Go to article index for other editions of Bob Orrick's IN RE (In the Matter of).
Toys for Big Boys [and Girls]
By
Bob Orrick
Some feel the sixty-four per cent 'Yes' vote in Vancouver City's recent plebiscite on whether or not to support the Vancouver-Whistler 2010 Olympic Games bid, is proof positive that [a] the city supports the Olympic Games, [b] the taxpayers of British Columbia support the 2010 Games and [c] that Canadians from The Rock to the Loony Left support the Games. Even with the most mental gymnastics possible, it is a stretch to say that the non-binding support for the Games means that Canadians everywhere are in favour of "Toys for big boys and girls."
The sixty-four per cent in favour represented the support of 86,113 Vancouver City residents out of a possible 293,263. The 'No' side, at 36 per cent, managed to gain the support of 48,651. Together, they comprise only 46 per cent. While some might suggest that less than half is a good turnout for a non-binding plebiscite; it is fewer the small turnout out that voted in last November's civic election. Then, just fifty per cent saw fit to decide the makeup of their city's council. [For those who care about such things, the socialists took control of Vancouver City council and school board.]
The plebiscite 'No' side was at a disadvantage as it did not have the high-profile athletes and business types hyping the bid. For a month or so before the 22 February vote, local newspapers were filled with support; the airwaves were cluttered with support and the television stations outdid themselves in bringing the message to the people that anything less than an overwhelming 'Yes' vote was considered sacrilegious.
In an attempt to gain support, mayoralty candidate Larry Campbell [no relation of Gordon Campbell, BC's premier] during the civic election promised that if elected, the citizens of Vancouver would have a say in the 2010 Olympic bid [although the bid is termed the Vancouver-Whistler bid, it is the British Columbia government that put the bid forward] by way of a referendum. When it was pointed out to Mayor Campbell that a referendum was binding and that it would not matter much whether or not the province continued with its bid, he switched and spoke out of the other side of his mouth and backtracked a bit; he then announced that he really meant a plebiscite and not a referendum. When it was pointed out to the neophyte mayor that referendum or plebiscite, the cost to the cash-strapped Vancouverites would be around half a million bucks, he shrugged and said he had made a promise and he would keep it. The final tally, according to Vancouver City clerk and chief election officer is $575,000.
At a time when BC seniors have seen some of their provincial programmes cut or when communities have been gutted with the closure of hospital emergency wards or schools starved for funding to cover the basic needs, the province's 2010 Olympic Games bid is seen as yet another nail in the coffin of British Columbians on fixed incomes [often seniors], single parents and low wage earners.
Are the Olympic Games necessary? When considered against the broad backdrop of annual world championships in many if not most of the sports competed for in an Olympic Games, the answer is, clearly, no. Add to that, the idea that the Games are intended to be for amateur athletes; yet, when Canada's men's hockey team turned back the rest of the competition last February, no player on Team Canada was amateur. So much for the claim that the Olympics are for amateurs. Moreover, many of the athletes who vie to stand on the Olympic podium are paid rather handsomely when they compete in meets worldwide. Not only that, but in this country, a goody portion of their travel expense and accommodation costs are picked up by Ordinary Canadians by way of their taxes. If these athletes are so darn good, then they ought to be able to find sponsors, corporate of private, who will foot the bill in return for recognition. When skiers pose for the television cameras after a successful slalom, they always make sure that their skies are upright and held in such a fashion to ensure that the ski's manufacturer's name appears for all to see. Skiers are not the only so-called amateur athletes who make sure their sponsor's name is front and centre. In the summer Games, how many American basketball players are amateur? Also, take a good look at their footwear; do you see a logo? Sponsorship exists therefore the taxpayers of Canada, to name one country, should not cough up dollars to support elite athletes.
It has been suggested in this corner [twenty-five years ago while a sports columnist] that the dollars given to develop elite athletes would be better spent at the grassroots [to use a political term]. Why not support the youngsters, and their parents, of local teams or organisations that are staffed by volunteers and not paid coaches and trainers and hangers-on. Why not spread a bit of the taxpayer-funded largesse so that more young Canadians can at least participate in a sport or undertaking? Why not show support for the grassroots of the country rather than spend millions [billions, perhaps] so that once every four years a Canadian might stand on a podium with a medal draped around his [or her] neck?
A side benefit might just be that the obesity among children that Canadians are constantly told is a disease, might be curtailed or even cured. Years ago, this country had a logo that said, simply, Participaction. It meant, equally simply, participate in action; i.e., sports or some form of activity. At that time, young Canadians were compared to a sixty-year old Swede. The message was clear: get involved in some form of athletic activity. Today, it seems that the message has been shelved in favour of providing Toys for big boys and girls.
Was the $575,000 Vancouver expenditure money well spent? The answer to that will never be clearly answered as it will soon be forgotten in the province's bid to win the 2010 Olympic Games bid. The politicians will move on and the 'grassroots' of the country forgotten, again.
Send your comments about Bob's articles to syears@senioryears.com. We will display letters at Talking Back to Bob
Bob Orrick is a private tutor of English grammar, literature, poetry and Canadian history to off-shore youngsters. His pupils hail from such places as Taiwan, China, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and Venezuela. He was previously in international marketing, was a ministerial assistant to a provincial cabinet minister, spent a few years as a reporter then editor of a community newspaper and enjoyed a career in the Royal Canadian Navy.
Advertising Information 
