I think turning twenty has been more of a milestone for me than turning eighteen or nineteen.
When I turned eighteen, I figured I was becoming an adult. I could vote, after all.
When I turned nineteen, I guessed adulthood must have hit me. I could go to bars and buy lottery tickets.
But when I turned twenty, I think that's when adulthood (see: reality) finally decided to really kick in.
There isn't anything I can do at twenty that I couldn't do at nineteen, but twenty as a number seems to have more of a psychological impact on me than eighteen or nineteen. There's no "teen" in my age anymore.
I can't blame being a teenager for mistakes I make. I can't plead young ignorance anymore.
While this doesn't mean that I all of a sudden know what the hell I'm doing sometimes, it means I've gotten better at pretending.
I feel like it was just yesterday that I was graduating. Now, I'm halfway through my undergrad and spending the summer getting a glimpse at what it's like to be a journalist.
I've managed to land a summer internship with the T-J, my hometown newspaper and the province's largest daily. I'm writing for the paper I've grown up reading, ironically enough, in the city I always thought I'd leave.
It kind of all happened by chance. Since I don't have my license yet, I wasn't going to apply for an internship. But I realized that I had nothing to lose in applying. And now, here I am.
My biggest fear was that I wouldn't like it.
I started researching journalism programmes when I was in grade six. To say that I had ambitions to be a journalist would probably be an understatement.
I'd like to think that just about everything I've done has been working toward the very moment I stepped into the T-J two weeks ago tomorrow.
So to finally get here and then realize it's not what I want was a thought that was in the back of my mind after I finished exams and waited patiently for the internship to begin.
My second biggest fear was that I wouldn't be good enough.
I've gotten better at not doubting my abilities, because I've realized that if I can't believe that I'm good at something, the person I need to give me a shot certainly isn't going to. And once you start doubting yourself, that's it. You're finished. I think not measuring up will always be at the back of my mind and I'm not alone on that. But I'm pushing it back and free diving ahead for now.
With two weeks at the T-J under my belt, I now feel a bit more comfortable, but not too comfortable. I'm always worried about making mistakes, and it's taught me to pay more attention to what I'm writing. More importantly, I think my experience so far has shown me what I want to do as a journalist.
I've never really known exactly what I want to do in journalism, just that I want to be a journalist. And while I don't want to limit myself too much and I want to be versatile, I'm starting to see what I'm best at and where I want to be in my career eventually.
When I was a kid, what always attracted me to journalism was the excitement of it all. When something big happens, I want to be there. I want to know what's going on. I might not understand it and hell, I might not be able to help others understand it, but I'm going to try.
I want to tell stories that matter, stories that wouldn't be told otherwise. I want to make a difference and I think that's what has kept me pushing all of these years through late IB nights, losing Papa, marathon yearbook sessions, high school awkwardness, all-night paper writing sessions and general "oh damn it, I'm growing up!" identity crises.
I've also realized how much I've learned writing for The AQ. Without my experiences at The AQ, I would feel much less prepared to take on each day of this new adventure.
Saint John has surprised me. I'm learning more about Saint John this summer than I have in my twenty years combined here. Instead of wanting to leave Saint John, maybe I've turned the corner and realized it'll always be a part of me. I may not live here forever, but maybe I could live here for a while.
That's how things happen sometimes I guess. I wanted to leave Saint John. I wanted to go to Ryerson. I wanted to be a broadcast journalist, and hell, maybe I still will be. But I've fallen in love with print, I'm still in Saint John, and I ended up at STU. In first year, I might have regretted my university choice. But now, I think it was the best last-minute (as usual) decision I ever made.
If I didn't go to STU, it's likely I wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to write so much at any other campus newspaper. I wouldn't have met the great friends I've met in Fredericton, who've helped me a lot this year. I wouldn't have learned so much about myself.
Back to the original subject, I love what I'm doing this summer. I'm so thankful to have the opportunity to get up every day and do something I love, and hopefully, make a difference. I know that these types of jobs are scarce, which makes me even more grateful to have this opportunity.
Sometimes, I don't know how the hell I got here, but I'm glad I did.
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Monday, May 17, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Haiti
Like many others, I've seen a lot of pictures of the devastation in Haiti over the last few days. With technology, we have gotten used to seeing pictures of devastation perhaps more than previous generations. It's just so easy for pictures to make their way around the globe.
But I think what has made the tragedy in Haiti more real for me is reading profiles of missing Canadians on the Toronto Star's website. They've set aside space on the website for people to upload pictures of their missing loved ones in Haiti.
The photos are complimented by a small write-up about why they were in Haiti, what they have done in their lives, and worst of all, who they may be leaving behind if the story ends tragically. It's another example of how technology is helping disaster relief.
I have always found obituaries to be fascinating to read for the same reason that I find these profiles fascinating (and mind you, I hope that these profiles do not turn into obituaries -- with luck, many of these people will be found alive).
Essentially, you're summarizing someone's life. You're talking about their accomplishments and you're trying to tell the world who they are and there's not a lot of space. Not only that, but you're doing it by talking to everybody else except for that person that you're writing about. It has to be a challenge for the writer.
What strikes me even more is that for many who have or will perish in Haiti as a result of the devastating earthquake, there won't be anyone to tell their story. A lot of people die without having their story told. That doesn't mean they'll be forgotten and that their story won't be told in other ways, of course, but it's a sad thought nonetheless.
