie in the size of the crowd but in the people who make up the crowd.

The images that have allowed, and are continuing to allow, the identification of the rioters, arsonists and looters have made it clear that the common factor the participants share is youth.

Among the first people identified turned out to be: a member of the Canadian junior water polo team with a scholarship to the U of Calgary, a UBC student athlete, someone employed with a good work record..... They were not Anarchists as first claimed by authorities they were....... just youth, many of whom would have been labelled 'good kids' or even 'accomplished kids'.

Which raises the question - what is going on with youth today that 'good kids' are rioting, setting cars on fire and looting?

I could talk about how my parents instilled a sense of honour, integrity and ethics where that kind of behaviour was and remains unacceptable. I could talk about how manners and responsible behaviour were drilled into me by actions such as having to sit down and hand write thank you notes for Christmas gifts or the requirement to use please and thank you when asking for something. Or how....

Some would argue that it is the pace of life, the fact both parents often are working, how stressful life is today......

And there is some validity in those points.

Still.......consider the following ....

People complain about the failure to respect others property demonstrated by the rioters. But how can we expect young Canadians to have any respect for anything when Canada has a prime minister who, on the very day of the riot, refused to ban the export of slow painful death to developing nations.

You cannot sell or use asbestos in Canada and if you disturb asbestos you must call in removal specialists to remove the asbestos and it has to be disposed of in special disposal sites. That is how hazardous and deadly asbestos is considered in Canada.

Yet the prime minister not only refused to ban the sale of asbestos - which causes asbestosis, cancer and death - to the developing world, the prime minister was having Canada oppose a UN motion that would require the export of asbestos to be accompanied by a warning on the deadly health affect of asbestos.

When it was revealed that prime minister Harper sees nothing wrong with the export of asbestos for profit because it can perhaps win his party a seat in parliament, what were Canadian's reactions to the news Canada was in the business of exporting death?

Yawn.

When the Chinese where found to have been shipping goods made with lead paint to Canada there were demands the government stop the import of items from China with lead paint - and indignation that China would ship dangerous materials to Canada.

Yet apparently the Canadian public and their elected officials see nothing wrong in exporting asbestos, a far more hazardous material that causes asbestosis, cancer and death.

It is not acceptable for other countries to export hazardous materials to Canada, yet it acceptable for Canada to export hazardous, cancerous and death causing materials to other countries.

How can we expect young people to have respect for people, their possessions or anything when our country and society accepts the export of asbestos and death as business as usual?

Some complain that in their angry frenzy the mob of youth running riot in downtown Vancouver gave no thought to the costs and consequences of their actions, inflicting millions of dollars of damage.

I wonder where they could have learned that behaviour?

Perhaps from the anti-HST leadership? Who in a fit of pique and/or making public mischief have set out to extinguish the HST without giving any thought to the costs and consequences. Or extinguish the HST while in wilful denial of the costs and consequences. Or worst of all extinguish the HST while ignoring the negative, multi-billion dollar consequences and costs to BC’s budget, healthcare and education of extinguishing the HST.

How many have said that those young people had failed to consider the far reaching, long term negative consequences would have on the brightness of their futures?

What bright futures?

I know that most of those among the ‘older or preceding generations’ are in strong, wilful denial but the reality is that we, those older and preceding generations, have - in self centered thoughtlessness - consumed the future of the youth of today.

Most politicians and Canadians are in a state of wilful and strong denial of this reality but, from the Tao of James: reality does not care what you believe is, reality does not care what you want to be, reality simply IS.

While we may not want to face the unpalatable reality that not only are we the first generation that is handing the next generation less than we were handed by preceding generations, but in our insatiable thirst for more, more, more..... we have consumed the future and stuck the kids with the bill for our excesses.

So before we go pointing fingers or shaking our heads or lamenting the actions of the mob and wondering 'how could or why would they do that?" we had better consider the lessons we have taught and the society we have built with our choices and behaviours.

A society where profit and political advantage are more valuable/important that human life (exporting asbestosis, cancer and death); where childish temper tantrums where the consequences are ignored - or worse, to H*ll with the consequences is raging (HST) and the older generations have sold the future of youth to pay for their own life style and excesses

All our posturing, denial, excuse making and high sounding words really are meaningless, other than to highlight the hypocrisy of our society, when you look at the actions of our society.

It is not simply a matter of " Actions speak louder than words" but also of “Every society should be considered as having a right to the character which it deserves; that is, to be spoken of according to its actions.”.

Perhaps, in light of our own actions, behaviours and the society that has resulted from those actions and behaviours, we should not be surprised that it happened, but that it does not happen more often.

Perhaps the question we should be asking is not "how could they" but rather what changes in our behaviours do we need to make to set a good example for young Canadians.

2011-06-20T02:38:00.000-07:00

Canada's Trade in Death

Concordat:

I hereby attest and aver that as a Canadian of honour, integrity and ethics it is depraved, and therefore categorically unacceptable, for Canada to be exporting death (slow, painful death) and industrial disease - in any form and for reasons as perverted as jobs, profits and electoral advantage. I demand that the federal government make this trading in death illegal - immediately.

I call upon all Canadians of integrity and ethics to join in condemning this depraved export of death and industrial disease and demand the federal government make this trading in death illegal - immediately.

I call upon all Provincial, Territorial and Municipal politicians and governments of integrity and ethics to pass motions condemning this depraved export of death and industrial disease and demand the federal government make this trading in death illegal - immediately.

I call upon all Members of Parliament of integrity and ethics to come together, regardless of political affiliation, and make it a priority to immediately introduce and adopt legislation making the export of death and industrial disease illegal - immediately.

In stating that he won’t allow cancer causing asbestos to be reintroduced in Canadian homes or schools but he’s firmly behind allowing Quebec’s asbestos industry to export the death and disease that its product causes to willing buyers abroad, hoping that it will enable the Tories to win a seat in the area; in ignoring the fact Conservative MP Chuck Strahl did not seek re-election because he has been diagnosed with incurable lung cancer – mesothelioma – believed to be triggered by breathing asbestos when he was younger;

Mr Harper has demonstrated a level of ethical and spiritual corruption and turpitude such that he is unfit to be involved in any manner with the governing of Canada and such that his presence in Ottawa defiles Parliament, the Government of Canada and the Citizens of Canada.

