Today I had the enormous honour of being awarded an honourary Doctor of Science degree from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario (I also gave a seminar at the McMaster Centre for Climate Change and the School of Geography and Earth Sciences in the afternoon). This is an incredible honour especially since McMaster has such a fine reputation as one of Canada’s leading institutions for scientific research. Below is a copy of my acceptance speech which touches upon the importance of evidence-based decision-making and the critical role that science plays in informing, rather than prescribing, policy.

McMaster University DSc Acceptance Speech

A video of this speech is available on YouTube (from 20:25 to 31:45)

Chancellor Labarge, President Deane, honoured guests, members of the governing bodies, faculty, students and friends.

It is an enormous honour for me to stand before you today and accept this Honourary Doctor of Science Degree from McMaster University. I wish to express my sincerest thanks to those who nominated me for this distinction.

Ever since I was a little boy, I have always been fascinated by the wonders of science. I grew up in Victoria, British Columbia on the west coast of Canada — the eastern boundary of the Pacific Ocean. Like many my age at the time, I was enthralled by Jacques Cousteau and his undersea adventures. I remember being in grades 2 and 3 and asking Santa Claus for books about the oceans. Little did I know, I would end up spending much of my career studying the role of the ocean in past, present and future climate change and climate variability.

Science plays a critical role in our society. It is the catalyst for innovation and discovery that has enabled us to evolve over the last several millennia from living in small villages and towns supported by subsidence farming to the globally-connected internet age of today.

Before exploring the importance of science in modern society in more detail, please let me differentiate between the different categories of research.

Scientific research is typically conducted within one of three different settings: universities (which many of you are familiar with), federal and provincial government laboratories or industry. Research in each of these different settings is governed by different overarching mandates.

University research is typically curiosity-driven. Individual researchers seek to answer scientific questions that interest them. They apply for grants to support their research and they are expected to disseminate their results to diverse audiences. Over the years, their research interests will move from one subject to another as they seek to explore new scientific issues. However, it is this curiosity-driven research that typically leads to the greatest scientific discoveries.

Tenured university scientists are protected by academic freedom that is an essential and founding principle of the university system. Academic freedom protects the researcher from being able to speak his or her views freely without fear of retribution from those who govern the university.

Federal and provincial government research, on the other hand, is almost always targeted and mission-oriented. It is science that is typically conducted in the service of and for society. For example, Natural Research Canada’s Canmet-MTL lab, located in McMaster’s innovation park, has a mandate to develop and deploy technologies to improve all aspects of producing and using value-added products derived from metals and minerals.

Another example comes from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada that has 19 research centres across Canada each with their own different focus. In St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for instance, the Atlantic Cool Climate Crop Research Centre has a mission to “develop technologies which diversify and add value to rural economies in cool summer regions.”

The third category of scientific research involves industry. Here research is normally conducted in order to sustain market competitiveness or to increase shareholder value. Shareholder investments and corporate loans or profits provide the revenue for industry research.

Industry research is less accessible to the public. For example, we would expect the taxpayer to have access to the results from federally funded health research on any potential side effects of a particular drug. However, a start up biomedical drug-company would likely not want to publicly disclose all of its research until patents protected its products.

The distinction between public and privately funded research becomes a little blurry in the area of university-industry partnerships. University researchers are often asked to sign confidentiality agreements when they engage in research in collaborative projects with industry. Yet very often, industry contributions to a research program are matched by funds from government granting agencies. It is difficult to determine what if any of this research should be publicly available. And there is a growing, and some would argue disturbingly so, trend towards the requirement of more and more industry funding as part of any university-based application for research funding from one of our federal scientific research granting councils.

In recent years, the ability of federal government scientists to freely speak about their science has been severely limited. This is deeply troubling for two reasons.

First, the taxpayer ultimately funds the research conducted in federal laboratories. Without access to the scientific results, the taxpayer is unaware of their existence making it easier for the federal government to scale back its in-house research capacity. Second, the taxpayer will not have access to what could be crucial information that would allow them to form an opinion on any given societally relevant issue such as food production, resource extraction or global warming.

Now, more than ever, it is critically important for academics and you, the graduating class of 2014, to engage people in discussions about the value of science in our society. Federal government and curiosity-driven university science is under threat. And it needs the support of all of us.

Science is a way of thinking. It’s a way of understanding a particular phenomenon by developing an explanation of all known observations of that phenomenon. Yet science that isn’t effectively communicated is ineffective science. The greatest lab bench scientific discovery in the world is entirely useless, unless it is effectively communicated to others who are then able to also see its greatness.

But remember, whether scientific research is undertaken in industry, government or university based facilities, makes little difference as to its role in the formulation of policy.

Science can never be used to prescribe a particular policy. However, science is able to examine the implications of various policy options. Policy can also be developed or modified to reflect the latest science. In the end, the formulation of policy requires engaging a variety of stakeholders including special interests, religious groups, and industry. It also requires dealing with ethical, political, legal, financial and social issues including any potential application of the precautionary principle.

Science should feed into policy discussions, but in and of itself science cannot and should not dictate what policy directions should be taken. At the same time, science and scientific uncertainty should not be deliberately misrepresented or suppressed by special interests in order to influence public policy in a particular direction. And as scientists, it behoves us to defend our work to those who ultimately fund it, which, in the case of university and government based research, is the taxpayer.

Today, more than ever, science has an important role to play in our society as the world grapples with grand challenges like global warming, feeding the world’s ever growing population and transforming our energy systems into those that are more sustainable. Yet today, like never before, science and its role in society are under threat. Please let me explain further.