I guess what I am trying to say is that even though we see a lot of devastation, we can't become desensitized to suffering simply because we are used to seeing it. Images from Haiti today shouldn't be less shocking than they were last week just because we're getting used to seeing them.
That's why it moved me to read the profiles on the Star's site. It's one thing to see a picture of someone suffering or to read about someone suffering. But it's another thing entirely when I'm reminded that the person had a life, a family, and that the person was not entirely unlike myself.
The Arcade Fire - Haiti
But I think what has made the tragedy in Haiti more real for me is reading profiles of missing Canadians on the Toronto Star's website. They've set aside space on the website for people to upload pictures of their missing loved ones in Haiti.
The photos are complimented by a small write-up about why they were in Haiti, what they have done in their lives, and worst of all, who they may be leaving behind if the story ends tragically. It's another example of how technology is helping disaster relief.
I have always found obituaries to be fascinating to read for the same reason that I find these profiles fascinating (and mind you, I hope that these profiles do not turn into obituaries -- with luck, many of these people will be found alive).
Essentially, you're summarizing someone's life. You're talking about their accomplishments and you're trying to tell the world who they are and there's not a lot of space. Not only that, but you're doing it by talking to everybody else except for that person that you're writing about. It has to be a challenge for the writer.
What strikes me even more is that for many who have or will perish in Haiti as a result of the devastating earthquake, there won't be anyone to tell their story. A lot of people die without having their story told. That doesn't mean they'll be forgotten and that their story won't be told in other ways, of course, but it's a sad thought nonetheless.
I guess what I am trying to say is that even though we see a lot of devastation, we can't become desensitized to suffering simply because we are used to seeing it. Images from Haiti today shouldn't be less shocking than they were last week just because we're getting used to seeing them.
That's why it moved me to read the profiles on the Star's site. It's one thing to see a picture of someone suffering or to read about someone suffering. But it's another thing entirely when I'm reminded that the person had a life, a family, and that the person was not entirely unlike myself.
The Arcade Fire - Haiti
Friday, December 11, 2009
Learn To Fly
I'm pretty sure I'm on the wrong timezone.
When I was a kid, my Mom tried everything to get me to go to bed at a regular time. She'd be heading to bed at the same time and tell me that she'd race me in painting a rainbow in my head. She probably figured that by thinking about painting a rainbow, I'd stop thinking about every other thing on the planet and fall asleep.
But I can't say any of it worked. Pretty much since I was a kid, my internal clock has been off. What's even weirder is that the world makes more sense to me at night than at any other time. It's when I do my best thinking.
I've always cared about what's going on in the world, and I've always wanted to make sense of it all. That's one of the reasons why I want to be a journalist, although more and more everyday I wonder if I'll actually be able to make sense of some things in the world for people.
A few years ago, I thought I wouldn't have a hard time being detached from stories I'd write about as a journalist. Of course, I didn't really know anything about journalism (arguably, although I know more now, my knowledge is still very limited).
Writing about the death of someone would be easy because I had no attachment to them, so I thought. I told my Mom that I wanted to report in the Middle East, and I'd be OK with war reporting. After all, it was the constant news coverage of 9/11 that first drew me into the excitment of journalism and reporting.
Now I feel like a bigger problem is detaching myself from stories.
I think to some degree I still can. I'm a bit morbid as a news junkie, I suppose. Some people avoid reading articles that upset them, but I can read about murders, tragic fires and war deaths. Can I write about them?
Can I write about someone who is homeless dying from the cold? My instinct is to write about what wasn't done to protect the person, but sometimes all that's necessary is the basic laying out of facts. The W's.
Poverty is something that I'm pretty passionate about. When I write stories about poverty, I think it comes through that it's something that I care about. With that said, I have a lot of opinions on social policy. Sometimes, I wonder if it's good to be passionate about topics as a journalist or not.
Am I able to write about things I'm passionate about without bypassing that shield of neutrality?
Certainly, when I take on a story that I am passionate about, I become more determined in writing the story. I'm pushing myself to find that determination with every story. But does every story need to evoke emotion in the reader?
Michael Harris offered a lecture at STU this fall about the Donald Marshall story. For anyone unfamiliar with the story, Marshall was convicted for a murder he did not commit. Although he was exonerated, repayment for the years he served in prison and what he endured was never given to him by the provincial government of Nova Scotia, nor the federal government. Even after being declared innocent, Marshall was treated like a criminal.
Harris, a highly-respected Canadian journalist, took on Marshall's story and got to know him well. He told the audience that most journalists have a sense of "helping people who really can't afford it."
After hearing that I thought, well yeah, that's why I want to be a journalist. Journalists are often displayed on TV shows and in movies as being willing to exploit people during times of tragedy. But is that really true of most journalists? Or are most journalists motivated to report by a sense of helping people, like Harris suggests?
As I delve more into journalism and learn more about why I want to be a journalist, I hope these questions will answer themselves. I'm learning a bit everyday, I guess.
The only thing about journalism that I am certain of is that more I learn, the more I become sure that it's what I want to do, but also I become aware of how difficult it is to be a journalist.
Just one thing running through my brain at 3am.
Learn to Fly - Foo Fighters
When I was a kid, my Mom tried everything to get me to go to bed at a regular time. She'd be heading to bed at the same time and tell me that she'd race me in painting a rainbow in my head. She probably figured that by thinking about painting a rainbow, I'd stop thinking about every other thing on the planet and fall asleep.
But I can't say any of it worked. Pretty much since I was a kid, my internal clock has been off. What's even weirder is that the world makes more sense to me at night than at any other time. It's when I do my best thinking.