Mr Harper and any members of his caucus, indeed any Members of Parliament, Provincial, Territorial or Municipal politicians supporting this trade in death on the grounds of profit, jobs and/or political advantage are unfit to be associated in any manner with the Government of Canada, any Province, Territory or Municipality and must resign.

Should Mr Harper refuse to resign, a high probability outcome given the level of depravity his statements, actions and non-actions on the prostitution of Canada by trading in death, it is the moral duty of the Conservative caucus to remove Mr Harper from the caucus and any association with the Conservative Party.

Should the Conservative caucus choose to join Mr Harper and descend to his level of ethical and spiritual corruption and turpitude, any members of the Conservative caucus with integrity and ethics must resign the caucus and serve Canadian citizens by sitting as independents and working with other Members of Parliament possessing integrity and ethics to stop Canada and Canadian business from exporting death.

All Members of Parliament with integrity and ethics must not only wrest control of Parliament from those so depraved as to see nothing wrong with trading in death and put an end to this trading in death, but must also do all within their power to end any connection between Parliament and any members of parliament with a level of ethical and spiritual corruption and turpitude as to refuse to ban the export of a cancer causing death material.

Failure to act on ending this trade in cancer death and disease by Parliament and Provincial, Territorial or Municipal governments demonstrates they are unfit to govern and any government or level of government that demonstrates its' unfitness to govern should be treated as non-existent.

Unfit governments should be shunned until they demonstrate they are at least minimally fit to be a government.

Whatever government Canadians deserve or are, for the most part willing to accept, no Canadian of any integrity or ethics can accept a government or governments so depraved as to be willing to export asbestos materials that cause cancer and death.

The only course for Canadians of integrity and ethics is to call for the resignation of all those who support or refuse to end the Death Trade and to focus on civil disobedience until at least minimal ethical behaviour is restored to governments in Canada.

We can starve the monstrous beast by refusing to feed it what it must have to exist - citizens financial support.

Forcing the federal or other levels of government to cease to sully all Canadians with their corruption and turpitude will not be easy, but it can be done.

The question every Canadian must ask themselves is what value they place upon their own integrity, ethics, spirit and souls?

2011-06-14T07:27:00.000-07:00

I Beg to Differ

Reading the column "Does Jonathon Van Maren Speak For The Faith Community" there are several points I must disagree with Mr Archer on.

Foremost is the fact that whatever Van Maren and his acolytes may be, they are clearly and undeniably NOT Christians. They cannot even be said to be christians.

Van Maren and his acolytes are like those who claim or are said to be christians, who harangue people with their raving diatribes about the need to keep Christ in Christmas when they should be focused on getting Christ into Christian, into themselves, into their behaviours, into their lives and into their souls, their essence.

Van Maren quotes from the bible and evokes God as the authorities for his pernicious teachings, malignant ideology and repugnant behaviours. While that may allow him to claim to be a Biblian or a Goddian it has nothing to do with being Christian.

Being Christian requires one to base how one lives on the teachings of Christ, a reality that most of those who like to label themselves Christians forget or more likely ignore or live in denial of.

Why "... forget or more likely ignore or live in denial of"? Christ taught not just through his words but through his actions, the way he lived his life. He did not judge, or hate, was about forgiveness - no matter what the trespass - about sharing with those in need [and not simply the crumbs left after one had all the luxuries and toys one wants), he was not about things and possessions but people's needs, about loving thy enemies, about not throwing the first stone, about loving thy brothers (fellow man) as thyself, about doing unto others as you would have done unto you.

In other words: struggling to live the teachings, the actions, the life of Christ requires a great deal of those who seek to be Christians. It is far, far easier to call yourself christian than it is to be Christian.

Mr Archer questioned why the leaders of the Christian community are silent on Van Maren and his acolytes. The answer is that those he refers to as the leaders of the Christian community no more practice and live as a follower of Christ (and thus are no more Christian) than do the preponderance of those who lay claim to being Christian.

Which is undoubtedly why Ghandi observed: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Christianity exists only where it is practiced. Tao of James

Mr Archers second major error was in calling Van Maren and his acolytes bullies. They are not bullies who bullied. They are thugs who assaulted - traumatized - children with pornography (obscene [abominable; disgusting; repulsive, depraved ] drawings, photographs, or the like). Thugs whose actions make them child abusers.

Recall that child abuse includes the emotional mistreatment of children. So any act or series of acts of commission that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child is child abuse. These acts can occur in schools or communities the child interacts with.

The images Van Maren assaulted and caused harm to the students with were more traumatic and potentially damaging than simply exposing himself to the children would have been.

Worse, Van Maren and his acolytes committed this act of assaulting the students minds for their own self gratification. The only purpose for placing their pornography where children would be assaulted by the pornography was to attract attention to and for themselves. The kind of 'look at me' attention grabbing behaviour one would expect from the 5 and 6 year olds Van Maren and acolytes assaulted with their pornography attention grabbing display.

Van Maren and those who helped him perpetrate his harmful and abusive treatment of the children should be charged with child abuse and have their names placed on the appropriate local, provincial and national registries of Child Molesters.

2011-06-10T09:02:00.000-07:00

Perfectly Rational, Totally Irrational

Having been a Chartered Accountant the financial, planning, management and leadership skills and abilities, together with experience, gained over a quarter century on this career path have proven useful in a broad array of areas and ways.

It does however, come with a few drawbacks I never would have anticipated having to deal with.

My income is fixed, has been fixed at the same level for the last 5+ years; my living and working expenses are few, straight forward and over the years have been creeping or leaping upward - a reality all Canadians are having to deal with. Have you checked the prices of yachts lately?

As a matter of mental wellness I have avoided putting pen to paper to draw up a budget. This decision is not about being in denial after all:

Reality does not care what you want to be true, it does not care what you believe to be true. Reality simply is. Tao of James

It is a decision about dealing with the reality I live with - depression, anxiety, panic and a propensity as an adult child of alcoholism for self sabotage.

