Children's ministry shunning recommendations to help kids

The ministry of children and families is a competency test for government. The Liberals, like the NDP before them, are failing.

They bungled the ministry in their first four years. As the scandals mounted, the government asked Ted Hughes to review the problems.

He blamed botched restructuring and budget cuts, in part. And he made 62 recommendations, including restoration of the independent oversight the Liberals had eliminated.

Premier Gordon Campbell promised to adopt them all. He appointed Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as Representative for Children and Youth. Oversight and advocacy and complaint resolution were important for children in trouble, the government conceded.

But four years after the Hughes report, the ministry is ignoring the office. And Children's Minister Mary Polak looks badly out of touch.

Turpel-Lafond reports to a legislature committee, which met this month for an update. She told the MLAs most ministries had responded to her recommendations in two reports from last year.

But not the children's ministry, which had by far the largest role. Polak told reporters she was "perplexed." Not once, but 11 times in a 16-minute scrum. (Publiceyeonline.com has video.)

"We have been regularly meeting with her," Polak said. "She's aware of how we intended to be responding. Some of the reports, of course, have yet to be responded to. Some we have responded to."

The representative was clearer.

She told the committee about Kids, Crime and Care: Health and Well-Being of Children in Care, released last February. It found children in the government's care - some 9,000 this year - were more likely to be involved with the criminal justice system than to graduate from high school.

We claim responsibility for these children and then fail them. The report, delivered to the government a year ago, remember, had sensible recommendations.

Take one. After studying the factors that snared children in crime, the representative recommended that each time a child was involved with the justice system, the plan of care would be reviewed within 30 days to include steps to deal with the criminal behaviour.

If your son or daughter got in trouble, Turpel-Lafond told the committee, that's what you would do. You would look at their stresses, their friends, whether drugs are a problem. You would do everything to get them back on track.

And children in care need the same help.

The recommendation called for the ministry to have the first step - a plan to report quarterly on children in care involved with the justice system - by last November.

But a year after the report, the ministry hasn't responded to the recommendation.

It doesn't have to adopt the measure. The ministry could judge the recommendation not needed or impractical. "It's perfectly fine," Turpel-Lafond said, "to say we reject your recommendation."

But some response is required.

"In order for oversight to work and for change to happen when we do major pieces of work like this, there has to be engagement," she said.

And in her view - not really refuted by Polak - there has not been.

The second report, completed last July, dealt with the terrible story of a baby taken from his parents because they couldn't afford housing. He was injured and permanently disabled while in care. Now he is back with his parents.

The representative's first recommendation said that by Jan. 1 the ministry should have a policy for front-line staff that every effort should be made to avoid taking children from their parents because of poor housing. (Children need their parents and it's cheaper to help with housing than to pay for foster care.)

The ministry, Turpel-Lafond said, has not responded.

Something has gone wrong. If the process were working, Polak wouldn't have been perplexed.

Even days later, when the Public Affairs Bureau released its written statement on the problems, there was nothing about the ministry's actual response to the recommendations.

Polak is to present at the committee's next meeting on March 3. She needs to have real answers.

Footnote: It's unclear why the process has broken down so badly. But Polak or the committee is going to have to find a way to get it back on track.

Once more, the Danes provoke us

We are, once again, on the brink of conflict with the Danes, this time over shrimp.

It does seem a little odd that a country that destroyed the East Coast cod fishery is claiming the high ground on conservation.

But it does give me an excuse to post this column from 2005, when Hans Island loomed as our own Falklands.