I've always cared about what's going on in the world, and I've always wanted to make sense of it all. That's one of the reasons why I want to be a journalist, although more and more everyday I wonder if I'll actually be able to make sense of some things in the world for people.
A few years ago, I thought I wouldn't have a hard time being detached from stories I'd write about as a journalist. Of course, I didn't really know anything about journalism (arguably, although I know more now, my knowledge is still very limited).
Writing about the death of someone would be easy because I had no attachment to them, so I thought. I told my Mom that I wanted to report in the Middle East, and I'd be OK with war reporting. After all, it was the constant news coverage of 9/11 that first drew me into the excitment of journalism and reporting.
Now I feel like a bigger problem is detaching myself from stories.
I think to some degree I still can. I'm a bit morbid as a news junkie, I suppose. Some people avoid reading articles that upset them, but I can read about murders, tragic fires and war deaths. Can I write about them?
Can I write about someone who is homeless dying from the cold? My instinct is to write about what wasn't done to protect the person, but sometimes all that's necessary is the basic laying out of facts. The W's.
Poverty is something that I'm pretty passionate about. When I write stories about poverty, I think it comes through that it's something that I care about. With that said, I have a lot of opinions on social policy. Sometimes, I wonder if it's good to be passionate about topics as a journalist or not.
Am I able to write about things I'm passionate about without bypassing that shield of neutrality?
Certainly, when I take on a story that I am passionate about, I become more determined in writing the story. I'm pushing myself to find that determination with every story. But does every story need to evoke emotion in the reader?
Michael Harris offered a lecture at STU this fall about the Donald Marshall story. For anyone unfamiliar with the story, Marshall was convicted for a murder he did not commit. Although he was exonerated, repayment for the years he served in prison and what he endured was never given to him by the provincial government of Nova Scotia, nor the federal government. Even after being declared innocent, Marshall was treated like a criminal.
Harris, a highly-respected Canadian journalist, took on Marshall's story and got to know him well. He told the audience that most journalists have a sense of "helping people who really can't afford it."
After hearing that I thought, well yeah, that's why I want to be a journalist. Journalists are often displayed on TV shows and in movies as being willing to exploit people during times of tragedy. But is that really true of most journalists? Or are most journalists motivated to report by a sense of helping people, like Harris suggests?
As I delve more into journalism and learn more about why I want to be a journalist, I hope these questions will answer themselves. I'm learning a bit everyday, I guess.
The only thing about journalism that I am certain of is that more I learn, the more I become sure that it's what I want to do, but also I become aware of how difficult it is to be a journalist.
Just one thing running through my brain at 3am.
Learn to Fly - Foo Fighters
Friday, July 3, 2009
Street Sleeper
An article by Ethan Baron was published in The Province, a small daily out of BC, on June 4th, 2009 titled "Lock up the addicts until they're clean".
The online version indicates it was published under the Health section of the paper but doesn't specify whether the piece is opinion or not. Given that I'm not familiar with the columnist or the paper for that matter, I won't go futher with that. But I do have some serious qualms with what the columnist is trying to say.
The article is about the social chaos going on right now on the Downtown East Side of Vancouver, which I've blogged about a few times on here.
Baron argues, as the title suggests, that we should lock up all of the addicts on the DTES and force treatment upon them. His logic is that forcing them to be clean would save more money than is being poured into the area now for policing and other services that the homeless take advantage of everyday.
While there may not be much logic to the situation on the DTES as Baron says, I also don't think there is much logic to his solution either.
First of all, while many of the people on the DTES are addicted, they also face a number of other issues. Many face mental health issues which aren't going to go away with simple treatment. If it was that simple, addiction wouldn't exist in our society.
Second, while it is easy to force someone to become clean by detoxing them, or locking them up, that's not going to erase the addiction. Therapy might, but that requires the person to be willing and ready to tackle whatever issues are behind their addictions. And as one of the officers in Baron's story admits, many of these people do have underlying issues which has resulted in the addiction.
So, say that we lock up all of the addicts on the DTES. And we'll say that they detox so technically they are leaving treatment chemical-free. What then? While there are many services in the DTES to help people put their lives back together and find employment, where are they going to live? Certainly short-term housing isn't an issue in the DTES, but long-term housing is. And of course, all of this requires a person motivated to leave a life of addiction and poverty.
I've spoken to people directly involved in the community while researching for a piece I wrote back in March about the problem. The main consensus with all of the people I talked to was that the first step to addressing the issues in the DTES is safe housing. For someone trying to rebuild their life and stay off of drugs, if you can't afford to live somewhere in which you can maintain your dignity, it's rough.
But, alas, there is not one easy fix to the DTES. Just as there is no easy fix for kicking addiction. While programs like InSite, Vancouver's controversial safe injection site, do not necessarily intend to send every addict that walks through the door into detox or treatment, they offer a piece of dignity to these people. Yes, they're injecting drugs, but they're not doing it in a dirty alleyway and the risk of overdose or AIDS is reduced.
The thing that struck me the most when I was reading this article by Baron is something that Mark Townsend of The Portland Hotel Society told me when I was doing research for my DTES article. He told me that developing a sense of community is important to the DTES. A neighbourhood of poor people doesn't have to be a negative thing. Addiction, of course is a negative thing, but the fact that many overlook is that the DTES doesn't consist entirely of addicts.
As far as I'm concerned, poverty is just as big of an issue as addiction in this country, and that needs to be solved before we can take on the issues of this community and the issues of addiction. Give them safe housing, support and treatment for those who face addictions or other issues, and perhaps a change will happen.
