I'm actually a big supporter of the 'Citizen Budget'

Citizen Budget: Tri-City News left the impression I oppose it.

The time has come for me to turn the tables and "blame the news media." Sort of.
First, some background. You've all heard public figures complain about inaccurate and out-of-context reporting. It's a staple of political theatre.
And I must admit that, having spent more than three decades as a full-time journalist, I've been the target of some of those complaints--even, on rare occasions, justifiably.
But in my two-plus years as a Coquitlam City Councillor, I haven't had much reason to do any complaining myself. For the most part, the reporting of my activities on Council has been both fair and accurate, albeit never as thorough as I would like.
On this latter subject, now that I'm on the "inside," it often pains me to see how a complex subject, such as a neighbourhood plan or a new strategy of some sort, that council has spent several hours discussing and on which staff has clearly spent many dozens or even hundreds of hours working, is boiled down to eight-to-ten paragraphs by a reporter.
Nevertheless, when the boiling-down captures the essence of both the content of the report and the discussion around it, there's really not much to gripe about.
That said, I must now declare that the top story on the front page of the Feb. 21 issue of the Tri-City News has somewhat misrepresented my position on a bold, new public-opinion-gathering exercise that the City will likely adopt in the next round of budget consultations.
My colleagues and I on Council discussed the Citizen Budget initiative at the Feb. 19 meeting of the Finance Standing Committee. The initiative would allow interested citizens to express their opinions about such budget-related issues as revenue and expenses, and programs and personnel by way of an interactive, easy-to-understand website.
Now, those of you who have been following my political career to date will know that I have been a big supporter of new ways to engage citizens. In fact, it was my initiative that led to Coquitlam holding its first-ever E-Town Hall meeting.
Understandably, then, I'm a big supporter of the Citizen Budget initiative, and said so in my presentation at Committee. However, I also pointed out that the on-line opinion-gathering apparatus would be just one way that Councillors could and should gather information; others include our own research, face-to-face interactions with the community and the annual Ipsos Reid poll.
And on the subject of polls, I noted that, unlike the Ipsos Reid one, the on-line initiative would not be scientific, and so its results would have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Ultimately, though, I opined that the Citizen Budget initiative would be beneficial, not only for its ability to sample public opinion and obtain more budget feedback, but also for the very fact that it sends the message to all residents that the City really does care what they think.
After all that, however, Tri-City News lumped me in with "a few Coquitlam councillors [who] voiced concerns about the program's lack of controls," reporting that, "Coun. Terry O'Neill said while the Citizen Budget could capture the mood of Coquitlam's 139,000 residents, 'this has to be taken with a grain of salt' as the results aren't as scientific as those from the Ipsos Reid poll." (The story does not appear to be posted online yet.)
True enough, as far as it goes. But, of course, the problem is that story doesn't go nearly far enough, in that it leaves the impression I am opposed to the plan when, in fact, the exact opposite is true.
And there you have it. It's more of an exasperated quibble than an angry complaint. But, on a subject (voter and citizen engagement) on which I have devoted so much attention, it's important that the complete story be told.

The big push (and push-back) for subsidized daycare

This past Monday, council-in-committee received a presentation from Sharon Gregson, a former COPE/Vision Vancouver school board trustee and now spokesperson for the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC, who called for Coquitlam to endorse a plan that would see the provincial government heavily subsidize all daycare in B.C. so that users would have to pay only $10 a day to put their preschool child in care. It would be free to those earning less than $40,000 a year.
The campaign already has scores of official supporters, but several aspects of the presentation didn't seem quite right, and so I questioned Ms. Gregson when she concluded. Chief among the issues that raised my eyebrows were these:
1. Her description of the childcare situation in B.C. as a "crisis." OK, I know that some folks have a difficult time getting good-quality childcare, but a "crisis"? Where's the evidence for such a loaded term? None was presented.
2. Her statement that the program would eventually cost $1.5 billion and that it would eventually establish a government-run daycare monopoly, staffed by highly paid unionized government workers. What could possibly go wrong? 
3. Her use, in a PowerPoint presentation, of supporting quotes from two business leaders. Upon my questioning, it became apparent that these quotes were made only in general support of an educated workforce, and not in support of a major government program to pay for daycare.
I also asked about the seemingly high number of jobs that she said would be taken up by women who were free to enter the workforce. I think the figure was something like 17,000. On this subject, Ms. Gregson had a persuasive answer. Indeed, in subsequent research, I discovered that many studies have found that, freed of childcare duties, women are able to find jobs in great numbers.
However, in doing that research, I also found evidence that one of the supposedly great benefits of putting more children into daycare--that they will be better prepared for school--wasn't being found in Quebec, the longstanding home of government-subsidized $7-a-day daycare. This Maclean's story of a few years ago reports on an academic study that found a reverse effect, in fact.
You know where I'm going with this, right? Bottom line: I have reservations about the program, and think Council should steer clear of any ill-considered endorsement.

On a related subject, our City Clerk forwarded my colleagues and me an on-line comment left by one of Ms. Gregson's supporters. Below is the text of that comment and my response. I have omitted the name of the correspondent to protect her privacy.

Comment:

I attended the council-in-committee meeting on Monday, February 3, 2014 at which Sharon Gregson appeared before the council with a presentation on the $10-a-day child care initiative. Her informative presentation was followed by a fairly intense questioning by council members. I was taken aback and not a little disappointed that Ms. Gregson was not asked what, to me, should have been the first question - how would this initiative benefit the citizens of Coquitlam? 

I hope that the mayor and council will give this initiative the attention it deserves and vote to lend their endorsement to this proposal. 

My response:

Our City staff forwarded your online comments to members of Council, and I would like to take the opportunity to respond.

First, thanks very much for taking the time not only to write your note, but also—and more importantly—to attend council in committee in the first place. I assume that you were one of the women in the audience to whom Ms. Gregson referred during her presentation.

Let me start by acknowledging that I am one of the councillors who asked questions—and tough ones at that—during Ms. Gregson’s presentation. This does not mean, however, that I do not recognize the importance of the public-policy proposal Ms. Gregson was advancing. Rather, I think it reflects that very importance, in that I feel that before council makes any decision to join the many other municipalities that are now calling for the $10-a-day plan, we must ensure that all the arguments that support it are solid ones, that the facts and figures should be reliable, and that the quotes being used to support the initiatives must be authentic.

Furthermore, I am well aware of many government initiatives being launched with great fanfare, high expectations and a huge budget, only to end up producing unanticipated negative consequences. For example, a Maclean’s story of July 11, 2011,  “Is subsidized daycare bad for kids?” reports on the findings of three researchers who found that, contrary to the claims (and hopes!) that Quebec’s $7-a-day daycare would better prepare preschool children for school, “the effects of the program are found to be negative for five-year-olds and less convincingly negative for four-year-olds.”