As I mentioned earlier, in science one develops theories to explain all known observations of a particular phenomenon. Science has an important role to play in what I like to term evidence-based decision-making. Yet science can be inconvenient to what I like to refer to as decision-based evidence making. Decision based evidence making involves taking an ideological position and searching for evidence to support the ideological position while conveniently ignoring information that would undermine it.

Not only does science have an important role to play in informing policy, but scientists have an important role to play in our political arena.

And that’s not just about voting today in your provincial election!

In law, the person with the most convincing argument wins a debate. In science, the person with the most convincing evidence wins the debate. I believe that we have too many lawyers and not enough scientists in politics and I hope that a number of you will consider putting your scientific talents to work in the political realm in the years ahead. It’s not for everyone. But we need more evidence-based decision makers in our democratic institutions.

I still have those books on the ocean that Santa Claus gave me back when I was in Grades 2 and 3. They are proudly displayed in my library and I frequently look at them and reminisce. While they may be outdated because of the incredible advances in ocean science that have occurred in the last several decades, one thing hasn’t changed. And that’s my fascination in the wonders of science.

I hope that you the grad class of 2014 also live a lifetime enjoying the wonders of science and the excitement of communicating your love of science to those around you. But don’t forget to remember those professors, teachers, friends and family members who were there for you when you needed them. And every once in a while, thank them – because your success is also their success.

The BC Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth is seeking input on youth mental health issues. The Committee will be meeting with stakeholders and experts on this important issue and they are also inviting written submissions from the public until Friday, July 25, 2014.

The Committee is an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly.

Interested individuals may make a written submission, or learn more about the work of the committee at: https://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/cay.

Today I was up in Question Period and I took the opportunity to quiz the government about the effects of the recently announced Russia-China natural gas deal on its vision for economic prosperity from a generational LNG opportunity. The government clearly remains confident that their LNG dream will become a reality. It’s evident that there still is no backup plan in case it doesn’t come to fruition.

Below I reproduce the question and answer session from Hansard. Unfortunately, I didn’t get an answer to my supplemental question.

A. Weaver: The government has promised British Columbians a generational opportunity of prosperity through development of an LNG industry.

We’ve been promised a $100 billion prosperity fund, more than 100,000 jobs, a trillion-dollar increase in GDP. We’ve been promised a debt-free B.C., the elimination of the PST, thriving schools and hospitals.

[Applause.]

Hon. Speaker, they should wait for the rest of the question.

Russia, with about 20 times the natural gas reserves as all of Canada combined, just signed a $400 billion 30-year deal with China to provide them with natural gas at a cost of around $10 per million Btu. It’s projected to cost about $6 to $8 per million Btu to get gas to Asia. Natural gas is currently trading at about $4.50 per million Btu in North America. This means that B.C. natural gas is simply not competitive with the new 30-year price target set in Asia.

My question to the Minister of Natural Gas Development is this. What’s the backup plan for economic prosperity in B.C. if its LNG goal is not realized?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I want to thank the member for his question, the first question on LNG in four months in this Legislative Assembly during question period. I want to tell the member this.
Last week British Columbia hosted the most successful government-sponsored conference in the history of the province on liquefied natural gas — or anything, for that matter — in Vancouver. During that conference a tentative agreement between China and Russia was actually announced, which might be able to supply maybe 10 percent of the growth in the Chinese market in natural gas if it actually ever gets built. The distance of the pipeline and the time indicates it will take decades to do.

I sat down with the CEOs and presidents and senior people from all the major companies that are in British Columbia today with regards to liquefied natural gas. Not one of them…. They all told me that this is not a game changer for them. They are still confident in British Columbia. They know we can compete with them globally.

We know the gas will not arrive at the cities, particularly on the coast, in China at the price that was quoted in the press release. It is just not possible. We actually know our prices will be competitive with China, and they tell us they’re still coming and they’re still investing in British Columbia.
Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Japan is in the process of turning back on its nuclear plants. The Queensland gas fields in Australia are coming on line. Russia is expanding its LNG capacity through Vladivostok. The U.S. is ready to go with LNG exports. Qatar has more than ten times the reserves of Canada. China has more than three times the shale gas reserves of Canada. There is no shortage of natural gas out there to meet world demand.
The reality is that not a single company has made a final investment decision in the British Columbia LNG industry. Yet we have put all our eggs in one basket, and in the words of Preston Manning at the last B.C. Energy Conference in Fort St. John, we’re counting our chickens before the rooster has even entered the hen house.

My question to the Minister of Energy and Mines is this. Will he commit to working towards positioning B.C. as a global leader in the clean tech sector, which will serve as the foundation of tomorrow’s economy, and if so, how?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we do know where the supplies and the reserves are of natural gas in the world. We do know that we can compete on that world market. We have been told that specifically by major companies like Shell and Chevron and Exxon Mobil and BG and Petronas and others. They have actually spent in this province to date well in excess of probably $8 billion or $9 billion in getting towards working on their final investment decision, designing plants and what have you.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the members opposite want to heckle, because they don’t want to admit that they don’t actually support a vision for the future of British Columbia. They don’t support liquefied natural gas. They don’t support the opportunity. But the reality is this.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: These people have sat down with us. We’ve worked out the financial parameters. We know that we’re competitive globally. We know we’re going to get a final investment decision, and we know we will be successful on this file.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the members opposite are heckling because they are so nervous about the fact that they are opposed to liquefied natural gas in B.C. But I can tell you this, Member opposite. I’ll tell you this very simply. You doubted my optimism going into the election last year; don’t doubt my optimism in going onto this file.

