To refer to original letter that got me fuming, go to: http://www2.canada.com/courierislander/news/letters/story.html?id=4dd5f5b0-48cc-4d38-bc5a-1c37ab32e0cf
To the editor
Dear Sir,
I read with interest the letter from Andrew Turner (Mother and Father Not The Answer – April 24, 2009) regarding the underlying social current in our Province and his concerns about “the NDP mothers” and “union fathers” taking control of our lives for our own good, crippling the life of a mature province and creating a culture of irresponsible demanding victims.
I think Mr. Turner needs to worry more about Big Brother yelling to the masses from his ivory tower ‘Do you Believe” or “This is the best place on earth”. Just because you chant it repeatedly doesn’t mean it is so. In the last 8 years, the Liberals have crippled the life of marginalized people, and have created a culture of poor bashing and neglect of unforgiveable proportions.
Mr. Turner insults NDP supporters as nothing more than a group of hairy backwards thinking lazy high school drop outs and overprotective mothers who do everything including feeding sandwiches to angry 40 year old sons living in the basement. Let’s go with that analogy.
In many cases, the basements in this province are the best places on earth for thousands of marginalized British Columbians who have fallen victim to the Big Brother locking them down there. The unlucky ones comprise our street homeless populations that we all know are at the highest rate in BC history.
But let’s get back to the parents’ basements.
We have the 40 year old seriously developmentally disabled son who is rotting on waiting lists to get the support he needs while his elderly parents struggle in isolation or spiral into crisis and breakdown.
We have the 40 year old recently unemployed millworker and his family forced to move into that basement because they are now unemployed thanks to mill closures under the Liberal watch.
We have the 40 year old woman and her child fleeing to that basement from an abusive and violent marriage who is on a three week waiting list for an emergency needs assessment at welfare and cannot qualify for legal aid, which has just taken more significant cuts as it did in 2002 under the Liberal watch.
We have a 40 year old man who grew up poor and who could not afford tuition to qualify for anything other than minimum wage jobs and now cannot afford the spiralling costs of rent in this province and no hopes of finding any social housing available. His children are some of the 21.9% of kids in B.C. who live in poverty, the highest rate in Canada. They live in his parents basement now, they were in a camper before that.
We have a 40 year old man who has terminal cancer and cannot qualify for disability assistance because his condition is not expected to last for two years. His $610.00 a month does not cover his medical, housing or nutrition needs. He really appreciates the sandwich.
We have a 40 year old man who is serving a year of house arrest for street racing and killing a family in the process.
We have some younger people in the basement too. A lot of 19 year olds who have aged out of the foster care system, many of whom have terrible emotional and mental handicaps who have been set free to the streets to figure it out. Some are lucky enough to be taken in by good Samaritans or family members who may have a room in their basement and who are charitable enough to make that sandwich for them, but the soup kitchens try to take up the slack.
We have children hiding in the basement so the parent can go to work to make a living but cannot afford child care so they are told to stay there and not answer the door.
Mr. Turner is probably not aware of a new term called middle aged boomerangers, an alarming trend, thanks to the economy that Big Brother thinks is so great, of formerly solvent 30 and 40 something’s who are moving back in with parents because they can no longer afford to pay for their own housing. Many are professionals with university educations. They are not just the irresponsible NDP potheads who aspire for that cushy union job. While they are in the basement, they can occupy their brains with the reading of the recent 121 page Ombudsman’s Report on Improving Fairness and Accountability in B.C.’s welfare system, or the many reports from the Representative for Children and Youth demanding better services to children in care in this province and more accountability for those who have died in care.
At least the NDP is willing to go into the basements of British Columbians and talk about what they see. The Liberals stay in their ivory towers and don’t look down unless they hear a noise. It is the NDP who is making that noise. The Liberals just want us to pay for more soundproofing
Friday, April 24, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Homeless Shelter Opens 24/7
It is long overdue, but the conversion to full time operation of homeless shelters will certainly ease the situation of people previously forced to battle the elements outside and mark time until they could get back indoors at 5 p.m.
What bothers me is the disclosure that if the shelter is converted to be open full time, it will be a place for people to find refuge and get back on their feet, not to "waste time." Further, the shelter wants to get a signed commitment that residents will go out, come back with information that they have applied for jobs and that "they are at least looking for jobs."
While I understand that the Salvation Army is "under new orders from the Province" and as such, it is all about getting a job, there are a lot of broken people who we send to the local shelters. They are broken by drugs, alcohol abuse, divorce, AIDS, early pregnancy, lack of education, dementia or mental illness, post traumatic stress and impenetrable hostility. The psychological burden of being homeless certainly does not make someone "job ready". Homeless parents with children and no available childcare are not "job ready". Homeless people who are exhausted from being homeless, whose feet have calluses and sores from walking everywhere and keeping their shoes on 24 hours a day, who feel cold all the time and who are constantly tired no matter how long they sleep are not "job ready". Homeless people who cannot get dentures paid for by welfare and who are toothless or sick from rotting teeth are not "job ready".
To expect someone in this circumstance to sign a commitment to "at least look for a job" is not only unrealistic, but potentially reckless. To accuse someone of "wasting time" when they are not emotionally or psychologically up to par to do much more than rest, who are numb to feeling after such a long time of lacking sleep, peace of mind, personal security and safety, does not consider all the dynamics of homelessness. I fear that if a work search is a requirement to maintain shelter, and it must be if they are having them sign some form of declaration to do so, it will be of no use to many people if the shelter is open 24/7. They will not "qualify" for shelter.
What can someone who has no money, no address, no telephone number, no identification, no bank account, no adequate clothing, no or limited education and skills, and no home except for a shelter with a ten day stay maximum possibly offer a local employer? Will they be reliable, punctual, enthusiastic team players? Will they have the ability to work independently? Will they be able to serve the public well and come to work with adequate dress and deportment? Will their minimum wage provide for the rental housing, nutrition, electricity, transportation and childcare they need? Will they be able to find rental housing with the "welfare stereotype" that exists in this community among many landlords?
If we want to tackle the growing problem of homelessness in our community, there must be some attention, some engagement from all of us, some willingness to focus on homeless people not as statistics but as individuals, needing care, needing to be welcomed back as full members of the human race. This could mean unfolding the social safety net and letting them rest in it for a while.
Homelessness deprives people of far more than shelter. They have no place from which to be productive and giving, to be restored, to be welcomed, to be themselves, to enjoy hobbies, the love of a pet, to give physical expression to their personalities. The homeless are, quite simply, deprived of their humanity. Restoring that to them requires more than a $70,000.00 public expenditure, temporary bedding and a mandatory job search.
What bothers me is the disclosure that if the shelter is converted to be open full time, it will be a place for people to find refuge and get back on their feet, not to "waste time." Further, the shelter wants to get a signed commitment that residents will go out, come back with information that they have applied for jobs and that "they are at least looking for jobs."
While I understand that the Salvation Army is "under new orders from the Province" and as such, it is all about getting a job, there are a lot of broken people who we send to the local shelters. They are broken by drugs, alcohol abuse, divorce, AIDS, early pregnancy, lack of education, dementia or mental illness, post traumatic stress and impenetrable hostility. The psychological burden of being homeless certainly does not make someone "job ready". Homeless parents with children and no available childcare are not "job ready". Homeless people who are exhausted from being homeless, whose feet have calluses and sores from walking everywhere and keeping their shoes on 24 hours a day, who feel cold all the time and who are constantly tired no matter how long they sleep are not "job ready". Homeless people who cannot get dentures paid for by welfare and who are toothless or sick from rotting teeth are not "job ready".
To expect someone in this circumstance to sign a commitment to "at least look for a job" is not only unrealistic, but potentially reckless. To accuse someone of "wasting time" when they are not emotionally or psychologically up to par to do much more than rest, who are numb to feeling after such a long time of lacking sleep, peace of mind, personal security and safety, does not consider all the dynamics of homelessness. I fear that if a work search is a requirement to maintain shelter, and it must be if they are having them sign some form of declaration to do so, it will be of no use to many people if the shelter is open 24/7. They will not "qualify" for shelter.
What can someone who has no money, no address, no telephone number, no identification, no bank account, no adequate clothing, no or limited education and skills, and no home except for a shelter with a ten day stay maximum possibly offer a local employer? Will they be reliable, punctual, enthusiastic team players? Will they have the ability to work independently? Will they be able to serve the public well and come to work with adequate dress and deportment? Will their minimum wage provide for the rental housing, nutrition, electricity, transportation and childcare they need? Will they be able to find rental housing with the "welfare stereotype" that exists in this community among many landlords?
If we want to tackle the growing problem of homelessness in our community, there must be some attention, some engagement from all of us, some willingness to focus on homeless people not as statistics but as individuals, needing care, needing to be welcomed back as full members of the human race. This could mean unfolding the social safety net and letting them rest in it for a while.
Homelessness deprives people of far more than shelter. They have no place from which to be productive and giving, to be restored, to be welcomed, to be themselves, to enjoy hobbies, the love of a pet, to give physical expression to their personalities. The homeless are, quite simply, deprived of their humanity. Restoring that to them requires more than a $70,000.00 public expenditure, temporary bedding and a mandatory job search.
Criminal Responsibility
It certainly speaks to the compassion in this community when so many friends and co workers of Phyllis Hards have spoken out through their pain with such empathy towards the man who took her life.
The recent sentencing of Dale Huttunen has also generated some frustration and a sense that the sentence is not long enough.
I would like to remind everyone that Dale Huttunen has a life sentence. He is incarcerated in the solitary confinement of his mental illness. Two lives were lost that day, although it could be argued that Mr.Huttanen's had been gone long before this tragedy occurred. We will continue to hear of these types of violent acts as long as we continue to ignore the monster under the bed that is mental illness.
We are putting people on the street with serious problems. There are people in our community whose mental illnesses have either been unrecognized, ignored, under treated, languished on waiting lists, or treated and released into the world to get along by themselves. Which of them is the next to lose touch and hurt or kill someone?
In many cases the mentally ill are unemployed, very poor, and often homeless. I challenge anyone to try and find assistance for a mentally ill loved one with a lack of funds. How do we suppose the mentally ill are to live the best life they can and obtain the immediate and ongoing treatment they need if they have no money to do so?
How many times was Mr. Huttunen turned away while he journeyed through the underfunded and poorly coordinated revolving doors of mental health services available to him until he lost control of the forces within himself?
We all pay a price for mental illness going untreated and undertreated. Phyllis Hards paid the ultimate price. Mr. Huttunen pays with living the torture of knowing what he did to an innocent and helpless elderly woman and he has to live with that for the rest of his sad and impoverished life. There is no time off for good behavior.
As we remember Phylis Hards and her horrific death, we need to mourn a system that rejects and then criminalizes those on the margins of society...those with severe, untreated mental illness. Locking them up in prison after they do something horrible is not the answer. Ignoring the issue does not make the problem disappear, just as we learned in our community on April 26, 2006.
The recent sentencing of Dale Huttunen has also generated some frustration and a sense that the sentence is not long enough.
I would like to remind everyone that Dale Huttunen has a life sentence. He is incarcerated in the solitary confinement of his mental illness. Two lives were lost that day, although it could be argued that Mr.Huttanen's had been gone long before this tragedy occurred. We will continue to hear of these types of violent acts as long as we continue to ignore the monster under the bed that is mental illness.
We are putting people on the street with serious problems. There are people in our community whose mental illnesses have either been unrecognized, ignored, under treated, languished on waiting lists, or treated and released into the world to get along by themselves. Which of them is the next to lose touch and hurt or kill someone?
In many cases the mentally ill are unemployed, very poor, and often homeless. I challenge anyone to try and find assistance for a mentally ill loved one with a lack of funds. How do we suppose the mentally ill are to live the best life they can and obtain the immediate and ongoing treatment they need if they have no money to do so?
How many times was Mr. Huttunen turned away while he journeyed through the underfunded and poorly coordinated revolving doors of mental health services available to him until he lost control of the forces within himself?
We all pay a price for mental illness going untreated and undertreated. Phyllis Hards paid the ultimate price. Mr. Huttunen pays with living the torture of knowing what he did to an innocent and helpless elderly woman and he has to live with that for the rest of his sad and impoverished life. There is no time off for good behavior.
As we remember Phylis Hards and her horrific death, we need to mourn a system that rejects and then criminalizes those on the margins of society...those with severe, untreated mental illness. Locking them up in prison after they do something horrible is not the answer. Ignoring the issue does not make the problem disappear, just as we learned in our community on April 26, 2006.
Seniors afraid of buskers.
This hate filled "I've got mine, now get out of my way" mentality is not a pleasant side of the Campbell River community. Stereotyping buskers as being unemployed, homeless, beggars, and dangerous ("regardless of how polite they appear") flies in the face of free enterprise and to ban them contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, and the presumption of innocence. Street performing is protected by these rights, rights that many of our pensioners fought for and rights that are appreciated. Perhaps it will ease the fears of those who worry about their personal space or personal safety that the common law ensures that buskers or others should not impede pedestrian traffic flow, block or otherwise obstruct entrances or exits or do other things that endanger the public. It is common law that any disturbing or noisy behaviors may not be conducted after certain hours in the night. It is common law that "performing blue" (i.e. using adult material that is explicit or vulgar or obscene remarks or gestures) is generally prohibited. It is common law that unless invited to do so, busking for a captive audience where people cannot move away is generally not acceptable. If buskers are indeed panhandlers, then this applies to the likes of George Burns, Bob Hope, Simon and Garfunkel, Paul McCartney, Joni Mitchell, even Benjamin Franklin. Give our talented artists in Campbell River the opportunity to be heard, and trust that the policies and regulations the city is considering imposing will make this a win win situation for everyone.
The Mental Decline of Mr. Rogers
The double entendre of the article title "The Mental Decline of Mister Rogers" and the irony of it was not lost on me. Fred Rogers, the infamous children's television host, who strongly endorsed every person's self worth from his neighbourhood of make believe, would feel very sorry for the other Mr. Rogers.
Unfortunately, our neighbourhoods are not so special for those with serious mental illnesses.
The government has boosted the economy on the backs of the mentally ill. This started when the provincial
Mental Health advocate was let go in 2001. Her mandate was to determine what was needed for those with mental illness in our province and guide the Ministry of health to where the problems were. Unfortunately and probably not coincidentally, as soon as she was critical of government she was let go. The government said they could do her job themselves. In firing her they removed the protection on mental health funding which has resulted in mental health money being used to offset deficits in other areas of health, and made it infinitely more difficult for people with disabilities to access income, housing, specialized care, and pharmaceutical supports. Mister Rogers would not be impressed with the horrible and embarrassing situation that has resulted.
Our office has recently erected barriers to protect ourselves from violent outbursts. One of our staff has been assaulted by a mentally ill person who was off his medication. We have had other close calls. We have panic alarms. Our sense of safety and security has been compromised. Our clients, those with mental illness who are in poverty and suffering from neglect and abuse are being criminalized for want of care. They are living independently when they shouldn't be, and many are homeless most of the time. Some are too mentally ill to qualify for homeless shelter, or turn to addictions to numb their pain which just makes their situations worse. Others are dying from suicide. The danger created to front line workers, as we have already sadly experienced in our community hospital, is real and potentially deadly. The danger created for those suffering from terrible crippling mental illness is a life of torment and hopelessness. Is this really the kind of neighbourhood we want? If you are not lucky enough to have the right family, the right finances, the right connections then you end up like the other Mr. Rogers.
It is up to us, the electorate, to demand change. To demand that the most vulnerable among us be provided compassionate, responsive, efficient and when necessary, institutionalized care so that they may lead peaceful and happy lives.
In accepting his Lifetime Achievement Award, Mister Rogers speech was simple but eloquent: "All of us have special ones who have loved us into being. Would you just take, along with me, ten seconds to think of the people who have helped you become who you are. Ten seconds of silence."
Take ten seconds and think about how fortunate you have been, with loving and enduring families, and then think about how you can and should contribute to help people like Barry Rogers become who he is capable of being. It is possible to help him find peace, dignity, stability and purpose, so instead of being someone to fear, he could simply become our newspaper delivery person in whose skilled hands we can trust our broken bicycle.
Unfortunately, our neighbourhoods are not so special for those with serious mental illnesses.