The economic case for installation of a heavily subsidized daycare system seems to have some merit, especially in the area of allowing parents to enter the workforce. Nevertheless,  it is my duty as a City Councillor to be as certain as I can be when making decisions that will impact taxpayers throughout the province.

Ultimately, we all want what’s best for our children, whether it involves the sort of income redistribution that the $10-a-day plan calls for (that is, money being taken from taxpayers and given by government to government-subsidized daycares, which in turn allows more parents to enter the workforce and become taxpayers themselves), or whether it  simply means finding a way to keep more money in the hands of parents so that they can make the best decisions for themselves.

Council's pipeline-input decision

Coquitlam Council voted unanimously last night to apply to the National Energy Board for formal Intervenor status at the NEB’s upcoming hearings in to Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC’s application to twin its pipeline through B.C. (and Coquitlam) to a terminal in Burnaby. I reluctantly supported the motion—reluctantly, because I thought the far more realistic and responsible position for the City to take was to apply for formal Commenter status.

However, when my amendment to this effect was defeated 5-3 (with only Mayor Richard Stewart and Councillor Brent Asmundson supporting me), I decided that having Internevor status was better than having no formal input at all, and therefore supported the original motion.

By now, most informed citizens will know plenty about the TMP project (also known as the Kinder-Morgan pipeline), so I won’t go over all the details. Here’s a link that provides much of the background. And here's a Coquitlam-specific link. 

Importantly, the line will not parallel the existing pipeline, which cuts through the heart of southwest Coquitlam, but will trace a new route along the southern edge of the city, near Highway 1.

The issue facing the City was whether we should work behind the scenes to resolve any safety and routing issues with TMP, should it win approval to build the pipeline, or apply to the NEB to have formal input into the approval process as a Commenter or Intervenor.

The City of Coquitlam’s General Manager of Strategic Initiatives, Maurice Gravelle, said in a January 30 memo to Mayor and Council that, “it is important the city apply to either submit a letter of comment or to be an Intervenor.” This statement helped me reach the decision that, yes, the City should have a formal place at the hearing table.

However,  Mr. Gravelle also reported that there would be negligible costs to researching and writing a letter of Comment, while the costs for assuming Intervenor status would be between $50,000 and $100,000. He also said, “It is anticipated that any concerns the City may have with the proposed Project will be addressed by Trans Mountain prior to the hearing.”

My research into the subject determined that being an Intervenor gave the person or organization the following rights and responsibilities: The opportunity to present written evidence; the right to question others on their written evidence; the right to cross-examine other witnesses at the oral portion of the hearing; the right to give final argument; the responsibility to attend at least on opening days, and days of direct relevance; and the right to receive all documents.

A Commenter has the ability to write a Letter of comment which: comments on how the City would be impacted positively or negatively by the project; comments or makes suggestions for conditions that should be placed on any approval; and declares any information that explains or supports our comments.

Given all this background (not the least of which was the statement by Mr. Gravelle that he anticipated that all Coquitlam-specific issues would be worked out prior to the start of the NEB hearings) and given the fact that only a select number are chosen to be a formal Intervenor, I concluded that the City’s best chance to be selected would be as a formal Commenter.  But, as I stated above, the majority of Council did not agree.

My fear is that, if we are granted Intervenor status (and that’s a big “if”), the City may end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to duplicate what other levels of government, such as Metro Vancouver and the Provincial government, will already be doing.

Coquitlam’s input should be limited to site-specific, technical issues that directly impact the City. I suspect that some ardent environmental activists (of whom there were many in the audience on Monday night) will want to use any Coquitlam involvement as a springboard for broader arguments against the carbon economy, pipelines and the Alberta oil sands. If so, I will oppose them.

Canada Post delivers some spin

I continue to be disappointed that something for which our Eagle Ridge neighbourhood fought with so much vigour three decades ago--door-to-door mail delivery--is being abandoned without any apparent effort to find a middle-ground solution, such as limiting door-to-door delivery to Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays only (and Tuesdays and Thursdays the following week).

Municipalities throughout Canada also continue to be upset, and have used the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to bring their concerns to Canada Post President and CEO Deepak Chopra. Mr. Chopra has now sent a letter to the FCM explaining Canada Post’s five-year phasing out of home delivery, starting in late 2014. Here is the text of that letter:

January 29, 2014

Dear Municipal Leader

Last month we announced a five-point plan to protect the postal service in a world in which digital communication is rapidly replacing traditional mail. In a key initiative, Canada Post will convert the remaining five million addresses that have door-to-door delivery to community mailbox delivery. This will occur over the next five years. I would like to assure you that the transition of delivery service in your community will be handled responsibly and with respect.

While the majority of Canadians will not see any change to how their mail is delivered, a fair number will be impacted. As we carefully plan our next steps, I would like to share with you the guiding principles that will govern our approach in the communities that are affected:

• We recognize that dense urban cores in our larger cities, with their older neighbourhoods and smaller lots, present different challenges for locating community mailboxes than suburban areas. With this in mind, we will leave the majority of these areas until the final stage of this multi-year project. We will take the necessary time to understand their unique needs and find solutions that work for these neighbourhoods.

• We will be sensitive to the needs of seniors and of disabled Canadians. We are developing alternative approaches for people with significant mobility challenges, who lack viable alternatives and upon whom delivery to a community mailbox would impose an unacceptable hardship.

• There will be no change in delivery to people living in apartment buildings, seniors’ buildings and condominiums who already have mail delivered in the building lobby. In addition, customers who have mail delivered to a rural mailbox (a customer-owned mailbox at the end of a driveway) will not be affected by this change.

• We will work with community leaders and municipal planning officials to choose safe and appropriate sites.

• We will seek the views of affected citizens directly, through multiple channels including surveys and online feedback tools.

• We will be as innovative and flexible as possible, while being responsible towards our goal to protect the financial sustainability of postal service for all Canadians. We will look at various solutions and different equipment, taking the necessary time to address any significant challenges in a given community.

• We will respect the needs of businesses to have mail delivered to their door. The vast majority of business addresses will continue to have mail and parcels delivered to their door and will experience no change.

The businesses that will continue to have delivery to the door are located in well-established business areas, such as main streets or “business corridors”; or receive a relatively large volume of mail or parcels.

This initiative is a crucial aspect of our plan to protect and sustain postal service for Canadians, both today and for tomorrow. As we execute it, I intend to see that we live up to our special responsibility to serve every Canadian and every community. We are committed to doing this in a thoughtful way, and to keeping you informed as this initiative unfolds.

Yours sincerely,

Deepak Chopra

President and CEO

Canada Post Corporation

Just say no to campaign-spending limits

The provincial government is asking for public feedback on proposals to limit campaign spending, and has set the end of this month as a deadline for receiving such feedback. The issue has been generating some headlines of late.
Being a civic-minded fellow, I decided to take up the invitation and offer my two-cents worth. Below, you'll find the text of a press release I've just issued on my submission, followed by the text of the submission itself.