Unfortunately with the fixed nature of revenue (income), the few expenses left after years of paring away expenses (haircuts, clothing, food, etc) and the fixed nature of many of the remaining expenses (insurance, phone, internet) budgeting and cash flow statements/analysis are so simple I can do them in my head.

Or more accurately I cannot NOT do budgets and cash flows in my head and so the train wreck that is the financial reality of my future is a constant and unavoidable awareness in my head. The slippage for phone and internet bills already has me slipping a few days later in paying them every month, with the point in time when I reach the point the services are terminated because I am too far behind inexorably moving nearer and nearer.

I watch the numbers unwind as more expenses must be shed until the point where revenue is sufficient to pay only the rent and I become in effect a prisoner in my home, unable to go anywhere except by walking. Which as a result of physical limitations and the pain that results from these limitations, places a maximum distance on travel of 100 - 200 meters.

Of course without food or the ability to obtain food the ability to pay the rent (at least as long as it does not go up) is rather moot. You can live homeless, you do not survive long foodless.

The inability to NOT have this awareness of budget and cash flow and the approaching 'economic collapse' and its (without a significant change in personal financial reality) inevitability has demanded and occupied space in the continuous awareness area of my mind.

I seem, at least for now, unable to put this awareness aside and focus on getting on with life.

Instead I find myself wanting to get out from under the stress, wishing that my 'stuff' was in storage and I could 'solve' the approaching time when economic reality exerts its negative consequences on my life by moving out from under the looming crash and into my car.

Circumstances had me living in my car before so there is no fear of the unknown, I know what needs to be done to survive living in your car. Indeed services added since I was last living in my car make living in your car simpler and more doable today.

In a way living in your car simplifies your life because you have to focus on doing what you need to in order to survive.

At some point either a rent increase or the need for food will force me out of my home and either into my car or onto the street.

There is a great deal to be said for choosing when, rather than waiting until there is no choice (based on the experience of having reached that no choice point).

Ironically a move to the car improves cash flow as one loses the $375 rent portion of revenue but gains the cash difference between the $375 and actual rent paid.

One of the real advantages for me of having a fixed address is internet access, an access that will in the near future be lost as it is the next item on the chopping block of financial expenditure reductions necessity. Which means internet access must be obtained at the library and the major incentive for struggling to preserve having a 'home' ceases to exist.

When the only use made of home becomes as the place one sleeps, is the money spent on gas to drive 'home' and the money spend on a 'home' that could be available for keeping the car in shape and running or to meet emergencies, a wise use of extremely limited financial resources?

Consider as well that I have no land line phone service. My only phone is a cell phone which is not only mobile (a service seeming designed for those with non fixed address) but provides email and messaging.

There are other points one can cite in support of choosing to join the growing community of people in Abbotsford whose automobile has become, among its other attributes, their home arguably a perfectly rational choice.

Yet friends, mental health professionals and others maintain that even thinking about abandoning my home, moving into and living in my car is totally irrational thinking.

Which is what I would be telling someone else if they were thinking of surrendering and moving into their car. That they needed to keep working and plugging away at things and see what develops or happens to change their financial circumstances (employment etc).

But watching the numbers and the future unroll in my mind makes the struggle with depression, anxiety and the urge to panic an ongoing, daily battle complicated by an ongoing struggle not to give into an act of self sabotage.

Living with mental illness and the quest for mental wellness is enough of a challenge on its own.

I really don't need the additional headaches and stress that come with constant awareness of the budget and cash flow realities and the inevitable negative consequences of this financial future.

At times the urge to panic, to escape is overwhelming - no matter how irrational those actions would be.

I really wish......but then......

Reality does not care what you want to be true, it does not care what you believe to be true. Reality simply is. Tao of James

Some days, to many days, running down the middle of the road trying to pull my hair out and screaming Arrrggggghhhhhh seems so appealing - and so rationally irrational.

2011-06-06T06:40:00.000-07:00

G8 Musings

It may be showing my age but I can remember when a get together like the recent G8 summit was about accomplishing something.

These days a G8 summit is a 'success' if the nations attending can cobble together a closing statement that does not offend any head of state's delicate sensibilities, allowing them to issue a closing statement (hopefully a statement that avoids the embarrassment of having any of the heads of state immediately disown the closing statement) that gives the appearance that something has been accomplished, thus seeming to justify the expense.

I use the term ‘heads of state’ because, as the G8 underscores, it is clear that what nations around the globe are lacking is leaders and leadership. The world is in tough shape, a state of affairs that continues to worsen. It is not that we cannot address the issues the world faces; it is that we choose not to. That situation cannot be solely laid at the feet of the heads of state. Mush of the responsibility of the failure to address the most dangerous or pressing issues belongs to citizens who just do not want to hear it and choose to embrace wilful denial.

It was not that long ago (pre 2006) that Canada was known and recognized as a positive influence among the G8 nations and around the world. These days, should you be the Prime Minister of Israel like Benjamin Netanya and you need a negative result or outcome, 'who you gonna call'? Stephen Harper of course.

Stephen Harper hustling to Greece after the summit to give Prime Minister George Papandreou economic and financial management advice on how to deal with the disaster that is Greece's economy is like the Captain of the Titanic offering the Captain of the Exxon Valdez advice on sailing his ship.

Unfortunately, Mr Harper's recent throne speech makes abundantly clear the reality Canadians must face and deal with is that with Harper as the Captain the Canadian economy is the Titanic. After all, the opposition parties were forced into defeating the government on their Budget as a result of the numerous and obvious 'icebergs' contained in the Budget the Conservatives introduced. Mr Harper, his finance minister and the Conservative caucus have ignored these icebergs, mostly I fear because they do not exist or are of no importance in their ideology (which puts understanding of the economic, financial and social realities of Canada beyond their grasp), setting the ship of state speeding full steam ahead into waters heavily infested with icebergs.

I did find it very interesting (and somewhat amusing) that after hustling Mr Harper on his way to 'advise' Greece the remaining heads of state remained behind to talk to each other.