A father’s advice, on the eve of war with Daneland

VICTORIA - Son, I know you’re ready to serve your country.
Art school is fine. Perhaps you’ll go back there some day.
But right now, it’s important to stand up to the Danish war machine, before they launch a sneak attack from Daneland and crush the non-existent inhabitants of Hans Island.
No, that’s not near Saltspring. Don’t you students watch the news?
Hans Island is in the north somewhere between Greenland and some Canadian cold place. Defence Minister Bill Graham angered the war-mongering, cheese-loving Danes when he flew over the island in a helicopter and, in a rare carefree moment, said ‘Hey, let’s land on that rock and take some pictures.'
Provocation, the Danes whined, scoffing their fancy open-faced eel sandwiches. Eel sandwiches, son. These people are barbarians, who have never even grasped the concept that a sandwich requires two pieces of bread.
Now the Danes are ready to do battle to try and take away an important Canadian rocky outcrop, which they falsely claim as their own.
Sure, Hans Island is nothing special. A flat rock in a cold ocean, about 100 metres wide and 3,000 metres long. Even birds aren’t dumb enough to live there, and based on that penguin movie they are not picky.
But darn it, son, Bill Graham says it belongs to us. And if we aren’t willing to support a man who has spent a lifetime travelling the world preaching the Gospel in overheated arenas, can we really be Canadians?
Yes, it’s a useless lump of rock today.
But wait a few centuries and global warming will turn Hans Rock into a strategic must-have, our government says. Cruise ships and oil tankers will be booting it through the Northwest Passage as if it was a police-free shortcut home from the bar on Friday night.
Hans Island could be our toll booth, or help us protect the environment, or something. And maybe there’s oil, or kryptonite, waiting to be discovered.
Anyway, that’s not the point, son. This is about sovereignty, and national pride.
Those Danes are laughing at us, an insult made more cruel because of their normal melancholy. They’re taking breaks from watching their beloved women’s handball games to sneer at our way of life, wandering around with their freakishly large dogs, munching their beloved Danish pastries, telling each other Canadian jokes.
They’ve been tormenting us for years, those Victor Borge loving lowlanders.
Consider Ole Kirk Christansen, his company supposedly making ironing boards, stepladders and wooden toys, flying under the radar. In 1955 Christansen struck, unleashing Lego. Three generations of Canadian parents have spent the best years of their lives on their knees each evening, picking up hundreds of tiny plastic blocks, inevitably missing the ones that will later stab into their heels.
The coming conflict won’t be easy, son. It took Germany less than four hours to conquer Denmark in 1940, but we aren’t Germany. Denmark has about twice as many tanks as Canada, and air and sea forces are evenly matched. (Although we outnumber them six to one in population.) We need to negotiate rules of engagement that allow some sort of time-out if anybody gets hurt or one of our submarines catches on fire.
I know what you’re thinking, son.
Is this really your fight? How come I’m talking so tough for somebody who never fought anyone? Where is Daneland? What don’t Graham and his Danish counterpart fight this out on the island, with an appropriate split of the pay-per-view money? What’s with all the question marks?
But ultimately this is simple. The enemy isn’t just trying to take our freedom, or extract some revenge because Aqua was a global one-hit wonder. (Though Barbie Girl was catchy.) No, they hate our freedom, and our liberty.
It’s tough to go to war.
It’s especially tough when the whole conflict would have been ignored if it wasn’t summer and the media desperately short of real news stories.
But life is cruel. Good luck, son. Bring us back some cheese.
Footnote: The Danes have a secret weapon - “hygge.” Hygge is a Danish term for a happy life, suggesting a "warm, fuzzy, comfortable feeling of well-being," a life of good food, good company, wine, nice furniture, good music. The risk, of course, is that our brave young warriors may end up lounging on an oiled teak chaise, knocking back Aquavit and herring. Be strong, son.

Tough decisions on rationing health care

A Vancouver Province news story last month indirectly raised one of those health care issues no one wants to talk about.

Cutbacks would mean 2,450 fewer surgeries in the Lower Mainland, the article said. The excuse was the Olympics, but really it's a cost-cutting measure. (Otherwise, the lost surgeries could have been made up during the rest of the year.)

The reporter found people to put a human face to the story.

One woman said she urgently needed a new hip. "I'm in pain, but the medications they give me for pain make me sick," she told the reporter. "I'm confined to a wheelchair when all I need is hip replacement surgery."

She hasn't even been given a possible date for surgery because of the "Olympic slowdown."

Here's what stopped me. She was also 91.