News Release

For Immediate Release

January 27, 2014

Coquitlam Councillor says campaign-spending limits would be unfair and harmful to new and independent candidates

COQUITLAM – City of Coquitlam Councillor Terry O’Neill says the Province should not impose campaign spending limits on civic politicians because such limits would not only constitute an attack on free speech, but could also hurt the electoral chances of new and/or non-affiliated candidates.

In a submission to the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, which is seeking feedback on Local Government Elections Reform, O’Neill says candidates’ fundamental Charter right to freedom of expression would be jeopardized by spending limits, which would have the effect of  limiting the number of advertisements, flyers and other forms of promotion that candidates might use during a campaign.

“I do not believe that something as important as an election campaign, which involves two fundamental aspects of our democracy – free elections and free speech, should face the sort of restrictions being considered,” O’Neill says.

O’Neill also fears that new candidates, who face an uphill battle to get their names known, would have one hand tied behind their back if spending limits were imposed.

As well, O’Neill suggests that independent and non-affiliated candidates would be similarly handicapped, because they might lose one of the only options they have— sizeable advertising budgets—to try to level the playing field with slates, parties and other electoral machines that can draw on large numbers of campaign volunteers.

“It’s important that the provincial government give careful consideration to this important area of our democracy,” O’Neill concludes. “Victoria should be wary of any new campaign-spending rules that not only undermine our fundamental rights but also stack the cards in favour of big electoral machines at the expense of new and-or independent candidates.”

CONTACT: Terry O’Neill, 604.362.3251. toneill@coquitlam.ca

(Coquitlam Council is meeting Monday Jan. 27 at 2 p.m. and will have only limited breaks until about 9 p.m.)

                                                                -30-  

To: Local Government Elections Reform

Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development

PO Box 9847 Stn PROV GOVT

Victoria, B.C. V8W 9T2

From: Terry O’Neill

Councillor, City of Coquitlam

Home: 1331 Steeple Drive,

Coquitlam, BC, V3E 1K3

Re: Feedback on Expense Limits in Local Elections

If there are to be new campaign-expense rules, I believe that the Task Force’s suggestions are headed in the right direction. However, my submission today will, in fact, oppose the concept of setting campaign-expense ceilings.

Thoughts on some of the Task Force’s major findings:

1.       The Province would set expense limits. I agree. If there is to be a mechanism in place, then the Province is the natural place where these should be set.

2.       Elections BC would enforce the limits. Again, I agree.  This body is already involved in election monitoring, and enforcing campaign-expenditure rules would be a natural extension of its current work.

3.       Expense limits would apply in school-board elections. Yes, if there are to be limits, it’s only fair to have them applied to the election of trustees as well as mayors and councillors.

4.       Population size would be taken into account in setting expense limits. I agree, but would take it even further. If there are to be limits, they must take into account not only the population of the jurisdiction, but also the physical size. A candidate running for office in a town of 10,000 that is concentrated into one square kilometre would likely have an easier time reaching voters during a campaign that a candidate in a town of 10,000 that is spread over a 100-square-kilometre area. The former might be able to easily hand-deliver flyers, for example, while the latter might have to employ a more expensive delivery method, such as Canada Post.

5.       Expense limits would apply not only to candidates, but also elector organizations and third-party advertisers.  Again, I am in general agreement with this; if there is to be a new regulatory system, then it seems fair to have it applied to all aforementioned groups.

Philosophical objection to spending limits

Let us now turn our attention to the actual concept of campaign-expense limits. In fact, I oppose any limits. I believe such restrictions would infringe on fundamental freedoms as found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2. I quote:

 “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

1. freedom of conscience and religion;
2. freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
3. freedom of peaceful assembly; and
4. freedom of association.”

Specifically, I believe that any restriction on campaign spending would be a direct attack on Section 2.2, “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communication.” Allow me to explain: Since the major part on one’s campaign involves communicating with the electorate, and since such communication involves the transmission of thoughts, beliefs, opinions and expressions through the press and other forms of communication such as flyers and posters, a restriction on campaign spending would have the effect of restricting the “fundamental right” of an individual to engage in that communication.

I understand that “reasonable restrictions” to Charter rights have been enacted, but I do not believe that something (an election campaign) that involves two such fundamental aspects of our democracy – free elections and free speech – should face the sort of restrictions being considered in the current exercise.

If a citizen decides to spend her life savings on an advertising campaign to support a civic cause or oppose a candidate, then let it be. If a candidate feels that being elected is so vital that he must take out a second mortgage to pay for a massive advertising campaign, then so be it. What’s important in both cases is that these people have the full and unfettered right to participate in democracy.

Practical objection to spending limits

Here, my objection to campaign-spending limits comprises related issues: unfair obstacles that such limits put in the way of new candidates; unfair obstacles that such limits put in the way of lone or unaffiliated candidates.

First, the new candidate. It’s a given that name recognition plays a large role in all politics, but it is an especially significant factor at the municipal level. For the new candidate, the biggest challenge is not only getting his or her platform in front of voters; it’s also—and, arguably, more importantly—getting his or her name known.  Either way, one sure-fire way of presenting oneself to voters is to spend money on advertising, signage and other promotional devices. It’s less important for incumbents to “put their name out there” because they are already relatively well-known. But campaign-spending limits would fetter a new candidate’s ability to spend freely to have his or her name become as well-known as an incumbent’s. Therefore, I submit that campaign-spending limits would have the unintended consequence of diminishing the opportunity for electoral success for newcomers, while favouring incumbents.

Second, the lone or non-affiliated candidate. Consider the situation facing the lone, non-affiliated candidate who is running against a candidate or candidates from a well-organized campaign slate, party or endorsement mechanism such as that regularly employed by labour/union, for example. In all likelihood, that lone candidate does not have an “election machine” supporting his or her candidacy—no supporter lists to work from, and no election-day teams to “get out the vote,” for example. What such a lone candidate would have the ability to do, however, is to match or even exceed the campaign spending of his or her rivals. But if that spending were limited by force of law, that lone candidate would face an unfair restriction on one of the only ways by which he or she might be able to achieve a level playing field.

We need to look deeper into the mechanics of a well-organized party, slate or endorsement body to truly appreciate the advantage they would be given over independent candidates should campaign-spending limits be put in place. Such bodies can attract many volunteers and often have extensive lists of possible supporters for those volunteers to call by phone, contact by email, or send letters to. With voter turnout for municipal elections being relatively low, these well-organized campaigns give their candidates a very tangible edge over any independent candidate.

This situation is both legal and fair under the current system because non-affiliated candidates always have the option to counter the “election machine” they are facing by spending more money on advertisements. That leveler disappears in a universe of campaign-spending limits, however. Such limits would not likely place any limit on the number of volunteers working for parties, slates or endorsement bodies, nor would they place any limit on the amount of hours those volunteers could work.  But they would limit the opportunities for non-affiliated candidates to level the field by spending extra funds to buy advertising and otherwise promote their candidacy.

