Your chance to take the influence of big money out of municipal politics (and maybe provincial politics)

The writing is truly atrocious, but the municipal election task force has a consultation website up and anyone who cares about the political process in B.C. should take the chance to provide comments.

The task force, headed by Community Development Minister Bill Bennett, is looking at possible reforms to the municipal election process.

A lot needs to be done. As I set out here, there are now no limits on campaign donations or spending. It would be easy, not that expensive and cost-effective to install a loyal council if you had special interests, as a developer or public sector union or anything else.

Visit the site. Do some research. Make a submission. If you like, e-mail me a copy and I’ll post it here.

Municipal election reform is desperately needed. But it will also be hard for the government to continue allowing unlimited donations to provincial parties by individuals, lobbyists, unions and corporations if it concludes they are corrupting influence on politics.

The writing on the site is inexcusable though.

I ran a random section, on campaign donation limits, through the standard Flesch-Kincaid readability test. It indicates the grade level a person will have to have reached to comprehend the text and scores the reading ease.

“A high score implies an easy text,” the guide notes. “In comparison comics typically score around 90 while legalese can get score below 10.”

The section scored -1 for reading ease.

And the test found people needed a university degree plus four years of postgrad education to comprehend it.

There is no excuse for that in a public consultation document in a province where about one-third of the adults have a high school education. (My last column was at Grade 11 and 41 per cent reading ease; still not great.)

The government should get its money back from whoever wrote the consultation document.

Good news: Johns are just normal guys

"A new study out of Simon Fraser University concludes that people who buy sex are no more prone to violence than anyone else.

Fewer than two per cent of the 1,000 respondents who took part in SFU sociologist Chris Atchison's study reported ever having hit, hurt, raped or robbed the person they bought sex from."

That's the start of a column in the Times Colonist on the sex trade by Jody Paterson. Definitely worth a read here.

The comments are also great. The range of attitudes toward prostitution is enormous. And the generally civil tone is impressive.

Olympic fever? More like a collective headache

Until now, I've figured that once the Olympics started British Columbians would probably get caught up in the whole experience.

All the excitement would outweigh the doubts about costs and benefits. We'd cheer the athletes and be dazzled by the venues and maybe even head down to one of those Spirit Squares.

Now I'm not so sure.

It could still happen. I lived in Montreal in 1976 and wasn't much interested in the Games - until they started. Then I lined up for tickets to European handball, watched the bicycle racers flash by on the highway and was amazed at city streets crowded with thousands of people from around the world.

But that was then.

Now the Games are about ridiculous security and huge prices for tickets and protecting sponsors' commercial interests.

And they are arriving in a recession, as government cuts support for children and seniors.

The latest polls suggest British Columbians aren't keen. Angus Reid Public Opinion found that 73 per cent of Canadians thought the Games would be good for British Columbia. But only 50 per cent of British Columbians thought the Games would be good for the province. And almost one-third thought the impact would be "mostly negative."

British Columbians were twice as likely to support organized protests against the Games. Again, almost one-third supported the demonstrations against the Games.

An earlier Ekos poll suggested one reason. It found 48 per cent of Canadians thought too much taxpayers' money had been spent on the Games.

In B.C., 68 per cent thought they were paying too high a price.

There are political repercussions to all this. Federally, Stephen Harper is hoping that Canadians will forget about his decision to shut down Parliament and feel great about Canada's medals.

Provincially, Gordon Campbell and the Liberals have promised great benefits - billions and billions - to communities throughout the province.

People, based on the polls, aren't buying it. Which could make for a grumpy public at an inopportune time. The gold medal hockey game and the closing ceremonies will be held Feb. 28, a Sunday about five weeks away. And two days later, the provincial government will present a very nasty budget.

The government limited most spending in its September "update" budget.

But the big cuts start this year. Spending reductions are planned in 13 of 20 ministries.

Education spending is slated to go up less than one per cent, Support for children and families is frozen. Agencies and non-profits in communities across B.C. are being told provincial funding is being cut or eliminated.

And while the health budget is to rise 4.7 per cent, the actual increase will be $216 million less than it was this year. (And cuts could be deeper than planned, based on the gloomy tone being taken by Finance Minister Colin Hansen.)

The nature of British Columbia society is being changed significantly and the role of government rewritten.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is a bad thing that the change is being made by stealth, without public support or even discussion.

Campbell denied the need for any change in the election campaign. B.C. would run a small deficit and wouldn't cut health or education services, he promised. But the deficit went from $495 million to $2.8 billion. And now the cuts are coming.

The Games were supposed to make it a little easier for people to take the cuts. Optimism about better times ahead, pride about our role and all that.

It doesn't look that way right now. Instead, they might make people more riled about all that Olympic spending followed immediately by cuts to services.

I hope we get into the Games. We've spent the money; why not enjoy the party, be good hosts, hope governments make the most of the economic opportunity and sort things out once the athletes have gone home.

Footnote: Perhaps part of the problem is that there was so little real public discussion about the Games bid. Then-premier Glen Clark set it all in motion on May 1, 1998, committing $150,000 to an effort to win the right to be the Canadian bidder. The process has just rolled on since then.

Lots of words, little action on family violence

The government's lame response to domestic violence this week offered two lessons.

First, despite all the rhetoric about considering the issue of critical importance, it's not a priority.

Second, the spending constraints are so tight right now that even supposedly important issues can't win anything beyond a token funding commitment.

Solicitor General Kash Heed promised action on domestic violence last year, after a coroner's inquiry heard evidence of stumbles, miscommunication and policy shortcomings that led to five deaths in Oak Bay. Peter Lee killed his son, spouse and her parents before taking his own life.

The press release this week said Heed was "taking immediate action to protect victims of domestic violence." It was headlined "Domestic violence action plan launched."

But there wasn't much action. The government will provide some $25,000 and push for the creation of a domestic violence unit in the capital region. That's useful, but Victoria police urged the measure in 2007, in the weeks after the deaths. That's hardly "immediate action."

Heed promised to "establish a uniform policy" for domestic violence investigations. It's surprising that was not already in place and more surprising that work is only starting now.

And he said the government will "take steps" to ensure domestic violence cases are reported properly in police databases so service providers with access to the files will have the information. Again, surely that should have been done years ago.

As well, Heed promised studies.

The coroner's service will review all the domestic violence deaths since 1994 - likely about 150 - to see what can be learned.

The Solicitor General's Ministry will work on a checklist of factors that might indicate a domestic violence suspect is at high risk of causing harm. It will also come up with a standard set of bail conditions for high-risk offenders.

And a committee with representatives from several ministries will "develop cross-agency domestic violence policies" that set out roles of everyone involved.

All very nice.

But five people, including a little boy, died in September 2007. Peter Lee killed them.

Within weeks, it was clear that the tragedy might have been prevented. The system for dealing with domestic violence was inadequate in a number of fundamental ways.

By last September, Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond had completed her review and made "urgent" recommendations for action. (Four months later, the Ministry of Children and Families has not even responded to the report.)

