Issues & Community Blog - Andrew Weaver: A Climate for Hope - Page 191

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.

The National Energy Board review process for Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline is now well-underway.

If the project is approved, we would see an increase from 60 to more than 400 heavy oil tankers leaving Vancouver harbour each year. Those tankers would then pass around the tip of southern Vancouver Island—an area identified by the federal Tanker Safety Expert Panel as being one of the most high risk areas in Canada for an oil spill.

The thought of this enormous increase in tanker traffic alarms me, and I know I’m not alone. With more oil tankers comes more risk of an oil spill—one that could destroy our pristine coastline and devastate our local communities. The whole idea undermines Vancouver’s award-winning efforts to become the world’s greenest city by 2020.

That’s why I applied to be a full participant in the Kinder Morgan hearings.  My constituents, and British Columbians across our province, will be affected by this pipeline and they deserve a voice in the process.

Last week I joined dozens of other participants in submitting questions to Kinder Morgan on their application. With a 15,000 page application to review, and only one month to submit questions, I chose to start by analyzing Kinder Morgan’s evidence around oil spills: How likely are they? What impact will they have? And how effectively can we actually clean them up? I also asked about whether my constituents, and others in the coastal communities, were properly consulted, given the impact this project could have on their health and livelihoods.

If the number of questions a participant submits is any indicator, I had nearly 500 questions on oil spills and consultation alone. Collectively, participants submitted thousands of questions on these and other topics as we try to better understand what this project will really mean for British Columbians.

Here are just a few examples of the areas I asked about:

1) Federal studies clearly show that, unlike most other crude oils, the diluted bitumen Kinder Morgan will be transporting through its pipeline is so heavy that when it mixes with suspended particles in the ocean, it sinks. If there is one thing we have plenty of in our coastal waters, it is suspended sediments. Unfortunately, Kinder Morgan’s oil spill response is based entirely on the faulty assumption that the spilled oil would float. How are they going to respond when it actually sinks?

2) When assessing the impact of an oil spill and their ability to clean it up, Kinder Morgan based their projections on near-perfect conditions, including: 20 hours of daylight, pristine weather with only minimal waves, the availability of all staff and equipment to respond, and of course, floating oil. They also assumed that they would have twice the response capacity available to them as currently exists. Despite these ideal circumstances, they only predicted that 45% of the oil would be recovered. Even then, they acknowledge that their model isn’t consistent with historical averages (generally only 5-15% of spilled oil is ever recovered). I asked Kinder Morgan to redo their model analysis to offer realistic projections, based on credible assumptions, so that we can know what to really expect.

3) A typical heavy oil tanker will carry more than 100,000 tonnes of oil. Yet in their analyses, Kinder Morgan assumed a worst-case scenario that only 16,500 tonnes would ever “credibly” spill at a time. That may be true according to Kinder Morgan’s calculations, but credible risk analyses consider the full range of scenarios, including one where the ship sinks and all of its oil is released. How can we know the full risk that comes with these tankers, if the worst-case scenario is excluded from consideration?

Ultimately, in applying to build their pipeline, Kinder Morgan is applying for a social license from British Columbians. Earning that social license begins with providing credible evidence that can stand up to thorough cross-examination.

Kinder Morgan has already advocated excluding oral cross-examination from the hearing process. Those who followed the Northern Gateway hearings know just how significant this change is.

What the above points suggest is that Kinder Morgan’s submitted evidence is far from complete. After reading countless pages of documents it’s pretty clear to me that neither Kinder Morgan, the scientific community, nor the federal or provincial governments have even a cursory idea of what would happen in the case of a catastrophic diluted bitumen spill in our coastal waters.

The bottom line is this.  It’s our coast, and we deserve better. 

It was an historic day in the legislature today.  To start, the Honourable Teresa Wat, Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism tabled the Chinese historical wrongs consultation final report and recommendations. Premier Christy Clark subsequently introduced a motion which was debated for most of the day. The motion read:

Be it resolved that this Legislature apologizes for more than a hundred laws, regulations, and policies that were imposed by past provincial governments that discriminated against people of Chinese descent since 1871, when British Columbia joined Confederation, to 1947. These laws and policies denied British Columbia’s Chinese communities’ basic human rights, including but not limited to, the right to vote, hold public office, or own property; imposed labour, educational and employment restrictions; subjected them to health and housing segregation, and prevented them from fully participating in society. The House deeply regrets that these Canadians were discriminated against simply because they were of Chinese descent. All members of this House acknowledge that we all aspire to be a fair and just society where people of all nations and cultures are welcomed, accepted and respected.