Bill 24, the agricultural land commission amendment act is continuing to be debated in the legislature. We are now debating an NDP motion:

“That Bill (No. 24) not be read a second time now but the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations.”

Yesterday I spoke in support of the NDP amendment. The text of my speech is reproduced below.

Today the government further introduced a closure motion which means that they will bring the Bill to a vote before the sessions ends. The NDP, Independent Member V. Huntington from Delta South and I are all working together to try and convince the government that this Bill should not be passed.

A. Weaver: I wish I were so eloquent as the member for Cowichan Valley. I am enthralled every time the member speaks. It’s truly the most imaginative and entertaining speeches in the House, and I turn to the channel to watch each and every one of them, and I will be quoting several times the member for Cowichan Valley in my address to the amendment brought forward to us by the member for Nelson-Creston, who I am very grateful to for bringing this motion to the House.

I remind us all here that what we are debating is the motion “That Bill (No. 24) not be read a second time now but the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations.”

I rise today to give my support to this amendment. When I took my place in speaking to Bill 24 two weeks ago, I argued that it failed in three main areas. It’s important for me to briefly outline these concerns so that I can demonstrate how this amendment addresses them.

The first point I raised was that there was not adequate notice given to this House or to the people of British Columbia of the government’s intentions to alter the operation of the ALR. There was nothing in the Liberal election campaign about this. I frankly fail to see how this has absolutely anything to do with the core review.

The second is that despite the promises of full consultation, the government failed to provide an adequate forum for opinions to be heard and continued to push this bill forward, despite widespread opposition. Even the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review acknowledged publicly on March 27 of this year when he said: “I know that we could have done a better job of consultations, and I take my mea culpa.”

I think it’s important to take a look at how the Oxford English Dictionary defines the term “mea culpa.” Here’s what it says: “Used as an exclamation or statement acknowledging one’s guilt or responsibility for an error.” So here we have the minister publicly recognizing that the government did not seek consultation on amending the ALC and the ALR, but he simply doesn’t care. Who needs a social licence for change? Who needs to consult with British Columbians? Heck, let’s just go like gangbusters to start dismantling any iconic institution within British Columbia.
Has the government not learned anything from what happened when they brought in the harmonized sales tax, otherwise known as the HST? I know many constituents who actually voted against the HST in the B.C. referendum, despite actually agreeing that the HST was better for business and supporting the tax because they thought it was good for the economy. They did so because they did not believe that they were consulted and felt that the process of bringing it in was undemocratic. Sure, you elect a government to govern, but you don’t elect a government to govern autocratically.

The third reason why, two weeks ago, I argued that Bill 24 was troubling is that the evidence put forward by soil scientists from across the province suggests that this is a poor piece of public policy. It’s designed to help a few at the expense of many.

I’m in support of this amendment, as it addresses my concerns regarding the need for public consultation and the importance of hearing voices from a diversity of British Columbians. By supporting this amendment, a thorough public engagement process can take place. It would allow government to solicit input from those who would be affected by this bill. It would also force government to more fully account for and address the evidence that many of us have been presenting in opposition to this bill.

For example, some of the statements concerning B.C.’s agricultural land put forward by the government to defend the bill is at odds with what our own expert soil scientists are telling us here, from our academic institutions in British Columbia. As a number of members have now noted, this bill appears to be a case of decision-based evidence making. Some, like my friend the member for Cowichan Valley, would call this jiggery-pokery.

Sending this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Finance would help alleviate this concern. It would allow the government to attempt to gain a social licence for Bill 24. It would give the government an opportunity to convince British Columbians that there’s no jiggery-pokery going on.

That’s such a wonderful word. It’s absolutely a wonderful word, and I think it’s never overused, and in this particular case here, it is entirely correct and appropriate. I hope to see many of my colleagues on opposition use the word to describe what we have before us here today, in the days ahead, as we discuss this bill.

Although I’ve heard from the government that they will not be supporting this amendment, I still have hope that if our arguments are persuasive enough, some members in government will reconsider and plead within their caucus to allow a free vote. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful signal to British Columbians if members of government stood with their constituents and actually supported the amendment.

I remind you: it’s the amendment that Bill 24 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and, further, that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations.

To the members of the government, I ask you this: how many of you knew that you were running on a platform that included the beginning of the dismantling of the ALR and ALC? I suspect it’s none. Well, perhaps it’s one. As I mentioned before, the Hansard record shows that members of the Finance and Government Services Committee were surprised and unaware that input for the core review of the ALR and ALC was part of their expanded terms of reference.

I’ve received numerous letters from my constituents concerning this bill and in support of this amendment. I have received numerous letters from across the province of British Columbia concerning this bill and, in particular, the amendment before us. I’ve not received a single letter in support of Bill 24 or against the amendment before us. This is why it’s clear to me that British Columbians need the opportunity to have their voices heard. This can only be done by supporting the amendment before us.

Please allow me to outline some of the reasons why this bill needs to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I’ll do that in the words of a number of comments I’ve received through my constituency office, and I’ll do so briefly and selectively.

Here is my first example:

“I also want to express concern that this Liberal government seems to be doing everything in its power to destroy this province and everything we love. As a citizen, I feel powerless, and I hope that by writing this e-mail you know the way I feel. I can’t speak for anybody else, but this feeling is very generalized, although not many know what to do about it. I feel extremely disappointed about the way politics is harming us these days. Between the federal Conservatives and the provincial Liberals, we are slowly but surely losing everything that we have been and are proud of being Canadian. I don’t know if there’s anything you can do, but I thought you should know the opinion and concerns of a citizen in your area.“

This constituent’s e-mail strikes at the very heart of the matter. The government does not have a social licence to move forward with this bill and so needs to refer it to committee as part of the process of trying to gain such a social licence.