Health care remains affordable; governments have just been reluctant to allocate the needed money, judging lower taxes a bigger priority. With good management and system reform, it will remain affordable. (Though we're lagging on both counts.)

But rationing care is part of the reality in the near term, longer if we don't improve efficiency.

And the notion of a hip replacement for a 91-year-old raises questions about just how we're going to decide who gets care.

Right now, it's informal. Specialists and committees make judgments about who should be treated first based on urgency and other factors.

Some people are constantly bumped down the list. It's tough to have confidence in fairness. (And of course, people with money pay for private care - supposedly illegal - to avoid rationing.)

We need to talk about the process honestly, to improve fairness and cost-effectiveness and to allow informed decisions about the current level of rationing.

The issue is sensitive. But better to discuss the criteria for rationing than to allow it to happen without any public input or assessment.

It doesn't need to be - shouldn't be - entirely arbitrary, based on age, for example.

But take a person of 91 in the queue for a hip replacement. A new hip can last 25 years. So spending the money on a 40-year-old buys many more years of benefit. The risks of complications or an unsuccessful outcome also rise sharply, according to recent studies.

Ideally, we decide both deserve timely surgery so they don't suffer and live shrunken lives.

But if that won't happen, we should be upfront about how and why the decision was made.

The discussion alarms people. For instance, should people who are seriously overweight have the same access to knee and hip replacements?

It's not a moral judgment. The surgery is riskier, outcomes poorer and the artificial joints don't last as long. A few years ago, some British National Health managers faced a budget crunch and quit doing knee and hip replacements for anyone with a Body Mass Index over 30. If you were five feet nine inches tall and weighed 205 pounds, no new hip until you lost weight. (Some doctors in B.C. take the same approach, but the system doesn't.)

The British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence looked at one of the most controversial rationing questions. What if the patient's illness is self-inflicted?

Should a child who needs a liver transplant wait in line behind someone whose illness is caused by years of alcohol abuse? After all, addiction is a disease.

The institute decided that what mattered was not past behaviour, but future prospects. A child with a new liver thrives; an alcoholic, statistically, is at high risk of returning to drinking.

This all started with the 91-year-old waiting for a hip transplant. But there are two issues. When do we want to say no treatment for you. It's not worth the money.

And how will make those decisions.

Right now, we pretend they aren't being made. That's cowardly, and it's keeping us from a serious health care discussion.

Footnote: Here's one of the most interesting numbers. Of all the health care costs you occur in your life, 35 per cent will typically come in the last six months. And then you'll die. Beyond efforts to improve your comfort, it hardly seems smart spending.

B.C. Lotteries woos mayor with free Games tickets

Good Michael Smyth column in The Province on what's happening to some of the Games tickets purchased with public money - specifically by the B.C. Lottery Corp.

It has offered free Games tickets and hotel accommodation from mayors in towns with mini-casino gaming centres and casinos. That's money that comes out of the pockets of losing gamblers and comes out of the profits that flow into provincial revenues. And the value is easily in the thousands of dollars.

Chilliwack Mayor Sharon Gaetz said no. It seemed wrong, and it also seemed illegal, she said. Municipal politicians aren't allowed to accept gifts under the Community Charter.

That raises a good question. B.C. Lotteries seeks lots of favours from mayors and councillors, from support for gambling expansion to support for eased liquor regulations (drinking gamblers lose more).

So how is this not an improper attempt to secure future favours, or at the least an effort that raises the appearance of impropriety?

And if B.C. Lotteries doesn't expect any future benefit, why is it giving away taxpayers' money?

Read Smyth's column here.

Class-size ruling means more stress on schools

This was already going to be a tough year for schools in B.C.

School districts have been closing classrooms and cutting costs for years now. Collectively, they estimate that they will be $300 million short of what’s needed to keep education quality at the same level after the March budget.

Trustees, of course, tend to be advocates for education.

But the government’s own numbers indicate a big problem for education in the province.

That was made more complicated by an arbitration award this month on the way class size and composition limits are handled by school districts.