But you can't "fix" anything if they're going to back to sleeping on the street or in dilapidated, overpriced and unsanitary housing. I think that's the one thing that Baron overlooks in his article.
You can lock up the addicts which will provide a band-aid fix, but if you want to solve the problem permanently, you must address the issue of poverty and everything that goes with that.
Everyone has their opinion on how we should tackle a community that faces a challenge like the DTES. Mine is that people need to bloom where they are. Turn a negative into a positive and build a strong community.
And that's why I had trouble digesting Baron's take on the situation.
Street Sleeper, Grand Theft Bus
The online version indicates it was published under the Health section of the paper but doesn't specify whether the piece is opinion or not. Given that I'm not familiar with the columnist or the paper for that matter, I won't go futher with that. But I do have some serious qualms with what the columnist is trying to say.
The article is about the social chaos going on right now on the Downtown East Side of Vancouver, which I've blogged about a few times on here.
Baron argues, as the title suggests, that we should lock up all of the addicts on the DTES and force treatment upon them. His logic is that forcing them to be clean would save more money than is being poured into the area now for policing and other services that the homeless take advantage of everyday.
While there may not be much logic to the situation on the DTES as Baron says, I also don't think there is much logic to his solution either.
First of all, while many of the people on the DTES are addicted, they also face a number of other issues. Many face mental health issues which aren't going to go away with simple treatment. If it was that simple, addiction wouldn't exist in our society.
Second, while it is easy to force someone to become clean by detoxing them, or locking them up, that's not going to erase the addiction. Therapy might, but that requires the person to be willing and ready to tackle whatever issues are behind their addictions. And as one of the officers in Baron's story admits, many of these people do have underlying issues which has resulted in the addiction.
So, say that we lock up all of the addicts on the DTES. And we'll say that they detox so technically they are leaving treatment chemical-free. What then? While there are many services in the DTES to help people put their lives back together and find employment, where are they going to live? Certainly short-term housing isn't an issue in the DTES, but long-term housing is. And of course, all of this requires a person motivated to leave a life of addiction and poverty.
I've spoken to people directly involved in the community while researching for a piece I wrote back in March about the problem. The main consensus with all of the people I talked to was that the first step to addressing the issues in the DTES is safe housing. For someone trying to rebuild their life and stay off of drugs, if you can't afford to live somewhere in which you can maintain your dignity, it's rough.
But, alas, there is not one easy fix to the DTES. Just as there is no easy fix for kicking addiction. While programs like InSite, Vancouver's controversial safe injection site, do not necessarily intend to send every addict that walks through the door into detox or treatment, they offer a piece of dignity to these people. Yes, they're injecting drugs, but they're not doing it in a dirty alleyway and the risk of overdose or AIDS is reduced.
The thing that struck me the most when I was reading this article by Baron is something that Mark Townsend of The Portland Hotel Society told me when I was doing research for my DTES article. He told me that developing a sense of community is important to the DTES. A neighbourhood of poor people doesn't have to be a negative thing. Addiction, of course is a negative thing, but the fact that many overlook is that the DTES doesn't consist entirely of addicts.
As far as I'm concerned, poverty is just as big of an issue as addiction in this country, and that needs to be solved before we can take on the issues of this community and the issues of addiction. Give them safe housing, support and treatment for those who face addictions or other issues, and perhaps a change will happen.
But you can't "fix" anything if they're going to back to sleeping on the street or in dilapidated, overpriced and unsanitary housing. I think that's the one thing that Baron overlooks in his article.
You can lock up the addicts which will provide a band-aid fix, but if you want to solve the problem permanently, you must address the issue of poverty and everything that goes with that.
Everyone has their opinion on how we should tackle a community that faces a challenge like the DTES. Mine is that people need to bloom where they are. Turn a negative into a positive and build a strong community.
And that's why I had trouble digesting Baron's take on the situation.
Street Sleeper, Grand Theft Bus
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A Moth is not a Butterfly
Budget Tax Cuts -- The End of Equal Opportunity?
Link to published article -- http://thebruns.ca/content/2009-04/budget-tax-cuts-end-equal-opportunity
The term “equal opportunity” became popular in New Brunswick when Louis J. Robichaud’s Liberal government was in power from 1960 until 1970. Recognizing that there was a substantial amount of income inequality in the province, Robichaud set out to create “equal opportunity” for all by pouring funding into social programs, like education and health care.
It has been over 40 years since Robichaud set out to create “equal opportunity” in New Brunswick. Does it still exist in the province today, or are people being left behind?
The 2009-10 budget released this past month by Liberal Finance Minister Victor Boudreau contained many changes to the way that individuals, small businesses and corporations are taxed in the province.
Normally, the government has four different personal income tax rates for different tax brackets. This budget created a new system where there are two rates as opposed to four. The rates for the new system should be reduced to 9% and 12% by 2012, respectively.
The aim of cutting personal income tax rates, according to “The Plan for Lower Taxes in New Brunswick” released by the Department of Finance in March, is to “leave more money in the pockets of New Brunswickers”.
The hope of the government is that people spend this money locally and thus, stimulate the economy.
While this sounds like a measure that would benefit everyone, some economic experts would argue otherwise.
Dr. Rob Moir, a Professor in Economics at the University of New Brunswick Saint John, says that how these tax cuts may affect future generations has him worried.