Here’s another selection from a letter I received

“I urge you not to make any changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act that would have the effect of weakening the protection of agricultural land. Please bear in mind that the Liberal Party did not seek or receive any mandate from the people of British Columbia on this issue in the last election. There have been no public consultations. I oppose proposed changes that would make it easier to use zone 2 agricultural land for non-farm uses.”

Yet another — again very selective.

“I’m writing to you as a concerned B.C. resident to urge you to strengthen and protect our ALR farmland. Public consultation has been promised, and I’m asking the government to make sure that this happens in a meaningful way. We need” — in capital letters — “all our farmland preserved as such. Canada is not a food-secure nation, and we need to do all that we can to protect what farmland does currently exist. It should be a top governmental priority.”

These are people who are responding with respect to, specifically, the amendment before us, requesting consultation, desperately seeking means and ways for their voices to be heard in the dismantling of this iconic institution here in British Columbia, the agricultural land reserve.

That e-mail went on and said:  “There are some fundamental flaws in Bill 24….” I recognize that we are discussing the amendment to it, but in outlining some of these flaws, it’s important to see why this constituent and others desperately want to have an opportunity to be consulted.

It says:

“…flaws in Bill 24, which will, in effect, dismantle our ALR. B.C. farmers and the public are calling for you to listen and kill Bill 24.“

Well, frankly, I think we should have a consultation process prior to killing it. If that comes out through the consultation process, then let’s move forward and kill Bill 24.

The letter goes on.

“I myself was at the Legislature lawns on Family Day asking our MLAs and Premier to cease this attack on the food supply. We’ll continue to protest until you listen and follow the sensible route of removing all talk of altering our ALR in specific ways, as outlined in Bill 24.“

And here it comes again.

“Looking forward to public consultation on this vital issue. Please do all you can to ensure that this happens.“

These aren’t people just writing with random streams of consciousness. These are individual letters by constituents, by members of the general public across British Columbia, demanding an opportunity to be heard through the consultation process, a process that has not happened to this day. And frankly, consultation does not involve reading a few e-mails and sending a few responses that are all the same to everyone who sends one in.

I also received an e-mail from a concerned decision-maker in the Kootenays. This is not a regular citizen, this is a senior decision-maker in the Kootenays. He brings up yet another important point that really underlines the need for this bill to go to committee. If the motion before us were to fail, the government will not have the time or process for this decision-maker’s voice to be heard. In his own words, he said this.

“I urge you to allow regions that wish to remain in the agricultural land reserve zone 1” — including the Kootenays, from his perspective — “not be arbitrarily categorized as zone 2.”

Where was the consultation as to what went into zone 1 or zone 2? Where did that come from? Did someone just wake up one day and realize: “Well, this is my riding. I’m zone 2. That’s your riding. That’s zone 1”? There was no consultation over that. Nobody knows where that came from. As far as we’re concerned, it was just made up one day. Sounds like jiggery-pokery to me.

The letter continues.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, we’re hearing from the member opposite that we may be able to start a fundraising campaign that each time the word “jiggery-pokery” is used, we could put, say, $10 into a communal pot and perhaps donate it to a homeless shelter or towards the development of a provincial child poverty plan. Perhaps we should do something like that.

Deputy Speaker: But of course the relevance of that in the current debate….

A. Weaver: I’m sorry, hon. Speaker. I had to react to the….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: As pointed out by the member for Delta South, this could be a recommendation coming out of the consultation that could happen, were this amendment to actually be passed.

I continue — back to the more important task of discussing this particular decision-maker’s arguments — strong arguments, compelling arguments — for the need for consultation on the bill before us — that is, in supporting the amendment we’re debating now. He says the following:

“As a decision-maker I refer you to the recent installment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policymakers. ‘Findings show the earth and its inhabitants are already experiencing the ever-increasing impacts of global warming: icecaps and arctic sea ice melting and collapsing; more extreme weather–related events like droughts and floods; dying corals; freshwater supplies; rising and increasing acidic oceans.‘”

You may wonder the relevance of this, but it is relevant, because if there were a consultation process, the scientific community would have an opportunity to bring to the attention of those in the select standing committee the importance of thinking about climate change and its effects on our agricultural land reserve and the potential effects on our food supply in the years ahead.

The letter writer goes on and says:

“Our food and water supplies, critical infrastructure, security, health, economies and communities will face ever-escalating risks, possibly leading to increased human displacement, migration and violent conflict.“

He continues:

“Some argue we must choose between growing the economy and protecting the planet. In response, the report states: ‘Throughout the 21st century, climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, making poverty reduction more difficult, further eroding food security and prolonging existing and creating new poverty traps — the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hot spots of hunger.’“

I am beginning to wonder about the relevance of this e-mail to the debate here, but it does come forward as we get to the….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: You’re not making the Chair’s job terribly easy.

A. Weaver: I will say that the member for Cowichan Valley sees a clear link, and that’s what matters to me, hon. Speaker.

The letter writer continues, and he is getting to the need for consultation here.

“I believe that this bill, although presented as a way to support” — he keeps talking about the bill, but he’s going to get to consultation — “as a way to support agriculture is actually framed to support non-farm use of agricultural lands. It has the potential to undermine the integrity of the ALR its regulatory, the ALC.“

That was the hon. member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast passing behind me and breaking the longstanding tradition of the Legislature not to walk behind a speaker while he’s on the camera.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It’s a rule I just made up, hon. Speaker.