And in December the inquest jury made 14 recommendations aimed at preventing similar cases and improving support and protection for victims.

The government's response - including this week's announcements by Heed - failed to address at least half of the recommendations.

No government is going to prevent every case of family violence. People do bad things.

But that's not what this is about.

These deaths were preventable. And the failures and breakdowns weren't the result of human error or a one-off series of unfortunate events. The system for dealing with domestic violence is deeply flawed.

Lee's wife, Sunny Park, had warned police that he would kill her and her son after he crashed their car into a tree in what she said was an effort to hurt or kill her. She described past abuse. Lee had a history of violence; police had urged that he not be released on bail. But he was.

Park, a Korean immigrant with limited English skills, received no effective help or support. Measures to help keep her safe weren't in place.

And they all died.

Concerns about the province's inadequate programs to deal with domestic violence have been expressed for years.

And while the government has expressed great sympathy for victims, when faced with the opportunity to make changes, it failed to act.

Five deaths, two reports and Heed came up with $25,000, promises of future policy changes and studies.

It's not much of a legacy for Christian Lee, just six years old when he was stabbed to death.

Footnote: Why the inaction? At the inquest, Robert Gillen, an assistant deputy minister in the Attorney General's Ministry, testified the government could do a better job of keeping people safe. But domestic violence is not a funding priority, he said. "There's no sense pretending we can afford a Cadillac when we're lucky to get a used Ford," he told the jury.

Why parents should support FSA tests

The great FSA test battle is on again as the B.C. Teachers' Federation continues its campaign to kill the school tests.

That would be a great loss.

Coincidentally, a study has confirmed the usefulness of the Foundation Skills Assessment tests, which measure the performance of Grade 4 and 7 students in math, reading and writing.

The tests are a limited tool. But they let parents see how their children are doing compared with other students across the province. Teachers can see how their classes are performing in these basic skills areas compared with others. Perhaps there is something to learn from a counterpart in a similar school across town.

Administrators, school districts and the Education Ministry can look at the results and judge how they are doing. Again, they can assess where lessons can be learned or more effort is needed.

And researchers have a unique source of data that lets them look at ways of improving student performance.

A just-released study from the University of B.C.'s Human Early Learning Partnership offers a timely example. The study used FSA data to look at the link between where children lived and how they did in school.

Partly, the answer is obvious. Children from affluent neighbourhoods do better across the board than children from poor communities. That's expected. They have a range of advantages, from attending preschool programs to the benefits of having parents not struggling to scrape by to better nutrition.

But the study, which tracked 2,648 students from kindergarten to Grade 7, also found just how crucial the formative years are. Even if students moved to a more affluent neighbourhood after starting school, their performance in basic skills continue to lag.

That's important to know. It means that if improving educational performance for all children is the goal, then a large part of the focus has to be on support for families with young children before they enter the school system.

And according to the researchers, the study would not have been possible without the universal FSA tests.

Critics - mostly teachers and their union, but also some administrators - have a largely unconvincing list of complaints. It's true that the tests measure only part of schools' performance and don't reflect successes in developing good citizens or critical thinkers. But that's not an argument against assessing performance in a critical area.

Some teachers have complained about the stress on students and time spent preparing for and administering the tests. But two sets of tests in nine years of elementary school isn't a huge burden. And teachers should not be spending time specially preparing students; the tests measure long-term progress.

The teachers' union is particularly rankled by the Fraser Institute's annual report ranking school performance on the tests. The results fall to consider socio-economic factors and favour private schools, they say.

That's to some extent true. But parents and other readers aren't stupid. They can consider those factors. And there is nothing preventing the BCTF or the Education Ministry from preparing its own reports.

A more compelling argument concerns the response to the reports. Some parents transfer their children from poorly performing schools, which further weakens them.

But the notion that parents should be denied information about how well their child and the school is doing because they might make use it is unacceptable.

The strongest argument against FSA tests might be that there is little point in spending the time and money if they don't result in any action.

A 2008 study by a Simon Fraser University professor used the FSA scores to identify districts where much greater progress had been made in closing the achievement gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal students. The study then looked at what strategies were working. Unless the lessons are applied - and funded - the value is lost.

But the tests remain an extremely useful tool to learn what is working and what isn't and improve educational opportunity for all students.

Footnote: The teachers' union is urging parents to refuse to let their children write the tests. That's a destructive form of sabotage which leaves the test program in place, but reduces its effectiveness for researchers.

Jody Paterson: Seniors face huge care cost increases

It isn't often that a landlord can quietly order up a 30 per cent rent increase for more than 2,000 people without anybody making a public fuss about it.

But maybe that's what happens when your tenants are elderly, frail seniors living in B.C.'s long-term care facilities.

As of Jan. 31, "rents" will go up for most of the 26,000 people living in government-subsidized residential-care facilities, in some cases jumping as much as $672 a month.

Read the rest here.

Giving to Haiti

I might be overly sensitive, but while the $500,000 provincial contribution is useful, I'm not sure the Haitian earthquake is really a marketing opportunity for B.C. forest products.

If you are moved to help, Don Cayo of the Vancouver Sun offers some excellent suggestions here. Cayo is one of the arguments for daily newspapers; his columns are valuable and it's hard to see how they could be supported without papers like the Vancouver Sun.

NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release 2010

PREM0008-000031 Jan. 14, 2010

Office of the Premier

B.C. ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR HAITI EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS VANCOUVER - Premier Gordon Campbell announced the Province will provide $500,000 to the Red Cross to support victims of the January 12 earthquake in Haiti.

The Province will also work with the federal government to offer assistance to help Haiti rebuild.

"The $500,000 will go to the Red Cross for immediate medical and emergency support and we are also encouraging all British Columbians to consider reaching out through aid agencies like the Red Cross," said Premier Campbell. "We will also co-ordinate with the federal government to explore the possibility of helping Haitians rebuild their homes, schools, hospitals and other infrastructure." Forests and Range Minister Pat Bell is working with the federal government to co-ordinate an effort to provide wood products for rebuilding as well as construction expertise, just as British Columbia did after the 2008 Sichuan, China earthquake.

The January 12 earthquake measured 7.0 on the Richter scale and caused immense destruction, leaving millions of Haitians without homes.

"Everyone's priority right now is to put forth a co-ordinated support effort to save lives and treat as many victims as possible," said Premier Campbell. "Right now our hearts and thoughts are with the victims and their families of this terrible tragedy."

-30-

Seniors’ care recommendations snubbed by government

I doubt that growing old has ever been much fun. 

But the latest report on seniors’ care in B.C. — and the government’s reaction to it — should alarm people looking into residential care for themselves or a family member.

Maybe my generation, the Baby Boom crowd, expects too much.

But it’s hard to escape the sense that once you can’t make it in your own home these days, you diminish. You become more problem than person.

Consider a basic challenge — finding and then living in residential care when you no longer live on our own. 