The government has boosted the economy on the backs of the mentally ill. This started when the provincial
Mental Health advocate was let go in 2001. Her mandate was to determine what was needed for those with mental illness in our province and guide the Ministry of health to where the problems were. Unfortunately and probably not coincidentally, as soon as she was critical of government she was let go. The government said they could do her job themselves. In firing her they removed the protection on mental health funding which has resulted in mental health money being used to offset deficits in other areas of health, and made it infinitely more difficult for people with disabilities to access income, housing, specialized care, and pharmaceutical supports. Mister Rogers would not be impressed with the horrible and embarrassing situation that has resulted.
Our office has recently erected barriers to protect ourselves from violent outbursts. One of our staff has been assaulted by a mentally ill person who was off his medication. We have had other close calls. We have panic alarms. Our sense of safety and security has been compromised. Our clients, those with mental illness who are in poverty and suffering from neglect and abuse are being criminalized for want of care. They are living independently when they shouldn't be, and many are homeless most of the time. Some are too mentally ill to qualify for homeless shelter, or turn to addictions to numb their pain which just makes their situations worse. Others are dying from suicide. The danger created to front line workers, as we have already sadly experienced in our community hospital, is real and potentially deadly. The danger created for those suffering from terrible crippling mental illness is a life of torment and hopelessness. Is this really the kind of neighbourhood we want? If you are not lucky enough to have the right family, the right finances, the right connections then you end up like the other Mr. Rogers.
It is up to us, the electorate, to demand change. To demand that the most vulnerable among us be provided compassionate, responsive, efficient and when necessary, institutionalized care so that they may lead peaceful and happy lives.
In accepting his Lifetime Achievement Award, Mister Rogers speech was simple but eloquent: "All of us have special ones who have loved us into being. Would you just take, along with me, ten seconds to think of the people who have helped you become who you are. Ten seconds of silence."
Take ten seconds and think about how fortunate you have been, with loving and enduring families, and then think about how you can and should contribute to help people like Barry Rogers become who he is capable of being. It is possible to help him find peace, dignity, stability and purpose, so instead of being someone to fear, he could simply become our newspaper delivery person in whose skilled hands we can trust our broken bicycle.
Working Poverty
Recently I passed by one of our first of probably many Shopper's Row pan handlers of the summer season. A person behind me shouted at him "get a job" to which the man replied "I have a job". I stopped and went back and spoke with him and learned that he has a full time job working for minimum wage. His son required medicine that he could not afford given his limited income, and of course, no medical benefits. He was collecting spare change so his son could be well. In collecting spare change, he was viewed by some as lazy, blameworthy, and invisible when in fact he was a hard working desperate father willing to humiliate himself to take care of his child.
We all disagree endlessly about why the poor are poor and what, if anything, the rest of us should do about it. Many blame poor people themselves, stressing mistakes or bad character, while others point to what they consider an unjust society. And a lot of us can go either way, case by case.
In almost every case, within just a few minutes of conversation, you can identify the mistakes that led to a poor person's troubles: drug or alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, criminal trouble, failure in school. lack of access to higher education, undiagnosed or untreated learning disabilities, untreated mental illness, or bad luck. I've also noticed that the people who pay the biggest price for such mistakes, who wind up as poor adults, are the ones who lacked a cushion to recover from their poor choices - that is, those who grew up poor, those who got lost in the education or health care system, and those who lack a family support system.
It is perhaps easiest to comprehend a day in a life of someone working full-time for a full year and living in minimum wage poverty by converting a typical working poverty income into a daily dollar amount.
And contrary to public opinion, most minimum wage earners are not young people living at home.
For an average working poor Campbell River family consisting of two adults and two children where one parent earns eight dollars an hour (and the other stays home to avoid $18.00 - $30.00 per day child care costs) take home pay is about twelve hundred dollars a month.
It costs about $653 a month to feed a family of four. This does not include non food items.
It costs about $934 for a 3 bedroom rental including rent utilties and phone.
In addition to food and shelter, families need to pay for personal care items, household needs, furniture, telephone, transportation, school supplies, school field trips, health care and so on. There is no money for entertainment, recreation, reading materials, insurance, or charitable or religious donations and in some cases, prescription medications or even over the counter medications.
It easy to understand why poor families must cut into their budget for essentials why they must rent substandard housing; why they move often in attempts to save rent; why they purchase poor-quality food with little freshness or variety; why they must supplement their food budget with trips to food banks; soup kitchens, why they own a minimum selection of mainly used clothing and why they have to panhandle for spare change.
For the poor family of four, living on $10.00 per person per day is not an exercise in the imagination. It is reality, day after day and with no relief in sight.
And here is where the cycle repeats itself. Children who grow up in low-income families stand out in a variety of ways from their better-off peers. They are less healthy, have less access to skill-building activities, have more destructive habits and behaviours, live more stressful lives and are subject to more humiliation. In short, they have less stable and less secure existences and as a result are likely to be less secure as adults.
Poor children stand out even at public schools. It is not surprising, therefore, that the school drop-out rate of poor children is twice the rate of children who are not poor. Surely, as a fundamental principle of fairness, children's opportunities in life should not depend on the economic circumstances of their parents or the stigma that society puts on them for being seen as poor.
We need to insist that minumum wages be raised to a decent level so "getting a job" actually results in keeping parents home with their children rather than out on street corners begging for change.
We all disagree endlessly about why the poor are poor and what, if anything, the rest of us should do about it. Many blame poor people themselves, stressing mistakes or bad character, while others point to what they consider an unjust society. And a lot of us can go either way, case by case.
In almost every case, within just a few minutes of conversation, you can identify the mistakes that led to a poor person's troubles: drug or alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, criminal trouble, failure in school. lack of access to higher education, undiagnosed or untreated learning disabilities, untreated mental illness, or bad luck. I've also noticed that the people who pay the biggest price for such mistakes, who wind up as poor adults, are the ones who lacked a cushion to recover from their poor choices - that is, those who grew up poor, those who got lost in the education or health care system, and those who lack a family support system.
It is perhaps easiest to comprehend a day in a life of someone working full-time for a full year and living in minimum wage poverty by converting a typical working poverty income into a daily dollar amount.
And contrary to public opinion, most minimum wage earners are not young people living at home.
For an average working poor Campbell River family consisting of two adults and two children where one parent earns eight dollars an hour (and the other stays home to avoid $18.00 - $30.00 per day child care costs) take home pay is about twelve hundred dollars a month.
It costs about $653 a month to feed a family of four. This does not include non food items.
It costs about $934 for a 3 bedroom rental including rent utilties and phone.
In addition to food and shelter, families need to pay for personal care items, household needs, furniture, telephone, transportation, school supplies, school field trips, health care and so on. There is no money for entertainment, recreation, reading materials, insurance, or charitable or religious donations and in some cases, prescription medications or even over the counter medications.
It easy to understand why poor families must cut into their budget for essentials why they must rent substandard housing; why they move often in attempts to save rent; why they purchase poor-quality food with little freshness or variety; why they must supplement their food budget with trips to food banks; soup kitchens, why they own a minimum selection of mainly used clothing and why they have to panhandle for spare change.
For the poor family of four, living on $10.00 per person per day is not an exercise in the imagination. It is reality, day after day and with no relief in sight.
And here is where the cycle repeats itself. Children who grow up in low-income families stand out in a variety of ways from their better-off peers. They are less healthy, have less access to skill-building activities, have more destructive habits and behaviours, live more stressful lives and are subject to more humiliation. In short, they have less stable and less secure existences and as a result are likely to be less secure as adults.
Poor children stand out even at public schools. It is not surprising, therefore, that the school drop-out rate of poor children is twice the rate of children who are not poor. Surely, as a fundamental principle of fairness, children's opportunities in life should not depend on the economic circumstances of their parents or the stigma that society puts on them for being seen as poor.
We need to insist that minumum wages be raised to a decent level so "getting a job" actually results in keeping parents home with their children rather than out on street corners begging for change.
Happily Ever After
I would not want to be a child or a low income working parent in Canada in 2007. I would want to be in a fairy tale where you have two parents, no poverty and an active, engaged extended family. The kind of fairy tale that our leaders are frolicking about in. But it is time to read some non fiction and realize this is not how it is anymore and children are paying the price. And we all will eventually pay for it through increased spending in health care, remedial education, foster care, mental health, addictions, and criminal justice.
One in six Canadian children live in poverty, an increase of 20% since 1989. In British Columbia it is worse at one in four. Many low income families have gross incomes that are thousands of dollars below the poverty line. Many working families cannot afford basics like food, housing, child care, transportation, utilities and health care and families well above the official poverty line still face hardships in managing basic necessities of life. If we are to address poverty, children from disadvantaged homes must have access to healthy learning environments in the crucial early years of life.
During this period of provincial and federal prosperity, where we are told unemployment is at all time lows, and that moving people, many of them single parents, from welfare to work has been very successful, why is it that our leaders have just cut us off at the knees, with many parents finding themselves between a rock and a hard place. They are now being forced to choose between leaving their jobs or abandoning their children during the day.
The success of the social and economic portfolios of the government does not stop once they obtain the favorable employment statistic. There is a role for government in helping working families meet their basic needs.The responsibility goes to ensuring the citizens do not have to miss meals involuntarily, do not have to live in housing that makes them vulnerable or ill, do not have to double up in housing with another family, do not have to habitually live with no heat or light, and do not have to use the emergency room as their main source of health care.
An impressive and ever-growing body of research indicates that the first six years of children's lives are crucial and determine in many ways what kind of people they will grow up to be. Study after study demonstrates that preschool children who attend high-quality early-childhood education and care programs are more likely to become productive contributing members of society as adults. Good childcare not only protects children's health and safety, but also helps them develop their full potential. Paying for good childcare should not mean missed meals, living in the cold and the dark, couch surfing or other indignities suffered by many who are working but working poor.
Our leaders are good at making propaganda at the expense of children. They lecture single parents and poor families not to depend on welfare, to get jobs and be "responsible" members of society. And the same time they never miss an opportunity to say that they are all for "family values." The B.C. Government's Children and Families website says they are committed to having healthy children and families living in safe, caring and inclusive communities. The Governor General's Throne Speech last year said that strong families ensure a bright future for Canada and the most important investment we can make as a country is to help families raise their children. If we are to believe this fairy tale, then why is it so many are not living happily ever after?
One in six Canadian children live in poverty, an increase of 20% since 1989. In British Columbia it is worse at one in four. Many low income families have gross incomes that are thousands of dollars below the poverty line. Many working families cannot afford basics like food, housing, child care, transportation, utilities and health care and families well above the official poverty line still face hardships in managing basic necessities of life. If we are to address poverty, children from disadvantaged homes must have access to healthy learning environments in the crucial early years of life.
During this period of provincial and federal prosperity, where we are told unemployment is at all time lows, and that moving people, many of them single parents, from welfare to work has been very successful, why is it that our leaders have just cut us off at the knees, with many parents finding themselves between a rock and a hard place. They are now being forced to choose between leaving their jobs or abandoning their children during the day.
The success of the social and economic portfolios of the government does not stop once they obtain the favorable employment statistic. There is a role for government in helping working families meet their basic needs.The responsibility goes to ensuring the citizens do not have to miss meals involuntarily, do not have to live in housing that makes them vulnerable or ill, do not have to double up in housing with another family, do not have to habitually live with no heat or light, and do not have to use the emergency room as their main source of health care.
An impressive and ever-growing body of research indicates that the first six years of children's lives are crucial and determine in many ways what kind of people they will grow up to be. Study after study demonstrates that preschool children who attend high-quality early-childhood education and care programs are more likely to become productive contributing members of society as adults. Good childcare not only protects children's health and safety, but also helps them develop their full potential. Paying for good childcare should not mean missed meals, living in the cold and the dark, couch surfing or other indignities suffered by many who are working but working poor.
Our leaders are good at making propaganda at the expense of children. They lecture single parents and poor families not to depend on welfare, to get jobs and be "responsible" members of society. And the same time they never miss an opportunity to say that they are all for "family values." The B.C. Government's Children and Families website says they are committed to having healthy children and families living in safe, caring and inclusive communities. The Governor General's Throne Speech last year said that strong families ensure a bright future for Canada and the most important investment we can make as a country is to help families raise their children. If we are to believe this fairy tale, then why is it so many are not living happily ever after?
NDP ignoring the facts - 2007.
Stan Hagen has once again broken into his theme song and dance regarding the social and economic situation of many people in his constituency and most others. He accuses the NDP of spreading negative, destructive rhetoric that is "light on truth". What the NDP is doing, is speaking to the chorus of complaints heard in unison from those affected by the poverty his government has created.
Mr. Hagen, as usual, is out of tune.
When he chants about job creation, and low unemployment rates, he fails to address the working poverty caused by minimum wages, low wages, part time hours, and temporary employment. While thousands more people have jobs now than under the NDP, how many of those people have hidden disabilities like head injuries, fetal alcohol, and mental illnesses that make their employment precarious at best. How does Mr. Hagen define "gainful employment" when many people contributing to these numbers he is serenading us with, are not gaining anything from it? Childcare challenges, high rents and few vacancies, inadequate low cost housing to meet the affordablity for those working for eight dollars an hour, even the Rental Assistance Program he touts as having a real impact in this community, doesn't. The gatekeeping tone of the eligibility criteria leaves out those who are most in need and most vulnerable.The investments in health care do not help the poor people living in rural areas or semi rural areas who need to actually get to a medical facility for diagnostic purposes, or treatment.
I am afraid you are singing solo on this one Mr Hagen, and your refrain that there are landmark successes in job creation and social support is not in harmony with our experiences on the front line. It would be very helpful if you faced the music instead of ignoring, dismissing, and insulting the choir.
Mr. Hagen, as usual, is out of tune.
When he chants about job creation, and low unemployment rates, he fails to address the working poverty caused by minimum wages, low wages, part time hours, and temporary employment. While thousands more people have jobs now than under the NDP, how many of those people have hidden disabilities like head injuries, fetal alcohol, and mental illnesses that make their employment precarious at best. How does Mr. Hagen define "gainful employment" when many people contributing to these numbers he is serenading us with, are not gaining anything from it? Childcare challenges, high rents and few vacancies, inadequate low cost housing to meet the affordablity for those working for eight dollars an hour, even the Rental Assistance Program he touts as having a real impact in this community, doesn't. The gatekeeping tone of the eligibility criteria leaves out those who are most in need and most vulnerable.The investments in health care do not help the poor people living in rural areas or semi rural areas who need to actually get to a medical facility for diagnostic purposes, or treatment.
I am afraid you are singing solo on this one Mr Hagen, and your refrain that there are landmark successes in job creation and social support is not in harmony with our experiences on the front line. It would be very helpful if you faced the music instead of ignoring, dismissing, and insulting the choir.
Welfare Minister welcomes chance to change deficiencies in the system 2006.
I was pleased to note your stated motivation and willingness to change any deficiencies in the policies of the Ministry of Employment and Assistance to ensure clients are well served.
It was very encouraging to hear that you take concerns about the welfare of our most vulnerable citizens, seriously..
And while you were pleased to acknowledge my positive comments regarding some of the improvements in services to income assistance recipients over the past year, I am hopeful that you will contemplate the serious deficiencies that still exist and welcome the chance to change them.
The biggest and most long running problem is that the rates paid to people who are entitled to regular income assistance have not been raised in years, and do not facilitate the purchase of nutritious food, appropriate clothing, transportation, quality child care, adequate health, dental and optical care, decent housing, and participation in community life. Also, money that is earned by those on regular income assistance is clawed back so there is no incentive to pay off some bills, get on their feet, and more importantly, help ensure that they and their children get the proper nutritious food they need to be healthy.
Have you ever tried living on $610 a month with rent in our community averaging $450, and higher in larger centres? People are faced with a difficult choice. A roof over your head or food on the table, assuming they have a table. Some people have to skip meals in order to buy medicine.Children go to school hungry and without proper clothing. Few people in our community can afford their rent with the $375 allocated to them for shelter allowance. This means they have to spend their support money on their shelter. It is even worse in the larger centres, hence the increase in the homeless population.
I suspect that the significant rate of child poverty in British Columbia, which at 23.9% or almost one in four children, has contributed to the serious problem of child obesity, as the cheapest foods are also the most fattening. Lack of access to fresh fruit, vegetables, lean meats, healthy living conditions and limited resources to participate in organized sports, leaves many children of families on income assistance neglected and unhealthy. These low rates also make it impossible for many people to look for work given they cannot afford decent clothing, transportation and other costs.
The measure of a society is how it treats its most unfortunate members. We should do all that is in our power to enhance their lives and the lives of their children. This benefits everyone. You can do everything possible to get them off social assistance and into long term, productive employment, by all means, but you must also commit to poverty reduction rather than just caseload reduction, and that starts with an adequate income assistance rate structure.