The letter continues:

“Further and regrettably, the changes are not focused. They do not take into account the very present danger of climate change for B.C. agriculture and food security. Again, please refer” — that’s speaking to the government, of course, not to me or my colleagues in the opposition here — “to the IPCC report for information compiled by highly respected international scientists” — that’s nice of them to say that, frankly — “for to you make informed, long-term decisions that will affect generations of the future.”

This constituent, this decision-maker in the Kootenays area is desperately seeking an opportunity to be heard, to have his voice heard, to frankly, have his area heard, because he doesn’t know how his area appeared in zone 2. I don’t know how his area appeared in zone 2.

Does the hon. member for Cowichan Valley know? Probably not. How about the hon. member from Delta South? I don’t think so. Frankly, no one knows how the Kootenays ended up in zone 2.

This decision-maker outlined three reasons why he was concerned about Bill 24 and the reason why consultation is so important. We are not presently debating the bill but, rather, the importance of sending this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Please let me quickly outline the five points that the standing committee would need to hear. They are all eminently reasonable and need to be reflected upon. There is simply no opportunity for this to happen if this motion before us were to fail. Here are the points outlined to me by this decision-maker from the Kootenays.

“Point 1, regarding the split into two zones with additional requirements added to the basic mandate for zone 2 — that is, 90 percent of the ALR — the intent seems to be to weaken the primary focus on agriculture.“

Hon. Speaker, we’re told this wasn’t the case. The public still thinks that this is the case. The public needs to have an opportunity to have their questions answered directly through a consultation process, which will only happen if this bill goes to the standing committee.

The second point, regarding the delegation of decision-making to six regional panels.

“This makes decision-making unduly subject to regional and local development pressures and increases the likelihood of inconsistency and decisions that are perceived as unfair.“

How is this important point ever going to be heard without the opportunity for it to be brought forward to the select standing committee?

Point 3. The legislation “weakens long-term farmland protection on the pretext of improving farmers’ businesses, when the real failure since the mid-1980s has been on the part of successive provincial governments” — here the decision-maker is being truly non-partisan, even pre-dating the period of the 1990s that we hear so much about in this House around us here; he’s talking about since the mid-1980s — “which have failed to recognize farmers and ranchers and the services they provide for B.C. — food, but also environmental goods and services.”

How will that important statement, that important piece of information be understood and heard if it were not brought before the standing committee to be reflected upon prior to the passing of this bill?

The same decision-maker, who has an awful lot to say, continued and said the following.

“We understand that for food, we need viable farms and ranches. Viable farms and ranches need access to land and water for their operations. I’m aware there are pinch points in the ALR-ALC system that need to be worked out with farmers and ranchers, and I also know that 95 percent of the applications the ALR receives are from non-farm landowners.“

He continues:

“I did ask myself whether there was anything good here for B.C. agrifood. Without full consultation with stakeholders, we simply don’t know. We are not sure the bill faithfully reflects the priorities of B.C. farmers and ranchers. Key B.C. farm and ranch organizations have expressed concerns about the bill, and they have asked for more involvement. They have been consulted but only to the point of being shown the changes the provincial government intended to make.“

Consultation is not marketing. Consultation is a two-way dialogue, not a one-way marketing job. These organizations that this decision-maker from the Kootenays so succinctly points out are, clearly, very troubling.

“Since the summer of 2013,” he continues, “the ALC has not been consulted at all.”

He wonders why the provincial government is in such a hurry to push through the enabling legislation framework before it will sit down with agricultural organizations, the ALC and local governments to discuss the regulatory details. He is urging the provincial government that before proceeding any further with the legislation, to consult properly with farmers, ranchers, local governments, the ALC, food systems, organizations and the public, as it did with the Water Sustainability Act, to ensure that land use legislation is collaboratively updated in the long-term agrifood interests of British Columbians.

The government will have lots of time to push forward this consultation. Russia just signed a $400 billion natural gas deal with China with a price at about $10 per million Btu, clearly making B.C.’s natural gas not economical at current or market Asian prices that were actually set through this recent deal. There is no rush to tear apart our agricultural institutions for this pipedream of LNG prosperity down the road. Let’s take the time to do this right.

Hon. Speaker, the letter I was sent from the Kootenay decision-maker was incredibly thoughtful and reasonable and well thought out. Surely the government wants the opportunity to hear from more people like this.

Finally, from the point of view of letters but not from the important information I must convey through you today, hon. Speaker, to the government, here’s a letter I received that I must admit I find deeply troubling. It says the following:

“I am writing to ask you to do what you can to stop or delay the passage of Bill 24 so that the public has more time to realize how the bill will affect their future and the future of their children. Canada’s traditional way of dealing with population growth is to spread. It worked for a few decades, but now it’s killing us. Urban sprawl is polluting the air we breathe with car exhaust and paving over our farmland. Meanwhile, those who can only see as far as short-term financial gain continue to cover the province with poorly planned, poorly serviced and often poorly executed condos and housing developments.

“The Fraser Institute should not be guiding policy in B.C. We need the ALR more than ever to protect our renowned farmland. Not only will this assure a local food supply; it will force civil planners to find more creative, sustainable solutions to population growth. We need to build up, not out over our farmland. After all, rich or poor or in between, we all need to eat. We all need to breathe.”

There are so many citizens in British Columbia desperately trying to have their voices heard and sending all of us hundreds and hundreds of e-mails, and we only have time to share a few selected quotes from a number of them. This last writer raised a very troubling concern for me. His e-mail mentions the Fraser Institute.

