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.

What might the Liberals be afraid of?

Municipal election finance reform shouldn't be a big deal.
B.C. has the most lax campaign finance rules for municipal elections in Canada. Basically, anything goes. There are no contribution limits, or spending limits. A developer or public sector union could effectively place its loyalists on council by spending enough money to them elected.
It's a system open to abuse. And it certainly undermines public confidence.
Premier Gordon Campbell promised reform, a joint task force of MLAs and UBCM reps to look at campaign financing and spending.
And Friday afternoon, a favoured time for such announcements, the government sent out a news release
.
The task force will have six members - three from the UBCM and three MLAs. The MLAs are all Liberals and one of the three UBCM reps ran unsuccessfully for the party.
No public interest representatives. No NDP MLAs, or independent Vicki Huntington.
The fix appears to be in. Campbell has rejected any limits on corporate and union donations to provincial parties.
Any recommendations on limits for municipal donations would be embarassing. Stacking the committee reduces the risk.

Police spying demands explanation, oversight

Police spying on citizens should creep you out.
Not surveillance done as part of ongoing investigations or court-ordered searches or wiretaps. Those are justified.
But that's not what Victoria police Chief Jamie Graham described to the Vancouver International Security Conference this week.
That sounded much more like police spying on citizens just because they could.
Graham was a keynote speaker at the conference, which attracted paying customers looking for insights on security trends. Perhaps he didn't expect his remarks to become public.
He spoke about the Victoria police department's $220,000 effort to provide security for the start of the Olympic torch relay.
And Graham offered the delegates some inside information. The protesters weren't so clever, he said.
"You knew that the protesters weren't that organized when on the ferry on the way over, they rented a bus, they all came on a bus - and there was a cop driving," he said. His comments were reported by Bob Mackin of 24 hours, a Vancouver daily newspaper.
So, based on what Graham told the conference, police secretly found out what bus company a group from the Lower Mainland was going to use.
Then they approached the company and convinced the manager to pull the regular driver and let an undercover officer drive. (It would be interesting to hear what officers told the company about the person chartering the bus.)
And then the officer drove the bus, keeping watch on the passengers in the rearview mirror, presumably eavesdropping and making notes on peoples' names and what they said.
These aren't terrorists. They hadn't done anything wrong. (And there were no arrests at the protests that day.) No court had approved surveillance.
They were Canadian citizens on a bus going to a legitimate public protest. Some opposed Olympic spending. Others thought issues like health care were being ignored.
And the state was spying on them.
So what, some say. Let the police do what they think best to preserve order.
We've seen countries where the state does what it thinks best to keep order - like East Germany or China.
Of course, we don't expect police and security forces would go so far in Canada.
But those charged with keeping order make that the priority.
And without laws, accountability and oversight, it is inevitable they will trade individual rights for collective security.
The issues can be complicated. I see nothing wrong with undercover police walking with protesters in a public place. I hope officers are monitoring groups planning crimes, even infiltrating them.
And I'm deeply concerned if they are spying on citizens, and compiling reports and files, simply because people exercise their right to express their views. Choosing to come to a protest shouldn't make you a police target.
This isn't benign. The people who rented the bus have been publicly branded as dangerous.
More significantly, everyone who attended the protest now must wonder if they were spied on by police officers driving the bus or joining the march. They must wonder if their names are on a list in a government file.
And, perhaps, next time they will just stay home.
Graham is refusing to answer questions. It's unclear if this was a Victoria police operation, approved by the police board, or done by some other agency.
There has been no explanation of the intelligence justifying placing an officer behind the wheel of the bus.
Part of the problem is that Graham's comments and subsequent silence indicate he doesn't consider this to be a serious issue.
At the least, you would hope such an operation would receive serious consideration before it went ahead.
Since 9/11, rights have often been sacrificed in pursuit of security. That's alarming.
To see them reduced still more, casually, to protect the image of the Olympics, is frightening.
Footnote: The exercise also raises questions about prudent spending of taxpayers' money on Games-related security. Did it really make sense to have a police officer, on overtime, work extra shifts to drive a bus? How can the public have confidence that the $1 billion in Games security spending will actually be justified?

Big chance for Chinese tourism arrives

The announcement today that China has granted Canada approved destination status is a big deal for B.C.
Without approved destination status, Chinese travellers faced big problems in coming here. In a 2005 BC Business piece on tourism and China, I put it this way.