In conclusion, I would argue that a campaign-expense limit would have the unintended consequence of handicapping both new and lone, independent or non-affiliated candidates, while inadvertently giving incumbents and slate- or party-backed candidates an advantage.  

Therefore, practically speaking, campaign-expense limitations would be unfair.

The need for timely disclosures

That said, I believe it is also important that the source of the funds being spent during an election campaign be disclosed in a full and timely way.  Although the issue of campaign donations is not the subject of this exercise, I believe that there would be less concern over campaign spending if voters were given full and timely information about the source of campaign donations.

On this subject, at present, campaign-expense documents need not be filed until several months after the campaign has ended. I believe that the Provincial Government should examine the feasibility of establishing a real-time, campaign-donation-reporting mechanism to enable voters have access to information on the source of a candidate’s funds before they cast their ballots, not after.

In Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to present this advice. These are important issues and deserve careful consideration.

Lacing up for Walk for Memories

Participants in the 2011 walk.  Good weather is also predicted for 2014!

We're hoping to see a big turnout on Sunday afternoon at the Hyde Creek Rec Centre in Port Coquitlam, as we launch the 2014 Investors Group Walk for Memories, in aid of the Alzheimer Society of B.C.
The walk, which I will MC, is one of a score of regional walks. Ours takes in Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Burnaby, New Westminster, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge.
Our honoree this year is Dr. Faisal Beg, a medical engineer at SFU, who is developing ways to detect the onset of Alzheimer Disease, even before the patient shows any symptoms.
Congratulations to all the organizers and volunteers, especially the society's Lori and volunteer extraordinaire Dawn, with whom I have had to pleasure of working for all the years (five now?) that I've MC'd the event.
Registration begins at noon. Opening ceremonies at 1 p.m. Walk from 1:30 p.m. til 3 or 4 p.m. You can get more information about the walk by clicking here.
Meantime, here is a press release on the subject that has just been distributed by the provincial government:

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
2014HLTH0010-000075
Jan. 24, 2014

Ministry of Health
Alzheimer Society of B.C.

Lace up and Walk for Memories

VICTORIA - Help support families living with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia, by joining thousands of British Columbians for one of the Investors Group Walk for Memories taking place on Sunday, Jan. 26, 2014.

Health Minister Terry Lake and MLA for Kamloops-South Thompson Todd Stone will be taking part in the Kamloops walk and Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors Linda Larson will lace up in Vancouver.

"Government is committed to ensuring that those with Alzheimer's and dementia have access to early diagnosis, treatment and support," said Lake. "We value the work that the Alzheimer Society of B.C. is doing to improve the lives of diagnosed individuals and I look forward to joining British Columbians of all ages this weekend to show support and raise awareness."

Alzheimer's disease is a progressive and degenerative neurological disease and is the most common form of dementia. At this time, the cause of Alzheimer's disease is unknown and there is no cure.

"We know the impact that Alzheimer's disease can have on diagnosed individuals and their families," said Larson. "The Investors Group Walk for Memories is an opportunity to bring families together to raise awareness and show support to those currently facing this heart-breaking disease." 

Fundraising through the Investors Group Walk for Memories helps people in British Columbia who are living with Alzheimer's disease or other dementias connect to a provincewide network of information, services and support. 

"Much of what we now know about Alzheimer disease has been learned within the last 15 years," said Maria Howard, CEO of the Alzheimer Society of B.C. "The Investors Group Walk for Memories literally brings us a step closer in the search for the cause of and the cure for dementia." 

The Investors Group Walk for Memories is an annual provincewide fundraising event for the Alzheimer Society of B.C. 
This year, the event will take place in 23 communities throughout British Columbia: Aldergrove, Barriere, Campbell River, Chetwynd, Chilliwack, Dawson Creek, Duncan, Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo, Nelson, Penticton, Port Alberni, Port Coquitlam, Prince George, Richmond, Smithers, Surrey, Vancouver,
Vernon and Victoria. 

"We are proud of our partnership with the Alzheimer Society of B.C.," said Murray Taylor, CEO of the Investors Group. "An event like this is just one way we can help to improve the lives of those living with Alzheimer's and dementia." 

There are currently up to 70,000 British Columbians living with Alzheimer's disease or related dementia. Government's Provincial Dementia Action Plan and dementia guidelines outline collaborative actions that can be taken by health-care professionals and caregivers to support diagnosed individuals through person-centred care.

"Supporting Alzheimer Awareness Month and the Walk for Memories is 
very important to me," said Stone. "I encourage all British 
Columbians who have had Alzheimer's or dementia touch them in their 
lives to join the conversation and help raise awareness." 

Learn More:

To find out about the Investors Group Walk for Memories in your community, please visit: www.walkformemories.com/

For more information about Alzheimer's disease and dementia, please visit the Alzheimer Society of B.C.'s website at: www.alzheimerbc.org

To read the provincial Dementia Action Plan, please visit: 
www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2012/dementia-action-plan.pdf

Media Contact:

Kristy Anderson
Media Relations Manager
Ministry of Health
250 952-1887 (media line)

Connect with the Province of B.C. at: www.gov.bc.ca/connect

Mundy Forest must be for the people

Mundy Park (Photo: City of Coquitlam)

You’d be forgiven for thinking that there was little potential for controversy in relation to a forest-management plan for Mundy Forest, which is the subject of a press release issued today by the City of Coquitlam.

However, the plan was actually the subject of some rather intense discussion, initiated by yours truly, at Council-in-Committee's meeting on Monday afternoon.

My concern was centred squarely on the vision for the forest, specifically on whether the management plan would see actions taken to protect and enhance the forest primarily in

the name of “ecological integrity” or rather--and, more properly, I feel--for the enjoyment of the people of Coquitlam, for whom the forest, and the park itself, is a fabulous amenity..

I spoke to the issue at some length on Monday afternoon because my examination of staff documents involving the plan did, in fact, reveal a shift in the focus towards a Nature-first approach, something with which I most heartily disagreed because I believed it could lead to increasing exclusion of people from the park. We needed a balance, I said, in which a healthy park existed so that the people of Coquitlam could enjoy it to its fullest.

Mundy Park (Photo: City of Coquitlam)

In the end, I received a firm declaration from the acting GM of Parks, Recreation and Culture that the plan would reflect a more balanced approach than what was indicated in a key document that had sparked my investigation and ultimate presentation to committee. And that’s good.