Be it further resolved that the House acknowledge that the Chinese Canadian community endured untold hardships and persevered with grace and dignity. We acknowledge that despite being subjected to discriminatory laws, policies and practices, the Chinese community has made, and continues to make, substantial contributions to the culture, history and economic prosperity in our province.

The motion was approved unanimously with BC Liberal, BC NDP, BC Green and Independent member Vicki Huntington, all speaking in support.

Below is my contribution to the debate.

It’s a privilege to stand and offer my comments on what can only be described as one of the most important debates of this session. There’s no question that this apology is long overdue, and I thank the government, the official opposition and the many British Columbians who worked hard to bring it before us today. It’s a very important step forward.

The Chinese community has been a formative and essential part of our province since the 1850s. Right here in Victoria we are the proud home of the oldest Chinatown in Canada and the second-oldest in North America. Many of you will also know the historic Chinese Cemetery in the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head at Harling Point, a resting place and memorial site of honour for the pioneers of Chinese ancestry in our province.

The riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head was represented for 17 years by third-generation Chinese Canadian Ida Chong, who was here on the floor of the House this morning. Like so many other people of Chinese descent, Ida’s family lived through the systemic discrimination that we are apologizing for today.

Ida’s grandfather was born in China and came to Canada in 1892. Her father, born in Cumberland in 1917, married her mother, Yokee Yee, who in turn came to Canada from China in 1952.

Ida went to Victoria’s Chinese Public School until her family moved to the Mount Tolmie area of my riding. Her father, Peter Chong, was active in the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association and Lung Kong Association.

Yet the unfortunate reality is that the history of relations between the Chinese-Canadian community and the B.C. provincial government is replete with government-imposed discrimination, hardship and injustice for this community. The moving story that the member for Burnaby North conveyed this morning is an example of how people of Chinese descent were affected.

That so many Chinese Canadians endured decades of discrimination at the hands of our provincial government and yet remain proud British Columbians today is a testament to the perseverance, grace and dignity of the Chinese-Canadian community.

That government after government could impose what amounted to more than 100 laws, regulations and policies with the express purpose of discriminating against a group of British Columbians should serve as the sober reminder to us all that with the power that is bestowed upon government to promote prosperity and opportunity comes the responsibility to protect against injustice.

Perhaps most telling is that one of the first acts of the British Columbia Legislature after our province joined Confederation in 1871 was to deny Chinese men the right to vote while at the same time expanding the right to vote to those of European descent.

It was against this backdrop that we saw the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association form in 1884 to protect the rights and safety of Chinese immigrants. The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association has advocated for the rights of Chinese Canadians for decades and continues to promote Chinese culture and language in Victoria today.

Earlier today a group of grade 5 students from Campus View Elementary School visited the Legislature. They were here in the gallery in the morning session. I know the family of one of those students very well. His name is Matthew. His sister and my daughter were the best of friends when my daughter was in elementary school.

What was interesting is that Matthew’s grandfather — and Matthew had no idea about this when he showed up at the Legislature today — still has a certificate stating that he paid the Chinese head tax upon his arrival in British Columbia. Matthew had just done a presentation on that in his class a few weeks before.

Matthew’s not alone. Many residents in Oak Bay–Gordon Head and throughout our province still hold evidence of the discrimination they endured at the hands of our government.

While Matthew may be too young to have directly experienced those injustices, he, like so many other young Chinese Canadians, is part of a future forged by those who did experience them and who persevered beyond them. I feel honoured to represent a riding that is home to such a strong Chinese-Canadian community, and I would like to thank all Chinese Canadians for their indispensable contributions to our communities, our province and our country.

On Thursday, May 8 I spoke out against Bill 24, The Agriculture Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014, during 2nd reading. Below is the text of my speech.

I rise today to take my place in this debate, one that I certainly imagine will take many days to come to conclusion. First off, I wish to acknowledge that the minister has clearly recognized there’s a fair amount of public concern over this bill and so has put forward a number of amendments that I look forward very much to speaking to at the committee stage.

Please let me start by saying that this is not a debate about change or a debate about the fear of change. This is the debate about the future of the ALC and, through it, the ALR, which has been protecting agricultural land in British Columbia for over 40 years.