"For all the lurching toward modernization, China is still a controlled society. Citizens can only travel to countries the government approves of, ostensibly to prevent Chinese travellers from being taken advantage of.
But it’s also a handy way to ensure those citizens return home when the holiday ends. If a country wins that approval and stays on good terms with the Chinese government, the result is Approved Destination Status. It’s a big deal. Chinese travellers face a long road littered with mandatory forms and routine refusals to visit non-ADS countries. And group tours – the foundation of any country’s burgeoning outbound tourism industry – simply don’t happen without ADS."



Read more: http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/bcb/top-stories/2005/07/01/great-leap-forward#ixzz0YgGImvUS permission to visit Canad

Privacy violation scandal widens; govenment's silence deepens

The Times Colonist continues to lead on the serious privacy breach that saw confidential information on 1,400 people discovered in an employees home.
The employee, the newspaper reports today was hired despite recent convictions for theft and passing counterfeit money.
The employee was allowed to stay on the job for five months after the government was told about the risk. The people weren't told for seven months that they were at risk of identity theft.
And Citizens' Services Minister Ben Stewart won't provide any information - including the date he was told of the breach.
The newspaper dealt with some of those issues in an editorial.

B.C. worst for child poverty, again

The annual report card on child poverty was released last week. For the sixth straight year, B.C. had the highest proportion of poor children in the country.
The report, based on StatsCan's 2007 numbers, found 19 per cent of children in B.C. are living in poverty - about 156,000 boys and girls.
Nationally, the proportion was 15 per cent. If B.C. could just achieve the Canadian average, 30,000 children would be lifted out of poverty.
You could have a long, pointless debate about how poverty is measured. There are flaws in any approach.
But the report card, compiled in this province by First Call, uses the same measurement across Canada. And B.C. consistently has the highest number of kids living in poor homes.
Children's Minister Mary Polak, to her credit, didn't try to challenge the numbers.
She said that while B.C. might have the highest rate in Canada, progress was being made. The child poverty rate was the lowest in 20 years, Polak told the legislature.
That's true, barely. In 2002, according to the First Call report released six years ago, the child poverty rate in B.C. was 19.6 per cent and 167,000 children were living in poverty. So in six years of economic growth, B.C. has been able to reduce the proportion of poor children by less than one percentage point.
And since other provinces have been making greater strides, it has stayed in last place.
The NDP was pushing, again, for a plan to reduce child poverty. Six other provinces have them, with targets, timelines, actions and accountability.
But the Liberal government refuses to take the step. (Earlier this year, Premier Gordon Campbell refused Children's Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's request for a joint meeting with NDP leader Carole James to talk about a non-partisan effort to reduce child poverty.)
James raised the issue in her speech to the NDP convention the weekend. It could fit nicely with the approach the party needs to take to turn its current lead in opinion polls into a victory in 2013.
New Democrats have been fretting since the May election, concerned they blew an opportunity for victory and worried about avoiding the same fate the next time. (The convention rates a separate column.)
Child poverty is a good issue for the party, and not because helping poor children reflects traditional NDP values around social change.
The real opportunity lies in stressing not compassion, but competence and the long-term pragmatic benefits in addressing child poverty and other such issues.
The economic benefits of reducing child poverty are clear. Poor children do less well in school and in work. They have greater lifetime health and social problems. Addressing the issue saves money.
And the Liberals' lack of a plan reflects badly not only on their interest in helping poor children, but their competence.
Having a plan, with actions and timelines and targets, is an essential tool for management and accountability. Without one, the government is at risk of unco-ordinated, costly and ultimately ineffectual efforts.
With one, and commitment, quick progress could be made.
Income assistance rates for families, for example, currently leave families deep in poverty. A single parent with two children, for example, receives about $16,000 a year. After even modest rent - say $750 a month - a family of three has less than $150 a week for everything else, from food to bus passes to kids clothes.
Simply increasing the rates would lift 30,000 children out of poverty.
Those are the kinds of measures that would be part of a plan - if the government would adopt one. In an ideal world, the plan would include a realistic estimate not just of the costs, but also of the future savings and economic benefits.
The moral case is strong too, of course. If this was the best place on Earth, it wouldn't have the highest child poverty rate in Canada.
Footnote: Many people argue that adults should suffer for poor choices. But few people would suggest that children should live in poverty because of an accident of birth in a province with the ability and resources to make an immediate difference in their lives.