“It’s not just about what they’re doing right now, it’s what will be coming down in the future,” says Moir, who ran in the 2008 federal election under the NDP banner in the riding of Fundy-Royal.
“It doesn’t matter what colour government we inherit in the future, it’s not going to matter – we’re going to have major deficit on our hands.”
The deficit is predicted to be a whopping $800 million for the 2009-10 fiscal year. That number is much higher than this year’s deficit, which comes in at $285 million, and even more of a shift from 2007-08’s $86 million surplus.
St. Thomas University Economics Professor and Department Chair Dr. Andrew Secord says that it will likely be future generations or the low income that will suffer from these tax cuts.
“With the deficit, there’s two things. One, you can have somebody pay it back in the future to pay for tax reductions for the affluent today, or you can slash public programs, which is what they’re trying to do,” says Secord, who notes that the government is predicting $323 million in lost revenue by 2012 due to personal income tax cuts alone.
“Who mostly loses from the slashing of these public programs? Lower income individuals.”
Citizens in the province will not only lose government offered services due to these tax cuts, but many will also not actually benefit from the tax cuts at all.
According to information released in “The Plan for Lower Taxes in New Brunswick”, those who make under $15,000 a year, for example, will receive no monetary tax cut at all. Those making between $15,000 and $20,000 a year will have only $65 extra in their pockets thanks to the tax cut. This contrasts greatly with the benefit reaped by those who make $150,000 or more a year; they will save roughly $5,922.
“The more money you make, the more you benefit from this budget,” he explains.
Moir agrees, saying that the services most likely to be cut will hurt certain people, using the controversial ambulance fees that were re-introduced in the 2009-10 budget as an example.
“Impoverishment breeds illness. You’re going to see more people on fixed incomes who will need ambulances but now have to pay more for them. It’s a disproportionate burden.”
Corporate rates will also be cut down 1% each year from now until 2012, bringing the rate from 12% to 8%. It will be one of the lowest rates in the country. It is estimated that the government will lose $44 million in revenue between now and 2012 due to the slashed taxes.
Secord understands the rationing behind the corporate tax cuts more than that of the personal income tax cuts, but still argues there is a sense of unfairness.
“They’ve said that they think this will attract more business to New Brunswick if the corporate income tax rate is lower. How important the income tax is on corporate location is an area of significant debate because there are many other factors involved.”
“Whether it’s worth $44 million to take a gamble on that area is for debate.”
Moir believes that smaller businesses rather than large corporations need to be targeted by these tax cuts.
“The Irvings aren’t leaving – why would you give them the tax break? You are essentially taxing monopoly profits.”
He also adds that attracting businesses to “invest capital”, such as buildings, and not just money into the province would be ideal to maximize gains.
“If they do decide to leave, oh well, we still have the building, we have something from it.”
While economists like Moir and Secord and certain groups like women and labour unions have been very vocal about the negative effects of these tax reductions, criticism has been relatively low from regular citizens.
Secord attributes this lack of criticism to a failure in the public process, which includes public input. But Secord says that it is obvious that the committee did not listen to any public input.
“The people on the committee didn’t really look at the criticisms being raised. They didn’t address them, they just avoided them.”
“That committee failed in my view, as a critical committee that would seriously evaluate these proposals,” Secord admits.
“It raises the question of the extent to which the government was actually listening to people through this whole process.”
Women are one group that have been vocal about how these tax changes will negatively affect them. The Coalition for Pay Equity is one such group that made a presentation during the public input period to government on the tax systems.
In their presentation, titled “What about women’s share in NB’s tax system?” the Coalition claims that the government does not take into account wage gaps between men and women in the positive numbers they have released supporting tax cuts, nor do they address wage gaps at all in the budget.
“It seems particularly unfair to us that government is proposing regressive taxation measures that will place a greater tax burden on the least wealthy among our citizens, including women, while still failing to legislate on pay equity,” the Coalition said in a brief of their presentation to the Select Committee on Tax Review.
The Coalition emphasizes that the services that will be cut as a result of lost revenue from tax cuts will negatively affect women especially, because women are often called upon to provide services in the family unit that the public sector cannot.
“If government cuts into these services, it will increase women’s traditional work at home and significantly deprive them of jobs and income,” says the Coalition.
The removal of social workers from the family courts in the province is an example of one recent service cut by the province that will greatly affect women.
“The court social workers offer a specialized service that is very valuable, especially to mothers facing separation,” says Elsie Hambrook, Chairperson of the Advisory Council for the Status of Women, in a press release.
Unless more interest groups in the province and regular citizens become critical about the harms of these wide-reaching tax cuts, there will be a hefty price for the vulnerable to pay now and for everyone to pay in the future.
The ideals of fairness and equality embodied by Louis J. Robichaud during his time in power appear to be eroding with the idea of services being cut for the benefit of the affluent. Secord says this budget is proof of it.
“It seems like the provincial government has adopted these neoliberal policies which have much in common with Ronald Reagan and little in common with Louis J. Robichaud, or any Liberal government in a post-war era,” says Secord.
“People should understand that equal opportunity is dead in this province with this budget.”
Blog title - A Moth is not a Butterfly - Hawksley Workman
Link to published article -- http://thebruns.ca/content/2009-04/budget-tax-cuts-end-equal-opportunity
The term “equal opportunity” became popular in New Brunswick when Louis J. Robichaud’s Liberal government was in power from 1960 until 1970. Recognizing that there was a substantial amount of income inequality in the province, Robichaud set out to create “equal opportunity” for all by pouring funding into social programs, like education and health care.