Ombudsperson Kim Carter heard more and more complaints and concerns about seniors’ care in B.C. The office launched a provincewide investigation and delivered its first report just before Christmas. 

It was grim. And the government’s response was discouraging. 

Carter found the government hasn’t identified what it is prepared to do for seniors in residential care or told residents what rights they have.

It has failed to ensure families can get adequate information about residential care facilities, so they can plan and make informed decisions.

And although resident and family councils are important in ensuring the well-being of people in care, the government hasn’t supported them. 

Carter said the public response to the investigation was “unparalled” in the history of the ombudsperson’s office. (That’s the official name now.) 

About 900 people presented concerns; 200 individual complaint files were opened. The investigators went to 50 residential care and assisted living facilities, public and private, around the province.

The complaints covered a range of issues, from poor food to long waits for help with basic tasks like going to the bathroom to medication errors to neglect of residents’ needs. Many will be dealt with in a subsequent report.

A lot of the concerns centered around the huge difficulty in figuring out what care is available, what it costs and what’s covered. 

Families and individuals looking for care want to make the best decisions. But there is now way to get useful information on the private and public care facilities available in different communities without visiting each one. Responsibility for residential care is split between two ministries — the Health Ministry and the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport — and the health authorities.

Families reported being panicked by the challenge of making snap decisions critical to a senior’s future with no real useful information. Standards are unclear and information about past problems sketchy.

Once seniors have landed in a home, it’s unclear to them and their families what rights they have or what they should do if they believe care is substandard. They’re reluctant to raise concerns, in case that brings reprisals.

And there is no effective process that lets the government monitor legitimate complaints and ensure they are being addressed.

Carter’s first report made 10 recommendations, all common sense and none obviously expensive.

The government committed to acting on four of the 10. It had already passed legislation on a residents’ bill of rights, one of the recommendations.

But on six of the 10 recommendations, including some of the most critical, Carter found the government’s proposed efforts “fall short of what is needed” to remedy the problems her office had identified.

The government wouldn’t commit to monitoring and reporting on whether residents’ rights were respected by operators.

It waffled on the recommendation that single website that allowed people to get the basic facts on every care facility — the costs, the services, the standards of care — be in place by Sept. 30.

And the government wouldn’t commit to prompt action to set out a clear role for resident and family councils.

The outpouring of concern to the ombudsperson’s review indicates significant concerns. The challenges are certain to increase with each year — by 2038, the number of people 80 or older in B.C. will have more than doubled, to 460,000.

And not enough is being done to face the challenges.

Footnote: The report is available online at ombudsman.bc.ca. Expect to hear a great deal about the findings and the fee increases for three-quarters of those in residential care when the legislature finally resumes regular sittings in March, after a three-month break.

Harper paying a price for shutting down Parliament

Stephen Harper has been widely thrashed for shutting down Parliament. Here's why you should be mad too.

Prorogation, it's called. MPs were scheduled to be sitting now. There were 36 bills, including crime bills the Conservatives had said were essential for public safety, waiting to be passed. They're dead now and will have to start their path through Parliament and the Senate at square one.

MPs had questions about the Afghan detainee issue, the economy and jobs, deficits, climate change, airport security. Those are all silenced.

It's convenient to get rid of elected oversight if you're the head of the party in power.

It's also undemocratic.

Harper didn't defend the decision when it was announced. His communications manager said the Conservatives wanted time think about the economy and watch the Olympics. They apparently could not do those things while doing their main job. (That's kind of disappointing, since MPs just got a raise taking their base pay to $158,000.)

Anyway, it's common practice, say the Conservatives. Which is not really true, as we'll say.

Some of the sharpest criticism came from The Economist, a London-based global newsmagazine for smart people. Its editorial position has much in common with Harper's platform - support for free markets, globalization and private enterprise. (Though it is also socially progressive, seeing no conflict between the two positions.)

An editorial in the weekly suggested Harper must think his cabinet ministers too dim to cope with the business of Parliament and watching the Olympics.

And it rejected the claim that past prime ministers had frequently done the same thing. "In almost every case, they did so only once the government had got through the bulk of its legislative business," the editorial noted. Past prorogations were brief; this time Parliament will be shut down for more than two months.

The shutdown shields the government from democratic scrutiny and looks like "naked self-interest," The Economist wrote. Canadians might soon decide their government is not in good hands, the editorial concluded.

A group of more than 150 Canadian academics with "expertise in the principles of democracy." also weighed in.

They noted our system rests on a responsible government overseen by an elected opposition.

Harper was undermining democracy for partisan gain, they wrote. If the Conservatives a break, they could have adjourned the session until a later date, the academics added. Parliamentary committees would have then kept working and the bills wouldn't have died.

So why not adjournment, if the government needed to "recalibrate"?

Despite the bluster and attack tactics, the Harper Conservatives were facing tough questions on the treatment of Afghan detainees. The issue was not the actions of Canadian troops, who were doing their job. The focus was on whether the government failed to take reasonable measures to ensure prisoners handed over to the Afghans weren't tortured. And, as critically, whether the government had been honest with Canadians.

And adjournment would not have triggered the appointment of five senators to fill vacant seats; that can only happen when Parliament is prorogued. Appointing five loyalists would mean Conservatives would outnumber Liberals in the Senate. (Though not hold a majority.)

That's on top of the questions about Canada's role in the Copenhagen climate talks, joblessness and the claim that the budget can be balanced without tax increases or deep spending cuts.

It might not have seemed much of a gamble for the Harper tacticians, who could have concluded Canadians don't pay much attention to Parliament and how democracy does - or doesn't - work.

But an Ekos Research poll found a majority of Canadians were aware of the decision to prorogue Parliament and 58 per cent were opposed. Opposition was strongest outside the prairie provinces; undecided voters also disapproved.

For the latter group, the action raises the kind of questions Harper should not have wanted in the forefront in what could be an election year.

For example, if the Conservatives don't accept democratic oversight now, what would they do with a majority?

Footnote: The decision looks much like a blunder. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, who was floundering badly, has seized the issue and, helped by the Conservatives' lame rationale for shutting down Parliament, captured some positive attention.

Forest carbon credits complex

I wrote recently about carbon credits from forests. I didn't mean to suggest it was a scam, just complex.

In any case, this e-mail in response from someone much more knowledgeable is worth reading.

Regarding your post Paying not to cut down trees”, it is an interesting topic, but unfortunately you did not accurately describe the carbon credit opportunity and made it sound like a ridiculous situation. It is a very complicated thing.  

Some information for you: First, a single tree would not weigh 1,000 tons. The largest on the B.C. coast may be about 25 tons, on average about two tons. 

Secondly, the carbon is about one-half the weight of the tree. The carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e, the units sold) is 3.67 times that. 

Third you have to own the tree and the carbon in order to sell it; this is not at all clear in the case of Crown land.

Next, you don’t get $18 per tonne of CO2e per year, the price for a CC would be for a long-term commitment — 100 years according to the California protocol, but this aspect is not universally defined. 