So, if you’ll bear with me, I’ll walk you through the research I did and the conclusions I reached. First, from a report to committee dated March 4, 2013 (but actually presented to council in committee on March 11, 2013), comes this important vision statement:

‘The forest in Mundy Park provides tremendous benefits to the community, which are directly linked to the health and aesthetic qualities of the forest. Without a comprehensive Forest Management Plan (the "FMP") there is the risk that the pressures the Park faces such as insect and fungal pest infestations, wildfire, windstorms, invasive plant infestations, and unsanctioned uses may erode or eliminate the benefits residents currently enjoy. ‘

Note, the emphasis here is on keeping the forest healthy so the citizens of Coquitlam can continue to enjoy the ‘tremendous benefits’ to the community that are linked to the health and aesthetic quality of the forest.  This, I believe, is the correct and proper vision.

But now, let’s look to Attachment 2 of Monday’s report, dated Aug 22, 2013, where we read about the mandate of the community focus group. I quote bullet three:

“To provide input on and support recommendations for the preservation and enhancement of the forest in Mundy Park and the benefits it provides for the community.”

Note the “and.” It’s important, and it represents a slight shift in focus. Let me explain. If this sort of statement were to adhere to the vision laid out last March, this “and” should have been the phrase “in order to” – as in “To provide input on and support recommendations for the preservation and enhancement of the forest in Mundy Park in order to provide benefits for the community.” But, with this new “and,” we see the focus shifting away from the original vision – that a healthy forest is needed to provide benefits to the citizens, to one in which the health of the forest (moreover, the “preservation and enhancement” of the forest) is a goal unto itself, and is merely a complementary goal to that of the benefits a healthy forest can provide to the community. This shift isn't particularly worrisome by itself, but took on new significance when read in relation to a more recent report.

Indeed, the whole vision thing gets particularly troubling with the staff report we considered on January 20. Look to page 3 of the main body of Monday's report, and we find the original vision sliding even further out of sight. Here, we read:

“The key objective of the Forest Management Plan is to maintain the ecological integrity of the Park by allowing natural process to occur, with the intention of accommodating sensitive recreational uses while allowing the forest to reach the climax stage of maturity.”

Mundy Park (Photo: City of Coquitlam)

Get that? Where we started out by describing a vision that clearly stated the main reason for having a healthy forest was for the benefits to be derived by the citizens of Coquitlam, we now have a vision that declares the main reason that we intend to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to better manage this forest is – not to better serve the public – but, rather, to protect the forest’s “ecological integrity” [something, by the way, that I consider an impossibility in an urban setting] while merely "accommodating" use by the citizens – and only “sensitive” recreational uses at that.

I must note here that the Diamond Head Consulting report, which summarizes ideas coming from a workshop with the Community Focus Group, contains different wording yet again – including a Draft Vision Statement that is more in line with council’s original intent. This report is appended to the January 20 staff report.

But, regardless of that Draft Vision Statement wording, what’s important is how staff interprets and puts into action the wording. And, given the interpretation on page three of Monday’s report– where “sensitive recreational uses” are merely to be accommodated -- I feared that staff may be headed in a direction that is not in line with either council’s or the advisory committee’s intentions.

With all this explanation complete, I then told committee that, if we are going to spend all this time, effort and money, our primarily vision should be to maximize the benefit that this expenditure will deliver to our citizens. This is the view of Mundy Park that is held by the vast majority of Coquitlam residents, I'm sure.

Indeed, it would be a regrettable waste of taxpayers’ money if we proceed with a Forest Management Plan whose primary goal is to enhance impossible-to-achieve “ecological integrity” at the expense of protecting and improving the park so that the benefits to the residents of Coquitlam can be maximized.

I argued that we should return to the original vision, the one that received clear support from council and is reflected in the Community Focus Group’s Draft Vision Statement. I said that we needed to spell out very clearly that the goal of spending this money is not to foster a healthy urban forest primarily for its own sake, but rather so that it may continue to provide the tremendous benefits that it currently provides to the Citizens of Coquitlam.

And, in the end, I received very firm assurances that public use and forest protection/enhancement would go hand-in-hand, and that the forest would not be treated as some sort of pristine ecological preserve from which people would be excluded. And thank goodness for that!

A distorted view of history

Pres. Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act, 1964. (Wikimedia Commons)

It's a relatively small thing, it's an American thing, and it's about something that happened 50 years ago.
But it still took only a few minutes for PBS's newest American Experience episode, about the year 1964, to get under my skin, to provoke me to mutter at the screen, and finally to inspire me to turn the program off in protest.
What so bothered me was the section of the show dealing with the U.S. Senate's passage of the historic Civil Rights Act. The episode made the unmistakable assertion that the bill risked defeat at the hands of filibustering Republicans and that it was only when some Republicans ended up being persuaded by Lyndon Johnson to change their minds that the bill became law.
But this assertion set off some alarm bells in my noggin. I know enough about American history of that era to know that Southern Democrats, not Republicans, were the main force against integration and equal rights for African-Americans.
Yes, there must have been some Republicans who opposed the bill and, yes, there must have been some Republicans who changed their minds and ended up supporting it. And those GOP senators may have even been the deciding factor. But surely, I thought, the major opposition to the bill must have come from Southern Democrats--and the PBS show didn't utter a peep about them.
And so I started a bit of online research and it took all of one minute to find this voting record in the Senate on the Civil Rights Act:
Democrats in favour, 46; opposed, 21. Republicans in favour, 27; opposed, 6. Far more Democratic Senators by number (21) and percentage (31%) opposed the civil rights bill than Republicans (6, 18%).
One would have thought that PBS would have found this worth noting. But one would have been wrong.
Perhaps if I had read the online description of the episode, offered on the PBS website, I would have been better prepared to accept the historical distortion it contained. Here's a slice of the "Introduction" the network provided for the show:
"In myriad ways, 1964 was the year when Americans faced choices: between the liberalism of Lyndon Johnson or Barry Goldwater's grassroots conservatism, between support or opposition to the civil rights movement, between an embrace of the emerging counterculture or a defense of traditional values."
Notice how neatly the sentence aligns "liberalism" and a Democratic president with support for civil rights, while at the same time aligning the Republican Party (Goldwater's) with opposition to civil rights? Yes, Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act but remember: 82% of Republican senators supported it.
And so, what's the bottom line? Is it more evidence to support the oft-made assertion (by US commentators like Rush Limbaugh and the like) that PBS has a left-wing or liberal bias? Does the big omission tell us something about the sorry state of American culture? Or does it simply make us aware that TV documentary-film makers can make mistakes? I have my suspicions. What are yours?

Still thinking of the Philippines

After Typhoon Haiyan tore through the Philippines last November, I learned that the City of Coquitlam had a special relationship with a one of the hardest-hit cities, Ormoc, and I immediately started wondering whether we here could do anything, on a city-to-city basis, to assist in Ormoc's recovery. I am pleased to report that I have now received word from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) that discussion has started at the national level that may see some relief being offered.