Now, I wonder: were they consulted? Has the Fraser Institute’s 2009 publication entitled “The B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve: a critical assessment” been adopted as a roadmap for B.C. policy by the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Energy and Mines and Responsible for Core Review?

I don’t know. None of us on this side of the House know. That’s because there was no consultation over this. This report, which I am troubled to think perhaps was consulted, says the following: “The very premise of the ALR is anachronistic. Advances in agronomy and biotechnology have dramatically increased yields, thereby easing demand for farmland.”

Shocking. But what’s even more shocking is that I don’t think many people will actually know what the word “anachronistic” means, and it may be misunderstood. Let’s again, once more, appeal to the Oxford English Dictionary. Anachronistic means “of the nature of or involving an anachronism” — where anachronism is defined as anything done or existing out of date — hence, anything which was proper to a former age but is, or if it existed would be, out of harmony with the present.

For the members opposite who may not be aware of what the word “agronomy” means, it’s defined in the Oxford English Dictionary to mean the practice or the science of crop production and soil management.
So this is what it said. The very premise of the ALR is anachronistic, suggesting that it’s out of date and that advances in soil science and biotechnology have increased yields, thereby easing demand for farmland. Is this what was consulted by the government? Is this what led us to where we are today? Is this the reason why so many more want to be heard and want to be consulted by allowing the select standing committee to actually see this bill and engage British Columbians?

We don’t know one way or the other, for sure, whether or not the government got the idea from the Fraser Institute report. But I know that the former Minister of Agriculture, Corky Evans…. I’m quoting now from my colleagues to the right of me. He thinks so.

In a recent letter to the Kootenay coop news, Corky Evans said, after some ramblings about how he’s not very familiar with the technology of blogs, etc…. It was a very enlightening letter. This is what he said:

“The government didn’t think this up. They got it from the Fraser Institute.“

Whether or not this is true is immaterial. What’s important, of course, is that if this bill were to be sent to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, we could explore this further, British Columbians could explore this further and the Fraser Institute could explore this further.

While there is some speculation about whether or not the policy is being influenced by the Fraser Institute, let me be clear. There is no speculation that science or scientists have any influence. They have not. And their voices need to be heard as well.

The public wants policy to flow from evidence. That’s called evidence-based decision-making. The public does not want evidence to flow from policy. That’s called decision-based evidence-making or — again, this is the third time, as the member from Cowichan Valley would point out — jiggery-pokery.

By passing the amendment, we would provide the only opportunity for science and our soil science community to contribute to the consultation process.

On April 3 of this year the Pacific Regional Society of Soil Science issued a press release. It’s a very long press release. I suspect that I’m running short of time here, so I won’t have time to read it, but I would encourage anyone who’s listening to this to simply type the following words into Google: “Concerns about the future of the agricultural land reserve in B.C. were highlighted at a March 29th workshop.” If one types those words into Google, one will get a very long press release that outlines all of the reasons why it’s critical for the scientific community to be heard in this consultation process that would come by sending this bill to the select standing committee.

Scientists do not send out press releases very often. They do so out of a last resort, out of desperation. Our soil scientists are crying out to be heard. So I will be supporting this amendment, and I urge all members of this House to do the same. I say this to the members opposite: stand up and show the people of British Columbia that you believe in the health of our democratic institutions. Stand up and show the people of British Columbia that you are representing the wishes of your constituents, and stand up and support this amendment for the well-being of future generations.

Preamble

I’ve been asked by quite a few people to weigh in on the present escalation of tension between the Government of British Columbia and the British Columbia Teacher’s Federation (BCTF). I have resisted the temptation to do so while negotiations were ongoing, but with their complete breakdown and the imminent threat of rotating strike action and punitive penalties against teachers, I felt it both timely and important to do so.

First off, let’s make something clear. I have always believed that teaching is perhaps the most important profession in any society. Each and every one of us has attended school and that experience has shaped who we are, what we do and how we contribute to society.

Teaching is a thoroughly rewarding yet physically and emotionally exhausting job. It takes a very special sort of person to be able to instruct a class of 20-30 young children for five hours every day. Just last week I spent the day engaging every grade from Kindergarten to grade 6 at Savory Elementary’s 4 Seasons Eco School (4EST) Program. I only had one lesson plan to deliver to the seven separate classes (from 08:45 to 2:30). I had no marking to take home, no report cards to write, no parents to interact with and no staff meetings or administrative activities. Nor did I have to take students on extracurricular activities. I was exhausted at the end of the day. And I only did that once, not day in, day out for many months.

Right now there is an impasse between the BC Government and the BC Teachers Federation. Like any troubled marriage, it is ultimately the children who are hurt in the bickering and squabbling. But unlike a family breakup, there are 558,985 public school students affected. Divorce is simply not an option.

As it stands, the BC Government through the Public School Employers’ Association (BCPSEA) appears to be acting like a schoolyard bully. In a letter to BCTF, BCPSEA outlined punitive 5% wage cuts for all BCTF members starting Monday, May 26 and 10% wage cuts as soon as rotating strikes start. This sort of ‘bust the union’ response of the government is almost certainly going to backfire. It will be viewed as inflammatory, disrespectful and spiteful.

But at the same time, the BCTF demands for $646 million in salary and benefit increases, representing a 21.5% overall increase in four years, is widely viewed as outrageous. The public appears to be behind the teachers’ wishes to be able to negotiate class size and composition, but all semblance of sympathy is lost when wage increases are sought that are out of step with every other public sector employee group.