The trees have to represent a positive business case for harvesting, so the carbon credit money is paid in exchange for not cutting the forest as you stated, but, not if you just go cut trees somewhere else to make up for your lost harvest (that is referred to as leakage). 

So a company would have to reduce its allowable annual cut to demonstrate this. 

Next, you have to find someone who will pay you for it and convince them that this carbon credit is worth as much as a carbon credit paid for installing a wind turbine for example. Risk of loss has to be accounted for as well, perhaps as much as 25 per cent of forest has to be set aside in case of loss due to fire, etc. 

Then you need to have someone verify your project and have it registered, another cost. Then there’s legislation in Alberta that prevents and Alberta-based companies from purchasing carbon credits outside Alberta, and the U.S. is considering that as well.  

Selling carbon credits for not cutting trees on Crown land, besides the carbon ownership aspect, is tricky because the Crown accepts stumpage for the right to cut the trees and presumably the Crown would collect some portion of the CC money as well, affecting the business case. 

Also, as the Crown considers the socio-economic value of a tree being harvested, providing employment as it is harvested, processed, used and exported, with a stream of tax revenue along the line, the Crown would have to take this socio-economic loss of opportunity into account. 

The out-of-work harvesters and processors would also have a claim to the value of trees not being harvested because they would argue that by not harvesting it, it is not being put to best use for the province. 

Private land forests are valuable to the owner because stumpage does not have to be paid, administrative costs are less and export markets are available. The net CC value per m3 is a lot less than average log market value for private lands, so don’t expect them all to be conserved for CCs.  

You can see that the forest conservation CC opportunity shrinks considerable from these considerations. The huge money opportunity you describe is not reality. It is another value to consider, and in some situations it may work.  

You state that there are a lot of questions – I suggest that you should have asked a professional forester who is involved in this area to answer them for you before writing your article.

 The Association of BC Forest Professionals could get you in touch with one. There are already many answers available. It is not right to give the public the impression that this is just a big scam to allow companies to continue to pollute.  

Brian R. Smart, RPF, RPBio.

Halfmoon Bay

Bracing for the soaring dementia toll

 Many of us are going to end up needing care.

Sure, some people will be lucky and live long, independent lives before dropping dead quickly and without a fuss. Others will be less fortunate and end their days early in a car wreck.

But the rest of us will likely need care or be involved in seeking residential care for a family member.

And unless things improve, that will be a daunting prospect.

Two recent reports - one from B.C.'s ombudsman and one from the Alzheimer Society of Canada - have highlighted how difficult things could become for people needing a safe, caring place when they can't live on their own.

The society's report was called Rising Tide: The Impact of Dementia on Canadian Society. It painted a scary picture, for individuals and society.

Today in B.C., about 70,000 people have been diagnosed with dementia. Alzheimer's disease is the major, but not the only cause.

The study forecast that by 2038 the number of people afflicted with dementia would more than double to 170,000. The increase will be similar in other provinces. Across Canada, the direct costs of dementia will rise from about $8 billion a year in 2008 to $93 billion in 2038.

In this, as in so many issues, the big factor is demographics, more specifically the aging of the giant bulge of people born after the Second World War.

Today in B.C. about one in five residents is 65 or older. By 2038, one in three will be in that age bracket. About four per cent of us are 80 or older; based on BC Stats projections that will increase to 7.5 per cent.

Given the overall population growth forecasts, the number of people in the province 80 or older is forecast to increase from 191,000 today to 460,000.

Dementia is largely a disease of the old. Barring other changes, the disease will afflict many more people for a longer period.

And at the same time, the ranks of those available to provide care - or pay taxes to support it - will have shrunk.

That's critical because the study found "informal care" - that is, unpaid - is currently huge.

Spouses, other family members and friends are providing 47 million hours - more than 22,000 person years of support - caring for people with dementia before they are receiving any formal supports. They are spending something like three times that amount of time helping dementia patients who are receiving some community care supports.

Even when people are in residential care, families and volunteers are spending millions of hours helping the patients.

That's just what families have always done, you could argue. But even a generation ago people died younger, reducing the toll of dementia. Families were stable and more likely to live close to aging relatives. Often, a stay-at-home mother was available to help a parent.

That's already changed. In 30 years, it will have changed still more.

And without that support, more support and residential care will be needed. The study looked at the expected increase in the number of long-term care beds and concluded that - just in terms of dementia cases - there will be a national shortfall of 157,000 beds by 2038.

The report recommended a number of actions, starting with a national dementia plan. It urged more research and support for families in navigating the system. And it said prevention should be a focus - exercise, especially by those over 65, can delay the onset of dementia and slow its advance. (You can read the report at Alzheimer.ca.)

It should all be alarming, whatever your age. For those in the Baby Boom cohort, it is a reminder of the challenges that might lie ahead and the gaps that could make life more difficult and painful.

For those much younger, it's a warning of big health-care costs to come.

Unless we act now.

Footnote: The Alzheimer Society has an obvious special advocacy role. And the money for the study came not only from Health Canada and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, but also from pharmaceutical companies with their own special interests.

Domestic violence victims not a B.C. priority

Based on Solicitor General Kash Heed's response, don't expect any real action as a result of the inquest into a murder-suicide that claimed five lives in the capital.

Domestic violence isn't a government priority.

The jury at the coroner's inquest did their job. They sat through terrible testimony in a process that dragged on for almost two years as government lawyers fought to suppress evidence. And they delivered thoughtful recommendations.

But Heed, the government's chosen spokesman, wouldn't commit to act on even one of the 14 recommendations from the coroner's jury. The former West Vancouver police chief, who had been promoted as a star candidate and touted as a future premier, just waffled. Even when the jury's recommendations were identical to similar proposals made by police more than two years ago, after the tragedy, Heed would not commit to any timeline for action.

The case is horrible. In September 2007, Peter Lee killed his six-year-old son, his wife, her parents and then himself. He was out on bail after crashing his car in what Sunny Park, his wife, said it was an attempt to kill or injure her. He had a history of violence. Park also told police about past abuse. Lee would kill her and son, she warned.

Police who interviewed after the car crash were alarmed enough to take the unusual step of meeting with the Crown prosecutor to urge Lee remain in custody.

But he was released and remained free despite reports he had violated bail conditions. Park, a Korean immigrant with limited English, received little help, support or information on her options or how to keep herself safe.

It was a horrible, preventable mess. But they all died. A lot could have been done to help the family. But the basic supports weren't there.

Park had to report the abuse to three separate police departments in the capital region - one RCMP detachment covered the hospital; another police force her home in Oak Bay; and the Victoria department had jurisdiction over the car crash. All three locations are within 10 kilometres.

Back in 2003, then solicitor general Rich Coleman promised to bring the 13 police departments in the region together to reduce crime. Politics sunk the good idea.

None of three departments had domestic violence units, despite research showing their effectiveness.

In 2002, the government fired the 35 people in prosecutors' offices across the province who worked with crime victims. The cost - less than 90 cents a year for each British Columbian - was too much. The core review concluded this wasn't a role for government.