It has been over 40 years since Robichaud set out to create “equal opportunity” in New Brunswick. Does it still exist in the province today, or are people being left behind?
The 2009-10 budget released this past month by Liberal Finance Minister Victor Boudreau contained many changes to the way that individuals, small businesses and corporations are taxed in the province.
Normally, the government has four different personal income tax rates for different tax brackets. This budget created a new system where there are two rates as opposed to four. The rates for the new system should be reduced to 9% and 12% by 2012, respectively.
The aim of cutting personal income tax rates, according to “The Plan for Lower Taxes in New Brunswick” released by the Department of Finance in March, is to “leave more money in the pockets of New Brunswickers”.
The hope of the government is that people spend this money locally and thus, stimulate the economy.
While this sounds like a measure that would benefit everyone, some economic experts would argue otherwise.
Dr. Rob Moir, a Professor in Economics at the University of New Brunswick Saint John, says that how these tax cuts may affect future generations has him worried.
“It’s not just about what they’re doing right now, it’s what will be coming down in the future,” says Moir, who ran in the 2008 federal election under the NDP banner in the riding of Fundy-Royal.
“It doesn’t matter what colour government we inherit in the future, it’s not going to matter – we’re going to have major deficit on our hands.”
The deficit is predicted to be a whopping $800 million for the 2009-10 fiscal year. That number is much higher than this year’s deficit, which comes in at $285 million, and even more of a shift from 2007-08’s $86 million surplus.
St. Thomas University Economics Professor and Department Chair Dr. Andrew Secord says that it will likely be future generations or the low income that will suffer from these tax cuts.
“With the deficit, there’s two things. One, you can have somebody pay it back in the future to pay for tax reductions for the affluent today, or you can slash public programs, which is what they’re trying to do,” says Secord, who notes that the government is predicting $323 million in lost revenue by 2012 due to personal income tax cuts alone.
“Who mostly loses from the slashing of these public programs? Lower income individuals.”
Citizens in the province will not only lose government offered services due to these tax cuts, but many will also not actually benefit from the tax cuts at all.
According to information released in “The Plan for Lower Taxes in New Brunswick”, those who make under $15,000 a year, for example, will receive no monetary tax cut at all. Those making between $15,000 and $20,000 a year will have only $65 extra in their pockets thanks to the tax cut. This contrasts greatly with the benefit reaped by those who make $150,000 or more a year; they will save roughly $5,922.
“The more money you make, the more you benefit from this budget,” he explains.
Moir agrees, saying that the services most likely to be cut will hurt certain people, using the controversial ambulance fees that were re-introduced in the 2009-10 budget as an example.
“Impoverishment breeds illness. You’re going to see more people on fixed incomes who will need ambulances but now have to pay more for them. It’s a disproportionate burden.”
Corporate rates will also be cut down 1% each year from now until 2012, bringing the rate from 12% to 8%. It will be one of the lowest rates in the country. It is estimated that the government will lose $44 million in revenue between now and 2012 due to the slashed taxes.
Secord understands the rationing behind the corporate tax cuts more than that of the personal income tax cuts, but still argues there is a sense of unfairness.
“They’ve said that they think this will attract more business to New Brunswick if the corporate income tax rate is lower. How important the income tax is on corporate location is an area of significant debate because there are many other factors involved.”
“Whether it’s worth $44 million to take a gamble on that area is for debate.”
Moir believes that smaller businesses rather than large corporations need to be targeted by these tax cuts.
“The Irvings aren’t leaving – why would you give them the tax break? You are essentially taxing monopoly profits.”
He also adds that attracting businesses to “invest capital”, such as buildings, and not just money into the province would be ideal to maximize gains.
“If they do decide to leave, oh well, we still have the building, we have something from it.”
While economists like Moir and Secord and certain groups like women and labour unions have been very vocal about the negative effects of these tax reductions, criticism has been relatively low from regular citizens.
Secord attributes this lack of criticism to a failure in the public process, which includes public input. But Secord says that it is obvious that the committee did not listen to any public input.
“The people on the committee didn’t really look at the criticisms being raised. They didn’t address them, they just avoided them.”
“That committee failed in my view, as a critical committee that would seriously evaluate these proposals,” Secord admits.
“It raises the question of the extent to which the government was actually listening to people through this whole process.”
Women are one group that have been vocal about how these tax changes will negatively affect them. The Coalition for Pay Equity is one such group that made a presentation during the public input period to government on the tax systems.
In their presentation, titled “What about women’s share in NB’s tax system?” the Coalition claims that the government does not take into account wage gaps between men and women in the positive numbers they have released supporting tax cuts, nor do they address wage gaps at all in the budget.
“It seems particularly unfair to us that government is proposing regressive taxation measures that will place a greater tax burden on the least wealthy among our citizens, including women, while still failing to legislate on pay equity,” the Coalition said in a brief of their presentation to the Select Committee on Tax Review.
The Coalition emphasizes that the services that will be cut as a result of lost revenue from tax cuts will negatively affect women especially, because women are often called upon to provide services in the family unit that the public sector cannot.
“If government cuts into these services, it will increase women’s traditional work at home and significantly deprive them of jobs and income,” says the Coalition.
The removal of social workers from the family courts in the province is an example of one recent service cut by the province that will greatly affect women.
“The court social workers offer a specialized service that is very valuable, especially to mothers facing separation,” says Elsie Hambrook, Chairperson of the Advisory Council for the Status of Women, in a press release.