So how can we move forward from here? Below I provide some background and ideas that might contribute to the ongoing public debate. Obviously there is an immediate crisis that needs to be dealt with. But there is also the subsequent reparation of the damaged relationship between the BCTF and the government that needs to be addressed.

Part 1: The background

Class size and composition

In 2002, shortly after the BC Liberals came to power, two bills were introduced (Bills 27 and 28) that removed the ability of class size and composition to be negotiated under provincial bargaining. The BCTF successfully challenged these in court and in April 2011 Madam Justice Susan Griffin ruled that it was unconstitutional for teachers not to be allowed to negotiate aspects of their working conditions. In response, the government introduced a new Bill (Bill 22, The Education Improvement Act) that the BCTF once more successfully argued did not allow them to negotiate class size and composition. On January 27, 2014 “The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the province must retroactively restore class size and composition language that was removed from teachers’ contracts in 2002, and pay the B.C. Teachers Federation $2 million in damages.” This decision is presently under appeal.

Let’s take a closer look at the class size and composition data. These data are available in pdf format on the BC Ministry of Education website.

First, what is apparent from the data is that there is incredible variation across the province. For example, in 2013-2014 the average class size in grades 8-12 in the Campbell River School District (#72) was 25.9; the average class size in the Central Coast School District (#49) was 11.3. Averaged over the whole province, class sizes in kindergarten to grade three have been on the rise, where as overall class sizes in grades 8-12 have been on the decline (Figure 1). As noted below, these trends reflect BC demographics.

Figure 1: Average class size in BC public schools from 2007 to 2013. The year corresponds to the start of the school year so 2013 represents the 2013-2014 school year. Source: BC Ministry of Education.

As in the case for class size, class composition varies greatly from school to school and district to district. But what is very clear is that teachers are being expected to handle more and more students with special needs (Figure 2). Ministerial Order M638/95 defines the term Individual Education Plan (IEP) which “A board must ensure … is designed for a student with special needs, as soon as practical after the student is so identified by the board.” From 2007 to 2013 there has been a 57% increase in the total number of classes containing four or more students with IEPs in the province. This corresponds to a 60% increase in the number of such classes per school. In 2013-2014 a total of 16,163 classes out of a total of 68,020 classes (24%) in British Columbia public schools contained four or more students with IEPs.

Figure 2: Average number of classes in a school with four or more students with individual education plans. The year corresponds to the start of the school year so 2013 represents the 2013-2014 school year. Source: BC Ministry of Education.

Not everyone believes that the BCTF and the province should negotiate class size and composition. The Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils recently suggested that it was “inherently discriminatory”.

Education funding

The level of funding allocated to our public education system depends on the priorities of the government. As indicated in Figure 3 below, spending on health care has remained a priority since 2000, ranging between 7 and 8% of provincial GDP. Funding for social services and education expressed as a percentage of GDP, on the other hand, has dropped over this period of time. In the case of education, one might argue that declining student enrollment has led to some of the overall decline in resource allocation.

Figure 3: BC Government spending as a percentage of GDP from fiscal year 2000-01 to 2014-15. The ‘e’ means estimated. Sources: 2014 and prior BC budgets, The BC Financial and Economic review (2013 and earlier), 2013 Fiscal reference Tables (from the Federal Department of Finance), BC Stats and Statistics Canada.

Figure 4 illustrates the population in BC from 1971-2012 and estimated from 2013-2025. In all age brackets relevant to school age children, the population has indeed dropped. But what’s important is that the minimum in the 0-4 age bracket occurred in 2005 and the minimum in the 5-9 age bracket occurred from 2007-2008. The population in both of these age brackets has started to rise, and this is reflected in the increasing class sizes for K-3 in Figure 1 above. All school age demographics are also expected to rise for at least the next decade. This further suggests that while we may have an excess of teachers being trained today, in three or four years, as the teacher demographic ages and as the number of school age children starts to increase, we will likely have teacher shortages, particularly in areas of French immersion, mathematics and science where demand exceeds supply.

Figure 4: BC population from 1971-2012 and projected population from 2013-2025 for four different age brackets. Blue (0 to 4); Red (5 to 9); Green (10 to 14); Orange (15-19). The solid line is recorded population and the dashed line is projected population. Source: BC Stats.

Provincial Revenue

As I mentioned above, education funding as a percentage of the provincial GDP has declined from a high of about 6.4% in 2001-2002 to an estimated low of about 5.0% in 2014-2015 (a decline of about 22%). If British Columbians deem education to be as important as I do, surely this drop needs to be rectified. The question is, where would the money come from?

Figure 5 shows both revenue and GDP growth relative to 2000-2001. Revenue to the province has not kept up with GDP growth. Over the last decade, there has been a general tendency to reduce both corporate, small business and personal income tax rates. For example, as of January 1, 2014 British Columbia has the second lowest general corporation active business income tax rates in the country at 11.0%.

Figure 5: BC GDP and Revenue since 2000-2001. The thick red line indicates revenue including federal transfer payments. The thin red line excludes federal transfer payments. Sources: 2014 and prior BC budgets, The BC Financial and Economic review (2013 and earlier), 2013 Fiscal reference Tables (from the Federal Department of Finance), BC Stats and Statistics Canada.

British Columbia on the International Scene

Every three years the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) evaluates the performance of students internationally in three subject areas: mathematics, science and reading. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada further breaks down the Canadian results on a province-by-province basis. British Columbia consistently performs extremely well. In 2012, for example, British Columbia was the top Canadian province in reading and science and was second only to Quebec in mathematics. In fact, British Columbia students even performed better than students from the much touted education system in Finland in reading and mathematics. While Finland scored slightly ahead of BC in science, the difference was statistically insignificant.