Victim services officers helped families through the ordeal of a trial when their son or daughter was killed. They told rape victims what to expect. They made sure family violence victims knew how to stay safe and their legal rights. If victims were in danger, the workers were experienced advocates who understood the system. And they were considered a luxury to be discarded to pay for a two-cent-a-week tax cut.

The defining witness at the inquest was Robert Gillen, an assistant deputy minister in the Attorney General's Ministry. His directness was refreshing.

Yes, he said, government could be doing more to keep people safe from domestic violence. Better risk assessments could be required, for example, before people like Peter Lee got bail.

But that would cost money, he said, and domestic violence is not really a government priority. "There's no sense pretending we can afford a Cadillac when we're lucky to get a used Ford," he told the jury.

Yet domestic violence is the second largest caseload for Crown prosecutors, after impaired driving. Just in the capital, police respond to more than 3,000 cases a year. Many more go unreported.

Heed could have accepted the recommendation for risk assessments in domestic violence cases before suspects are released on bail. He didn't. He could have accepted the jury's call for services for alleged victims and abusers as soon as offences are reported. He didn't.

It all raises a basic issue. Are things like the supports to keep Sunny Park and her little boy safe a legitimate role for government, or should they people like them be left on their own?

The government has made its choice. Heed made that clear.

Paying companies not to cut down trees

If you want to understand how tricky - and important - climate change agreements are, take a look at forests.

At meetings like the Copenhagen summit, governments and industry are working hard to build advantage into any agreements.

The big picture is that annual emissions limits of some kind will likely be set.

And a cap and trade system will let people make money if they find ways to cut production of greenhouse gases.

A B.C. pulp mill, for example, might now be producing 150,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year burning oil and gas.

Switching to wood waste as fuel for much of the year could reduce that by 100,000 tonnes. Under a cap-and-trade system, the company could then sell those credits to another company - perhaps an oilsands developer - that wanted to exceed its cap.

Europe already has a carbon market. Based on prices there - about $18 a tonne - the pulp company could sell the credits today for $1.8 million. . (All the numbers are based on real-world examples.)

It's an incentive to find ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions. As caps are reduced, the credits will be more valuable. B.C.'s carbon tax is based on a value of $15 tonne now, doubling in the next three years.

Cutting down trees generates a lot of greenhouse gases. Trees, as big plants, take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. The carbon dioxide is stored in the wood.

So a giant coastal red cedar represents a big carbon sink. The trees can live 1,400 years. That's long time to be sequestering carbon.

Here's where it gets complicated and interesting. An old red cedar could weigh 1,000 tonnes. If you were about to cut down the tree, you could - depending on the carbon rules - get paid $18,000 a year to put the chainsaw away.

Imagine thousands of square kilometres of coastal forest and the carbon credits to be sold from private land, First Nations territory and Crown land.

With the right rules, there is big money to be made and a chance for B.C. to increase emissions from other sources because of its forests.

But negotiating the right rules - part of the Copenhagen process - is tricky.

If the tree falls down and rots, or is burned in a forest fire, all that carbon is eventually released. Global warming means forests are degrading more quickly - so quickly Canada doesn't want forest emissions to be counted under a cap and trade system.

There are a lot of questions. Should B.C. be able to claim credits for not cutting trees in existing? If a company chooses not to log 100 acres of woodland, how are carbon credits determined?

Should companies that produce lumber, which continues to hold carbon, claim a partial credit? What's the greenhouse-gas reduction value of replanting trees to absorb carbon over the next few centuries?

Those questions will be sorted out over the next few years by negotiators in expensive suits. Billions of dollars rest on the outcomes.

And a lot of jobs. The forest industry has struggled for at least a decade. Now companies could have a financial incentive not to log.

The theory is that other areas of the economy will benefit and grow. But the company selling the carbon credits could invest the money anywhere. The buyers could be in another province or U.S. state.

The stakes are remarkably high. And the potential for building in ways to game the system is huge.

Despite all that, cap and trade is an important part of any effort to reduce emissions. The system will encourage innovation and allow flexibility for companies or countries that face challenges in meeting the targets necessary to greenhouse gas reductions. (A carbon tax, like British Columbia's, achieves some of the same goals although with a narrower focus.)

But defining, winning agreement on and managing an effective, equitable system is going to be a big challenge.

Footnote: B.C. was the only province to increase industrial greenhouse gas emissions in 2008. One exception was the pulp and paper industries, as mills took down time because of poor markets. Once the cap and trade system is in place, the chance to sell credits will be another incentive to reduce operations when times are tough.

Back again, with the same old resolution

It’s been 10 years since we welcomed a new millennium. I said goodbye to the 20th century in a high school gym rented for a big party of extended family and friends. The midnight song — my choice — was Great Big Sea’s defiant version of R.E.M.’s It’s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine). 

Of course, every year, every day, can be the end of the world as we know it. A few dozen people can, probably to their own amazement, succeed in a wild plan to fly planes into skyscrapers. A few hundred business guys can attract trillions of dollars into investment vehicles that make no sense, and then stand back when it all collapses.

And one person close to you can soar, or fall. Really, that’s the end of the world as we know it. The 9/11 attacks led to two destructive wars, hundreds of thousands of lost lives and a huge erosion of freedom. The financial collapse cost people their jobs, their savings and their homes.

But when most of us look back over the decade, those things don’t defines it for us.

Ten years ago, my partner and I had three teenagers at home. All three are launched, wonderful people making their way in the world, which is of course a challenge in its own right. I could ask for nothing more from the decade.

We had one grandchild, Paxton. Now we have four — Zachary and Gage and Owen — and Kaleb and Spencer are part of the extended crew. Together they have had way more impact than the 9/11 terror. 

Back in that last century, everyone had different jobs. We didn’t have an RV. We’ve logged thousands of miles since, with children and grandchildren and by ourselves

We had four parents. Now we have three. That’s a gap in everyone’s lives that won’t go away.

And we’re all quite a bit older, kids, grandkids, parents and my partner and me. Ten years will do that.

I’m troubled by 9/11 and its consequences. Sad that Americans have not yet rebuilt the towers. Angry that destructive financial frauds shattered so many lives. Discouraged by politicians who  too often act in ways unworthy of the people who elected them.

But really, the last 10 years are defined by how things went for the people who I know.

Newspapers are big on end-of-year stories. Partly, that’s because we need to fill a lot of pages between Christmas and New Year’s and generally not much is happening. So we write about newsmakers and memorable events. We hope you will share the idea that these things matter to your life.

They should matter, of course. Other people’s children are being killed in Afghanistan while mine are doing wonderfully on two continents. They have been sent there because the MPs who represent us judge the sacrifice worth making. But would they send their children? I’d urge mine not to go.

Really, the biggest stories of 2009 aren’t about politicians or generals or CEOs.

The new baby, the lost family member, the sickness, the recovery. The wedding, the separation, the happy night of food and laughter. The people who matter to us.