At a time when districts are likely going to be looking at more oversize classes, the ruling means they will be paying more to teachers as a result.

Which will, in turn, lead to more oversize classes.

This all goes back to 2002. The teachers’ union and school districts had negotiated contractual limits on class size, with some flexibility.

The Liberal government used legislation to strip the provisions from contracts in 2002 and made it illegal for teachers and districts to negotiate any class size limits in future.

That turned out to be a mistake. Class sizes jumped in schools across the province. Parents weren’t happy.

In 2006, the government acknowledged the stumble and introduced legislation setting limits on class size and on the number of students in a class requiring special assistance.

It was a reasonable solution. For teachers, class sizes are a workplace issue. Unions usually deal with those in bargaining.

But the appropriate class size and composition decisions are also questions of educational effectiveness. Those decisions shouldn’t be made as a result of labour bargaining. Elected school trustees and MLAs have the responsibility and can be held accountable.

The government’s effort was flawed though. It didn’t give school districts enough money to comply with the law.

While the legislation allowed schools to have oversize classes, or more special-needs students in classroom, after consultation with the teacher, the process was poorly defined.

And there was no provision for enforcing the law.

So it didn’t work. In the 2008-09 school year, 3,336 classes had more students than the limits called for. Almost 11,000 classes had more than three students with special needs called for in the legislation.

Not all those were a problem. In many cases, teachers, principals and superintendents agreed the extra students could be accommodated, as the legislation envisioned.

But the arbitration award found that in many cases that wasn’t the case. Teachers weren’t really consulted and the class sizes violated the law.

The districts were ordered to give the teachers paid time off as compensation, which will mean higher costs.

The decision was based on small number of test grievances. The B.C. Teachers Federation said thousands more cases will now go forward.

This all comes as school districts are set to receive a funding increase of well under one per cent; at the same all costs are rising. Teachers, for example, are set for a two-per-cent base pay increase.

The Education Ministry’s response to the ruling has been dismissive. Not our problem, it says. School districts should sort it out.

But arbitrator James Dorsey didn’t see it that way. He noted that when the class size legislation was introduced, the government said it was needed to move toward the first of the province’s five great goals by making B.C. the “best educated” jurisdiction in North America.

If it’s that important, and if government took away school districts’ right to negotiate class sizes, then the government must provide enough money to meet the standards. Or it could change the law.

In short, the government can’t make a big deal about the importance of class size in education and then make it impossible for school districts to comply with the law.

It’s a useful ruling. Or it will be if the Education Ministry takes its responsibility seriously.

Footnote: The arbitrator’s judgment offered a reminder of the relevance of legislature debates. His interpretation of the law and its meaning was based in part on the explanation cabinet ministers provided in the legislature.

New York Daily News on the pot Olympics

You knew it was coming....

Progressive laws in Vancouver make next month's Winter games the Pot Olympics

BY NATHANIEL VINTON
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER

Saturday, January 30th 2010, 4:52 PM

AP

Ross Rebagliati is best known as the Canadian snowboarder who won a gold medal at the 1998 Olympic Games in Nagano, then tested positive for marijuana.

Gold, silver, bronze … green?

The Winter Games commence Feb. 12 in Vancouver, British Columbia, the most marijuana-friendly host city in Olympic history, a place where restrictions on pot are loose enough to allow "consumption lounges," some of which are extending their hours to accommodate a wave of jet-lagged international visitors.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/01/30/2010-01-30_end_zone_smoke_rings.html#ixzz0e8rAEUVu