Press Pass on the government's big privacy breach

The Times Colonist runs a Sunday column called Press Pass, compiled mainly by the newspaper's press gallery reporters- currently Lindsay Kines and Rob Shaw - and legislative columnist Les Leyne. The reporters have broken all the stories on the government's bungled response to a major privacy breach.
On Sunday, Press Pass added this background.

"SUGGESTED READING: With all the hoopla around those missing government files, perhaps it's worth brushing up on the fundamentals. What's supposed to happen when government learns of a major privacy breach?

According to the Key Steps in Responding to Privacy Breaches guide, written by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in June 2008, there are four key steps. Let's contrast them with what happened in this case:

1. Contain the breach and notify privacy/security officials.

If, by that, you mean don't tell the senior bosses or ministers until the Public Affairs Bureau hears about it seven months later, then done and done.

2. Evaluate the risk of the breach.

Let's see. Employee under criminal investigation for fraud has swiped sensitive personal information that could be used for fraud ... we'll go with "high" risk.

3. Notify people "as soon as possible" to warn them their privacy has been compromised.

In this case, wait more than half a year before writing letters to the wrong people.

4. Prevent a future reoccurrence by investigating the cause of the breach.

Or, repeatedly claim ignorance about when you found out or what you knew and bolt from the legislature to enjoy a four-month winter break.

When should you follow these four steps? According to the guide: Immediately.

Maybe someone in government should read this thing."

Minister looks clued out on privacy breach

Poor Ben Stewart. Up until the last days of the legislative session, most people didn’t even know he was in cabinet.
Now he’s a symbol of bungling.
Stewart, Westside-Kelowna MLA, is the minister of citizens’ services. He’s responsible, among other things, for the protection of the huge amounts of personal information citizens share — often involuntarily — with government.
And right now, it appears he isn’t doing a good job.
This all starts back in April, which is the root of the government’s problem.
The RCMP commercial crime squad got a search warrant for a government employee’s home. They were working with ICBC’s special investigation unit, which handles cases of fraudulent drivers’ licences and identity cards.
In the home, they found government files on 1,400 British Columbians that the employee had taken home from work. Names, addresses, birth dates, social insurance numbers, health numbers and information on income. As Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis noted, the kind of information that makes it easy for criminals to get fake credit cards or commit identity frauds.
The RCMP notified the government right away (before, it’s worth noting, the election).
Up to this point, the only concern was whether safeguards were adequate. A minister can’t be held accountable if an employee steps out of bounds.
But from then on, the government acted incompetently.
It wasn’t until this month — seven months after being notified that peoples’ privacy had been breached and that they were vulnerable to fraud — that the government sent letters notifying the people that they should be on guard. (That was bungled too; some letters were misaddressed and sent to the wrong people, adding a second privacy breach.)
It was also not until this month that the employee was fired.
And the government never did voluntarily reveal the breach. Reporters from the Times Colonist learned of the letters and broke the story.
Even then, Stewart was less than open and, in fact, misleading. He said he had learned of the breach about two weeks earlier, omitting the fact the government had known since May.
And he said the RCMP discovered the files as part of an “unrelated investigation.”
But an investigation into fraud hardly seems unrelated to a trove of confidential information.
Stewart also failed to reveal that a second employee had been fired in connection with the breach. The Times Colonist reporters uncovered that fact as well. Stewart would not say what job the person had, but she apparently worked in the Public Service Agency — the lead human resources service for 30,000 government employees.
Stewart continued to flounder. He couldn’t, or wouldn’t, provide basic information about the events to reporters or in response to MLAs’ questions.
And while he said he had ordered a complete investigation weeks ago, on Thursday he said there were still no terms of reference for the review. That is simply not competent management.
It was an apt way for the Liberals to finish a difficult legislative session.
It raises three questions.
Why did the government wait seven months to notify 1,400 people their privacy had been compromised and they were at risk of credit fraud and identity theft? (The RCMP checked about 10 per cent of the files and concluded no fraud had yet taken place; but the information could have been sold or passed on long before then.)
Why was Stewart kept in the dark for seven months?
And why do ministers put up with this? Stewart is no dolt. He founded and grew Quails’ Gate Winery and has an impressive resumé, but he’s been left looking like a bungler.
One clue lies in how Stewart was advised, belatedly, of the breach. It wasn’t his deputy, or security officials. It was the Public Affairs Bureau staff, the governments’ PR arm, which finally told the minister. No one is saying how long the PAB staffers had the information.
It’s part of a pattern. Take the wildly inaccurate pre-election budget deficit and the broken promise on the HST. Look back on a session where cabinet ministers refused to answer basic questions about everything from health care to Olympic tickets.
When spin triumphs over openness and substance, bad things ultimately happen.
Perhaps Stewart, and other ministers, will decide it’s time to change course.