You assured us that many of the changes recommended by the Ombudsman were underway long before the investigation began. This certainly indicates you may be a step ahead of those in the anti poverty community and are, as we speak, well underway in applying some of the government's surplus to raising the income assistance rates. We wait with bated breath.....
It was very encouraging to hear that you take concerns about the welfare of our most vulnerable citizens, seriously..
And while you were pleased to acknowledge my positive comments regarding some of the improvements in services to income assistance recipients over the past year, I am hopeful that you will contemplate the serious deficiencies that still exist and welcome the chance to change them.
The biggest and most long running problem is that the rates paid to people who are entitled to regular income assistance have not been raised in years, and do not facilitate the purchase of nutritious food, appropriate clothing, transportation, quality child care, adequate health, dental and optical care, decent housing, and participation in community life. Also, money that is earned by those on regular income assistance is clawed back so there is no incentive to pay off some bills, get on their feet, and more importantly, help ensure that they and their children get the proper nutritious food they need to be healthy.
Have you ever tried living on $610 a month with rent in our community averaging $450, and higher in larger centres? People are faced with a difficult choice. A roof over your head or food on the table, assuming they have a table. Some people have to skip meals in order to buy medicine.Children go to school hungry and without proper clothing. Few people in our community can afford their rent with the $375 allocated to them for shelter allowance. This means they have to spend their support money on their shelter. It is even worse in the larger centres, hence the increase in the homeless population.
I suspect that the significant rate of child poverty in British Columbia, which at 23.9% or almost one in four children, has contributed to the serious problem of child obesity, as the cheapest foods are also the most fattening. Lack of access to fresh fruit, vegetables, lean meats, healthy living conditions and limited resources to participate in organized sports, leaves many children of families on income assistance neglected and unhealthy. These low rates also make it impossible for many people to look for work given they cannot afford decent clothing, transportation and other costs.
The measure of a society is how it treats its most unfortunate members. We should do all that is in our power to enhance their lives and the lives of their children. This benefits everyone. You can do everything possible to get them off social assistance and into long term, productive employment, by all means, but you must also commit to poverty reduction rather than just caseload reduction, and that starts with an adequate income assistance rate structure.
You assured us that many of the changes recommended by the Ombudsman were underway long before the investigation began. This certainly indicates you may be a step ahead of those in the anti poverty community and are, as we speak, well underway in applying some of the government's surplus to raising the income assistance rates. We wait with bated breath.....
Minister defends welfare system for women - 2006
If Mr. Richmond spent less time defending his welfare system and more time listening to the front line workers and consumers of his services, that would be a step in the right direction towards "doing more". Instead, he chooses to berate the front line workers and consumers of his service while spewing the company line of "fair, caring and sustainable system". Just because you say it over and over again, Mr. Richmond, it doesn't mean it is true.
First, he says that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is wrong. Their serious academic research is dismissed as being out of date and their professional integrity is questioned while they are accused of misrepresentation. Then, the staff lawyers at BC Public Interest Advocacy Centre are wrong, as Mr.Richmond assures us he was a step ahead of them in making the changes to the injustices they complained about to the Ombudsman. Then, the women's centre personnel, transition house workers, and legal advocates in the province of B.C. are wrong. They are accused of exaageration, fear mongering, being "political", and their daily experiences on the front lines are rejected. Now, in the last letter to your paper, Bryony Lake, who has the audacity to suggest that welfare fails single mothers, is accused by Mr. Richmond of making false assumptions and doing a real disservice to your readers and the ministry.
In the face of criticism, Mr. Richmond trivializes or politicizes the work we do, he insults our professional integrity and patronizes the vulnerable who have the courage to complain by dismissing their feelings and experiences as assumptions, exaagerated, misunderstood, or just plain not true.
If your government is so fair to single mothers in dire need, why did your ministry force single mothers with children turning three to look for work, while reducing their monthly income assistance, transition to work benefits, and cut funding for child care, making it harder for recipients to receive a subsidy? Why did your ministry eliminate the exemption on child support income, so single mothers cannot keep any extra child support dollars?Why did your government eliminate before and after school programs. Why did your government eliminate the Ministry of Women's Equality, eliminate employment equity for women, and restricted eligibility for early childhood development and special needs children? Your government cut funding for Women's Centres by one hundred percent, even though BC has the highest rate of violence against women in Canada. Judge Thomas Gove has warned that funding cuts and policy changes are leaving social workers with unmanageable caseloads, turning the clock back on the well being of children and young people in BC ( many of whom have single mothers). Is he wrong too? The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women singled out your provincial government for special criticism after reviewing Canada's compliance with the Convention of Discrimination Against Women. Is the United Nations wrong too? Mr. Richmond owes a standard of care to the people his ministry serves above any other ministry in this government because it is his that is supposed to provide food on their tables, medicine for their mental and physical illnesses, and rooves over the heads of the most vulnerable in our society, in which, statistically, women prevail significantly. When your system fails, and every system does from time to time, you risk people's lives. They end up incarcerated from desperate acts, they lose their families, they lose their sobriety, they lose their homes, their health, they prostitute themselves, they are victimized and victimize others, and sometimes they lose their lives. This is not reported as a conspiracy against the ministry, this is reported because the system is terribly flawed.
And while he says he knows he has to do more, that starts with listening more, and allowing the criticism to motivate him more and exasperate him less.
First, he says that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is wrong. Their serious academic research is dismissed as being out of date and their professional integrity is questioned while they are accused of misrepresentation. Then, the staff lawyers at BC Public Interest Advocacy Centre are wrong, as Mr.Richmond assures us he was a step ahead of them in making the changes to the injustices they complained about to the Ombudsman. Then, the women's centre personnel, transition house workers, and legal advocates in the province of B.C. are wrong. They are accused of exaageration, fear mongering, being "political", and their daily experiences on the front lines are rejected. Now, in the last letter to your paper, Bryony Lake, who has the audacity to suggest that welfare fails single mothers, is accused by Mr. Richmond of making false assumptions and doing a real disservice to your readers and the ministry.
In the face of criticism, Mr. Richmond trivializes or politicizes the work we do, he insults our professional integrity and patronizes the vulnerable who have the courage to complain by dismissing their feelings and experiences as assumptions, exaagerated, misunderstood, or just plain not true.
If your government is so fair to single mothers in dire need, why did your ministry force single mothers with children turning three to look for work, while reducing their monthly income assistance, transition to work benefits, and cut funding for child care, making it harder for recipients to receive a subsidy? Why did your ministry eliminate the exemption on child support income, so single mothers cannot keep any extra child support dollars?Why did your government eliminate before and after school programs. Why did your government eliminate the Ministry of Women's Equality, eliminate employment equity for women, and restricted eligibility for early childhood development and special needs children? Your government cut funding for Women's Centres by one hundred percent, even though BC has the highest rate of violence against women in Canada. Judge Thomas Gove has warned that funding cuts and policy changes are leaving social workers with unmanageable caseloads, turning the clock back on the well being of children and young people in BC ( many of whom have single mothers). Is he wrong too? The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women singled out your provincial government for special criticism after reviewing Canada's compliance with the Convention of Discrimination Against Women. Is the United Nations wrong too? Mr. Richmond owes a standard of care to the people his ministry serves above any other ministry in this government because it is his that is supposed to provide food on their tables, medicine for their mental and physical illnesses, and rooves over the heads of the most vulnerable in our society, in which, statistically, women prevail significantly. When your system fails, and every system does from time to time, you risk people's lives. They end up incarcerated from desperate acts, they lose their families, they lose their sobriety, they lose their homes, their health, they prostitute themselves, they are victimized and victimize others, and sometimes they lose their lives. This is not reported as a conspiracy against the ministry, this is reported because the system is terribly flawed.
And while he says he knows he has to do more, that starts with listening more, and allowing the criticism to motivate him more and exasperate him less.
Is everyone in good hands?
We are all "in pretty good hands" with Gordon Campbell and the Liberals, says some, citing our balanced budget and the most open and transparent government accounting process possible.
What is not so open and transparent, at least to those who choose to turn their heads and close their eyes, is that British Columbia, under the Liberals, has the highest child poverty rate of any province in Canada, over 6% above the national rate for the second year in a row, the highest ever reported in B.C. since Stats Can started publishing poverty data on an annual basis in 1980.
The estimated number of poor children in B.C. in 2003 was 201,000. That is almost one in four children whose parents skip meals so they can eat, who sleep on dirty beds of blankets, towels and sleeping bags in the family van that has become their home, whose asthma is made worse by the moldy and damp housing that is the only type affordable, who go to school hungry, tired, cold, embarrassed, lonely, sad, hurt, picked on and depressed.
That is as many kids as the entire population of Burnaby or the entire populations of Nanaimo, Kelowna and Cranbrook combined.
A decade can make a difference. Welfare incomes for families with children were 18% lower in 2004 than in 1994, with a total income between $11,000.00 and $19,000.00 below the poverty line.
We now have an emerging social class called the working poor. People who do an honest days' work for barely a living wage. People who work at poverty level wages and need at least two full time jobs to be able to maintain a safe home and basic nutrition.They spend everything and save nothing, have miniscule bank accounts or none at all.
In a province that the writer finds refreshing, due to the public debate over how we are going to manage our budget surpluses, these children remain invisible to us. We may live in the same neighborhoods, play at the same parks,attend the same schools and churches, but be unaware of each other’s struggles or are too busy judging their parents to care. We are all a step away from being poor. A divorce, a job loss, an injury, a disability. One in every four of our children, too many vulnerable children, are growing up with lost opportunities.
While our budget may be balanced, it was done so on the backs of the poor and vulnerable. What has been mismanaged and what remains in a huge deficit is the consideration of the future of our children in B.C. They are the most valuable resource and our best hope for the future. The next decade can make a difference, but our government and those who praise it must have the will to do so.
What is not so open and transparent, at least to those who choose to turn their heads and close their eyes, is that British Columbia, under the Liberals, has the highest child poverty rate of any province in Canada, over 6% above the national rate for the second year in a row, the highest ever reported in B.C. since Stats Can started publishing poverty data on an annual basis in 1980.
The estimated number of poor children in B.C. in 2003 was 201,000. That is almost one in four children whose parents skip meals so they can eat, who sleep on dirty beds of blankets, towels and sleeping bags in the family van that has become their home, whose asthma is made worse by the moldy and damp housing that is the only type affordable, who go to school hungry, tired, cold, embarrassed, lonely, sad, hurt, picked on and depressed.
That is as many kids as the entire population of Burnaby or the entire populations of Nanaimo, Kelowna and Cranbrook combined.
A decade can make a difference. Welfare incomes for families with children were 18% lower in 2004 than in 1994, with a total income between $11,000.00 and $19,000.00 below the poverty line.
We now have an emerging social class called the working poor. People who do an honest days' work for barely a living wage. People who work at poverty level wages and need at least two full time jobs to be able to maintain a safe home and basic nutrition.They spend everything and save nothing, have miniscule bank accounts or none at all.
In a province that the writer finds refreshing, due to the public debate over how we are going to manage our budget surpluses, these children remain invisible to us. We may live in the same neighborhoods, play at the same parks,attend the same schools and churches, but be unaware of each other’s struggles or are too busy judging their parents to care. We are all a step away from being poor. A divorce, a job loss, an injury, a disability. One in every four of our children, too many vulnerable children, are growing up with lost opportunities.
While our budget may be balanced, it was done so on the backs of the poor and vulnerable. What has been mismanaged and what remains in a huge deficit is the consideration of the future of our children in B.C. They are the most valuable resource and our best hope for the future. The next decade can make a difference, but our government and those who praise it must have the will to do so.
Society not to blame for youth crime?
There is an old African proverb that says it takes a village to raise a child. While I agree that parents and family have the primary responsibility to raise good children, each of us plays a part in every child's life. We need to take responsibility for that. After all, it is the adults who police their streets, write their laws, teach their lessons, care for their health, monitor the quality of their food, air and water, produce television programs, newspapers, magazines and music.
Everywhere we look children are exposed to violence, poverty, neglect, family break up, temptations of alcohol, tobacco, sex, drug abuse, greed, materialism, peer pressure, and spiritual emptiness. Against this bleak backdrop stands the families of children who are not immune to the influences of our modern society, and who may lack the skills and resources to be the parents we want them to be.
It is the environment of a child that contributes to the development of their character. Children will thrive only if their families thrive and if their community cares enough to provide for them. This calls for caring neighbours, attentive doctors, unburdened social workers, innovative public schools, keen teachers, supportive coaches, hands on ministers, creative bureaucrats, enlightened politicians, fair legislators, informed voters, safe streets, and an economy that supports a decent and dignified standard of living for every person.
Each of us directly or indirectly has an influence on the life of children who are not our own. Society is ultimately to blame for our wayward youth. If we all work together to bring them up then maybe we won't have to take them down with a baseball bat.
Everywhere we look children are exposed to violence, poverty, neglect, family break up, temptations of alcohol, tobacco, sex, drug abuse, greed, materialism, peer pressure, and spiritual emptiness. Against this bleak backdrop stands the families of children who are not immune to the influences of our modern society, and who may lack the skills and resources to be the parents we want them to be.
It is the environment of a child that contributes to the development of their character. Children will thrive only if their families thrive and if their community cares enough to provide for them. This calls for caring neighbours, attentive doctors, unburdened social workers, innovative public schools, keen teachers, supportive coaches, hands on ministers, creative bureaucrats, enlightened politicians, fair legislators, informed voters, safe streets, and an economy that supports a decent and dignified standard of living for every person.
Each of us directly or indirectly has an influence on the life of children who are not our own. Society is ultimately to blame for our wayward youth. If we all work together to bring them up then maybe we won't have to take them down with a baseball bat.
November 2005 - not much has changed.
Lynn Nash, a former superintendant for our school district, former President of the Campbell River Food Bank, former Director of the Campbell River Head Injury Society, states, in his support for the current provincial government, that "our house is in order". I hate to break it to him, but there are lots of people trapped in the basement. Some of these people used to be under your care, Mr. Nash - namely, students, the poor and hungry, and disabled. In defending your letter by stating "all I did was put down the facts", there were some important ones you missed.
Upstairs in your "house of order" you praise the Tyee Spit upgrades, cruise ship dock, water and sewer to the airport, one new school being built, housing starts and highway uupgrades.
In the basement of that house, there is a terrible mess and the cries for help and justice are not being heard. These come from people who cannot afford to rent a home let alone buy one, disabled people who cannot get the medical transportation they need to take that upgraded highway to the medical care they need. It includes parents and students who had their community schools closed and who have been stuffed into overcrowded leftovers. It includes adults and children who cannot afford to eat nutritious food, who go to school and minimum wage workplaces hungry, tired, and with untreated dental problems. It includes people with renal failure, active liver disease, crippling arthritis, stroke, mental illnesses and head injuries, who cannot qualify for the disability assistance the government brags about. It includes children who live in unsafe housing and who cannot go to proper child care facilities because the people upstairs in your house scrapped their commitment to funding universal daycare.
In the back corner of the basement are twice as many homeless as there were three years ago, 75 per cent of whom are not on welfare because they cannot get it, and they contribute to the 40 percent increase in food bank demand. With their backs against the wall are poor and disabled people who cannot access help for their human rights, their debt issues, their legal problems such as tenancy issues, elder abuse, or accessing a benefit they are entitled to. They cannot find a legal advocate because most of those programs lost their funding along with the 40 percent cut to Legal Aid. Some of the people in the basement are out working, at six dollars an hour, or at part time, temporary, contractual jobs, some to try to save up so they can afford to take a few university classes, and many under adverse conditions , because changes to the Employment Standards Legislation gave some "flexibility" to employers and weakened safeguards to workers. Just like the Residential Tenancy Act changes ghettoized many tenants. It is quite crowded in the basement from those twenty thousand public sector employees who lost their jobs, and the others who received a 15 percent wage reduction. There are special needs students wandering around because they have no one to one support or supervision, and before and after school program cuts have many children alone when they shouldn't be. Some of the seniors in the basement have been moved out to places south because there are no beds here for them. The thirty percent cut to the Ministry of Children and Families has many frightened and needy children scrambling out of the cracks they have fallen into in the basement of this house.
The economy, Mr. Nash, applies to everyone in your "house" not just those upstairs. The wealth of this community has been out of reach to many, so I suggest you go down to the basement and see for yourself. A start would be to visit your old stomping grounds and ask if those people feel they are better off now than they were four years ago. It is your duty, as the head of our house, to do so.