Unless more interest groups in the province and regular citizens become critical about the harms of these wide-reaching tax cuts, there will be a hefty price for the vulnerable to pay now and for everyone to pay in the future.
The ideals of fairness and equality embodied by Louis J. Robichaud during his time in power appear to be eroding with the idea of services being cut for the benefit of the affluent. Secord says this budget is proof of it.
“It seems like the provincial government has adopted these neoliberal policies which have much in common with Ronald Reagan and little in common with Louis J. Robichaud, or any Liberal government in a post-war era,” says Secord.
“People should understand that equal opportunity is dead in this province with this budget.”
Blog title - A Moth is not a Butterfly - Hawksley Workman
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Bloom where you are
With the 21st Winter Olympics being held in Vancouver next year, the area has received quite a bit of attention over the last couple of years.
What can easily be forgotten by all of the attention being netted for Vancouver by the Olympics is that a group of people facing some of the most unique challenges in Canada are hidden away in the city.
The Downtown East Side of Vancouver was home to 16,590 people during the last count in 2001. However, since many residents of the neighbourhood move frequently from place to place, this number often fluctuates.
The notorious East Hastings Street is the backbone of the neighbourhood and is evidence of all of the complex issues faced by the residents. Homelessness, an open-air drug market and the sex trade industry thrive on East Hastings, a sign of a people struggling to survive from day-to-day.
Look a bit further and you will find an area known as Blood Alley, which many of the Downtown’s homeless population call home. Huddled under the shelter of the extended roofs of many of the small businesses in the area, the street population of Vancouver take refuge from the elements year-round on Blood Alley. It begs the question of how these people became concentrated into one area, and why they seem to be forgotten.
Few understand the complex social issues of the Downtown East Side as well as Mark Townsend. Townsend is a manager at the Portland Hotel Society, a non-profit organization in the Downtown East Side offering services and advocacy to those who have been left behind by the system; the most vulnerable.
Townsend says that the main issue plaguing the Downtown East Side is poverty. Clean, safe housing might be the first step to improving the quality of life for the poor.
“There could be better housing. Decent housing goes a long way to making a better life,” says Townsend.
“If you are sharing a bathroom and kitchen with many other people and living in an 80-square foot room with no resources, cable or money, it’s not very fun.”
Townsend is referring to the many former hotels in the Downtown that have been converted to rooming houses to meet an overwhelming need for cheap housing. In addition to being very cramped, the conditions inside of these rooms are often unsanitary and almost squalor, with drug paraphernalia littering the premises.
“If that’s all that your life consists of, it will really affect you,” says Townsend.
Living in unsanitary conditions with no means of escape can be mentally debilitating, making it hard for people to maintain their dignity. This is when many people turn to addiction.
Paul Ryan of Hope in Shadows, an organization ran by the Pivot Legal Society, agrees that housing could be the big difference.
“There is a major problem with homelessness. People who are homeless are often targeted more by drug dealers,” admits Ryan, who has worked in the area for four or five years now.
Located on the west end of Hastings Street, the Portland Hotel Society offers shelter for residents with nowhere else to go. Most notably, they run Insite, North America’s only safe injection site.
Insite allows intravenous drug users to inject in a sterile area with clean needles. They are monitored by staff members after they inject to ensure that no one overdoses.
Insite also offers a detox program, advocacy and most importantly, a place for addicts to come and sit and have a coffee with other people from the community.
The project has been highly controversial, with the current Conservative government calling for it to be shut down more than once, saying that the site is not helping enough people to warrant staying open and that it encourages drug use. Townsend argues that people need to look at who is being helped rather than who is not.
“It saves lives, money, and there is no evidence that it encourages drug use,” says Townsend.
Ryan agrees, saying that if 70 people use Insite, that is 70 people that would be at risk of overdosing or contracting diseases like HIV/AIDS if Insite did not exist.
“It’s really, really busy – they are running to capacity,” he says.
“The fact that it can’t help everyone doesn’t mean that that it’s not working.”
Ryan blames the need for expensive programs like Insite on a policy of containment practiced in the last 10 years which has forced all of the low-income people in Vancouver to migrate to the Downtown East Side. He says that working wages and social assistance rates were better in the 1990s and the problem of containment in the Downtown has only gotten worse since then.
Townsend thinks that the area needs to develop a sense of community instead of adopting a fully mixed income situation.
“Mixed is not necessarily the solution. We need to create a community and embrace that there are neighbourhoods of poor people.”
“It’s not just one big ghetto that should be bulldozed.”
Creating a sense of community is precisely what Paul Ryan’s organization, Hope in Shadows, is all about. Through their annual photo contest, they enable residents to share their neighbourhood through snapshots taken from their perspective.
Carolyn Wong, who also works with Hope in Shadows, says that they then create a medium for the best photographers to sell their work in a calendar and make their own profits. It gives them something to be proud of.
“We wanted to do something to highlight the community and its strengths,” says Wong.
“The feeling was that the marginalized people in the area deserve and need that opportunity to represent a positive self-identity.”
Positive things like the Hope in Shadows project are often overshadowed by negative things going on in the neighbourhood, according to Lani Russwurm, who works with the Downtown East Side Community Arts Network.
“Media coverage almost exclusively focuses on the social ills concentrated in the area,” says Russwurm.
“The underreported part of the story is that there is a very strong sense of community solidarity here, more than in any other neighbourhood I know of.”
The group looks at art not only as a feasible way to make a living, but also a method of healing. For many, art is all that they have.