Bureaucrats bungled privacy breach, review finds

The first reviews into a major privacy breach last year paint a picture of government bumbling that's so bizarre it's literally had to believe.
Imagine the police show up at your workplace and arrest an employee. That's what happened in the Ministry of Children and Families in Victoria last April 7.
They took him away and, armed with a search warrant, went through his house. The next day, the RCMP told the ministry they had found government files with names, addresses, social insurance numbers and other personal information in his house - everything needed for identity theft.
Anywhere I've worked, that would be a big deal. For sure, the bosses all the way up the chain would be told about it by the line managers.
Not in government. His bosses told him to stay home for a few days and then he was sick for a couple of weeks. His manager met with an HR person and talked about the kind of files found in his home. They never noticed, apparently, that the files were actually from the Housing Ministry, which the employee had transferred from 18 months earlier.
So they concluded he had just taken some work home. He was back on the job April 27.
They weren't the only ones to know about the investigation. The Finance Ministry risk management officers had been told in February. They never took the issue anywhere near senior management either.
That's baffling. Either those involved were incompetent, government bureaucracy is incredibly rigid or people have decided its best, for whatever reason, to keep the senior managers in the dark. Or they were hoping to cover up the problem. (The last assumption is supported by the fact that even though managers were advised to report the breach to the privacy commissioner in July, they didn't.)
Three weeks after the employee returned to work, his managers and the HR people got around to a meeting to talk about why police had arrested him.
The issue wasn't just about the files. The government had hired the man as Richard Ernest Wainwright. But the RCMP found had two drivers' licences, the other in the name of Richard Perran.
At the May meeting, he was asked about that. He wanted to distance himself from his past, Wainright said. But the stunningly incurious managers didn't ask him why. They didn't ask why he had the files at home. They seem, based on the review, quite useless.
By July, the managers knew more. As Perran, he had a criminal record from 2006 for fraud and identity theft.
Again, most managers might have considered that, those files and the RCMP investigation and, even if they didn't do anything, alerted more senior managers - probably the deputy minister, the top manager in the ministry.
But they didn't. Wainwright was a good employee so they decided to support him.
Finally, in August, an assistant deputy minister in the housing ministry was briefed on everything - the criminal record, the files, the fact there was no reason for him to have them. The ADM did nothing and didn't act on a recommendation that he notify the Ministry of Children and Families.
On Oct. 16, finally, the employee was suspended without pay.
On Oct. 20, Citizens Services Ben Stewart - and the Public Affairs Bureau - were notified. The employee was fired. So was his wife, who also had a sensitive job.
But the public wasn't told about any of this.
And it took until Dec. 4 - and a lot of pressure - before the government announced reviews of all this.
They found, unsurprisingly, that had been a big mess.
"The entire course of events is illustrative of a series of missed opportunities and inaction, related to gaps in information, mistaken assumptions, limited knowledge and insufficient awareness," the review found.
There were lots of meetings, but departments didn't share information, managers didn't seek answers to obvious questions and no one acted. No one would be fired, because no one did anything glaringly wrong, the government says.
Read the reviews on the citizens' services ministry website. You'll feel much more nervous about government's competence.
Footnote: These were internal reviews. A more useful report could come from the province's privacy commissioner. But that has been delayed, in part because the government hired commissioner David Loukidelis as deputy attorney general but failed to have a replacement acting commissioner in place immediately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The writing on the site is inexcusable though.

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

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

The section scored -1 for reading ease.

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

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

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

Good news: Johns are just normal guys

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

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

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

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

Olympic fever? More like a collective headache

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

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

Now I'm not so sure.

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

But that was then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lots of words, little action on family violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As well, Heed promised studies.

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

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

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

All very nice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that's not what this is about.

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

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

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

And they all died.

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

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

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

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

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

Why parents should support FSA tests

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

That would be a great loss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jody Paterson: Seniors face huge care cost increases

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

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

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

Read the rest here.

Giving to Haiti

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

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

NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release 2010

PREM0008-000031 Jan. 14, 2010

Office of the Premier

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

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

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

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

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

-30-

Seniors’ care recommendations snubbed by government

I doubt that growing old has ever been much fun. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And not enough is being done to face the challenges.

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

Harper paying a price for shutting down Parliament

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

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

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

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

It's also undemocratic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forest carbon credits complex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian R. Smart, RPF, RPBio.

Halfmoon Bay

Bracing for the soaring dementia toll

 Many of us are going to end up needing care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless we act now.

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

Domestic violence victims not a B.C. priority

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

Domestic violence isn't a government priority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paying companies not to cut down trees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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