Upstairs in your "house of order" you praise the Tyee Spit upgrades, cruise ship dock, water and sewer to the airport, one new school being built, housing starts and highway uupgrades.
In the basement of that house, there is a terrible mess and the cries for help and justice are not being heard. These come from people who cannot afford to rent a home let alone buy one, disabled people who cannot get the medical transportation they need to take that upgraded highway to the medical care they need. It includes parents and students who had their community schools closed and who have been stuffed into overcrowded leftovers. It includes adults and children who cannot afford to eat nutritious food, who go to school and minimum wage workplaces hungry, tired, and with untreated dental problems. It includes people with renal failure, active liver disease, crippling arthritis, stroke, mental illnesses and head injuries, who cannot qualify for the disability assistance the government brags about. It includes children who live in unsafe housing and who cannot go to proper child care facilities because the people upstairs in your house scrapped their commitment to funding universal daycare.
In the back corner of the basement are twice as many homeless as there were three years ago, 75 per cent of whom are not on welfare because they cannot get it, and they contribute to the 40 percent increase in food bank demand. With their backs against the wall are poor and disabled people who cannot access help for their human rights, their debt issues, their legal problems such as tenancy issues, elder abuse, or accessing a benefit they are entitled to. They cannot find a legal advocate because most of those programs lost their funding along with the 40 percent cut to Legal Aid. Some of the people in the basement are out working, at six dollars an hour, or at part time, temporary, contractual jobs, some to try to save up so they can afford to take a few university classes, and many under adverse conditions , because changes to the Employment Standards Legislation gave some "flexibility" to employers and weakened safeguards to workers. Just like the Residential Tenancy Act changes ghettoized many tenants. It is quite crowded in the basement from those twenty thousand public sector employees who lost their jobs, and the others who received a 15 percent wage reduction. There are special needs students wandering around because they have no one to one support or supervision, and before and after school program cuts have many children alone when they shouldn't be. Some of the seniors in the basement have been moved out to places south because there are no beds here for them. The thirty percent cut to the Ministry of Children and Families has many frightened and needy children scrambling out of the cracks they have fallen into in the basement of this house.
The economy, Mr. Nash, applies to everyone in your "house" not just those upstairs. The wealth of this community has been out of reach to many, so I suggest you go down to the basement and see for yourself. A start would be to visit your old stomping grounds and ask if those people feel they are better off now than they were four years ago. It is your duty, as the head of our house, to do so.
NIMBY's
We are only four hours north of Victoria, what McLean's magazine sited as Canada's most dangerous city. It is no wonder that homelessness, poverty, mental illness, drug addiction and prostitution is alive and well in Campbell River.
Some of it is hidden in the confines of cheap apartments, homeless shelters, transition houses, the forest, the caves along the waterfront, in campers, vehicles, under tarps, and in drug houses. Some of it is fairly prevalent now, and it is impacting our businesses, homes, our incomes, and the feelings of safety and security.
While we may choose to deliver our "get out of town" message straight to the drug dealers and prostitutes via posses with video cameras, you won't solve the problem by putting people in jail or forcibly moving them out of your area.
I think establishing the drug and prostitution trades as poverty and public health issues rather than as a crime issue might go a long way towards really solving this problem for everyone concerned. People have to be let out of jail sometime, if they go at all, and since it is the government that has made choices to put them where they are, it is the government that has to make a choice to deal with this issue so it goes away for good. This starts with an aggressive action plan to house and support the mentally ill, addicted, and homeless. Remove the barriers between society and those in need.
If the local government does not have the authority or money to do it, then it is their responsibility to aggressively advocate for our City. They must put pressure on the provincial and federal governments who do have the authority and money to do it. And they do have the money. We must not wait until it is in all of our backyards. Be preemptive and just assume it will be. They have to go somewhere.
It is a fact that homelessness and drug addiction are closely related to mental illness.
Each homeless person costs BC taxpayers $55,000.00 a year, a new study has found. That is an annual cost of $644.3 million in health, corrections and social services spending for all homeless people in the province.
What if that money was spent on social housing, mental health and addictions supports?
If housing and support were offered to these people, it would cost $37,000 a year, not $55,000. In the money saved from courts, jails, hospitals, and shelters, tax payers actually end up significantly ahead. If support was available, many of the homeless and addicts and prostitutes would change their situation all round. We would all benefit.
These results do not contradict what other similar studies have said.
We all disagree endlessly about why the poor are poor and what, if anything, the rest of us should do about it. Many blame poor people themselves, stressing mistakes or bad character, while others point to what they consider an unjust society. And a lot of us can go either way, case by case.
In almost every case, within just a few minutes of conversation, you can identify the mistakes that led to a poor person's troubles: child poverty, child abuse, drug or alcohol addiction, teen pregnancy, criminal trouble, failure in school, lack of access to higher education, undiagnosed or untreated learning disabilities, untreated mental illness, or bad luck.
I've also noticed that the people who pay the biggest price for such mistakes, who wind up as poor adults, are the ones who lacked a cushion to recover from their poor choices - that is, those who grew up poor, those who got lost in the education or health care system, and those who lack a family supports.
It is embarrassing, given our overall level of affluence that people in our community have to prostitute themselves, not as a chosen career, but because they have no other way to make money, for themselves, for their families, or for their pimps. Life as a street prostitute is a grisly existence. There is an extremely high prevalence of lifetime violence and post-traumatic stress disorder. Ninety percent have been assaulted and/or raped, homeless with housing as one of their most urgent needs. Eighty two percent need treatment for drug or alcohol addictions. Ninety two percent of the prostitutes surveyed wanted out of the sex industry but lacked the financial means to support themselves.
It is time to respect each other, no matter who we are or where we come from. We need to help people if they cannot help themselves. Desperation and indignities have not been lost on those we look down on. "Hookers, druggies and crazies" are people's mothers daughters sisters, fathers, sons, and brothers, and yes, it is up to us to keep them. They have souls and emotions. They are humiliated, hurt, embarrassed and scared every day. They are all trying to survive , to get by to live another day.
I agree that those who are drunk or high in public and causing a disturbance should be arrested, as should others who display threatening, intimidating and criminal behavior.But what can we expect when we are putting people on the street with serious problems. There are people in our community whose mental illnesses have either been unrecognized, ignored, under treated, languished on waiting lists, or treated and released into the world to get along by themselves. There are people who just do not have enough money, either through welfare, minimum wages or no hope of getting either, to eat, to have shelter, to live. There are people who are just so humiliated, traumatized, hurting, that they take the first drink, toke, snort, or i.v. injection just to not have to think about their pathetic, painful lives, and it is all downhill from there.
The studies, the close connections between all the issues we are complaining about, and our humanity, gives us the just cause to make our community safe and sound for everyone.
Some of it is hidden in the confines of cheap apartments, homeless shelters, transition houses, the forest, the caves along the waterfront, in campers, vehicles, under tarps, and in drug houses. Some of it is fairly prevalent now, and it is impacting our businesses, homes, our incomes, and the feelings of safety and security.
While we may choose to deliver our "get out of town" message straight to the drug dealers and prostitutes via posses with video cameras, you won't solve the problem by putting people in jail or forcibly moving them out of your area.
I think establishing the drug and prostitution trades as poverty and public health issues rather than as a crime issue might go a long way towards really solving this problem for everyone concerned. People have to be let out of jail sometime, if they go at all, and since it is the government that has made choices to put them where they are, it is the government that has to make a choice to deal with this issue so it goes away for good. This starts with an aggressive action plan to house and support the mentally ill, addicted, and homeless. Remove the barriers between society and those in need.
If the local government does not have the authority or money to do it, then it is their responsibility to aggressively advocate for our City. They must put pressure on the provincial and federal governments who do have the authority and money to do it. And they do have the money. We must not wait until it is in all of our backyards. Be preemptive and just assume it will be. They have to go somewhere.
It is a fact that homelessness and drug addiction are closely related to mental illness.
Each homeless person costs BC taxpayers $55,000.00 a year, a new study has found. That is an annual cost of $644.3 million in health, corrections and social services spending for all homeless people in the province.
What if that money was spent on social housing, mental health and addictions supports?
If housing and support were offered to these people, it would cost $37,000 a year, not $55,000. In the money saved from courts, jails, hospitals, and shelters, tax payers actually end up significantly ahead. If support was available, many of the homeless and addicts and prostitutes would change their situation all round. We would all benefit.
These results do not contradict what other similar studies have said.
We all disagree endlessly about why the poor are poor and what, if anything, the rest of us should do about it. Many blame poor people themselves, stressing mistakes or bad character, while others point to what they consider an unjust society. And a lot of us can go either way, case by case.
In almost every case, within just a few minutes of conversation, you can identify the mistakes that led to a poor person's troubles: child poverty, child abuse, drug or alcohol addiction, teen pregnancy, criminal trouble, failure in school, lack of access to higher education, undiagnosed or untreated learning disabilities, untreated mental illness, or bad luck.
I've also noticed that the people who pay the biggest price for such mistakes, who wind up as poor adults, are the ones who lacked a cushion to recover from their poor choices - that is, those who grew up poor, those who got lost in the education or health care system, and those who lack a family supports.
It is embarrassing, given our overall level of affluence that people in our community have to prostitute themselves, not as a chosen career, but because they have no other way to make money, for themselves, for their families, or for their pimps. Life as a street prostitute is a grisly existence. There is an extremely high prevalence of lifetime violence and post-traumatic stress disorder. Ninety percent have been assaulted and/or raped, homeless with housing as one of their most urgent needs. Eighty two percent need treatment for drug or alcohol addictions. Ninety two percent of the prostitutes surveyed wanted out of the sex industry but lacked the financial means to support themselves.
It is time to respect each other, no matter who we are or where we come from. We need to help people if they cannot help themselves. Desperation and indignities have not been lost on those we look down on. "Hookers, druggies and crazies" are people's mothers daughters sisters, fathers, sons, and brothers, and yes, it is up to us to keep them. They have souls and emotions. They are humiliated, hurt, embarrassed and scared every day. They are all trying to survive , to get by to live another day.
I agree that those who are drunk or high in public and causing a disturbance should be arrested, as should others who display threatening, intimidating and criminal behavior.But what can we expect when we are putting people on the street with serious problems. There are people in our community whose mental illnesses have either been unrecognized, ignored, under treated, languished on waiting lists, or treated and released into the world to get along by themselves. There are people who just do not have enough money, either through welfare, minimum wages or no hope of getting either, to eat, to have shelter, to live. There are people who are just so humiliated, traumatized, hurting, that they take the first drink, toke, snort, or i.v. injection just to not have to think about their pathetic, painful lives, and it is all downhill from there.
The studies, the close connections between all the issues we are complaining about, and our humanity, gives us the just cause to make our community safe and sound for everyone.
No Justice System
How much confidence should we have in our system of justice when three children are now dead and a mother is not a mother anymore due to the despicable crime committed by someone who should have been behind bars if it were not for a phone call that went horribly wrong.
In this day of instant everything, fast food, ATM's, email, we have chosen to take the humanity out of human services. Burgers, banking, mail and bail in a box is the new way we get what we want and get it fast.
In the old days, up to November 18, 2002, our community and all BC communities relied on local citizens appointed by the Office of the Chief Judge to conduct bail hearings and hear search warrant applications after hours, when the courts were closed. Stipendiary J.P.'s, as we were called, held a variety of occupations during the day and received monthly stipends determined by work load, the size of the police force, and the degree of isolation of their community. The stipends did not amount to much, a few thousand dollars a year, and this was more of a community service than a money making venture. When stipendiary J.P's were terminated suddenly in 2002, there were about 64 of us in B.C., and 5 of those served the North Island.
The new way of protecting the public after hours is done through a provincial call centre at Metrotown in Burnaby, over the phone, sardonically referred to as "bail in a box" by the police who have raised concerns from the beginning about slow response times and "bad" decision making by absentee J.P's.
In the old days, the police would call the local J.P. and a time would be arranged for the J.P. to attend the detachment, or, in the case of search warrant applications, they would visit the J.P. at their home, in the middle of the night if need be. This was an extremely efficient, low cost plan and personal service.
Now, the Judicial Justice Centre is staffed by 16 full time, 1 part time and
3 ad hoc Judicial Justices of the Peace, and in 2007 there were over 18,000 bail hearings done over the phone. They earn about $80,000.00 a year, which is going up, and the minimum standards for candidates now include a law degree and at least five years experience practicing law. The hearings are conducted in eight hour shifts, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and some of these hearings are held from offices in their homes over the phone.
In the old days, a local stipendiary J.P. had the benefit of being in the room with an accused. You could look them in eye, you could watch their body language, you could rely on your senses to help you determine if the person should be released on their own recognizance or with conditions or payment of bail, or if they should be remanded to appear in court at a later time, allowing the accused time to calm down, cool their jets, allowing the system to get things in place for future release, allowing the victims some time to cope and allowing protection for the public.
In the case of juveniles, it helped if there was a parent in the room, and it helped to see the dynamic between parent and child as that could tell you whether the child was apt to do as they were told, or be impossible to manage once they were out of eye shot of the authorities.
There are a lot of factors that influence why someone is remanded in custody. I once had an accused throw himself on his knees, sobbing loudly and begging me to let him go.
I noticed there were no tears. He was faking it. I would not have noticed this over the phone and the sounds of his sobbing were quite compelling. I saw another accused spit at a police officer on his way into the hearing room. I would not have seen this over the phone and it certainly influenced my decision whether to release him or not. I saw another accused directly violating conditions I had released him on earlier in the day. I would not have seen this from a call centre in Metrotown and the next time he promised me he would follow conditions of release I suspected otherwise. Sometimes seeing things as opposed to being told things assists in the administration of justice. The community needs to have confidence in that.
The rights of people in the administration of justice are best protected by someone who is "local", who knows the people, who knows the police, and who knows the community. This is particularly relevant in small communities.
Conducting bail hearings over the phone increases the chances of information going missing. Faxing a checklist to the decision maker filled with ticky boxes to say if there a previous record or whether the public will be outraged if the person is released is not the same as speaking to someone eye to eye, face to face, where you can see them and read them. I know I would want to look into the eyes of Mr. Schoenborn who had threatened a little girl in the school yard before deciding if he should be at large, I would want to see the body language of a man who had tried to flee police custody earlier in the day, especially when the police are saying he should not be released. And if the checklist and ticky boxes gave me grave concerns, as was stated by the JJP who released this man, nothing said over the phone would make me feel better about releasing him and "giving him a break".
Attorney-General Wally Oppal defended the system, saying it is "a good, fair system designed to give people access to the justice system after hours." I think we all have just cause to wonder whether the system we have access to provides justice for all.
In this day of instant everything, fast food, ATM's, email, we have chosen to take the humanity out of human services. Burgers, banking, mail and bail in a box is the new way we get what we want and get it fast.
In the old days, up to November 18, 2002, our community and all BC communities relied on local citizens appointed by the Office of the Chief Judge to conduct bail hearings and hear search warrant applications after hours, when the courts were closed. Stipendiary J.P.'s, as we were called, held a variety of occupations during the day and received monthly stipends determined by work load, the size of the police force, and the degree of isolation of their community. The stipends did not amount to much, a few thousand dollars a year, and this was more of a community service than a money making venture. When stipendiary J.P's were terminated suddenly in 2002, there were about 64 of us in B.C., and 5 of those served the North Island.
The new way of protecting the public after hours is done through a provincial call centre at Metrotown in Burnaby, over the phone, sardonically referred to as "bail in a box" by the police who have raised concerns from the beginning about slow response times and "bad" decision making by absentee J.P's.
In the old days, the police would call the local J.P. and a time would be arranged for the J.P. to attend the detachment, or, in the case of search warrant applications, they would visit the J.P. at their home, in the middle of the night if need be. This was an extremely efficient, low cost plan and personal service.
Now, the Judicial Justice Centre is staffed by 16 full time, 1 part time and
3 ad hoc Judicial Justices of the Peace, and in 2007 there were over 18,000 bail hearings done over the phone. They earn about $80,000.00 a year, which is going up, and the minimum standards for candidates now include a law degree and at least five years experience practicing law. The hearings are conducted in eight hour shifts, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and some of these hearings are held from offices in their homes over the phone.
In the old days, a local stipendiary J.P. had the benefit of being in the room with an accused. You could look them in eye, you could watch their body language, you could rely on your senses to help you determine if the person should be released on their own recognizance or with conditions or payment of bail, or if they should be remanded to appear in court at a later time, allowing the accused time to calm down, cool their jets, allowing the system to get things in place for future release, allowing the victims some time to cope and allowing protection for the public.