2011-06-01T23:58:00.000-07:00

Financial Reality Check

The report on the state of the hospital on Haida Gwaii contained two important reality checks.

The NDP continue to need a major reality check on financial reality. There the NDP were, once again, demanding the BC government spend millions ($60 million) on health care (new Haida Gwaii hospital) while the NDP continue to advocate the repeal of the HST.

The 2011/12 budget is already facing a revenue shortage of $475 million, the amount that was due July 1, 2011 for implementing the HST. Given that BC's referendum on repealing the HST violates the agreement with the federal government, the feds are not going to be paying that $475 million. Unless of course reality and sanity prevail and the Voters vote to keep the HST.

So, the NDP are working to cut $475 million out of BC's 2011/12 budget and calling for added spending of $60 million for a new hospital on Haida Gwaii.

As a public service to the citizens of BC I am willing to make the sacrifice and accept $1 million from the NDP in order to provide a salient lesson on the effect of a significant revenue reduction . I am willing to accept any additional millions from the NDP that may be necessary in order for the NDP to learn about the effects a significant reduction in revenue has on a budget and what that reduction means for spending.

Further I will accept $130,000 from the NDP to model the effect of adding a large expenditure to a budget dealing with a large revenue reduction. (13% was arrived at by dividing $60 million demanded expenditure by the $475 million revenue reduction demanded by the NDP).

I also extend this offer to Mr Vander Zalm (adjusted to remove the additional $130,000 representing the NDP's demanded expenditure as Mr Vander Zalm has only advocated reducing revenue by the $475 million this year, hundreds of millions per year in subsequent years and by the $1.2 billion that will need to be repaid to Ottawa).

Neither the NDP or Mr Vander Zalm should have any objection to accepting this offer as this is exactly what they are advocating the citizens of BC do with their money. There is no reason to object to acting on a personal financial level in the same manner they are advocating the province of BC act, is there?

The second reality check (and of far more concern) was the statement that, while the government was committed to getting the people on Haida Gwaii a new hospital, they did not have the $60 million needed and did not know where they could find it.

Hardly surprising in light of the Finance Minister's statement that the government did not have any extra millions to increase spending on the missing woman's inquiry. Or in light of the report on the same newscast that the most vulnerable of our citizens, those facing mental and physical challenges are facing cutbacks because the government simply does not have the money to meet all its obligations and demands for services. This situation is not the only cannibalizing of services here to provide services there. The government has been, over time, more and more often robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And that is the reality before revenue is reduced by $475 million or by the hundreds of millions (year after year) that will result from a repeal of the HST.

Why do I say this is of far more concern?

Consider this scenario: the province finds the $60 million but the people of Surrey say "Wait a minute, we need more hospital beds, the money should be spent building more hospital beds in Surrey (or Vancouver). There are only 2,500 people in Haida Gwaii and hundreds of thousands in Surrey."

We are in that scenario. If the government manages to scrape up the $60 million by (robbing it from) further reductions in support to the challenged and other programs and if the money is spent on a new hospital on Haida Gwaii there will be no money for new hospital beds in the rest of BC.

We are just beginning resource and service wars pitting Haida Gwaii against Surrey, premies against the old; those in need of heart surgery or transplants against those in need of elective surgery......

We cannot have everything, have it now and not need to pay for it.

Reality is about to give British Columbians and our government, indeed Canada as a whole, a rude awakening with a reality hip-check.

As it says in the Tao of James: 'Realty doesn't much care what you believe or what you want to be true, it just IS."

2011-05-30T04:44:00.000-07:00

Contumely

Stephen Harper’s introduction of his new cabinet suggested his contempt for Canadian voters is even deeper than the contempt evidenced by his letting only the right sort, the chosen and sanctioned believers, attend his campaign rallies.

Of course given that In the Middle East citizens are dying as they demonstrate and march to win a say in their future by winning the right to vote - in open, free and fair elections, while in Canada citizens voted for an autocratic Harper majority government because “they didn't want to have to vote again in two years" a certain distain for Canadian voters is understandable.

But not the level of contempt contained in Mr Harper’s appointment of three defeated Conservative candidates to that golden public feeding trough - the Senate.

Although I suppose one should not be surprised by the level of contempt demonstrated in Mr Harper’s Senate appointments. It is in keeping with Mr Harper’s demonstrated lack of need for either ethics [his reappointment of Bev Oda to cabinet as International Cooperation Minister after she repeated lied to parliament (and the Canadian people)] or honouring his stated positions [appointing three losing candidates to the Senate was not simply contemptuous of Canadian voters if reaffirmed that Stephen Harper only believes in something, such as his opposition to the Senate and the Liberals appointing Senators, when it is to his political advantage to do so and that as some as it is to Mr Harpers advantage he abandons his principles for expediency (after opposing the Liberals making Senate appointments Mr Harper appointed enough Senators to have a Conservative majority – and continues to appoint Senators)].

Despite Conservative claims of being good financial managers the Conservatives continue to mismanage Canadian federal finances, squandering the surpluses and solid economic management they inherited from the Liberal government; running record large deficits and running up the national debt to record levels and abandoning solid economic and fiscal policy in favour of ideolog

The Conservatives pay lip service to getting the deficit under control; then Mr Harper appoints his largest cabinet ever (rather than reducing cabinet in a show of leadership on deficit reduction) at a cost of an extra $9 million to the budget – and Canadian’s pockets.

If Mr Harper does in fact look to reduce the deficit his behaviour, actions and attitudes make it clear that restraint will not apply to Mr Harper or his conservative government. Which suggests that restraint and cuts will not fall on programs (billion dollar fighter plane boondoggles or billion dollar prison spending on programs that have been demonstrated in US state after state to accomplish noting – except the impoverishment of taxpayers) or groups (the wealthy, corporations, corporate executives) favoured by Mr Harper.

Not exactly an encouraging picture of the future, but as George Bernard Shaw said "Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."

And given the current behaviour of Canadian voters they do not seem to be deserving of a government of sound fiscal management, rational and considered decision making or that focuses on improving the life of all Canadians – not just corporations and the wealthy.

Unfortunately the consequences will fall not just on those who voted Conservative, but on all Canadians.