Photo from: storify.com/ZackStieber/

First, some background. Coquitlam's relationship with Ormoc was not a "sister city" type one, but is better characterized as an "adopted little sister" type. Specifically, under a program funded by the FCM, Coquitlam shared some of its administrative expertise with Ormoc to assist it in modernizing city management. It's my understanding that some Coquitlam officials travelled to Ormoc several years ago to give first-hand instruction. And that's where the relationship ended.

Regardless of whether Ormoc is our "sister city" or merely an "adopted little sister," I still thought it was worthwhile exploring whether Coquitlam could do anything to help the city of 191,000 in its time of crisis. I learned that, under B.C.'s Community Charter, we are not allowed to provide any direct financial assistance, even a token amount.

However, I was pleased when Mayor Richard Stewart ended a council meeting late last year with a fine speech outlining our relationship with Ormoc and urging everyone to consider donating to a relief organization, such as the Red Cross.

Following all that, I contacted the FCM before the Christmas holidays to enquire about the possibility of it restarting the program that allowed Coquitlam to help Ormoc several years ago. I didn't hear back, so I sent another email this month, this time to a different address at the FCM, repeating my earlier question.

This week, I finally heard back. Here is the partial text of the response I received from Pascal Lavoie, Program Manager for Asia with FCM International:

First of all, I’d like to thank you for contacting us. The devastating event that occurred in the Philippines last October [sic] drew a lot of attention from our members. We appreciate your interest and support in seeking ways to provide assistance to the reconstruction effort that affected communities are facing.

At the moment, we don’t have programming in the Philippines anymore hence our capacity to get involved has been limited. We’ve expressed our support to national politicians and met with staff at DFATD (formerly CIDA) to offer our assistance and discuss opportunities to get involved in the reconstruction effort.

FCM is considering a program to help with the reconstruction phase. However it is unclear if will consider funding such an initiative. Our experience (with similar natural catastrophes in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Haiti) is that it takes some time to put such a program in place (12-18 months). At the moment, we are still at the stage of preliminary discussions.

And there you have it. It's certainly something to keep our eyes on throughout the year.

Factoring in assessed values for 2014

Our home in Eagle Ridge: The assessed value decreased this year.

If you're a homeowner, you probably received your 2014 Property Assessment Notice in the mail last week. And, if you're like many homeowners (especially the thousands of new homeowners in Coquitlam), you might be somewhat confused about the relationship between your property's assessed value and the property taxes you pay to the City every year. So, here's a basic explanation.
First, City Council decided last fall that it needed to raise revenue from residential property taxes by 2.8% in 2014 in order to cover the costs of inflation and increased services, such as the new fire hall on Burke Mountain and two new RCMP officers. This means that, if you own a typical residential property in Coquitlam, your property tax, for city purposes, will increase 2.8% this year.
Second, we must factor in the property assessment issued by the BC Assessment Authority. This year, the authority found that the average Coquitlam home decreased in value by 1.8% increase over last year. (By the way, the average single family home in Coquitlam is valued at $701,000.)
What this means is that, if your property value decreased by the average 1.8% this year, you'll be facing the above-mentioned 2.8% tax increase. But, if your property value decreased by less than that -- or increased --- you'll be paying an incrementally larger increase. If the value of your property declined even more than 1.8%, your tax increase will be less than 2.8%.
For the record, our 33-year-old home in Eagle Ridge was assessed at $624,000 this year, a decrease of $8,000 (or about 1.3%) compared to 2013.
Here's a link to a Tri-City News story about assessments in the province. Here's a link to the BC Assessment Authority website, where you can find pages that explain the process and let you know how you can appeal or complain about your assessed value; deadline for all complaints is January 31, 2014.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to contact me directly at toneill@coquitlam.ca if you have any questions or comments about any of this.
Note: This blog has now been updated with new figures regarding assessed values in Coquitlam.

The always-thorny issue of councillors' pay

Several years ago, Coquitlam council adopted a policy of awarding itself the same annual percentage pay raise that the city's workers receive through the bargaining process. Last night, however, the councillor-in-permanent-opposition-who-sits-among-us (CIPOWSAU) attempted but failed to overturn the policy.

My 'pay stub.'*

CIPOWSAU used the discussion around final reading of the 2014 budget bylaws to raise the issue. Remember: this is a budget that, as I wrote last week, once again lowers the average tax increase facing Coquitlam taxpayers while, at the same time, increases services and programs across a broad spectrum of areas, from police and fire, to parks and culture.
At first, CIPOWSAU wielded some erroneous math in making his argument to kill the 1.75% hike, incorrectly saying at one point that it would result in the mayor receiving a raise in the magnitude of tens of thousands of dollars a year.
In fact, all the raises for all council will amount to $9,850 a year. This, in turn, creates a 0.01% tax increase, which in turn equals 17 cents a year per household.
But, of course, the strongest argument in favour of killing the increase is one of optics, and I certainly understand how it appealing it might look for a cost-conscious council to axe its own increases.
On the other hand, it's also being penny wise and pound foolish, because the logical outcome for a council that refuses to raise its own pay incrementally is that, because of inflation, council's pay would become increasingly minuscule--to the point where, in 15-20 years or so, qualified candidates might very well decide that its not worth the time and effort to be on council. And that would certainly not be in Coquitlam's best interests.
Moreover, a future council would eventually have to take the always-controversial step (remember Port Coquitlam's quandry of a few years ago?) of attempting to bridge the big gap in one big raise--a move that would have a significant negative impact on the homeowners who happen to be paying taxes in that year, while letting previous taxpayers off the hook.
Personally, I didn't need this year's raise, and said as much to my colleagues in private several weeks ago. I also agree with a position advanced by Mayor Richard Stewart last night that the provincial government should take the issue out of all councils' hands by legislating a standardized pay scale reflecting the size of the jurisdiction being governed.
Ultimately, I supported the increase on the principle that a small, incremental raise in councillors' pay is the best way to link current council remuneration to current taxpayers. Delaying increases only serves to unfairly burden the future taxpayer.
In the end, council voted 7-2 (with Bonita Zarrillo siding with CIPOWSAU) to support the increase.

*I've illustrated this blog with a copy of one of my recent pay stubs. It shows that a councillor's salary for two weeks is $1422.12 before taxes. This works out to just under $37,000 a year. On top of that, we receive a $711 bi-weekly indemnity related to our service, plus a car allowance.
You'll see in the bottom left corner of the print-out that gross year-to-date pay amounts to $57,786. I understand that this figure is higher than you'd rightly conclude (if looking at the above numbers) because it reflects lump-sum retroactive payments we received following the approval of the city-workers contract last year.
And, for the record, councillors are not enrolled in any pension plan, gold- or otherwise-plated.

Budget breathing room for taxpayers

By a vote of 8-1 (with the lone dissenter being the usual opponent), Council gave the first three readings to a series of budget bylaws last night. Here are the notes for the speech I delivered in support of the 2014 budget.