In the case of juveniles, it helped if there was a parent in the room, and it helped to see the dynamic between parent and child as that could tell you whether the child was apt to do as they were told, or be impossible to manage once they were out of eye shot of the authorities.
There are a lot of factors that influence why someone is remanded in custody. I once had an accused throw himself on his knees, sobbing loudly and begging me to let him go.
I noticed there were no tears. He was faking it. I would not have noticed this over the phone and the sounds of his sobbing were quite compelling. I saw another accused spit at a police officer on his way into the hearing room. I would not have seen this over the phone and it certainly influenced my decision whether to release him or not. I saw another accused directly violating conditions I had released him on earlier in the day. I would not have seen this from a call centre in Metrotown and the next time he promised me he would follow conditions of release I suspected otherwise. Sometimes seeing things as opposed to being told things assists in the administration of justice. The community needs to have confidence in that.
The rights of people in the administration of justice are best protected by someone who is "local", who knows the people, who knows the police, and who knows the community. This is particularly relevant in small communities.
Conducting bail hearings over the phone increases the chances of information going missing. Faxing a checklist to the decision maker filled with ticky boxes to say if there a previous record or whether the public will be outraged if the person is released is not the same as speaking to someone eye to eye, face to face, where you can see them and read them. I know I would want to look into the eyes of Mr. Schoenborn who had threatened a little girl in the school yard before deciding if he should be at large, I would want to see the body language of a man who had tried to flee police custody earlier in the day, especially when the police are saying he should not be released. And if the checklist and ticky boxes gave me grave concerns, as was stated by the JJP who released this man, nothing said over the phone would make me feel better about releasing him and "giving him a break".
Attorney-General Wally Oppal defended the system, saying it is "a good, fair system designed to give people access to the justice system after hours." I think we all have just cause to wonder whether the system we have access to provides justice for all.
You can "get a job" and still be poor.
There are some who think being poor is a matter of lack of values, motivation
and determination. But in 2008, many of us will begin to know it to be something
different. You can work hard all of your life, have impeccable values and still
end up poor.
Poor people are seen by some as unworthy, lazy, potentially criminal and a
threat to social stability. They need to get a job.
But what if they had a job and lost it? Do we look at poor people differently based on how they got where they are?
Poor bashing has, for years, diverted attention away from the actual causes of
poverty and unemployment onto the victims of inequality—the poor and the unemployed.
Many families in our community are finding out that their grip on the good life
can be shaken loose in an instant. They had enough income and job security to
get by and afford the little extras. But a pink slip can reduce a family from
solidly middle class to newly poor in a few months.
Losing your job can be devastating.
Canadian Mental Health Association considers job loss to be a major life crisis
comparable to serious injury, divorce, death of a family member. Shock, anger,
frustration, grief, worry, shame, loss of identity, social ties, friendships and
income is happening in Campbell River.
In a matter of months, people in our community, working people, could move away
from a comfortable life with decent pay and health insurance to an $8.00-an-hour
job with no insurance, no benefits, and just enough resources for a while to
keep the wolf from the door.
One quarter of Canadians are in jobs that pay under $10/hour. Forty per cent
have precarious part-time, contract, temporary jobs, or are self-employed.
Some will experience the deep embarrassment of applying for welfare, and the
sudden realization that living on $610.00 a month is not as easy as had been assumed.
They will spend most of their income on housing. They will no longer buy
anything unless it's absolutely essential. They will never turn down a free
meal. The family pets will have to go. They will learn to graciously accept money, furniture, food, rides, and encouragement from worried friends. They will decide what prescriptions they absolutely have to get.
When they think about buying something, they will think about how many hours they have to work to pay for it.
Even if they are able to trim around the edges, there are fixed costs that eat up most of the income from low wages or welfare. Rent or mortgage, car payments, insurance, and childcare. Families must pay them each and every month, through good times and bad, there is no way to cut back from one month to
the next, as can be done with spending on clothing or food. Short of moving out
of the house, withdrawing their children from preschool, or cancelling the
insurance policy altogether, they are stuck.
They will no longer be proud.
Simply put, they will be in survival mode. You cannot be lazy to be in survival mode.
But they are not alone.
Canada's rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer and the middle class
stagnates, according to 2005 census data released May 1, 2008, by Statistics Canada.
Between 1980 and 2005, median earnings among Canada's top earners rose more than
16 per cent while those in the bottom fifth saw their wages dip by 20 per cent.
Economists blame the growing income gap on inadequate minimum wages, the loss of
well-paying manufacturing jobs, the decline in union workplaces, and the
increase in contract and temporary employment and low paying service sector
work. Good jobs with benefits are hard to come by here.
At 21 %, BC has the highest rate of poverty in Canada for the fourth year in a row.
Among low-income families with children, 66% live in unaffordable housing. Low-income
families rather than individuals are the fastest growing group of users of emergency housing or shelters.
Since 2001, the number of children served by food banks in our province has
doubled and family visits have increased by 145%. Many of the families visiting
food banks are employed.
BC had the highest rate of working poor in the country at 10.2%—double the
Canadian average.
We are about to learn that the poor are not as divorced from the rest of us as
we would like to think. They think like us, have the same virtues and vices,
they love their children, they feel embarrassment, humiliation, anger, guilt and
fear. They really would like to have a job that can provide for their needs.
Maybe they had a job and something went wrong. Maybe something went wrong and
they never got a job. They can become us (about 40 per cent make their way out
of poverty after just one year) and we can become them. The 1990s demonstrated
how easy it is to fall into poverty. All you have to do is lose your good
middle-class job during a recession.
There is just cause to care about poverty and those in it, not just to be
charitable, not because it is a nice thing to do and not because it is them and
not us. We should care about poverty because, in the end, this story isn't just
about the 22% officially designated as low-income. It is about individuals and
families with names and stories who may have been born into it, abused into it,
disabled into it, abandoned into it, or pushed into it after leaving their hard
hats at the gate.
and determination. But in 2008, many of us will begin to know it to be something
different. You can work hard all of your life, have impeccable values and still
end up poor.
Poor people are seen by some as unworthy, lazy, potentially criminal and a
threat to social stability. They need to get a job.
But what if they had a job and lost it? Do we look at poor people differently based on how they got where they are?
Poor bashing has, for years, diverted attention away from the actual causes of
poverty and unemployment onto the victims of inequality—the poor and the unemployed.
Many families in our community are finding out that their grip on the good life
can be shaken loose in an instant. They had enough income and job security to
get by and afford the little extras. But a pink slip can reduce a family from
solidly middle class to newly poor in a few months.
Losing your job can be devastating.
Canadian Mental Health Association considers job loss to be a major life crisis
comparable to serious injury, divorce, death of a family member. Shock, anger,
frustration, grief, worry, shame, loss of identity, social ties, friendships and
income is happening in Campbell River.
In a matter of months, people in our community, working people, could move away
from a comfortable life with decent pay and health insurance to an $8.00-an-hour
job with no insurance, no benefits, and just enough resources for a while to
keep the wolf from the door.
One quarter of Canadians are in jobs that pay under $10/hour. Forty per cent
have precarious part-time, contract, temporary jobs, or are self-employed.
Some will experience the deep embarrassment of applying for welfare, and the
sudden realization that living on $610.00 a month is not as easy as had been assumed.
They will spend most of their income on housing. They will no longer buy
anything unless it's absolutely essential. They will never turn down a free
meal. The family pets will have to go. They will learn to graciously accept money, furniture, food, rides, and encouragement from worried friends. They will decide what prescriptions they absolutely have to get.
When they think about buying something, they will think about how many hours they have to work to pay for it.
Even if they are able to trim around the edges, there are fixed costs that eat up most of the income from low wages or welfare. Rent or mortgage, car payments, insurance, and childcare. Families must pay them each and every month, through good times and bad, there is no way to cut back from one month to
the next, as can be done with spending on clothing or food. Short of moving out
of the house, withdrawing their children from preschool, or cancelling the
insurance policy altogether, they are stuck.
They will no longer be proud.
Simply put, they will be in survival mode. You cannot be lazy to be in survival mode.
But they are not alone.
Canada's rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer and the middle class
stagnates, according to 2005 census data released May 1, 2008, by Statistics Canada.
Between 1980 and 2005, median earnings among Canada's top earners rose more than
16 per cent while those in the bottom fifth saw their wages dip by 20 per cent.
Economists blame the growing income gap on inadequate minimum wages, the loss of
well-paying manufacturing jobs, the decline in union workplaces, and the
increase in contract and temporary employment and low paying service sector
work. Good jobs with benefits are hard to come by here.
At 21 %, BC has the highest rate of poverty in Canada for the fourth year in a row.
Among low-income families with children, 66% live in unaffordable housing. Low-income
families rather than individuals are the fastest growing group of users of emergency housing or shelters.
Since 2001, the number of children served by food banks in our province has
doubled and family visits have increased by 145%. Many of the families visiting
food banks are employed.
BC had the highest rate of working poor in the country at 10.2%—double the
Canadian average.
We are about to learn that the poor are not as divorced from the rest of us as
we would like to think. They think like us, have the same virtues and vices,
they love their children, they feel embarrassment, humiliation, anger, guilt and
fear. They really would like to have a job that can provide for their needs.
Maybe they had a job and something went wrong. Maybe something went wrong and
they never got a job. They can become us (about 40 per cent make their way out
of poverty after just one year) and we can become them. The 1990s demonstrated
how easy it is to fall into poverty. All you have to do is lose your good
middle-class job during a recession.
There is just cause to care about poverty and those in it, not just to be
charitable, not because it is a nice thing to do and not because it is them and
not us. We should care about poverty because, in the end, this story isn't just
about the 22% officially designated as low-income. It is about individuals and
families with names and stories who may have been born into it, abused into it,
disabled into it, abandoned into it, or pushed into it after leaving their hard
hats at the gate.
Gone too soon.
There is a lot of poverty in the world. I often talk about it, about how people should have enough money for basic needs, about offering dignity to those who are marginalized and vulnerable. I talk about equality, and justice, and being our brother’s keeper. These are things I believe in. We are all feeling the pains of poor economic times. We are facing job loss, higher costs, cutbacks to things we have taken for granted. We worry a lot. Mothers skip meals so their kids can eat, men try to find work with rotting teeth and a tent for a home, families struggle to pay for childcare so they can work for wages well below the poverty line. Addictions are overtaking our society at warped speed.
In the scheme of things, all of this is worrisome and should take a front seat to our concerns as a society. Having said that, let’s not forget what is most important of all. Loving one another. Saying what we should say before it is too late. Appreciating what we have. Comforting those who are lost and who are broken. Celebrating our youth and remembering there are a lot of great young people in our world. Thanking our lucky stars that the kids many of us struggle to support are at least at home with us every night.
Too many young people have died in our community in the past couple of months. One is too many. We are all shocked, saddened, we wonder how it happened, why it happened, and who’s to blame. Eventually, life goes on for most of us.
There is just cause, however, to remember that the young people who are no longer with us are much more than just one person. They are grandsons, nephews, big brothers, little brothers, students, employees, boyfriends, sons, and young men who will never be fathers themselves. With them a generation is lost. To many more people they were the kid who everyone got along with, the guy you could always count on to be there for you and made you feel good about yourself. The class comedian. The talented musician. The star athlete. The quiet helper. They were a best friend. To their co-workers, they were the youngest one on the crew, the one to tease and joke around with, the one with the goofy grin, the kid who would do anything that was asked of him. To a special few they were a role model, a confidante, a protector, someone to wrestle with, someone to wait up for, someone who gave rides in a cool car, someone to cheer you on at hockey game.They were and will always be all these things to a lot of people. They will be the one we tell others in our lives “I wish you could have known him.”
A lot of people are hurting right now and will never quite be the same. These people are vulnerable. They need our help.
Every now and then we will continue to hear of tragic losses and it hits us hardest when these are young people who have not had time to live yet. But they have lived, and stories like this don’t just happen to other families. They can happen to anyone. The golden rule comes in to play. Treat them as you would want to be treated.
At the end of the day, you or people you know of or hear about may not have enough to eat, may not have the right clothes, a furnished home, a home at all. But their hearts are beating. They will wake up tomorrow morning to start a new day with new possibilities. We can hope they have friends, family, and people who care about them. We must hope that they have their community. That spirit is often the difference between isolation and despair, or hope and recovery. We need to pay attention to that and not let all the other things that can be fixed, overshadow other things that cannot be fixed once it is too late.
Hug your children and tell them you love them. Then fix something by making a difference in the life of someone else.
In the scheme of things, all of this is worrisome and should take a front seat to our concerns as a society. Having said that, let’s not forget what is most important of all. Loving one another. Saying what we should say before it is too late. Appreciating what we have. Comforting those who are lost and who are broken. Celebrating our youth and remembering there are a lot of great young people in our world. Thanking our lucky stars that the kids many of us struggle to support are at least at home with us every night.
Too many young people have died in our community in the past couple of months. One is too many. We are all shocked, saddened, we wonder how it happened, why it happened, and who’s to blame. Eventually, life goes on for most of us.
There is just cause, however, to remember that the young people who are no longer with us are much more than just one person. They are grandsons, nephews, big brothers, little brothers, students, employees, boyfriends, sons, and young men who will never be fathers themselves. With them a generation is lost. To many more people they were the kid who everyone got along with, the guy you could always count on to be there for you and made you feel good about yourself. The class comedian. The talented musician. The star athlete. The quiet helper. They were a best friend. To their co-workers, they were the youngest one on the crew, the one to tease and joke around with, the one with the goofy grin, the kid who would do anything that was asked of him. To a special few they were a role model, a confidante, a protector, someone to wrestle with, someone to wait up for, someone who gave rides in a cool car, someone to cheer you on at hockey game.They were and will always be all these things to a lot of people. They will be the one we tell others in our lives “I wish you could have known him.”
A lot of people are hurting right now and will never quite be the same. These people are vulnerable. They need our help.
Every now and then we will continue to hear of tragic losses and it hits us hardest when these are young people who have not had time to live yet. But they have lived, and stories like this don’t just happen to other families. They can happen to anyone. The golden rule comes in to play. Treat them as you would want to be treated.
At the end of the day, you or people you know of or hear about may not have enough to eat, may not have the right clothes, a furnished home, a home at all. But their hearts are beating. They will wake up tomorrow morning to start a new day with new possibilities. We can hope they have friends, family, and people who care about them. We must hope that they have their community. That spirit is often the difference between isolation and despair, or hope and recovery. We need to pay attention to that and not let all the other things that can be fixed, overshadow other things that cannot be fixed once it is too late.
Hug your children and tell them you love them. Then fix something by making a difference in the life of someone else.
Dental care goes deeper for those in poverty.
Discovery Community Dental College recently announced a one day low cost dental event for community members who do not have dental insurance. Tooth polishing, fluoride treatments and X-rays for children and adults will be provided by dental assistant students. Part of the service will be to write up treatment plans for the children and adults they see on this day. Most if not all of these treatment plans will likely not be followed.
In our community and throughout Canada in fact, access to dental care is based on the ability to pay and not the need for care. According to a 2003 Statistics Canada report, almost half of employed Canadians do not have dental benefits through work. For the self-employed, two out of three people go without.
Stats Can also reports that one in three British Columbians hasn't seen a dentist in at least a year. And one in six of us has not seen a dentist in more than three years. It just is not affordable.
While one third of people cannot afford dental care through the current private fee for service system, some can find reduced fee clinics scattered around, but there are not many and not one north of Victoria. The problem is that the demand far outstrips the number of dentists and staff willing or able to volunteer.
People on low incomes have the highest extraction rate and lowest filling rate because it is cheaper to pull it rather than restore it. For those on welfare, there is coverage, but the amounts paid by the Ministry are less than the amounts charged by dentists, so poor people are left to try to make up the difference, or not get the work done. Most don’t get the work done. And for those who have no teeth at all, estimated to be at least one if four of low income people, welfare rates do not meet the rates for dentures by any stretch of the imagination. Most are left with having to pay out more than a months’ income for the difference. Who can do that?
Those with high incomes or with insurance receive the preventative and diagnostic treatment they need. Low income people only get emergency service and even then, it often differs from the services of those who can pay for them. There is quite a bit of self care going on. This includes people pulling out their own teeth with pliers, popping infections on their gums, and living on pain killers- prescribed or not.