2011-05-25T01:30:00.000-07:00

What the HST ballot SHOULD look like:

In light of the effect the HST referendum could have on the budget and the financial state of the Province of British Columbia the referendum ballot should reflect the budget and financial realities inherent in a YES or a NO vote [ as set out in the independent panel's report "HST or PST/GST? – IT’S YOUR DECISION"] as the HST ballot below does.

2011-05-22T10:46:00.001-07:00

BC's anti-volunteering legislation

I consider a love of reading to be the greatest gift my parents gave me. So, when I found out about the 'Reading Buddies' program at our local library, the opportunity to spend an hour a week sharing my love of reading and paying forward the gift of reading, I picked up an application.

While my mother gave me (and my siblings) the gift of reading, her alcoholism gave us the behaviour and thought patterns of children of alcoholism. I became a member of Alanon to deal with the profound negative effect growing up in an alcoholic household had on my life. The awareness of the profound negative effect growing up with alcoholism had, and would have continued to have if I had not found Alanon, is why I considered it important to volunteer when Alanon Sponsors were needed for our local Alateen group.

Being a dedicated swimmer led to meeting the male members of our local Special Olympics swim team as we shared a change room - they leaving practice and I arriving for the supper time length swim. When the team had a desperate need for volunteers......well, spending an extra 90 minutes in the water was not a real hard sacrifice for me to make.

While poverty may not permit me to financially support programs and organizations it has not prevented me from supporting programs and organizations in my community by volunteering. Even being homeless in Abbotsford, living in my car on the streets of Abbotsford did not prevent or interfere with my volunteering with the Special Olympic swim team.

No, it took BC government legislation to put an end to my volunteering.

Understand, I fully support the requirement for police checks for those working with youth or vulnerable individuals. Over the years I have had many police checks done .

When the province decided to bring in legislation to require police checks for all, rather than leaving the choice up to the individual organizations I felt it was only common sense. And since the organizations I volunteered with already required police checks, I foresaw no effect on me from legislating a police check as a requirement.

I do not know what had the government taking the sloppy route in drafting the legislation. It really doesn't matter. What matters is that the government produced legislation that was seriously flawed.

When the legislation was introduced supporters of privacy and civil liberties pointed out to the government that the legislation contained an assault on both privacy and civil liberties of citizens. Mathematicians pointed out that statistical analysis showed a significant percentage of volunteers would be faced with the need to decide between violations/intrusions into their privacy, civil liberties and charter rights to get a police check or walking away from volunteering.

Which is the situation I found myself in and mulling over, meditating on and wrestling with this past week, after getting a call from the Abbotsford Police Department that they required my fingerprints in order to complete my Criminal Record Check. Never before, in over a decade of criminal record checks, has there been any problem.

Giving or being required to give the APD my fingerprints when I have done nothing wrong is a violation of my privacy, civil liberties and charter rights that I cannot countenance.

Last year I turned down an opportunity to attend (without any out of pocket cost to me) an interesting conference in the USA because of the privacy violations that go with flying into [or simply over] the USA. Even visiting my favourite used book store cannot tempt me into crossing the border into the USA. And Mr Harper's cavalier selling out of Canadians privacy to the USA is among the top reasons on my 'why I feel an uncontrollable need to kick Stephen Harper's a** list'.

At a time when government cutbacks and funding cuts are making the services provided by volunteer organizations more and more vital, and at a time that many volunteer organizations cannot find the volunteers they need, the sloppy structure of the British Columbia Criminal Records Review Act is forcing volunteers to walk away from volunteering.

The sloppy drafting of BC's British Columbia Criminal Records Review Act has added my name to its list of victims and has cost two local organizations a long time volunteer and denied another a new volunteer.

I have never had any problem with the need to provide a criminal record check and walking away from volunteering was a difficult and painful decision, that remains unsettling.

But I cannot, will not, allow the state (in this case BC) to violate my privacy, civil liberties and charter rights by forcing me to provide fingerprints, for the state's convenience, in order to satisfy a piece of poorly drafted legislation.

2011-05-16T03:27:00.000-07:00

Media and the HST Report

You know, at one time the News media actually (I know I am showing my age) had a certain amount of factual information and balance in their reporting.

As the coverage of the release of the report the BC government asked an the independent panel to prepare to provide BC voters with the information needed to make a wise decision when casting their vote – yea or nay – on the HST referendum demonstrates neither the broadcast nor print media can be trusted to provide factual and balanced coverage of important issues.

Watching the coverage or reading the papers left one thinking the report had salvaged the BC Liberals and the HST.

Since this was not what I had expected from an independent panel I went to the internet to read the report and found that nothing could have been further from the reality of the report than the media coverage.

Indeed, the coverage provided by the media was so misleading the coverage, with its total disregard for reality, accuracy or the consequences of the coverage, borders on malfeasance.

The report was a thoughtful examination of the HST setting out the facts and realities of the HST and placing the HST in context vis-à-vis the budget realities of the BC government – a must read for those who will be voting in the HST referendum.

Indeed the report does such a fine job of setting out the budget realities faced by the province and government of BC, the report needs to form part of budget deliberations and discussions to ensure politicians and public have a solid understanding of the budget [revenues and spending] realities of the provinces finances.

You can read the report HST or PST/GST? - IT’S YOUR DECISION in its entirety or the excerpts (italicized) below which includes over 90% of the report itself, reformatted to this format.

We’ll admit — It’s been a struggle. Some of the facts about the HST and PST/GST are crystal clear. Other facts will take time to emerge. Tax policy is complex and it’s not always easy to arrive at black and white conclusions.

The process of preparing this report has shown us much of the debate over the HST and PST/GST remains filled with factually incorrect information. We believe that better information, including the good and the bad about each tax system, is critical for there to be a successful referendum – no matter the result.

Revenue from the sales tax equals the total income taxes paid by individuals. If B.C. eliminated the sales tax — whether it’s the HST or PST/GST — there would be a $5-billion to $6-billion hole in the $41-billion budget. To compensate the government would need to increase the deficit, raise other revenue or cut spending on services. Or do a combination of all three.