I hope people will keep paying attention to the big public issues in the New Year.

But even more, I hope they will pay attention to the people in their lives. Everything starts with paying attention. Noticing a child who seems sad, or a parent who is worried, or a friend who is struggling. Hearing a small sad story and realizing you can change the ending with a little money or time or a kind word.

And of course, paying attention to how you feel — what makes you happy, angry, peaceful. Once you start doing that, you can think about changing yourself and the world around you to make it a better place. It starts, I think, in the quiet of your own home. And what better time than now, when family and friends tend to be at hand and strangers a little more open.

This year, make a resolution to pay attention, to people and places and the way the light strikes the trees and the music sounds in the evening air. Everything can start with those simple acts.

Ton Anh Nguyen and the war on drugs

Ton Anh Nguyen is 56, sickly, poor, a drug user and a criminal. In 2007, undercover Vancouver police officers approached him and asked if he had crack or cocaine for sale. Nguyen went to another man, got what might have been drugs, gave them to the undercover officer and was given $10.
Nguyen was charged with trafficking. He was convicted after a jury trial. The Crown asked for nine months in jail; his lawyer asked for a conditional sentence which would see him serve the term in the community.
Justice Ian Pitfield disagreed. The entire reasons for sentencing are worth a read, but I've pasted the highlights below. The comments on the failure of enforcement efforts and the option of legalization and regulation of narcotics are worth debate.

"This case, to my mind, reflects the futility and waste associated with the pursuit of low level street traffickers such as Mr. Nguyen. This is an individual who had no drug or anything he could represent as a drug on his person at the time he was first approached by police. He left to approach somebody on the street curb who he must have known and who possessed the substance or something that could be represented to be the substance. Nguyen had no cash, no drug paraphernalia, and nothing to indicate any connection with the drug trade on his person when he was actually arrested. Four or five officers were involved in the operation.
"The supply and sale of controlled substances continues unabated in the Downtown Eastside and will undoubtedly continue as long as there are illegal products for which there is a market, or for which, because of the substantial profit, suppliers will create a market if none exists. Costly law enforcement appears to have been totally ineffective at forestalling the trafficking of narcotics in the Downtown Eastside. One is left to wonder whether, as is sometimes and more frequently suggested, legalization and regulation of narcotics would provide a better means of control.
" I am not persuaded that Nguyen is going to benefit in any way, shape, or form from a custodial sentence in the range of 9 months as the Crown suggests. Nor, in his circumstances, is that term going to deter him in the future. He will gain little in the way of skills in the period of time he will actually be incarcerated. He is already a drain on the public purse. I am left to ponder whether there is anything that is going to assist this individual in terms of rehabilitation or anything that will encourage him to pursue a reasonable and responsible lifestyle in the future.
" I am likewise persuaded that the imposition of a conditional sentence order would be equally futile. I have no confidence whatsoever that Mr. Nguyen will be bound by the terms of a conditional sentence order. I fully expect that given his record in the past and his life circumstances, it is only a matter of time before he would be back before the court facing an allegation that he had breached a condition.
"Mr. Nguyen’s offence cannot be excused given the current state of the law, but it is a situation which, in my judgment, is well-suited to a suspended sentence. The purpose of suspending sentence is to let the accused know that no sentence has been passed and, in the event that he breaches any of the conditions that I am about to impose, he will be called back before the court likely to be sentenced to a period of incarceration, whether conditionally or otherwise remains to be seen."

Empty words on family violence

One of the good ways to judge politician-speak is to transpose the comments into real life.
Last Friday, an inquest jury made 14 recommendations on domestic violence after hearing evidence of stumbles and inefficiencies leading up to a mass murder-suicide in the capital region. Peter Lee killed his six-year-old son, the boy’s mother, her parents and then himself. He was free on bail – despite police pleas that he be held – after crashing his car in what she said was an attempt to kill her. He had a history of violence and had violated bail conditions. She told police he would kill her.
The recommendations weren’t surprising. The killings happened more than two years ago and the inquest has been conducted in fits and starts as government-paid lawyers fought to suppress evidence the jury sought.
Solicitor General Kash Heed was charged with delivering the government’s reponse.
Here’s what he said
"We are committed to dealing with domestic violence in the province of British Columbia. On the surface, from a lot of those recommendations, those are things that we will look at, those are things that we will determine when and if we can put them in place."
So imagine you’ve just a home inspection after a fire and the report set out 14 things that needed to be done to keep your family safe.
And your clever 12-year-old reads the report, and in a worried way, asks mum and dad what they are going to do.
"We are committed to dealing with fire risk in our home,” dad says. “On the surface, from a lot of those recommendations, those are things that we will look at, those are things that we will determine when and if we can put them in place."
How well would your child sleep that night?
How well should victims of family violence be sleeping in B.C.?
The Times Colonist has an editorial on the response today.

Ben Stewart stumbles on another privacy breach, this time linked to U.S. Homeland Security

So is poor Ben Stewart being kept in the dark by others in government, or is he keeping the public in the dark.
Stewart is the minister for citizen services and responsible for, among other things, the protection of the personal information every British Columbian has to share with government.
This week, the Times Colonist revealed another security breach.
They asked Stewart about it Thursday and he revealed little.
Someone in the Housing Ministry appeared to have sent sensitve personal information to an outside using government e-mail, he told reporter Rob Shaw.
"They were e-mailing files inappropriately from the office to another person," Stewart said. "We don't exactly know who this other individual is, but it's believed they could be in the United States."
"At least three" British Columbians have been sent letters warning their confidential information was compromised.
The Times Colonist report ended with a note inviting those who had received the letters or others with information to call the reporter. (The first story is here.)
And within 24 hours, the government revealed Stewart's version was, to put it kindly, incomplete.
On Friday, the government said the employee is accused of e-mailing the personal data to a U.S. border guard in Washington State - that is, an agent of the far-reaching Homeland Security apparatus. The government also believes the B.C. government employee and Homeland Security guard had a personal relationship. (The second story is here.)
So what the explanation for Stewart's public claim that the government didn't know who received the information, only that "it's believed they could be in the United States."
Since the next day the next day the government revealed it knew who the information had gone into and the person's job.
Was Stewart kept in the dark about the breach, which was discovered in September?
Or did he decide not to be open and accountable with the public?
Not just with the public.
The government identified the breach in September. It didn't notify the people at risk until November. And it didn't advise Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis, the legislative officer charged with investigating such incidents, until this month.
What's in the files? The Housing Ministry handles rent assistance for thousands of British Columbians; income assistance and disability benefits for thousands more. It runs gambling, so has files on lottery distributors, casino employees and crime investigations.
And now a U.S. border guard and perhaps Homeland Security have some of the same information.
There is another question for Stewart. The government knew about this beach at the same time he was offering misleading and incomplete answers about another privacy breach uncovered by Shaw and reporter Lindsay Kines that affected 1,400 British Columbians.
The government had known about that breach, and the risk of identity theft and fraud, since April - before the election.
But the information was kept secret, even from the people at risk, until November.
Stewart initially said he had learned of the breach two weeks earlier, leaving the impression the government had learned at the same time.
Only when the RCMP contradicted the claim did he provide more complete information.
Open and accountable government?
Or catch us if you can?