The Canadian Dental Association says that there is a definite link between oral diseases and diabetes, heart disease, stroke, low birth weights and pre term babies. Common sense says there is a definite link between no dental care and needless pain and suffering, barriers to employment, restricted activities in school, poor self esteem, no quality of life, terrible nutrition and poor bashing stereotypes.
An Alberta man who worked for a minimum wage with no benefits, earning basically enough to pay for rent, food and gas, needed his tooth fixed, but the cost was five hundred dollars. The situation became life threatening when the tooth became abscessed. The infection spread to his brain where doctors had to remove part of his skull to remove all the pus. In Ontario, a man went blind because he couldn't afford to treat his abscessed tooth. Then there is the case of a 17-year-old boy who died after his tooth abscessed and the infection ended up in his heart. This is not all about great smiles. Lives are being lost.
The reality is that most low income people put off getting care and ultimately end up in their hospital emergency department where they can be treated for free.
The answer is that Canada should have a universal dental care plan. If not, then do what many countries do and make dental care free for children and teenagers. Denmark, Finland, and the United Kingdom are three of them. Even for adults there is usually some form of subsidisation or insurance with co-pays and no payments are required from those in poverty.
Some may argue that dentists have a responsibility to do charitable work through their private practices, donating their services, reducing fees, waiving bills, or providing a payment plan. There are one or two dentists locally who do contribute. But I think there is just cause to ask why, if physicians and people who practice in the hospital settings get paid for their care why should people providing oral health care services have to volunteer to help the poor? I think there is just cause to ask why, when even massage therapy and acupuncture treatments are covered under B.C. Medical, is oral health seen as a marginal need?
While polishing and fluoride treatments are great, the dental needs of many people go far beneath the surface.
In our community and throughout Canada in fact, access to dental care is based on the ability to pay and not the need for care. According to a 2003 Statistics Canada report, almost half of employed Canadians do not have dental benefits through work. For the self-employed, two out of three people go without.
Stats Can also reports that one in three British Columbians hasn't seen a dentist in at least a year. And one in six of us has not seen a dentist in more than three years. It just is not affordable.
While one third of people cannot afford dental care through the current private fee for service system, some can find reduced fee clinics scattered around, but there are not many and not one north of Victoria. The problem is that the demand far outstrips the number of dentists and staff willing or able to volunteer.
People on low incomes have the highest extraction rate and lowest filling rate because it is cheaper to pull it rather than restore it. For those on welfare, there is coverage, but the amounts paid by the Ministry are less than the amounts charged by dentists, so poor people are left to try to make up the difference, or not get the work done. Most don’t get the work done. And for those who have no teeth at all, estimated to be at least one if four of low income people, welfare rates do not meet the rates for dentures by any stretch of the imagination. Most are left with having to pay out more than a months’ income for the difference. Who can do that?
Those with high incomes or with insurance receive the preventative and diagnostic treatment they need. Low income people only get emergency service and even then, it often differs from the services of those who can pay for them. There is quite a bit of self care going on. This includes people pulling out their own teeth with pliers, popping infections on their gums, and living on pain killers- prescribed or not.
The Canadian Dental Association says that there is a definite link between oral diseases and diabetes, heart disease, stroke, low birth weights and pre term babies. Common sense says there is a definite link between no dental care and needless pain and suffering, barriers to employment, restricted activities in school, poor self esteem, no quality of life, terrible nutrition and poor bashing stereotypes.
An Alberta man who worked for a minimum wage with no benefits, earning basically enough to pay for rent, food and gas, needed his tooth fixed, but the cost was five hundred dollars. The situation became life threatening when the tooth became abscessed. The infection spread to his brain where doctors had to remove part of his skull to remove all the pus. In Ontario, a man went blind because he couldn't afford to treat his abscessed tooth. Then there is the case of a 17-year-old boy who died after his tooth abscessed and the infection ended up in his heart. This is not all about great smiles. Lives are being lost.
The reality is that most low income people put off getting care and ultimately end up in their hospital emergency department where they can be treated for free.
The answer is that Canada should have a universal dental care plan. If not, then do what many countries do and make dental care free for children and teenagers. Denmark, Finland, and the United Kingdom are three of them. Even for adults there is usually some form of subsidisation or insurance with co-pays and no payments are required from those in poverty.
Some may argue that dentists have a responsibility to do charitable work through their private practices, donating their services, reducing fees, waiving bills, or providing a payment plan. There are one or two dentists locally who do contribute. But I think there is just cause to ask why, if physicians and people who practice in the hospital settings get paid for their care why should people providing oral health care services have to volunteer to help the poor? I think there is just cause to ask why, when even massage therapy and acupuncture treatments are covered under B.C. Medical, is oral health seen as a marginal need?
While polishing and fluoride treatments are great, the dental needs of many people go far beneath the surface.
Saving money on the backs of the less fortunate.
A regulation was surreptitiously signed and put through last week, behind the backs of tax payers, patients, parents, and even Community Living BC, saying that adults with developmental disabilities must have an I.Q. of 70 or less to qualify for government support, including housing through CLBC. The government claims this is an interim measure (like income tax in 1917?). What it really is, is a sneaky yet successful attempt by government to side step a court case brought on by the parent of a special needs 18 year old about to turn 19, to try to keep services going for him. Doctors say he is at great risk and poses great risk to others if he is not supported and housed. The government just wants to save some money, as usual, on the backs of those less fortunate.
In 1904 psychologist Alfred Binet was commissioned by the French government to create a testing system to differentiate intellectually normal children from those who were “inferior”. Thus the IQ scale of 1904 is the defining factor in who gets care in B.C. and who doesn’t, in 2008. The following scale resulted for classifying IQ scores. Five percent of people have an IQ under 70 and this is generally considered as the benchmark for "mental retardation", a condition defined in 1904 as the limited mental ability producing difficulty in adapting to the demands of life. Severity of “mental retardation” was broken into 5 levels, 70-79 is considered borderline deficiency in intelligence, 50-70 is mild, 35-50 is moderate, 20-35 is severe and under 20 is considered profound.
It is important to note that there is no true I.Q based classification for developmental disabilities.
There are already about 200 cases before the Child and Youth Advocate of developmentally disabled teenagers who lost all their supports when they turned 19 and with no parents to advocate for them when they aged out of foster care. There are many other adolescents who remain on waiting lists that never end, who will now be bumped off if their I.Q. doesn’t make the under 70 regulation. This is a perverse and offensive form of gate keeping and we will be seeing these youngsters and adults sleeping in doorways with their 72 or 73 I.Q.to guide them.
Using I.Q. measures as a qualifying factor in who we help and who we cut loose to live on the streets or in jail or, with a bit of luck, their frightened and burned out family members, puts vulnerable and volatile people, likely with little to no experience living independently, right out into society without intensive daily supports. We are talking about many young adults with autism, fetal alcohol spectrum, Aspergers, severe anxiety disorders, severely pathological behaviors, disturbed sexual impulses or other pervasive developmental disorders. Those who may squeak by on an I.Q test, or even do remarkably well, yet have syndromes and conditions that reduce or eliminate their mental capacity to function on their own and keep themselves and others safe. That’s just what we need out on the streets, “smart enough” dangerous people. People who with supports will take their medications and participate in their therapies, people who, in a move done behind closed doors and behind the backs of the electorate, will now end up homeless, or once the damage is already done, in jail, or dead. Is this worth the cost savings? Is this how we want to live in the “Best Place on Earth’? Don’t we already have enough homeless, hurting, addicted, incarcerated or victimized people? I know we have enough disabled people on permanent waiting lists and enough care workers who are horribly underpaid to care for those who make the grade. Where are our priorities?
There is now, sadly, just cause to suggest that in British Columbia there is no use taking the government to court, and no thrill in winning, as justice can be circumvented by those who have the power to change the rules anytime they want. They may be able to change the law to get around a court decision, or deflect criticism by throwing in the term “interim” to describe what they have done, but there is also just cause to rally and tell our elected officials that they cannot turn their backs on vulnerable people just because their I.Q. is above a certain level, and expect to get away with it.
We all need to speak up about this situation and tell our elected representatives that the basic moral test for our society is how we treat the most vulnerable in our midst. They are failing miserably. This will come back to haunt them.
In 1904 psychologist Alfred Binet was commissioned by the French government to create a testing system to differentiate intellectually normal children from those who were “inferior”. Thus the IQ scale of 1904 is the defining factor in who gets care in B.C. and who doesn’t, in 2008. The following scale resulted for classifying IQ scores. Five percent of people have an IQ under 70 and this is generally considered as the benchmark for "mental retardation", a condition defined in 1904 as the limited mental ability producing difficulty in adapting to the demands of life. Severity of “mental retardation” was broken into 5 levels, 70-79 is considered borderline deficiency in intelligence, 50-70 is mild, 35-50 is moderate, 20-35 is severe and under 20 is considered profound.
It is important to note that there is no true I.Q based classification for developmental disabilities.
There are already about 200 cases before the Child and Youth Advocate of developmentally disabled teenagers who lost all their supports when they turned 19 and with no parents to advocate for them when they aged out of foster care. There are many other adolescents who remain on waiting lists that never end, who will now be bumped off if their I.Q. doesn’t make the under 70 regulation. This is a perverse and offensive form of gate keeping and we will be seeing these youngsters and adults sleeping in doorways with their 72 or 73 I.Q.to guide them.
Using I.Q. measures as a qualifying factor in who we help and who we cut loose to live on the streets or in jail or, with a bit of luck, their frightened and burned out family members, puts vulnerable and volatile people, likely with little to no experience living independently, right out into society without intensive daily supports. We are talking about many young adults with autism, fetal alcohol spectrum, Aspergers, severe anxiety disorders, severely pathological behaviors, disturbed sexual impulses or other pervasive developmental disorders. Those who may squeak by on an I.Q test, or even do remarkably well, yet have syndromes and conditions that reduce or eliminate their mental capacity to function on their own and keep themselves and others safe. That’s just what we need out on the streets, “smart enough” dangerous people. People who with supports will take their medications and participate in their therapies, people who, in a move done behind closed doors and behind the backs of the electorate, will now end up homeless, or once the damage is already done, in jail, or dead. Is this worth the cost savings? Is this how we want to live in the “Best Place on Earth’? Don’t we already have enough homeless, hurting, addicted, incarcerated or victimized people? I know we have enough disabled people on permanent waiting lists and enough care workers who are horribly underpaid to care for those who make the grade. Where are our priorities?
There is now, sadly, just cause to suggest that in British Columbia there is no use taking the government to court, and no thrill in winning, as justice can be circumvented by those who have the power to change the rules anytime they want. They may be able to change the law to get around a court decision, or deflect criticism by throwing in the term “interim” to describe what they have done, but there is also just cause to rally and tell our elected officials that they cannot turn their backs on vulnerable people just because their I.Q. is above a certain level, and expect to get away with it.
We all need to speak up about this situation and tell our elected representatives that the basic moral test for our society is how we treat the most vulnerable in our midst. They are failing miserably. This will come back to haunt them.
Cruelty to Animals
With the upcoming federal election, I was going to write about poverty in Canada and about where each party stood in addressing this issue. Then, a little innocent puppy was viciously shot on Quadra Island, and I was driven to write about the poverty of our souls in this country.
I have always been a great fan of Gandhi. Gandhi was a great soul, a practitioner of non-violence and truth and advocated that others do the same. He said the greatness of a nation, and its moral progress, can be measured by the way its animals are treated. There is just cause to conclude that our elected officials in Ottawa have lost their way on that moral compass and don’t measure up at all.
A recent report by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) shows Canada has the worst animal cruelty laws among 14 countries surveyed, including the Ukraine and the Philippines. The law is 115 years old, is hopelessly outdated, and treats animals as property, like a car or your lawn furniture. So when you hurt or kill an animal, it is considered a property offense or vandalism. Tell that to the little kid on Quadra who vomited in horror at the sight of his puppy dying.
Crimes against police service animals are crimes against 'property'. To kill or injure a police service animal is a summary conviction punishable only by a fine. The same is said for all animals in Canada unless they are strays or orphaned. If they are not owned as property, they have no rights at all. Under current law in Canada less than 1/4 of 1% of people charged with animal abuse are actually punished.
Research has shown that in situations where animals are being abused or neglected, abuse is often happening to children and adults. Maybe this was enough to convince our leaders to tackle this issue head on.
On April 9th of this year, the government finally decided to do something about this situation and passed Bill S-213, despite the fact that not one single animal protection agency, veterinary association or grassroots humane society in Canada supported it. Over one hundred and thirty thousand Canadians signed a petition against this law.
MPs had to have been pretty clear on where Canadians stood on this issue. Since we are going to the polls again soon, those who disapprove of cruelty to animals may be interested in discovering how their MPs voted in April.
This bill maintained the same wording as the law from 1892 and continued to allow training for dog fights, continued to allow animal cruelty to be a property offense, and continued to make it difficult to prosecute cases of neglect or cruelty. All it did was increase penalties for the .04% who are convicted from a maximum of six months to five years in prison and increasing the potential fine from two thousand to ten thousand dollars. In addition, the courts could order the convict to pay for the cost associated with the animal's loss or injury. All but a few Liberals, all of the Conservatives and the Bloc supported Bill S-203 while the only party opposing it was the NDP.
Under current legislation, crimes of neglect are extremely difficult to punish appropriately. The wording of the current neglect offence uses the term “willful neglect”, which requires proof of a person’s intent. The requirement to prove that a person intended to neglect his or her animals or intend to harm them makes it extremely difficult to successfully prosecute. The current legislation does not address brutally or viciously killing an animal as a form of violence. For example, a Saskatchewan farmer allowed more than 30 of his sheep to starve to death and his other animals were emaciated. However, despite repeated interventions by the SPCA, the judge found him not guilty of willful neglect as he did not feel that the farmer intended to starve his animals.
A few years ago in Edmonton, two young men tied a dog to a tree and beat it to death with a baseball bat. Because the vet testified that the dog died instantly on the first blow, the men could not be convicted of causing unnecessary pain and suffering. They got off.
In February 2006, a Toronto Police Mounted Unit was deliberately, according to witnesses at the scene, struck by an irate driver who then fled the scene, leaving the officer and the horse in the roadway. The officer suffered neck, back and rib injuries, and was taken to hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. The horse, "Brigadier", a 7 year old Belgian-cross horse, suffering from massive traumatic injuries, had to be shot and killed, for humanitarian reasons, on the street, by officers at the scene. The driver was arrested and charged with Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm and Fail to Stop at the Scene of an Accident Causing Bodily Harm. On January 15 2007 Dirk Sankersingh received a 2-year conditional sentence for 'dangerous operation causing bodily harm' and 'fail to stop at the scene of an accident causing bodily harm'. He got nothing for the death of Brigadier, the Toronto Police Service horse.
(see http://www.brigadierslaw.ca/)
That’ll teach ‘em.
Since 1999, some six different versions of animal cruelty legislation meant to amend the Criminal Code of Canada have been introduced in the House of Commons. All have died.
More comprehensive animal cruelty bills have been passed by Canada’s House of Commons twice in the past ten years, receiving the support of all political parties only to die in the Senate.
On June 4th, NDP Member of Parliament Penny Priddy tabled Bill C-558, a private member’s bill to amend the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code. A Liberal Member of Parliament, Mark Holland has also worked hard to improve animal cruelty laws and get better legislation in place. This current bill introduces the term “negligent” and defines it as “departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use.” It prohibits the killing of any animal (owned or stray) without a lawful excuse. (Lawful excuses include hunting, fishing, farming, euthanasia and self-protection.) Other provisions deal with aspects such as fighting and baiting. Perhaps best of all, C-373 moves these laws out of the property chapter of the Criminal Code, reflecting the contemporary view of animals as sentient beings, rather than possessions.
This bill received First Reading on June 4th and is due for second reading in the Fall. We need to stay on top of it and hold our elected officials accountable. It outlaws killing an animal brutally or viciously, whether or not the animal dies immediately. It recognizes the worth of our animal friends and that they are living beings who suffer, who feel pain and fear, who protect humans, who serve society, who offer unconditional love and companionship, who often save human lives, and who sometimes naively follow bad men down the road just to say hello
.
I have always been a great fan of Gandhi. Gandhi was a great soul, a practitioner of non-violence and truth and advocated that others do the same. He said the greatness of a nation, and its moral progress, can be measured by the way its animals are treated. There is just cause to conclude that our elected officials in Ottawa have lost their way on that moral compass and don’t measure up at all.