Spending on health care [currently 42% of the budget] in B.C. is growing more than twice as fast as the government’s revenue growth.

If governments are to adequately fund public services and avoid cutbacks, tax hikes or deficits that add to provincial debt [interest on debt is 6% of budget expenditures; increasing debt and/or increasing interest rates means more of the budget must be used to pay interest, decreasing the monies available to provide services], they must have reliable and robust sources of revenue.

Under the PST, much of the service economy went untaxed. Under the HST, most services are taxed. That means a broader tax base and a more stable source of revenue for government. One thing is clear— sales taxes are essential to the B.C. government’s revenue base.

“As a consumption tax the HST is efficient. There are no loopholes, exemptions for special interest groups or deductions.” Paul Mockler, A & A Trading Ltd.

British Columbian families pay an average of $350 more every year on routine expenditures under the HST. The more you spend, the more HST you, pay. The more you earn, the more you’re likely to spend. If your family is one of the 15 per cent of B.C. families that report income of less than $10,000 a year, you’re actually better off under the HST. All B.C. taxpayers’ HST costs are partially offset through income tax relief. 17% of your spending has an extra seven per cent sales tax; 29% of your spending is subject to the same total sales taxes as before, it has not gone up or down; 54% of your spending is not taxable under the HST or the PST/GST - nothing has changed.

To make a product or service, businesses pay for items like power, heat, rent and computers. Under the PST, businesses paid the seven per cent sales tax on those purchases. While you never saw it on your bill most of that PST was added onto the final price you paid at the cash register. Call it the invisible PST paid by you, the consumer.

Under the HST system that’s changed. Most businesses receive a full rebate on sales tax paid on items they buy to make a product or service. That means they no longer add the invisible PST to the final price they charge you. Businesses can pass on their HST rebates to you in the form of lower prices or use their savings to invest in new equipment and productivity.

“For B.C.’s businesses to remain competitive, a value-added sales tax, like the HST, is a necessity.” Institute of Chartered Accountants

Virtually all economic analysis finds the HST increases economic growth, productivity, wages and the quality of jobs. A move back to the PST/GST will likely have a negative impact on business and investor confidence because of uncertainty over tax policy. The panel’s commissioned analysis concludes the economy will get a bigger boost under the HST than it would under PST/GST. Under the HST, the size of the economy will be $2.5 billion larger in 2020 than it would have been with the PST/GST. That’s about a 1.1 per cent higher growth. Small and large businesses save at least $150 million in administrative costs because they now comply with one tax, not two.

“A reality that has seldom been mentioned in the HST debate is that the provincial government actually has relatively few policy levers available to attract investment, foster the growth of high-paying private sector jobs, and enhance B.C.’s competitiveness. The design of the consumption tax regime is one area where the province has the capacity to shape the economic environment in a positive way.” Business Council of British Columbia

The HST puts exporters on the same footing with the more than 140 other countries that have gone to value added sales taxes, such as the HST, to make their exports competitive in the global marketplace.

For the important small business sector the HST is a benefit as the HST removes the PST from the cost of production. That makes it cheaper to produce goods and services, helping overall sales and exports. The HST also makes bookkeeping simpler and cheaper for small business. Compliance with only one sales tax (HST) vs. two (PST and GST) is particularly important for small firms, which often don’t have the same administrative resources as larger companies.

Our consensus is the HST will be a net benefit to the economy. But don't expect dramatic results overnight - it’s a tax that offers incremental benefits over time by: Making most businesses more competitive; Reducing administrative costs to businesses; Reducing the cost of producing goods and services; Creating more jobs.

Going back.

Going back to the PST will take 18-24months. The time is needed for rewriting federal-provincial tax laws and regulations, hiring back 300 tax collectors, rebuilding a provincial PST office and helping businesses readjust their accounting systems.

The first year of going back to the PST/ GST will result in the province losing the

$820 million in the first year, increasing to $893 million in the second year and would widen each year. Factoring in the saving the provincial budget would see a net revenue loss of $531 million in the first year and $645 million in the second. That trend would continue each year, meaning other revenues would need to be found or public services cut to avoid increasing future deficits.

Going back will be expensive. The province will probably have to repay Ottawa the $1.6 billion it received to transition to the HST. If the government borrowed $1.6 billion to repay Ottawa, it would cost $85 million a year in interest based on today’s interest rates. {Assuming that repealing the HST and the need to borrow $1.6 billion does not result in a change to BC's credit rating and raise the interest rate BC can borrow at}

Note: one point I feel the report was not strong enough on is the negative effect repealing the HST will have on the province’s cost to borrow money. Lenders are repaid out of government revenues raised through taxes. I feel that a refusal to pay higher taxes while at the same time demanding more and more services – and thus rapid increases in debt, is going to have a significant effect on the cost to borrow money and the negative consequences flowing from increasing costs of debt servicing. Indeed, under those circumstances the province could begin to have trouble borrowing the money it needs as lenders become cautious about BC’s debt escalation.

And while it may not seem large compared to other costs the government will spend $35 million each year to run the PST office.

2011-04-26T06:02:00.001-07:00

The Election to Vote NDP?

I am not a fan of the Federal (or BC) NDP because the party and its members have failed to demonstrate an acceptable degree of financial understanding to enable them to govern in a financially responsible manner; having said that, this may be the election to vote NDP.

Not as a party or policies I choose to support, but because in the current state of Canada's electoral system - where voters are forced to vote not for a party and policies but against a party (or parties) and policies - the NDP look like the lesser of evils choice for the current federal election.

A truly sad state for a person who was raised a Progressive Conservative to find himself in. But ever since the Traitor demonstrated the worthlessness of his word and promises by selling out Progressive Conservatives, I have been a member – along with the majority of Canadian voters – of those who are without anyone to speak for or act in their best interests and are reduced to voting for the party that will do them the least harm.

Several months ago I told our local NDP candidate (Dave Murray) that until the Federal (and BC) NDP build a solid financially responsible wing in the party I did not see how I, with the importance I place on solid financial behaviours by government, could vote NDP – despite favouring socially balanced and progressive policies.