“For people without much money, the ability to create is often the one thing that can’t be taken away from them.”
It does not matter how much media attention is directed towards the problems of Canada’s forgotten slum, or how many band-aid fixes are implemented.
It can only be fixed if people in poverty are humanized and a sense of community is emphasized. Through photography, art or even the small pieces of communication between fellow addicts at Insite, positive things are happening on the Downtown East Side; people are blooming where they are.
What can easily be forgotten by all of the attention being netted for Vancouver by the Olympics is that a group of people facing some of the most unique challenges in Canada are hidden away in the city.
The Downtown East Side of Vancouver was home to 16,590 people during the last count in 2001. However, since many residents of the neighbourhood move frequently from place to place, this number often fluctuates.
The notorious East Hastings Street is the backbone of the neighbourhood and is evidence of all of the complex issues faced by the residents. Homelessness, an open-air drug market and the sex trade industry thrive on East Hastings, a sign of a people struggling to survive from day-to-day.
Look a bit further and you will find an area known as Blood Alley, which many of the Downtown’s homeless population call home. Huddled under the shelter of the extended roofs of many of the small businesses in the area, the street population of Vancouver take refuge from the elements year-round on Blood Alley. It begs the question of how these people became concentrated into one area, and why they seem to be forgotten.
Few understand the complex social issues of the Downtown East Side as well as Mark Townsend. Townsend is a manager at the Portland Hotel Society, a non-profit organization in the Downtown East Side offering services and advocacy to those who have been left behind by the system; the most vulnerable.
Townsend says that the main issue plaguing the Downtown East Side is poverty. Clean, safe housing might be the first step to improving the quality of life for the poor.
“There could be better housing. Decent housing goes a long way to making a better life,” says Townsend.
“If you are sharing a bathroom and kitchen with many other people and living in an 80-square foot room with no resources, cable or money, it’s not very fun.”
Townsend is referring to the many former hotels in the Downtown that have been converted to rooming houses to meet an overwhelming need for cheap housing. In addition to being very cramped, the conditions inside of these rooms are often unsanitary and almost squalor, with drug paraphernalia littering the premises.
“If that’s all that your life consists of, it will really affect you,” says Townsend.
Living in unsanitary conditions with no means of escape can be mentally debilitating, making it hard for people to maintain their dignity. This is when many people turn to addiction.
Paul Ryan of Hope in Shadows, an organization ran by the Pivot Legal Society, agrees that housing could be the big difference.
“There is a major problem with homelessness. People who are homeless are often targeted more by drug dealers,” admits Ryan, who has worked in the area for four or five years now.
Located on the west end of Hastings Street, the Portland Hotel Society offers shelter for residents with nowhere else to go. Most notably, they run Insite, North America’s only safe injection site.
Insite allows intravenous drug users to inject in a sterile area with clean needles. They are monitored by staff members after they inject to ensure that no one overdoses.
Insite also offers a detox program, advocacy and most importantly, a place for addicts to come and sit and have a coffee with other people from the community.
The project has been highly controversial, with the current Conservative government calling for it to be shut down more than once, saying that the site is not helping enough people to warrant staying open and that it encourages drug use. Townsend argues that people need to look at who is being helped rather than who is not.
“It saves lives, money, and there is no evidence that it encourages drug use,” says Townsend.
Ryan agrees, saying that if 70 people use Insite, that is 70 people that would be at risk of overdosing or contracting diseases like HIV/AIDS if Insite did not exist.
“It’s really, really busy – they are running to capacity,” he says.
“The fact that it can’t help everyone doesn’t mean that that it’s not working.”
Ryan blames the need for expensive programs like Insite on a policy of containment practiced in the last 10 years which has forced all of the low-income people in Vancouver to migrate to the Downtown East Side. He says that working wages and social assistance rates were better in the 1990s and the problem of containment in the Downtown has only gotten worse since then.
Townsend thinks that the area needs to develop a sense of community instead of adopting a fully mixed income situation.
“Mixed is not necessarily the solution. We need to create a community and embrace that there are neighbourhoods of poor people.”
“It’s not just one big ghetto that should be bulldozed.”
Creating a sense of community is precisely what Paul Ryan’s organization, Hope in Shadows, is all about. Through their annual photo contest, they enable residents to share their neighbourhood through snapshots taken from their perspective.
Carolyn Wong, who also works with Hope in Shadows, says that they then create a medium for the best photographers to sell their work in a calendar and make their own profits. It gives them something to be proud of.
“We wanted to do something to highlight the community and its strengths,” says Wong.
“The feeling was that the marginalized people in the area deserve and need that opportunity to represent a positive self-identity.”
Positive things like the Hope in Shadows project are often overshadowed by negative things going on in the neighbourhood, according to Lani Russwurm, who works with the Downtown East Side Community Arts Network.
“Media coverage almost exclusively focuses on the social ills concentrated in the area,” says Russwurm.
“The underreported part of the story is that there is a very strong sense of community solidarity here, more than in any other neighbourhood I know of.”
The group looks at art not only as a feasible way to make a living, but also a method of healing. For many, art is all that they have.
“For people without much money, the ability to create is often the one thing that can’t be taken away from them.”
It does not matter how much media attention is directed towards the problems of Canada’s forgotten slum, or how many band-aid fixes are implemented.
It can only be fixed if people in poverty are humanized and a sense of community is emphasized. Through photography, art or even the small pieces of communication between fellow addicts at Insite, positive things are happening on the Downtown East Side; people are blooming where they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