A recent report by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) shows Canada has the worst animal cruelty laws among 14 countries surveyed, including the Ukraine and the Philippines. The law is 115 years old, is hopelessly outdated, and treats animals as property, like a car or your lawn furniture. So when you hurt or kill an animal, it is considered a property offense or vandalism. Tell that to the little kid on Quadra who vomited in horror at the sight of his puppy dying.
Crimes against police service animals are crimes against 'property'. To kill or injure a police service animal is a summary conviction punishable only by a fine. The same is said for all animals in Canada unless they are strays or orphaned. If they are not owned as property, they have no rights at all. Under current law in Canada less than 1/4 of 1% of people charged with animal abuse are actually punished.
Research has shown that in situations where animals are being abused or neglected, abuse is often happening to children and adults. Maybe this was enough to convince our leaders to tackle this issue head on.
On April 9th of this year, the government finally decided to do something about this situation and passed Bill S-213, despite the fact that not one single animal protection agency, veterinary association or grassroots humane society in Canada supported it. Over one hundred and thirty thousand Canadians signed a petition against this law.
MPs had to have been pretty clear on where Canadians stood on this issue. Since we are going to the polls again soon, those who disapprove of cruelty to animals may be interested in discovering how their MPs voted in April.
This bill maintained the same wording as the law from 1892 and continued to allow training for dog fights, continued to allow animal cruelty to be a property offense, and continued to make it difficult to prosecute cases of neglect or cruelty. All it did was increase penalties for the .04% who are convicted from a maximum of six months to five years in prison and increasing the potential fine from two thousand to ten thousand dollars. In addition, the courts could order the convict to pay for the cost associated with the animal's loss or injury. All but a few Liberals, all of the Conservatives and the Bloc supported Bill S-203 while the only party opposing it was the NDP.
Under current legislation, crimes of neglect are extremely difficult to punish appropriately. The wording of the current neglect offence uses the term “willful neglect”, which requires proof of a person’s intent. The requirement to prove that a person intended to neglect his or her animals or intend to harm them makes it extremely difficult to successfully prosecute. The current legislation does not address brutally or viciously killing an animal as a form of violence. For example, a Saskatchewan farmer allowed more than 30 of his sheep to starve to death and his other animals were emaciated. However, despite repeated interventions by the SPCA, the judge found him not guilty of willful neglect as he did not feel that the farmer intended to starve his animals.
A few years ago in Edmonton, two young men tied a dog to a tree and beat it to death with a baseball bat. Because the vet testified that the dog died instantly on the first blow, the men could not be convicted of causing unnecessary pain and suffering. They got off.
In February 2006, a Toronto Police Mounted Unit was deliberately, according to witnesses at the scene, struck by an irate driver who then fled the scene, leaving the officer and the horse in the roadway. The officer suffered neck, back and rib injuries, and was taken to hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. The horse, "Brigadier", a 7 year old Belgian-cross horse, suffering from massive traumatic injuries, had to be shot and killed, for humanitarian reasons, on the street, by officers at the scene. The driver was arrested and charged with Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm and Fail to Stop at the Scene of an Accident Causing Bodily Harm. On January 15 2007 Dirk Sankersingh received a 2-year conditional sentence for 'dangerous operation causing bodily harm' and 'fail to stop at the scene of an accident causing bodily harm'. He got nothing for the death of Brigadier, the Toronto Police Service horse.
(see http://www.brigadierslaw.ca/)
That’ll teach ‘em.
Since 1999, some six different versions of animal cruelty legislation meant to amend the Criminal Code of Canada have been introduced in the House of Commons. All have died.
More comprehensive animal cruelty bills have been passed by Canada’s House of Commons twice in the past ten years, receiving the support of all political parties only to die in the Senate.
On June 4th, NDP Member of Parliament Penny Priddy tabled Bill C-558, a private member’s bill to amend the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code. A Liberal Member of Parliament, Mark Holland has also worked hard to improve animal cruelty laws and get better legislation in place. This current bill introduces the term “negligent” and defines it as “departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use.” It prohibits the killing of any animal (owned or stray) without a lawful excuse. (Lawful excuses include hunting, fishing, farming, euthanasia and self-protection.) Other provisions deal with aspects such as fighting and baiting. Perhaps best of all, C-373 moves these laws out of the property chapter of the Criminal Code, reflecting the contemporary view of animals as sentient beings, rather than possessions.
This bill received First Reading on June 4th and is due for second reading in the Fall. We need to stay on top of it and hold our elected officials accountable. It outlaws killing an animal brutally or viciously, whether or not the animal dies immediately. It recognizes the worth of our animal friends and that they are living beings who suffer, who feel pain and fear, who protect humans, who serve society, who offer unconditional love and companionship, who often save human lives, and who sometimes naively follow bad men down the road just to say hello
.
The Homeless Are Not What You Think They Are,
Homeless Action Week, October 12th to October 19th, is intended to highlight the homelessness situation in our province. There are vigils planned across B.C. Some groups are fasting, some are holding political rallies, others are having resource fairs, and agencies that can are increasing their food and clothing distributions. I applaud all of these initiatives. But, I don’t think we need a special week to bring homelessness to the attention of anyone, it is pretty obvious that there are too many people who do not have homes. There is just cause, however, to educate the public and our leaders as to the reasons behind homelessness in our communities. We need this week to focus on breaking some of the myths that prevent community members and leaders from really caring about this issue, and making the problem of homelessness a priority to solve rather than just another cause of the day. There are a lot of myths out there about homeless people. Here are seven, one to represent every day of Homeless Action Week.
Myth number one; People choose to be homeless. I hear this opinion frequently, and sadly, from politicians, those who have the power and mandate to make a difference. To say someone chooses to sleep outside and experience all the indignities that go with that type of existence, to suggest that those who couch surf prefer this type of transient lifestyle, to determine that those who put up with beatings and abuse in exchange for shelter must not mind it or they would leave, shows that we are nowhere near solving the issue when we still do not understand why it exists and worse, we blame the homeless for their plight. It is always easier to blame the victim when that victim is bothering you for a handout, when that victim smells and looks bad, when that victim has loud arguments with imaginary companions, when that victim goes back to the abuse but continues to ask for assistance, when the victim continually uses the resources of cash and manpower strapped social service agencies but does not improve his or her living situation. It is easy to blame the victim when they cannot get or hold down a job, cannot find an apartment like the rest of us seem to be able to, when the victim cannot stay clean and sober. Many people look down their noses and say they choose to do that. They choose to have mental illness, learning disabilities, childhood trauma, childhood poverty, broken homes, health problems, sudden job loss, or for their rent go up beyond what their income is. I hope my sarcasm is well noted. These are not choices people make. For those who are so damaged by trauma, mental health and addiction issues, for those taken out of institutions with no proper supports, for those who have made bad or stupid choices, we must remember that they were not capable of making informed choices in the first place. It is like blaming a two year old for touching a hot stove. Addicts do not choose to become addicts. Often the drugs are the only safe place they have from their long history of personal pain, some of which is so horrific we cannot even begin to comprehend. Until we change the circumstances around them, the addictions will remain their one fix they can rely on.
Myth number two; Homeless people do not seek assistance and services and would simply prefer to be on the street. The data proves that when people are approached in a respectful and kind manner and with available and appropriate resources, they are eager to accept help towards self-sufficiency. National outreach professionals agree that it takes multiple contacts to build trust towards accepting assistance. Most people living on the street have little or no history of trusting or safe relationships. Parents have abandoned them. Caregivers have abused them. Partners have beaten them. Bullies have humiliated them. Schools have failed them. Employers have rejected them. Fellow homeless have stolen from them. Drug sellers have offered them a scourge of mind altering substances. Government has taken away their social safety net. Many have had no experience being housed permanently and with no access to training and supports, all they know is the street. It is not their preference, but it is their comfort zone.
Myth number three; Homeless people are lazy and just do not want to work and are looking for a free ride. They do not care about their future. One in five homeless people are employed. Many homeless people are among the working poor, and a relatively small percentage of them receive government assistance. Welfare rates and minimum wages do not even meet the poverty line. There are no incentives for people on income assistance to work, and the costs of employment often make it impossible to keep that employment. How can someone get a job when they don’t have a home? How can one think about their future when they are too busy thinking about where their next meal is coming from, and where they are going to sleep in order to stay warm and dry?
Myth number four; It is easy to be poor and homeless. For those not having a warm place to live during the winter and missing days worth of meals, life is not easy. For those telling their kids the family is camping because they don’t want the kids to know their permanent home is a tent, life is not easy. For those who pull their teeth out with pliers to deal with pain they cannot pay a dentist to fix, life is not easy. It is highly unlikely that there are any homeless people who actually enjoy it or choose is consciously and with a clear mind.
Myth number five; Homeless people are mostly single men. In reality, families constitute a large and growing percentage of the homeless population. A recent study found that families comprise 38% of the urban homeless population. Other research has found that homeless families comprise the majority of homeless people in rural areas. Most don’t realize this because homeless families stay hidden.
Myth number six; Homeless people are dangerous and they break the law. In general, the homeless are among the least threatening group in our society and are more likely to be victims of crime. Although they are more likely to commit non-violent and non-destructive crimes, they are less likely to commit crimes against person or property.Myth number seven; Charitable groups will take care of the homeless. The growth of homelessness has far exceeded the capacity of charitable groups, many of whom struggle just to keep an address and employees on payroll. It cannot be left up to non profit societies and churches to apply band-aids to this public wound. Homelessness is a societal problem that requires a partnership between charities and the government, and the key to make this happen is active public support.
For those who have homes and resources, there is a social and moral responsibility to ensure the well-being of other community members who don’t. This is being our brother’s keeper. Without this, when one suffers, we all suffer. Poverty tends to roll uphill and none of us are untouchable. More and more people are realizing this in 2008. In fact, at some point in their lives, one out of fifteen readers of this column will find themselves homeless, either living on the streets, in a shelter, or sleeping on a friend's floor. Many of us live one pay check away from eviction, and many more barely cover our living expenses even with the money we earn in forty and fifty hours on the job each week. So don’t be too quick to judge those who are currently less fortunate than you are right now. Don’t let the myths define your reality.
Myth number one; People choose to be homeless. I hear this opinion frequently, and sadly, from politicians, those who have the power and mandate to make a difference. To say someone chooses to sleep outside and experience all the indignities that go with that type of existence, to suggest that those who couch surf prefer this type of transient lifestyle, to determine that those who put up with beatings and abuse in exchange for shelter must not mind it or they would leave, shows that we are nowhere near solving the issue when we still do not understand why it exists and worse, we blame the homeless for their plight. It is always easier to blame the victim when that victim is bothering you for a handout, when that victim smells and looks bad, when that victim has loud arguments with imaginary companions, when that victim goes back to the abuse but continues to ask for assistance, when the victim continually uses the resources of cash and manpower strapped social service agencies but does not improve his or her living situation. It is easy to blame the victim when they cannot get or hold down a job, cannot find an apartment like the rest of us seem to be able to, when the victim cannot stay clean and sober. Many people look down their noses and say they choose to do that. They choose to have mental illness, learning disabilities, childhood trauma, childhood poverty, broken homes, health problems, sudden job loss, or for their rent go up beyond what their income is. I hope my sarcasm is well noted. These are not choices people make. For those who are so damaged by trauma, mental health and addiction issues, for those taken out of institutions with no proper supports, for those who have made bad or stupid choices, we must remember that they were not capable of making informed choices in the first place. It is like blaming a two year old for touching a hot stove. Addicts do not choose to become addicts. Often the drugs are the only safe place they have from their long history of personal pain, some of which is so horrific we cannot even begin to comprehend. Until we change the circumstances around them, the addictions will remain their one fix they can rely on.
Myth number two; Homeless people do not seek assistance and services and would simply prefer to be on the street. The data proves that when people are approached in a respectful and kind manner and with available and appropriate resources, they are eager to accept help towards self-sufficiency. National outreach professionals agree that it takes multiple contacts to build trust towards accepting assistance. Most people living on the street have little or no history of trusting or safe relationships. Parents have abandoned them. Caregivers have abused them. Partners have beaten them. Bullies have humiliated them. Schools have failed them. Employers have rejected them. Fellow homeless have stolen from them. Drug sellers have offered them a scourge of mind altering substances. Government has taken away their social safety net. Many have had no experience being housed permanently and with no access to training and supports, all they know is the street. It is not their preference, but it is their comfort zone.
Myth number three; Homeless people are lazy and just do not want to work and are looking for a free ride. They do not care about their future. One in five homeless people are employed. Many homeless people are among the working poor, and a relatively small percentage of them receive government assistance. Welfare rates and minimum wages do not even meet the poverty line. There are no incentives for people on income assistance to work, and the costs of employment often make it impossible to keep that employment. How can someone get a job when they don’t have a home? How can one think about their future when they are too busy thinking about where their next meal is coming from, and where they are going to sleep in order to stay warm and dry?
Myth number four; It is easy to be poor and homeless. For those not having a warm place to live during the winter and missing days worth of meals, life is not easy. For those telling their kids the family is camping because they don’t want the kids to know their permanent home is a tent, life is not easy. For those who pull their teeth out with pliers to deal with pain they cannot pay a dentist to fix, life is not easy. It is highly unlikely that there are any homeless people who actually enjoy it or choose is consciously and with a clear mind.
Myth number five; Homeless people are mostly single men. In reality, families constitute a large and growing percentage of the homeless population. A recent study found that families comprise 38% of the urban homeless population. Other research has found that homeless families comprise the majority of homeless people in rural areas. Most don’t realize this because homeless families stay hidden.
Myth number six; Homeless people are dangerous and they break the law. In general, the homeless are among the least threatening group in our society and are more likely to be victims of crime. Although they are more likely to commit non-violent and non-destructive crimes, they are less likely to commit crimes against person or property.Myth number seven; Charitable groups will take care of the homeless. The growth of homelessness has far exceeded the capacity of charitable groups, many of whom struggle just to keep an address and employees on payroll. It cannot be left up to non profit societies and churches to apply band-aids to this public wound. Homelessness is a societal problem that requires a partnership between charities and the government, and the key to make this happen is active public support.
For those who have homes and resources, there is a social and moral responsibility to ensure the well-being of other community members who don’t. This is being our brother’s keeper. Without this, when one suffers, we all suffer. Poverty tends to roll uphill and none of us are untouchable. More and more people are realizing this in 2008. In fact, at some point in their lives, one out of fifteen readers of this column will find themselves homeless, either living on the streets, in a shelter, or sleeping on a friend's floor. Many of us live one pay check away from eviction, and many more barely cover our living expenses even with the money we earn in forty and fifty hours on the job each week. So don’t be too quick to judge those who are currently less fortunate than you are right now. Don’t let the myths define your reality.
Politicians are there for us.
In the old days, holding public office was considered an honorable pursuit because the politician was there to address injustices and create change. These days, many people have become career politicians, or seek to be. After all, the pay is not bad, the benefits are generous, and the perks are rewarding. If they make politics their source of income, and because they want to hold onto their jobs, they don’t want to rock the boat. Often it is that boat rocking that directs us to the stream for change and justice. In the best case scenario, a community enjoys having elected representatives who don’t mind making waves. In the worst case scenario, politicians are willing to say anything to secure their positions and go with the flow. In their wake, many are left to tread water, and some are going under.
It is election time. Instead of asking our politicians where they stand in the sea of social issues plaguing our communities, there is just cause to turn the tide and tell our politicians where we stand. I believe in the goodness and kind spirit of most of my fellow citizens. Despite different opinions about why people are poor, I think we are all probably on the same wavelength about how we want our community members to live.
With Statistics Canada data showing that BC has had the highest level of child poverty in Canada for the last five years, it’s clear that British Columbia is not the greatest place on earth. Child poverty is very much about low wages. It is not about kids having lazy parents. More than half of BC’s poor children live in families where at least one person has a full-time, full-year job. The problem is that the social safety net is not being maintained in a way that offers smooth sailing for these families. People are drowning in the costs of living, their minimum or low wages do not meet the poverty line, their income assistance and disability pensions do not provide for a basic standard of living, and some people have to survive on no incomes because welfare is no longer an anchor. People choose between food and medicine. People live without electricity. People pull out their own teeth. People lose their children to foster care because they do not have the funds to provide for them. People live outdoors not because they choose to, but because the government has chosen not to provide the supports and opportunities they need to stay indoors. People are sick. People are dying. People are trying to cope with addictions and mental illness without help and being blamed for their situations. We are in the perfect storm.
We are all in the same boat. If there is a hole in the hull, I don’t think we need to be concerned about swabbing the decks and polishing the bell when it is only a matter of time before we sink. We need to tell our politicians to fix the hole. Now.