But... “Reality isn't the way you wish things to be, or the way they appear to be, but the way they actually are.”

The primary reality regarding voting for the NDP in this election is that, even if the Harper Conservative’s fear mongering proved accurate as to the negative financial effects of the NDP party forming the next federal government came to pass, the NDP would still do far less damage to the finances of Canada than the financial behaviours and budget plans set out by Harper’s Conservatives.

High Irony is it not, that the financial fear mongering Conservatives are in reality the party to be feared vis-à-vis the financial damage they will do to Canada in pursuit of their ideology.

Factor in the damage the Harper Conservatives have done to date, and will continue to do, to Canada and Canadians in pursuit of their ideology and the need to repair the damage already done to Canada and what it means to be Canadian by the Harper Conservatives and voting NDP moves to the top of the least evil vote list.

I know, what about the Federal Liberals? They have failed to show the discipline and determination that had the Liberals (under Paul Martin's tutelage) not only balance the budget but run surpluses and pay down the federal debt - the only government in recent decades that reduced the federal debt. More importantly...Dion then Ignatieff....raises serious questions about the judgment of the Liberal Party of Canada when it comes to leadership and the governing of Canada.

I do have a serious disagreement with Jack Layton. While I accept that the parties and their leaders will make promises using our own tax dollars to bribe voters into voting for them, Jack Layton's promise to forgive the $1.6 billion owed to Ottawa should BC voters vote to repeal the HST is unacceptable behaviour from the leader of a national party. 1) Is he going to give $1.6 billion to every province? 2) it sets a disastrous precedent for the way provinces use funds transferred from the federal government - as in why should the provinces not allow the privatization of health care simply because they agreed not to in order to get federal health care dollars?

Fortunately for Mr. Layton his opponents, particularly Mr Harper, have numerous unacceptable behaviours for persons seeking to form the next federal government of Canada.

Fortunately for me my words to our local NDP candidate about voting for the NDP were (for me) soft and sweet as I face the prospect of eating those words and voting NDP.

Because I do not want to live under the Harper Government, in the Nation of Harper as Harper destroys what it is to be Canadian and what Canada is about.

I want to live under the Government of Canada, in the Nation of Canada as a Canadian, a true son of the True North strong and free, not some Harperized wannabe American.

I AM Canadian, I am proud of that; what Mr Harper is doing to Canada and Canadians is unacceptable to me and it is time to tell Harper that Canada is a nation for all Canadians, not just the wealthy privileged few - then send him and his ideology packing.

2011-04-17T06:37:00.000-07:00

The Harper Anthem

2011-04-11T03:05:00.000-07:00

Rising to the Challenge.

Back before Stephen Harper decided that scaring the Canadian electorate with the boogeyman of the "Coalition" was the way for the Mr Harper to win a majority government, the Conservatives had a campaign ad that was about the Harper governments 'achievements' called Rising to the Challenge.

That ad and any reference - in any manner - to the Conservative coalition government’s record appears to have disappeared.

In part that may be because, given the Conservatives campaign strategy of scarring Canadians into voting for them with the boogeyman "Coalition" - as opposed to giving Canadians reasons why they should vote Conservative - the Conservative election strategy of FEAR would be undermined by any reminder that the Conservative government was a coalition government.

Which could lead to Canadians asking Mr Harper about his double standard – why it is OK for Harper to form a coalition government, but a coalition government with a party other than Harper’s Conservatives in charge is a threat of such proportion that Canadians should be driven by FEAR to vote Conservative.

Or it would lead to Canadians asking that question if any uncontrolled, non-vetted, non-Conservative supporter Canadian voter could penetrate the Iron Curtain of security and information/misinformation control that surrounds Mr. Harper.

Which begs the question: is Mr Harper that scared of Canadians asking him questions on the Conservative record and the consequences of the Conservatives stated policies if elected?

Canadian voters also needs to ask what it was about 'Rising to the Challenge', with its focus on the Conservative government's actions, that convinced Mr Harper that the only way for the Conservatives under his rule to win a majority was to scare Canadians into voting Conservative?

Saved Jobs: I do not know if Harper and his Conservatives wrote numbers on slips of paper, threw them into a hat and plucked out one of the slips OR if the Conservatives stuck a bunch of numbers up on a cork board, spun Harper around and around and stopping him facing the cork board and had Harper through a dart. It really doesn't matter as either method is equally valid to any method of plucking a number out of the air to slot into a claim of 'jobs saved'.

For the sake of accuracy and veracity (I know - what do either have to do with politicians, politics or political ads), if Harper and the Conservatives want to pursue a claim for a mythical number of 'jobs saved' accuracy and veracity would require a statement along the lines of:

Under Stephen Harper's Conservatives the Canadian economy lost 428,000 jobs - but it could have been worse - it could have been 653,000 jobs lost.

$62 Billion: Harper and the Conservatives give themselves a big, bombastic pat on the back for spending $62 BILLION taxpayer dollars.

How and when did throwing $62 billion taxpayer dollars, $62 billion of run up the debt borrowed dollars, at a problem - because of a lack of astute, discerning, creative responses - become something to boast or toot your own horn about?

Harper uses the spectre of tax and spending Liberals or NDP to scare voters away from voting for those parties. Personally I find the Conservatives spend, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow spend, spend, spend, as the Conservatives pay for spending - and tax cuts - by borrowing and increasing the federal debt, a far more frightening, and ultimately financially disastrous behaviour for Canadians than paying for government spending by (gasp) raising taxes.

Just throw money at it: Stephen Harper's Conservatives way of addressing an issue or problem that lies outside their dogmatic ideology and on which, for reasons of political popularity/electability, they must DO SOMETHING (do anything?).

Cut GST: At least Harper and his Conservatives are consistent in their financially irresponsible actions and their strange compulsion to boast about these irresponsible behaviours.

Given the financially irresponsible behaviours of Mr Harper and the Conservatives one can only wonder how it is that so many Canadians mistakenly believe that the Conservatives are good financial managers of taxpayer’s monies.