Haida, B.C. hope to cash in on carbon credits

From Copenhagen to Haida Gwaii, climate change is in the news and bringing big economic shifts.
The B.C. government has just signed "reconciliation protocols" with the Haida and six coastal First Nations.
They agreements are like treaties-lite, an effort to bring some certainty to development and economic benefits to the communities. The big obstacles to treaties - land, cash, finality - are left to be negotiated later. It?s a reasonable approach.
It was striking that both protocols included commitments on "carbon-offset sharing" between the province and First Nations. Agreements are supposed to be in place within 10 months.
You can draw a pretty direct line from the coastal communities to the Copenhagen climate summit, where there is support for a cap-and-trade system on emissions.
That's where B.C. and First Nations figure there is money to be made. Cap and trade is a big part of the provincial government's bid to reduce greenhouse gases by one-third by 2020.
It might sound a little, well, tedious.
But it's likely going to cost you money, so why not pay attention?
The goal is to let the market drive innovations that reduce greenhouse gases.
But it starts with government setting all the rules.
It's straightforward in theory. The government, or a group of governments, would set greenhouse-gas emission caps for economic sectors and individual companies. The caps would be reduced each year in line with overall reduction targets for the country or province.
So Paul's Homegrown Tomato Greenhouse might start with a government-allocated cap of 2,500 tonnes of carbon-dioxide emissions a year, based on the natural gas and electricity to keep the tomatoes cozy.
But I might decide to install heat-retaining curtains for use at night and on really cloudy days. They could reduce my use of gas and cut emissions by 500 tonnes.
Under the cap-and-trade system, I could then sell my unused emission allowance to some other business that needed to exceed its cap by the same amount. We'd negotiate a price and all would be well.
Companies that wanted to produce more greenhouse gases - perhaps to expand their businesses - could. They would have just have to buy the offsets from someone reducing emissions.
Overall, greenhouses gas production would fall as caps were reduced. Companies would be encouraged to invest in greater efficiency and new processes, because they could sell their emission allowances to others.
As the caps got lower, the market value of emission allowances would climb and the incentive to cut greenhouse gas production would increase.
In the real world, it all gets much messier. In setting caps, governments can provide big advantages or big penalties to specific sectors and companies.
And calculating and verifying emission reductions is tricky. If Paul's Tomatoes are tasteless and I'm going out of business anyway, closing the greenhouse and selling the emission credits to an oilsands company that wants to produce more greenhouse gases isn't really reducing greenhouse gases.
It's even trickier when it comes to the kind of forest carbon offsets envisioned in the recent deals with First Nations. Plants, as we learned in Grade 9, take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen. Trees store the carbon in the wood. If they burn or rot, the carbon dioxide is released.
If you cut them down and make two by fours, the timber still stores carbon. But sawmill waste, stumps and branches all release carbon dioxide.
So if the province and the Haida decide not to log forests, they reduce emissions. Under cap and trade, they can sell the allowance to the highest bidder.
But the calculations are complex. They depend on how efficient the harvest and replanting would have been and the age of the forest, even how fast replacement trees would have grown.
We are entering a new world and the rules - which bring big financial benefits and penalties - are being written on the fly.
I'll look at more at the forest potential in a future column.
Footnote: B.C. is already experimenting with carbon credits and the greenhouse example is based on a real project. The curtains cut emissions by 500 tonnes. The Pacific Carbon Trust, a new Crown corporation paid something like $12,000 to the company. It then resold the credits to government and a couple of businesses that want to offset their carbon emissions.

Will a committee tame 'Wild West' municipal campaigns?

It would be pretty easy to take over a mid-sized town in B.C.
Not in an uprising. Just by writing cheques.
Municipal election campaigns are, as Community Minister Bill Bennett said recently, "a bit of the Wild West."
There are no limits on political donations or spending. Third parties can spend as much as they like to influence the election without even revealing their identities.
The potential for corruption is so great that it's almost inevitable.
Say you're a developer keen on a lucrative rezoning or the extension of services to property you own. Or you're a public sector union president, worried about wage cuts or layoffs in the next round of contract negotiations.
You notice that hardly anyone votes - just under 20 per cent of those eligible in Kelowna in the last municipal election, for example.
You recognize that name recognition is important when voters aren't paying much attention to issues and campaigns. That's why incumbents have a huge advantage.
You realize that for a relatively modest sum, you could ensure the election of councillors and a mayor who would see things your way.
And everything you do will be completely legal. No wonder money from special interests have started to play a larger and larger role in municipal elections, from Vancouver to much smaller communities.
In part because of pressure from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Premier Gordon Campbell government promised to do something about it back on Oct. 2.
A task force would look at all aspects of municipal elections, he said, from campaign financing to changing the current three-year cycle.
The project has been slow in starting. The government says the UBCM needed extra time to decide on its representatives.
But now Bennett and UBCM president Harry Nyce, the co-chairs, have been joined by two UBCM vice-presidents - Quesnel Mayor Mary Sjostrom and Surrey Coun. Barbara Steele.
Liberal MLAs Douglas Horne of Coquitlam and Donna Barnett of the Cariboo-Chilicotin riding. Barnett is a former mayor of the District of 100 Mile House.
You will notice something about the MLAs on the task force. They are all Liberal.
Bennett says the idea of including New Democrats or independent MLA Vicki Huntington never came up and they didn't ask to be involved during the planning stages. And the premier did say in October that government MLAs would be on the task force.
Steele, one of the UBCM reps, is also a Liberal. She ran for the party in 2005.
That creates an interesting problem for the task force, at least in terms of public perception.
Municipal politicians are looking for reforms that include limits on both campaign spending and donations. A survey of 38 B.C. mayors done earlier this year found 82 per cent supported both measures.
The notion that people or organizations with the biggest bank accounts shouldn't be able to determine the outcome of elections has been pretty widely accepted. The federal government, Manitoba and Quebec have all banned union and corporate donations and limited personal donations. Ontario allows donations from companies and unions, but limits them to $15,500 a year, or twice that much in an election year.
But Gordon Campbell has ignored a series of recommendations and insisted that no limits on donations are needed in B.C. There are spending limits.
His theory is that as long as donations must be reported, the public can be alert for any signs of special treatment for big donors.
It's a lame argument. The donation reports come out long after an election. Few people will pore through hundreds of reports. And even if there was favoritism for big donors, how would they know given the large number of decisions quietly made by government?
That puts the Liberal-dominated task force in a tough spot. Any call for donation limits will contradict the boss's insistence they aren't needed.
The group is going to be looking for public input. The output will be what's interesting.
Footnote: The task force has its work cut out. The report and recommendations are due by May 30, because the government would like any changes to the rules for municipal elections to be in place for the 2011 vote. That will require legislative changes.