I recognize that the PISA results only provide one metric of student achievement and hence the success of the British Columbia school system. Nevertheless it is a very positive one. It says to me that we must be doing something right in British Columbia despite what we might read about in the news. It also suggests to me that maybe we should start to celebrate our successes and dwell less on the negative arising from the dysfunctional relationship between the BC Government and the BCTF.

Part II. A way forward

In light of the above information, I’ll explore a number of ideas that we might consider in moving forward. First, there is a short-term crisis that needs to be addressed. This in turn must set the stage for a resolution of the longstanding dysfunctional relationship between the BCTF and the BC Government.

In the short term

The Liberal government set the stage for the crisis we are now facing by raising unrealistic expectations with its election campaign rhetoric about reaching a ten-year deal with teachers. Their intransigent position regarding class size and composition in the face of two BC Supreme Court decisions and their punitive actions with respect to teacher job action does little to move us forward.

Perhaps there is a compromise. Why don’t the BCTF and the BC Government both agree that the best place to negotiate class size and composition is at the local school district level? In fact, as noted in the book Worlds Apart: British Columbia Schools, Politics and Labour Relations Before and After 1972 by Thomas Fleming, the BCTF was not pleased with the 1994 Public Education Labour Relations Act which led to the formation of BCPSEA and the BCTF being appointed as the official bargainer for all teachers. Provincial data also clearly show that one size does not fill all. The class size and composition needs of Haida Gwaii School District (#50) are almost certainly different from those in the Gulf Islands (#64) or Surrey (#36) School Districts.

Perhaps both parties would also agree to binding arbitration with respect to salary and benefit negotiations. Binding arbitration forces each party to come up with their best offer. The arbitrator then chooses from one of them. One thing is certain, outlandish requests are taken off the table quickly when binding arbitration is in play.

Failing the above, one might imagine a mediated yet negotiated settlement where BCPSEA and the BCTF agree to a short term, say three to four year, contract in line with what other public sectors have received. In addition, BCPSEA could offer up substantial resources to hire new teachers to reduce the very valid class size and composition concerns of the BCTF.

While the negotiators battle out their entrenched, and what is perceived to be, ideological positions, the ones who are paying the price are the children in the classroom and the teachers who teach them. As adults, we cannot ask our children to behave one way then turn around and behave exactly the opposite ourselves. Right now it seems like both the government and the BCTF have picked up their bats and balls and left everyone else stranded on the field wondering what they can do.

In the long term

(i) It is clear that British Columbians need to take a hard look at our sources of provincial revenue and the way we spend the money that government receives. Given a decade of corporate and personal income tax cuts, perhaps its time to take a look at whether or not we have gone too far. This is an important discussion to have as it ultimately affects the availability of funds for our public education system. With increases in public school enrollment looming, it’s critical that we initiate this discussion sooner rather than later.

(ii) The BCPSEA was established in 1994. Since that time there has been a continued escalation of conflict between the BCTF and the BCPSEA. Perhaps it’s time to consider dismantling BCPSEA and instead bringing its operations directly into the Ministry of Education. This would signal that government is willing to start afresh to try and build a new relationship. After all, it is the government, and not BCPSEA, that holds the purse strings.

(iii) Perhaps its time too to reconsider the role of School Boards in our public education system. Thomas Fleming in his aforementioned book noted “…a history of extremely low voter turnout in school board elections, along with the influence of teacher associations over electoral candidates, has raised serious questions about whether boards, in fact, actually reflect the public’s educational will, or simply serve as a platform for the expression of various special interests — all insistent on greater school spending, regardless of other legitimate public demands government is obliged to consider” (page 109). He further points out that only between 5 and 10% of eligible voters turn up at school board elections not occurring at the same time as municipal elections. And he detailed a recent by-election in the Capital Regional District that brought out around only 2% of the electorate.

(iv) As we move forward there will be a teacher shortages emerging in a few years as projected enrollments increase. Rather than perpetuate the boom and bust cycle of teacher training and hiring, and rather than keeping people for many years on the teacher-on-call list, perhaps a more gradual transition to full time employment could be developed.

Teacher burnout early on in one’s career is not uncommon. A young teacher might be thrown into a new situation with multiple class preparations for a range of students with a diversity of skills and background. With no past teaching material or practices to draw upon, new teachers can quickly become overwhelmed with the workload. Senior teachers approaching retirement, on the other hand, have a wealth of experience, curriculum resources, and best practices. Perhaps it is possible to negotiate a buddy system where a retiring teach signs an agreement to retire gradually over, say, a three year period. During that time a starting teacher is paired with the retiring teacher. So while the senior teacher gently eases into retirement the new teacher gently eases into full time teaching. And the decades of experience and best practices are passed along from the senior to the junior teacher.

(v) And finally, perhaps there are innovative ways that would allow school districts to build upon best practices of shared services. Perhaps the government could play a role here and provide the province with a centralized payroll system. Does each district need to have its own payroll department? Should teachers be employed by the Ministry of Education instead of the Board? Are there opportunities for economies of scale?

I am not advocating for any of the above, but rather putting out some ideas in the hope that a discussion ensues. Building a social license for change requires uncomfortable topics and new ideas to be discussed.

The status quo between the BCTF and BCPSEA cannot continue. The politicization of our public system serves no constructive purpose. We have outstanding and dedicated teachers in the province of British Columbia.

To the BCTF and BCPSEA I say this. Pick up your bats and balls and get back to the field. You owe it to our teachers and our children.