Stewart should take responsibility and resign

So, when Citizens' Services Minister Ben Stewart learned — seven months late — that a government employee already being investigated for fraud had been caught with confidential information on 1,400 British Columbians from ministry files, who tells him?
Not his deputy, or officials responsible for privacy or from the ministry involved.
A Public Affairs Bureau staffer brought the minister up to date. How long did the branch responsible for the government's messaging know? That's still a secret.
Rob Shaw and Lindsay Kines from the Times Colonist have been reporting on the issue.
The newspaper argues in an editorial today that Stewart should resign.

Torture inquiry needed to get at truth

The federal Conservatives have crossed into a shameful place.
Career diplomat Richard Colvin came forward, at personal cost, to give evidence that Afghans detained by Canadian Forces and turned over to their own government were tortured.
The Conservatives' response was to attack him personally, rather than deal with the serious allegations.
Colvin is an unlikely whistleblower. He was the second most senior Canadian diplomat in Afghanistan, working there for 18 months as an intelligence officer. He was promoted to a similar post in Canada's Washington embassy. The man that Colvin replaced in Afghanistan was killed by a suicide bomber.
Based on his work in the country, Colvin concluded that Canada was handing over prisoners to the Afghan security forces knowing that they would almost certainly be tortured. He raised the threat of torture repeatedly with senior officials in government and the military.
That's the testimony he gave before the Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Colvin could be wrong. There might be good reasons to reject his assessment.
But the reaction of Conservative MPs was surreal. They rejected the need for an inquiry to get the facts.
And they attacked Colvin, claiming he was gullible, a dim dupe who didn't really have any idea about how to do his job, who was helping the Taliban and undermining Canada's troops. The MPs had no evidence to support their attacks and no firsthand knowledge of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan.
That did not stop them from denouncing Colvin and rejecting his testimony.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay set the depressingly low tone. "Hearsay," he complained. Anyone Canadian Forces picked up and handed over to Afgahn security forces could only be Taliban, and thus expected to lie about being tortured.
For MacKay, torture does not happen unless a Canadian diplomat is watching. Anyone who suggests otherwise is at worst an enemy sympathizer, at best a stupid dupe.
The premise is ridiculous. Afghan police aren't going to invite spectators to torture.
Worse, it has come out that MacKay and the government knew people were likely being tortured. Even in the last year, the government stopped transferring prisoners to Afghan authorities on three occasions because of concerns about torture and abuse.
Colvin's evidence suggests that for years - and indeed before the Conservatives were elected - Canadian forces were handing over prisoners knowing that, at least, they might be tortured.
Some people writing letters to the editor have suggested that it shouldn't matter if the people Canada's soldiers apprehend are tortured. They are probably guilty of something, the writers' suggest, and it's not our problem if they are beaten, face electric shocks or their families' lives are threatened.
Morally weak, I'd argue.
And pragmatically, a position with two very bad implications for Canadians.
First, there's the matter of war crimes. Torture, and handing people over to be tortured, are the kind of things that can land people in a courtroom in The Hague, answering for crimes against humanity.
Second, there is the increased risk for all Canadians - military, aid workers and diplomats - in Afghanistan. We are striving to win the support and trust of average Afghan citizens, considering it critical to progress.
If we hand over a son to be tortured - a person who has not been convicted of anything - then a family, or a village, become our enemies. Our soldiers are in greater danger.
Colvin said he had reported his concerns about torture as widely as he could, despite efforts to suppress them. His warnings began in May 2006 and continued for 18 months.
Through that period, former defence minister Gordon O'Connor, current Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Prime Minister Stephen Harper insisted that they were confident none of the prisoners captured by Canadians were being tortured.
Canadians need to know if that was true. If information was being suppressed, they need to know why, and by whom.
And given the government's response to Colvin, only a public inquiry will provide the answers.
Footnote: Harper skipped question period on Monday, the first chance opposition MPs would have had to question him on Colvin's schedule. He gave priority to a photo op with Canada's lacrosse team.