'Innovative' deal with developer needs better process (Note: The column is better than that terrible headline)

The new release from Housing Minister Rich Coleman was headlined "Innovative $32M affordable housing announced for Victoria."
Innovative it is. Affordable is relative; the project will offer condos and apartments at a 10-per-cent discount on market rates. That's not enough to make the housing affordable for many people, when one-bedroom condos will still sell for $350,000.
And the structure of the deal raises several questions.
Here are the basics.
Developer Rick Ilich, through Townline Victoria, bought the block in downtown Victoria that includes the historic Hudsons's Bay store, which has a great exterior façade.
The plan is for a renovation of the beautiful old building that preserves the exterior while creating striking condos. Ilich also planned two other buildings on the block, replacing a parkade.
All in, it was to be worth some $300 million.
Then came the recession and progress slowed. A neighboring project ran into trouble and Townline bought that property as well.
And now the provincial government has effectively taken over as developer of one of the three buildings on the Bay block.
It's kind of a private-public partnership in reverse. The risk transfer is to taxpayers, not the private partner.
According to the government's news release, Townline will sell the portion of the property to the government, and eventually a non-profit operator of the building, for 80 per cent of the market price - $4 million. (Ilich said the sale price was 80 per cent of the company's costs in the land, incurred before the economic collapse.)
The provincial government will become the developer of the 13-storey tower.
It will borrow $32 million and hire a company to do the construction.
The news release said "TL Housing Solutions Ltd., an experienced developer of non-market housing, will develop the site."
TL Housing does have several projects on the go. It's the developer for a 51-unit rental project on Wilson Street in Vic West being funded by B.C. Housing and the city of Victoria. The company was formed to focus on those kinds of opportunities. The company offers to "be the interface at the municipal, provincial and federal political levels. We can uncover access to density bonuses, civic contributions, BC Housing funding programs and subsidies, as well as CMHC sponsored project funding and favorable loan rates."
It's a clever business model.
But in the interests of openness, the news release might have noted that TL Housing is also a Ilich company, with Rick IIich's wife Lauren as the president.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
In this kind of unorthodox deal, though, transparency is essential. The benefits, costs and risks being assumed by all parties need to be clear.
And the fact that the developer selling the land is also benefiting from a $32-million untendered construction contract should have been acknowledged.
The provincial government plans to get the $32 million back. It hopes to sell 40 units as condos and take in $15 million, or an average $375,000 per unit.
And once it selects a non-profit owner/operator for the rental portion of the building, the remaining $17 million in debt will be transferred to the agency. The operator will use the income from the 80 rental units to make the mortgage payments and manage the building.
On top of the provincial funding, the City of Victoria is making an $800,000 contribution to the rental portion of the project, or $10,000 per unit. The rents are also to be 10 per cent below market level, a small but useful discount.
It looks to be a good deal. A developer gets help on a big project when times are challenging. The city reduces the risk that a key chunk of downtown will sit vacant longer than necessary. The shortage of rental housing is eased.
And creative approaches from government and business are welcome.
But a better public process is needed in these kinds of deals. Ordinarily, a public project would go to tender so taxpayers would know they were getting the best deal.
And by taking on the risk of selling condos to recover its money, the government is moving into an area where it has little expertise or experience. If they don't sell, or sell at a discount, taxpayers are on the hook.

'Gladiators' drown out the decent in politics

Tom Flanagan, the Calgary professor who has been mentor and campaign manager to Stephen Harper, has just shed some light on why people don't vote.
Flanagan, in a column for the Globe and Mail, offered his thoughts on political attack ads and campaigns. Harper and the Conservatives have been criticized for sleazy attacks sent to households at taxpayers' expense.
Flanagan said today's voters are OK with sleazy. Only attacks that are "completely false" will backfire, he wrote. (Mostly false is fine.)
"Votes can stomach factoids, ambiguity, half-truths and statements ripped out of context," Flanagan said, "but they rebel against demonstrably false accusations."
It's fair to say Flanagan speaks for the Conservatives and a lot of political operatives.
But does he speak for you, as a voter? Can you "stomach factoids, ambiguity, half-truths and statements ripped out of context?"
The thought that those we elect and their handlers think half-truths are good enough is depressing. Why vote for such people?
Flanagan also said the public - that is you - are OK if politicians slander each other with half-lies.
But attacking people like Afghan torture whistle-blower Richard Colvin with the same sleazy tactics won't work, he said. That had been a Conservative error, Flanagan judged.
What sensible person would run for office, knowing that the ground rules would mean they would be seen as a legitimate target for dishonest attacks - and be expected to sling dishonest muck at others?
And what sort of Parliament or legislature do we end up when those who accept dishonest character assassination as part of the game stand for election?
Flanagan offered his explanation for why non-politicians are off-limits for the sleazier attacks.
"Canadians see politicians as gladiators who dish it out and take in equal measure, but who should not pound on non-combatants," he wrote.
Gladiators? Carole James, Kevin Falcon, Gary Lunn, Keith Martin? I can't imagine what kind of gladiators they are supposed to be, but the crowds at Rome's Coliseum would not likely have been much amused by the sight of men in suits shouting rubbish at each other. Bring on the lions.
Sadly, I fear many successful politicians - and those who labour to make them so - do see themselves as gladiators, striding boldly into question period or a media scrum to vanquish their foes.
Those who are cleverest and loudest at turning half-truths into sound bites are celebrated and promoted.
Real gladiators are supposed to have swords and spears and nets. And real politicians are supposed to be thinking about making life better for the people they represent, not focusing on scoring political points against the other guys.
Maybe Flanagan is right. But I've found people are looking for better from those they elect to represent them. Which might explain why half the eligible voters didn't participate in this year's provincial election.
Flanagan?s column came a few days before the Times Colonists Rob Shaw did several stories on the just-concluded legislative session, including interviews with rookie MLAs.
They were all still enthusiastic. But there were notes of discouragement. NDP MLA Lana Popham talked about the "out of control" catcalls and heckling in question period. Vicki Huntington, elected as an independent in Delta South, had worked on Parliament Hill, where all-party committees of MPs help shape legislation.
But not in B.C., she soon learned. Legislative committees meet when the party in power wants them to. And that is hardly ever.
The legislative committee on education, despite a tonne of issues worth considering, hasn't met in more three years. "I think that's a terrible waste of the intellectual capacity of the house," Huntington noted.
It is a waste. The breadth of experience and skills and local knowledge among the 85 MLAs is extraordinary. There are mill workers and doctors and business owners and social workers.
Together, they could bring perspective to the province's problems and opportunities. Instead, Tom Flanagan suggests, they are taught to be gladiators, comfortable with insults and abuse based on half-truths.
Why would MLAs and MPs accept that role?
Footnote: Not all politicians indulge in distortion and character assassination, of course. But the saner voices tend to be drowned out in the roars of abuse or targeted by the dishonest press releases from the other side.