This begins with paying low income and no income community members a living wage. This will help those in the hold to avoid having to make impossible choices, buy food or heat the house, feed the kids or pay the rent, get the prescription filled or buy winter boots. It would not allow people to buy a house, save for retirement, or go on an annual vacation, but it would give them some dignity in their lives.
Studies show that two people would need to work full-time at an hourly wage of about $16.00 in order to pay for necessities, support the healthy development of their children and participate in the social and civil life of their communities. Imagine how this works out for single parents? Full time work should not keep people in poverty, but it does.
We need to tell our politicians that they must repair the hole in our hull with this living wage, universal child care, reduced public transit costs, increased affordable housing, and instant supports for those with mental illness and addictions. No waiting lists, no gate keeping, no making addictions and mental illness a criminal issue when it is a health issue, because we cannot afford to wait. If they make us wait, or ignore our distress calls altogether, then maybe it is time for some of these career politicians to walk the plank. Keep that in mind on election days.
It is election time. Instead of asking our politicians where they stand in the sea of social issues plaguing our communities, there is just cause to turn the tide and tell our politicians where we stand. I believe in the goodness and kind spirit of most of my fellow citizens. Despite different opinions about why people are poor, I think we are all probably on the same wavelength about how we want our community members to live.
With Statistics Canada data showing that BC has had the highest level of child poverty in Canada for the last five years, it’s clear that British Columbia is not the greatest place on earth. Child poverty is very much about low wages. It is not about kids having lazy parents. More than half of BC’s poor children live in families where at least one person has a full-time, full-year job. The problem is that the social safety net is not being maintained in a way that offers smooth sailing for these families. People are drowning in the costs of living, their minimum or low wages do not meet the poverty line, their income assistance and disability pensions do not provide for a basic standard of living, and some people have to survive on no incomes because welfare is no longer an anchor. People choose between food and medicine. People live without electricity. People pull out their own teeth. People lose their children to foster care because they do not have the funds to provide for them. People live outdoors not because they choose to, but because the government has chosen not to provide the supports and opportunities they need to stay indoors. People are sick. People are dying. People are trying to cope with addictions and mental illness without help and being blamed for their situations. We are in the perfect storm.
We are all in the same boat. If there is a hole in the hull, I don’t think we need to be concerned about swabbing the decks and polishing the bell when it is only a matter of time before we sink. We need to tell our politicians to fix the hole. Now.
This begins with paying low income and no income community members a living wage. This will help those in the hold to avoid having to make impossible choices, buy food or heat the house, feed the kids or pay the rent, get the prescription filled or buy winter boots. It would not allow people to buy a house, save for retirement, or go on an annual vacation, but it would give them some dignity in their lives.
Studies show that two people would need to work full-time at an hourly wage of about $16.00 in order to pay for necessities, support the healthy development of their children and participate in the social and civil life of their communities. Imagine how this works out for single parents? Full time work should not keep people in poverty, but it does.
We need to tell our politicians that they must repair the hole in our hull with this living wage, universal child care, reduced public transit costs, increased affordable housing, and instant supports for those with mental illness and addictions. No waiting lists, no gate keeping, no making addictions and mental illness a criminal issue when it is a health issue, because we cannot afford to wait. If they make us wait, or ignore our distress calls altogether, then maybe it is time for some of these career politicians to walk the plank. Keep that in mind on election days.
Make Someone Smile
Mae West said that love conquers all things except poverty and toothache. There is no love in British Columbia towards adults who have to attend emergency rooms with extreme dental pain and other oral health emergencies, because they cannot pay for dental work. Reportedly, half of these visits are due to abscesses and serious infections. The cost of these visits to the taxpayers is in the millions. The estimate does not include visits to doctors’ offices and walk-in clinics.
Conquering this issue starts with realizing that teeth are important for everyone, of every age, of every socio-economic status. Not only are they aesthetically pleasing (which has its own psychological and social benefits) but they support speech and nutrition. Without them, or with them infected, abscessed and oozing, people can develop arthritis, rheumatism, malnutrition, addictions, trauma, depression, heart disease, Parkinson’s Disease, some kinds of cancers, and even death.
When we see Canadians pulling their teeth out with pliars because they cannot see a dentist, people over-medicating themselves to erase the pain, people dropping dead from heart infections, or if we wonder why the sullen closed mouthed beggar is not getting a job, the inequalities in access to oral care is the reason.
Conquering this issue starts with ethics and those skilled practitioners offering that help in a humane and compassionate way. It is not always about money, it is about service, and dentists need to team up with front line social service agencies to provide care for all members of society. While it is in their code of ethics not to exclude, as patients, members of society on the basis of discrimination which may be contrary to applicable human rights legislation, unfortunately human rights legislation only protects prospective tenants from being discriminated against based on income. It is open season in every other situation.
In every region of our province people are routinely refused treatment by dentists because they do not have the money to pay. These adults often struggle just to pay the rent and feed their families, so regular teeth cleaning, preventive dental care or dental insurance is completely out of reach.
For those who are not working and on “welfare”, and if they are lucky enough to be eligible to have Ministry coverage for dental needs, the government pays only 72% of the BC Dental Associations 2007 fee guide. That leaves poor people who are disabled to save up the other 28% of what could be a two thousand dollar bill. Many just abandon the need. In addition there are caps on coverage and all treatment plans have to be approved by the Ministry as submitted by the patient’s dentist. Often, the decision is made to deny the plan by the dentist and just extract the tooth (cheaper) than crown it (better).
Is there just cause to treat someone’s health issue differently based on whether they have the money or not? Is there just cause to destroy a tooth that could be spared in order to save a few hundred extra dollars? Is there just cause to pay for tooth extraction but not dentures? Is there just cause to refuse to accept patients who are on welfare, or any other public benefit plan due to the reduced fees received for their services? Is there just cause to make the patient pay the difference before treatment for an urgent dental condition is provided? Is there just cause to refuse to even conduct an initial exam without funds up front in order to determine if the problem is urgent or not? This is happening frequently.
According to the BC Dental Association, 80% of their members accept patients receiving social assistance disability benefits, but many set a quota so that only 4-5% of their patient load are welfare clients. In some communities there are no dentists who will accept any welfare clients as patients. In our community, there used to be two or three dentists who accepted social assistance patients, and occasionally do pro bono work, but they were so over run by demand that most stopped altogether.
Throughout the province, communities have been organizing locally to create community-based dental care programs. In recent years these community-by-community types of responses have increased dramatically. Since 2001, there has been at least one new community dental clinic established every year in British Columbia. The only one on Vancouver Island is in Victoria.
There are several solutions to this issue. The Ministry of Housing and Social Development should pay the full rate charged for dental services and low income people will receive the dignity of care. The BC Dental Association should lower its rates or create a responsive, compassionate and realistic pro bono program in every community.
Finally, there is just cause for Campbell River to form a community coalition or task force to improve adults’ access to dental care. A dental trust fund can be created through fundraising to expand the availability of dental care for vulnerable and underserved populations, to assist everyone, homeless, no income, low income, working families with no benefits, not always with the entire cost but often just paying the difference between what is available and what is charged, and ensuring this includes restorative and preventative care.
These possibilities should give us all something to chew on.
Conquering this issue starts with realizing that teeth are important for everyone, of every age, of every socio-economic status. Not only are they aesthetically pleasing (which has its own psychological and social benefits) but they support speech and nutrition. Without them, or with them infected, abscessed and oozing, people can develop arthritis, rheumatism, malnutrition, addictions, trauma, depression, heart disease, Parkinson’s Disease, some kinds of cancers, and even death.
When we see Canadians pulling their teeth out with pliars because they cannot see a dentist, people over-medicating themselves to erase the pain, people dropping dead from heart infections, or if we wonder why the sullen closed mouthed beggar is not getting a job, the inequalities in access to oral care is the reason.
Conquering this issue starts with ethics and those skilled practitioners offering that help in a humane and compassionate way. It is not always about money, it is about service, and dentists need to team up with front line social service agencies to provide care for all members of society. While it is in their code of ethics not to exclude, as patients, members of society on the basis of discrimination which may be contrary to applicable human rights legislation, unfortunately human rights legislation only protects prospective tenants from being discriminated against based on income. It is open season in every other situation.
In every region of our province people are routinely refused treatment by dentists because they do not have the money to pay. These adults often struggle just to pay the rent and feed their families, so regular teeth cleaning, preventive dental care or dental insurance is completely out of reach.
For those who are not working and on “welfare”, and if they are lucky enough to be eligible to have Ministry coverage for dental needs, the government pays only 72% of the BC Dental Associations 2007 fee guide. That leaves poor people who are disabled to save up the other 28% of what could be a two thousand dollar bill. Many just abandon the need. In addition there are caps on coverage and all treatment plans have to be approved by the Ministry as submitted by the patient’s dentist. Often, the decision is made to deny the plan by the dentist and just extract the tooth (cheaper) than crown it (better).
Is there just cause to treat someone’s health issue differently based on whether they have the money or not? Is there just cause to destroy a tooth that could be spared in order to save a few hundred extra dollars? Is there just cause to pay for tooth extraction but not dentures? Is there just cause to refuse to accept patients who are on welfare, or any other public benefit plan due to the reduced fees received for their services? Is there just cause to make the patient pay the difference before treatment for an urgent dental condition is provided? Is there just cause to refuse to even conduct an initial exam without funds up front in order to determine if the problem is urgent or not? This is happening frequently.
According to the BC Dental Association, 80% of their members accept patients receiving social assistance disability benefits, but many set a quota so that only 4-5% of their patient load are welfare clients. In some communities there are no dentists who will accept any welfare clients as patients. In our community, there used to be two or three dentists who accepted social assistance patients, and occasionally do pro bono work, but they were so over run by demand that most stopped altogether.
Throughout the province, communities have been organizing locally to create community-based dental care programs. In recent years these community-by-community types of responses have increased dramatically. Since 2001, there has been at least one new community dental clinic established every year in British Columbia. The only one on Vancouver Island is in Victoria.
There are several solutions to this issue. The Ministry of Housing and Social Development should pay the full rate charged for dental services and low income people will receive the dignity of care. The BC Dental Association should lower its rates or create a responsive, compassionate and realistic pro bono program in every community.
Finally, there is just cause for Campbell River to form a community coalition or task force to improve adults’ access to dental care. A dental trust fund can be created through fundraising to expand the availability of dental care for vulnerable and underserved populations, to assist everyone, homeless, no income, low income, working families with no benefits, not always with the entire cost but often just paying the difference between what is available and what is charged, and ensuring this includes restorative and preventative care.
These possibilities should give us all something to chew on.
New Year
There is always just cause to review the past year leading up to Auld Lang Syne. Working in the field of poverty and social justice can be depressing, and I often wonder why I keep doing it when there seems to be little progress for many whose lives are impacted in ways most of us cannot imagine.
While we are all hoping for tidings of comfort and joy, there are some things we cannot “ho ho ho” about!
Recently I saw a front page photograph in a regional newspaper of homeless people curled up sleeping on church pews. This was hailed as a good thing. We were bringing people in from the cold. Is this really a good thing? I felt a little ashamed that Canada’s progress on social issues is about as comforting as sleeping like that.
As we close out 2008, here is a list of what we need to think about as we worship, count our blessings, donate to the many causes we support this time of year, and celebrate our abundance and gratitude with family and friends.
If you are the parent of a special needs child or adult in B.C., you are probably one of more than 2000 stagnating on waiting lists for services that could mean the difference between going bankrupt while paying for services yourself, tragically surrendering your child into government care, housing and caring for your “child” full time long after your retirement years and worrying what will happen after you die, versus obtaining respite services, special education assistance, supported housing, and early childhood intervention. Even BC's Representative for Children and Youth says that there has been no progress on waitlist management since her last report on wait times for services for children and youth with special needs. With the recent eligibility regulations requiring an I.Q. of 70 or below, many will never receive the community living services they need, but will most certainly end up in jails, hospitals, on the streets or in the morgue.
This Christmas an estimated 150,000-300,000 Canadians are homeless. The annual cost of homelessness is estimated at $4.5 billion. Affordable housing with supports is five times less expensive than jail and psychiatric hospitals, , and about half the cost of emergency shelters, which is how we are dealing with some of it right now
Currently more than 1.4 million Canadian households spend more than 30% of income on housing. In our current economy, the possibility of job losses puts many lower income and fixed income seniors, single mothers, immigrants, and aboriginal families at significant risk of homelessness. The numbers are growing daily.
Food Banks Canada has released their “Hunger Count 2008”. It shows that more working families are using food banks, with 14% of users having some income from employment, probably minimum wage, and 37% of Canadians using food banks were children. While we continue to recognize that food banks, meant to be a temporary measure, need our ongoing donor support, over 700,000 Canadians have accessed food banks every month since 1997. In BC, 28.2% of users were lone parent families, 19.1% were two parent families, 11.3% were couples with no children, and 41.4% were single people. Most who use food banks use soup kitchens too. This is not the way for our children to grow up or for our neighbors to live.
The National Council on Welfare has released its report on 2006 and 2007 welfare incomes across the country. While many people think those on welfare should get a job, the current system makes it very difficult. People lose financial support for their children as well as dental, health and prescription drug coverage. Combined with the costs of employment including child care, many families are financially worse off than they would be had they not gotten a job.
We need to remember that while poverty and hardship is the absence of wealth it does not mean the absence of intelligence, integrity, sensitivity, values, or character. In this season of giving, give of not just your care or concern but of your voice, so that those without one can have their dignity back. Contact your representatives at all three level of government, participate in the federal government’s online budget consultation, or go to www.endwaitlists-now.org.
It could be the best seasons greetings you could give.
While we are all hoping for tidings of comfort and joy, there are some things we cannot “ho ho ho” about!
Recently I saw a front page photograph in a regional newspaper of homeless people curled up sleeping on church pews. This was hailed as a good thing. We were bringing people in from the cold. Is this really a good thing? I felt a little ashamed that Canada’s progress on social issues is about as comforting as sleeping like that.
As we close out 2008, here is a list of what we need to think about as we worship, count our blessings, donate to the many causes we support this time of year, and celebrate our abundance and gratitude with family and friends.
If you are the parent of a special needs child or adult in B.C., you are probably one of more than 2000 stagnating on waiting lists for services that could mean the difference between going bankrupt while paying for services yourself, tragically surrendering your child into government care, housing and caring for your “child” full time long after your retirement years and worrying what will happen after you die, versus obtaining respite services, special education assistance, supported housing, and early childhood intervention. Even BC's Representative for Children and Youth says that there has been no progress on waitlist management since her last report on wait times for services for children and youth with special needs. With the recent eligibility regulations requiring an I.Q. of 70 or below, many will never receive the community living services they need, but will most certainly end up in jails, hospitals, on the streets or in the morgue.
This Christmas an estimated 150,000-300,000 Canadians are homeless. The annual cost of homelessness is estimated at $4.5 billion. Affordable housing with supports is five times less expensive than jail and psychiatric hospitals, , and about half the cost of emergency shelters, which is how we are dealing with some of it right now
Currently more than 1.4 million Canadian households spend more than 30% of income on housing. In our current economy, the possibility of job losses puts many lower income and fixed income seniors, single mothers, immigrants, and aboriginal families at significant risk of homelessness. The numbers are growing daily.
Food Banks Canada has released their “Hunger Count 2008”. It shows that more working families are using food banks, with 14% of users having some income from employment, probably minimum wage, and 37% of Canadians using food banks were children. While we continue to recognize that food banks, meant to be a temporary measure, need our ongoing donor support, over 700,000 Canadians have accessed food banks every month since 1997. In BC, 28.2% of users were lone parent families, 19.1% were two parent families, 11.3% were couples with no children, and 41.4% were single people. Most who use food banks use soup kitchens too. This is not the way for our children to grow up or for our neighbors to live.
The National Council on Welfare has released its report on 2006 and 2007 welfare incomes across the country. While many people think those on welfare should get a job, the current system makes it very difficult. People lose financial support for their children as well as dental, health and prescription drug coverage. Combined with the costs of employment including child care, many families are financially worse off than they would be had they not gotten a job.
We need to remember that while poverty and hardship is the absence of wealth it does not mean the absence of intelligence, integrity, sensitivity, values, or character. In this season of giving, give of not just your care or concern but of your voice, so that those without one can have their dignity back. Contact your representatives at all three level of government, participate in the federal government’s online budget consultation, or go to www.endwaitlists-now.org.
It could be the best seasons greetings you could give.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