I will oppose this budget. Actually, let me change the tensing of that sentence. I would oppose this budget:

• If it didn’t continue lowering the average tax-rate increase.
• If it didn’t continue lowering the residential tax-rate increase.
• If it didn’t continue the one-point tax shift that makes commercial tax-rate increases even lower.
• If it didn’t provide for major new public-safety initiatives.
• If it didn’t respond to taxpayers’ requests for transportation improvements
• And if it didn’t carry with it a major commitment to continually examine city services, to see what should be added and – significantly – what should be stopped.

And so, what does Budget 2014 deliver?

Spirit Square, Coquitlam (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

First, and importantly, it calls for an average tax rate increase of 2.42% -- almost a full half-a-point lower than last year’s increase, which was lower than the year before’s, and which in turn was lower than the year before that. Indeed, since the high-water mark of an average 7.11% increase in 2009, the average tax-rate increase has been on a straight line down. And that’s good.

Hand-in-hand with that, both the residential rate and the commercial rate increases are lower as well, compared to last year. And, because of our continuing commitment to a one-point tax shift, the commercial rate increase will be only 1.8%. This is good news too.

And what about those public-safety initiatives? Four new firefighters and two new RCMP officers represent a pretty major commitment, and so I think we’ve met that standard.

As for transportation improvements, which our annual Ipsos Reid survey continues to ranks very high our citizens’ wish list, this budget commits significant funds to road rehabilitation and road enhancement in every part of Coquitlam.

And what about future decisions? I was very pleased when I heard, as part of our budget deliberations, that our management team was launching a new initiative to identify services and programs that are no longer needed, with the aim of eliminating them….. thus allowing the property-tax-payer to keep a few more dollars in his or her pocketbook or for the city to add new services. The initiative is called the Stop-Doing List, and if there’s one initiative that should never be put on that list, it’s the Stop-Doing List itself!

And so: I had six criteria for the budget, and all six were met.

This doesn’t mean the budget is perfect, from my point of view. The record of our lengthy deliberations shows that I opposed some spending measures that the majority approved. But while the budget is not perfect, it is certainly good enough. And it’s even better when you factor in the major decrease in utilities fees which the mayor mentioned. In fact, it means the average homeowner will pay only $15 more on his or her combined property-tax/utilities bill this coming year. 

But on the strength of its diminishing tax-rate increase alone, a rate which gives us the second-lowest tax increase in more than two decades (the lowest, in 2005, being 2.27%) it is definitely good enough. On the single issue of tax increases -- the one everyone watches, the one that makes the headlines --  it’s certainly better than the budget of 1994 (4.8% average increase), '95 (4.8%), '96 (3.45%), '97 (5.36%), '98 (4.5%), '99 (4.5%), 2000 (5.78%), 2001 (4.9%), 2002 (2.77%), 2003 (4.1%) and, well, you get the picture.

If there is any hesitation among my colleagues over whether to support this budget, let me suggest: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. --meaning that insisting on perfection often results in no improvement at all. If a majority of us voted against this budget, not only would all the hard work we’ve done be put in jeopardy, but the landmark low levels of tax-rate-rise that we’ve achieved might also be threatened.

There’s also something called “the Pareto Principle” or 80–20 rule, which observes that it commonly takes 20% of your effort to complete 80% of a task, while to complete the last 20% of a task—that part of it which it takes to achieve a perfect outcome-- takes 80% of the effort. Considering this, along with the fact that achieving absolute perfection is impossible, leads us to the law of diminishing returns, in which it becomes clear that the closer one gets to achieving perfection, the increasingly inefficient your work becomes.

And so, what does it mean for the budget tonight? As I said before, it’s a good one, but not perfect. But, remember, not only is achieving “perfection” is impossible, but the longer we work trying to achieve perfect, the harder and more inefficient that work becomes, and the greater the chance that we’ll become stalled and achieve nothing at all.

Something is certainly better than nothing.

And this something – this budget which answers the needs of so many of our citizens, from the hopeful new homeowners on Burke Mountain to the actively involved seniors at Dogwood Pavilion, from the commuter looking for better roads to the merchant looking for a lighter tax load – is certainly something worth supporting.

   

The importance of being James Moore

James Moore (macleans.ca)

I had to smile. On the very day I dove into Maclean's "50 Most Important People in Canada" cover story to discover that our very own MP James Moore was named as the 14th biggest wheel in the country, I received a mailer from the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting ripping into the aforementioned Mr. Moore for cutting the CBC's budget--thereby breaking a rather prominent promise he had made.
Not that I found the situation humorous or pleasing or anything. Rather, the smile was more about the irony and the bad timing and the fact that being a politician is a helluva job: up one second and down the next. It was also in sympathy for James the person and the road he has traveled and the heights he has scaled.
I first met James when he was a teenager--a whirlwind of a young man who spoke a thousand miles a minute and a was a true-believer Reformer with a capital-R. He was quite the dynamo as a political worker and then as a talk-show host in Prince George.
And I remember when he decided to run federally at such a young age, just 24, to seek the Canadian Alliance nomination. And then win it. I recall writing a column for the Tri-City News (in the days before I became a regular debater in the Face to Face feature) predicting very big things for the young Mr. Moore, stating that there may come a time when some of us would be proud to say "I knew him when he was just...."
James went on to clobber the Liberal incumbent, a certain Lou Sekora, in the May 2000 general election, and the rest is history.
But not history that has been perfectly recorded. The Maclean's piece on James doesn't get it quite right. For example, its description of his mother as "a teacher-turned-homemaker mother" fails to note a few very important factors. One: his mother was Golf Canada hall-of-fame member Gail Harvey Moore. Two: it was after his mother's death at a relatively young age that the teenaged James came to the realization that he'd better make something of his life, and decided that getting involved in politics was the way to go.  James and I have talked often about that important time of his life, and it's a pity Maclean's wasn't able to chronicle it.
I suspect, however, that there will be many more opportunities for magazine writers and perhaps even historians to more fully report on the life and times of James Moore.

When I was an alleged 'enemy' of human rights

I was saddened to read in this morning's National Post that Jennifer Lynch, the former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, had died at the age of only 63. I had known for a few years that she was ill, but news of her passing, especially at such a relatively young age, was still an unpleasant surprise.

One could say--and, indeed, I feel-- that her death closes the book on an era in Canadian public life

Jennifer Lynch photo in today's National Post.

that saw broadly defined human rights trump the more fundamental right of freedom of speech. This is because Lynch was the head of the CHRC at a time when it had the mandate to prosecute Canadian citizens for, essentially, hurting the feelings of other Canadians. Thankfully, Parliament finally removed that power last year, as the Post story describes.