Other than just to cut taxes in a way that would be highly visible to the public and thus allow the Conservatives to claim to have cut taxes, there was no legitimate, sound financial reason for the Conservatives to cut the GST. Indeed cutting the GST, while publicly popular, was bad fiscal policy.

At the time the Canadian economy was booming along and did not need the stimulus of a GST cut. Cutting the GST during a boom reduced the options available when the world economy tanked. Cutting the GST pushed the budget from surplus to debt - unless, like the Conservatives, you exclude military spending increases from budget calculations.

However the worst effect the decision had on Canada's long term financial health is that it stopped the paying down of the federal debt. As a result federal deficits and the federal debt reached record highs under the Conservatives - record high levels the Conservatives plan to drive even higher.

It was not simply a bad financial decision, but an irresponsible decision.

The Liberals and NDP are pikers when it comes to burning through taxpayer dollars and running up the federal government's debt, compared to the rather dubious deficit/debt achievements of the Harper led Conservative government.

Extended Employment Benefits: for a maximum of up to five weeks. You couldn't find work in a year but somehow, miraculously, you will with another one to five weeks.

What the Conservatives really demonstrated here was just how far out of touch they are with life and the daily economic reality of most Canadians.

Politically the Conservatives had to do something, but apparently they decided it didn't have to be a useful something.

23, 000 projects: and it only cost $62 billion taxpayer dollars.

On the positive side this funding allowed many badly needed improvements to infrastructure to be made - and it only took a worldwide deep recession for the Conservatives to provide funding for infrastructure.

Unfortunately this was a 'we have no creative ideas, no ideas period so we will throw money at the problem'. Money we will get by running record deficits and setting new records for federal debt.

Of course they had to impose tight deadlines to prevent good planning and financial management but no doubt many Conservative supporters were able to take advantage of this to make large profits.

No ideas; but for reasons of political electability you must DO SOMETHING? No problem for Stephen Harper's Conservatives - Just throw money at it!

Lowest debt: Chutzpah for Harper and his Conservatives to take credit for something that is a result of the hard work of Paul Martin and the Liberals. Ironic in that the evidence, the actual outcome/results and not Harper's claims/rhetoric, is that Mr Harper and his Conservatives are running record deficits and debt levels.

What does reality have to do with the fact that outside of the rich and corporations Canadians are now downwardly mobile as long as you can convince Canadians you are good financial managers?

Created 450,000 jobs: Before anything else we need to agree what a job is. I define a job as a position that gives you enough hours per week at a pay level that provides sufficient income to live on and have funds to handle emergencies.

Few if any of the 450,000 'jobs' cited by Mr Harper would meet the criteria that you be able to live, not luxuriously, but able to pay rent, your bills and buy food. The reality of the Canadian economy is that the economy is shedding jobs that pay a liveable wage and replacing them with minimum wage and/or limited hour 'jobs'.

Jobs in Canada are no longer a path to upward mobility. Jobs have become part of the downward mobility the majority of Canadians are struggling to live with.

Balanced budget 2015/2016: In the budget Mr Harper presented to parliament in March of 2011 the Conservatives failed to provide cost figures for 1) the purchase of new warplanes, 2) the cost of building prisons to lock up an increasing number of Canadians (criminalizing a health issue) and 3) the cost of all the pre-election goodies promises included in the budget.

Each of these represents a cost of billions of dollars, leaving an unknown financial black hole in the 2011/2012 budget. If you have a billion dollar hole in your 2011/2012 budget you have no idea what the deficit will be in this or future years.

It is in line with Mr Harper and the conservatives demonstrated lack of financial management ability that they claim a return to balanced budget in 2015/2016 (changed to 2014/2015 during the campaign although the Conservatives have provided no numbers to back up this claim) - even when they have billion dollar question marks in their current budget.

Unemployment lower than US: that is like saying that a cockroach infested unheated room is great housing - compared to living naked outside.

As the standard of living for the majority of Canadians continues downward will Mr. Harper begin to compare the standard of living for most Canadians to third world countries so he can tell Canadians how well they are doing and what a great job he is doing?

Throughout 'Rising to the Challenge' Harper and the Conservatives claim undeserved credit for the solid state of Canadian banks, federal finances and Canada’s economy being in better shape than those of other nations.

Yet it is Canadian voters who deserve the credit for the solid state of Canadian banks, federal finances and Canada’s economy being in better shape than those of other nations.

By denying Harper a Majority government voters prevented Harper from relaxing Canadian banking rules, which was part of the Conservative platform and a stated goal of Mr Harper. If Mr Harper had had a majority government, Canadian banks would have been able to be trading in worthless paper – and selling it to Canadians.

Despite Mr Harper’s convenient memory loss on this matter, it is the Canadian voter who is responsible for the fact Canadian banking rules remained unchanged and prevented Canadian banks (and the Canadian taxpayer and bank clients) from getting badly burned by banks trading worthless paper - but then the Conservatives have never let reality interfere with any of the claims they make about their financial management prowess.

The most interesting part of 'Rising to the Challenge' was not the reality behind what Mr Harper and his Conservatives were patting themselves on the back for, even though the discrepancy between reality and Mr Harper’s claims was remarkable.

For me the truly interesting part was what the visual images were saying.

It opens with Mr Harper walking in down a shadowed corridor of closed doors.

I found myself wondering if, just on the other side of those doors, caucus and staff were cowering behind the doors, praying Harper would walk on by? Or were the shadows and closed doors representative of Mr Harper's mind, reflecting the closed nature of his mind?

Then we see Mr Harper sitting alone at his desk writing out dictates for his lackeys to bring about his vision of an Americanized Canada.

Striking about the images in “Rising to the Challenge” was that there was no sunlight, no collaboration, and no input/listening/sharing with others - No others at all, just Mr Harper.

When you think about it, it really is no surprise that Mr Harper decided that the only way to win a majority (or simply a return to being the Big Boss in a minority government) was to scare Canadians into voting for him.

After all, the record of Mr Harper and his Conservatives is not something to recommend them as the party that will be able to provide the leadership needed for Canada to adapt to the economic changes/realities of the world and ensure Canadians a future of their choosing, a future with a decent standard of living for all Canadians, not just the wealthy, politicians and retired politicians.