I wrote often, not only in the Post, but also in the Report and Western Standard magazines, about the injustice of the CHRC's anti-free-speech powers. Most of my pieces dealt with broad philosophical and legal issues. But one, published in the fall of 2009, about the "enemies list" that Lynch said she kept, was particularly personal. Here is that Post op-ed:

When Jennifer Lynch, the prickly princess of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, revealed in an interview with this newspaper last June that she kept a file on the many critics of her renegade fiefdom, I have to admit that my first thought in response to the news was not that of a concerned citizen, outraged that a civil servant charged with protecting human rights was compiling some sort of Nixonian enemies list.

And I certainly wasn’t vexed over the potential adverse consequences, of being included on the enemies list, to high-profile CHRC critics such as Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn; no, they’re big boys and can certainly take care of themselves.

Rather, my first response was actually to hope that I, red-badge-of-courage like, would be named in her file. After all, I’ve been writing critically about the censorious nature of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act for more than a decade and I reasoned that if I hadn’t caught the evil eye of Ms. Lynch by now, one of my professional life’s great passions would somehow be diminished.

I needn’t have fretted because I am pleased to report today that, after submitting a freedom-of-information request over the summer, I am now in possession of a 49-page printout listing the contents of Ms. Lynch’s file, and that two articles bearing my byline are among the 1,001 news articles, columns, op-eds, editorials and blog entries which the Chief Commissioner has collected. Break out the champagne.

Actually, break out the champagne and a cheque for $62,840 because a certain Heather Throop, “Director General, Corporate Management Branch” (of the CHRC, I presume), informed me by way of registered mail that I would need to pay that amount to obtain information beyond a mere listing of the contents. Sadly, I don’t happen to have that sort of money lying around.

My FOI request had sought copies, not only of all the clippings and printouts in Ms. Lynch’s file, but also of any “notes, memos or correspondence” that Ms. Lynch or anyone else in the CHRC may have written that are “directly on any of the clippings or printouts, appended to any of the clippings or printouts, or placed in the aforementioned file.”

I asked for this because I figured that if Ms. Lynch were paranoid enough to maintain such a file (as she was) and then sloppy enough to reveal its existence (as she did), she might also have been angry enough to at least scrawl a telling comment or two on offending articles. I dreamed of uncovering handwritten notes such as, “We’ll watch this one—he’s in trouble!” or “I’ll let Richard know about this, for sure!” (“Richard” being CHRC attack dog Richard Warman.) Such information would surely embarrass the commissioner and, in doing so, would further advance the case against Section 13 and the CHRC.

Alas, Ms. Throop informed me in a three-page missive that any further digging by the CHRC to fulfill my request would entail e-mail searches, electronic records management system searches, typing and reading involving up to 100 employees and 6,284 hours of government time at $10 per hour, hence the $62,840 figure, of which I was requested to immediately send half (or $31,420) to Ottawa to enable my request to proceed. Either that, or narrow my search and reduce the cost accordingly.

The fact that the CHRC wants to charge me for this FOI request puts me in somewhat the same precipitous boat as a defendant ensnared by the CHRC machinery: while a complainant’s every expense is covered by the CHRC, a defendant is forced to foot the bill on his own, and isn’t even allowed to collect costs if he successfully defends himself.

Bottom line: I won’t be digging into any of my RRSPs to further my search for truth and justice and I don’t care to censor my application, so I guess my exploration ends here. But my FOI request has at least accomplished several things, including confirming that Ms. Lynch’s list really does exist and that it contains, not just opinion pieces that are critical of the CHRC, but also news stories about the CHRC and human rights in general, a fact that suggests the commissioner is taking note of critics who are quoted in those news stories.

The entries, which are listed in reverse chronological order, begin with a June 29, 2009 editorial by the Montreal Gazette (“Rights commission threatens our liberty”) and end with a February 16, 2008 column by the Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente (“Human Rights Commissions: A day at the theatre of the absurd…”).

In between, the titles and headlines reveal that Ms. Lynch has been keeping a close eye on both the national media (articles from this paper, for example, account for 16 percent of the entire file) and the regional press (in fact, one of the two entries under my name is of a column I wrote for a twice-weekly newspaper in suburban Vancouver).

One can only conclude that, 1984-like, Big Sister has been watching. And watching very closely, at that.

Culture community thinks big

Artist's conception of new theatre at the Evergreen Cultural Centre.

Council has just wrapped up its two-day budget-requests hearings. Today was devoted primarily to hearing requests from cultural groups, two of whom -- Place des Arts and the Evergreen Cultural Centre -- have especially-major and -costly capital-project desires.
The PDA presentation asked for some significant dollars this year to move ahead with a major expansion of their Maillardville-area facility.
The folks from the ECC weren't quite as advanced in their requests, but did urge council to move ahead with a long-dormant plan to build a major new theatre-- or at least start coordinating/communicating with our neighbouring cities to get planning started.
The ECC presentation was supported by an architect's conception of that much-larger theatre (see above) than the current Studio Theatre. This idea has been on the drawing boards for several years now.
Council has yet to make any decisions, but we did remind everyone that the city is currently in the midst of developing a Parks Recreation and Culture Master Plan--a document that will certainly help us prioritize our needs over the next several years.

Hope for the homeless in our community

Photo from HopeForFreedom.org

Coquitlam Council voted unanimously last night to approve a temporary-use permit to allow Eagle Ridge Bible Fellowship to join the rotation of Tri-Cities-area churches that are relaunching the cold/wet-weather mat program for the next two years--until Coquitlam's permanent shelter at 3030 Gordon opens. This good news was capped by some great news from my Council colleague, Brent Asmundsen.

First, some background: Following several successful seasons, from 2007-2011, of providing emergency shelter to the homeless, the temporary emergency-shelter program changed in 2011-2012, moving from the model of monthly rotations between churches to one in which it was based in just one church, the Grace Campus of Northside Church in Port Coquitlam.

But for reasons that have still not been fully explained, Port Coquitlam council voted last summer to deny Northside the right to continue this year, thus threatening to kill the entire program.

Happily, however, the Hope for Freedom Society was able to organize a new schedule of monthly rotations through other churches in the three Tri-Cities communities. The last "i" to be dotted was Coquitlam's approval of the temporary-use permit for Eagle Ridge Bible Fellowship.

But one other consideration remained: some sort of bus was needed to collect the homeless and deliver them to the emergency shelters at night and, of equal importance to local residents who didn't want indigents hanging around their neighbourhoods, taking the shelter-users back to their normal haunts in the morning.

And that's where Asmundson quietly sprung into action. Working behind the scenes, he not only obtained an out-of-service shuttle bus from Translink, but he also raised $22,800 from several local developers to cover operational costs for at least this year. Asmundson had made no public announcement of this act of community leadership, but Mayor Richard Stewart asked him last night to tell the public what he had done.

And so, his voice cracking with emotion at times, he told the story to the public last night. The audience applause was spontaneous and their admiration genuine. My congratulations to Brent and to all involved in this truly charitable enterprise.