During these 40 years the world has seen significant change. We are aware more than ever of the threat of global warming and, in particular, its projected threat in altering the hydrological cycle, long-relied-upon weather systems and how our food systems work. We need only look south to the extensive drought in California for an example of evidence showing how the impacts of global warming will play out.

We’ve also seen significant change in the local economies of communities in British Columbia’s interior. Previously-relied-upon industries like forestry are no longer supporting communities in the way that they did, creating great social disruption and, in some cases, great hardship.

In the face of these and other pressures, it would be too simple to assume that the ALR can remain unchanged. At some point, the realities that were present when it was conceived begin to change, thereby creating a new reality with different needs.

Of course as politicians we must have the courage to discuss changes to even our most important institutions when they are no longer serving the needs of British Columbians in the way they used to. I would even go so far as to suggest that a discussion of changes to how the ALR and the ALC operate might have been embraced by all sides of this House if it were to be based on how we must respond as a province in light of our changing climate.

Unfortunately, as I said at the start, this isn’t a debate about change. This is a debate that is taking place within the context of failed consultations and broken promises and, as the member behind me likes to say, jiggery-pokery.

The conversation we could be having about how to strengthen our food production is greatly overshadowed by this government’s decision to ram through changes to an institution in our province without adequate notice, without adequate consultation and without providing people with the required evidence justifying such a change.

The bill comes as a surprise to many in this House. The 2013 election campaign contained absolutely no discussion of changes to the operations of the ALC and the ALR, let alone any notice of the sweeping changes contained within Bill 24. Even as we move from the summer after the election into the fall, there were only hints that changes and promises of an inclusive, consultation-driven look at the ALR.

Now, let’s turn to the issue of consultation. I think it’s critical, before I continue, to read into the record an account of the history of this bill as outlined by my colleague Adam Olsen, the interim leader of the B.C. Green Party. He has followed this issue closely from the very start and was one of the first people to raise the issue around consultation. This is from a more recent piece he wrote on April 6, 2014, that’s available on his blog site.

“For the past 40 years the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) has protected the agricultural value of the land in its boundaries. When British Columbians have been asked whether they support protecting those agricultural values and land for food security, 95 percent say yes.

“Changing weather patterns across the planet and increased transportation costs are putting our global food supply at risk. We all know that food is more secure when produced closer to home. Yet if Bill 24, the agricultural amendment act, passes, British Columbians will be forced to rely more on food produced outside the province.

“As long as grocery store shelves are stocked and food is a reasonable price, we are content. Even though we are regularly reminded that at any time Vancouver Island only has enough food for 72 hours, we remain comfortable. Food supplies in the rest of British Columbia are only slightly more secure.

“When the provincial government decided to update the Water Act, they consulted British Columbians and reported that they received 3,000 comments, which they incorporated into Bill 18, introduced in March. As a result of the engagement, Bill 18 received a warm welcome inside the Legislature and out. Despite Bill 18’s imperfections, the government properly engaged the public, stakeholders and experts and introduced balanced legislation.

“The same cannot be said for the government’s approach to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) and its plan for the ‘adaptation’ of 90 percent of farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). There has been no open and consultative approach. Instead, the government took a confrontational approach and drafted legislation in secret cabinet meetings behind closed doors.

“Why is Bill 24 even necessary? In 2010 Auditor General John Doyle released an audit, and Richard Bullock, the newly appointed chair of the commission, completed an internal core review. Using these reports, the ALC has began implementing the recommendations, and the B.C. government invested $3 million in the ALC’s ‘modernization’ in Budget 2013.”

“Then, in the summer of 2013 the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review announced:  ‘We’re going to look at some sacrosanct things, like certain agencies. We’re going to look at the Agricultural Land Reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission.’

“Throughout the weeks following, the B.C. government delivered a public process that Vaughn Palmer accurately described as a ‘rushed exercise in ad hockery.’

“On September 6, 2013, a news release announced the schedule for the annual tour of the Finance and Government Services Committee. The first session was in Vancouver, just 14 days later. On September 24, four days after the start of the tour, the Minister of Energy and Mines announced that public input into the core review, including for the ALC, was to be presented to Finance and Government Services.

“On September 26 Kathleen Gibson and Linda Geggie presented at the Victoria meeting of the committee. They revealed that when they wrote to the Minister of Energy and Mines and to the Agriculture Minister on September 12 asking about the opportunities for input into the core review, they were told to present to Finance and Government Services.

“Following Gibson and Geggie’s presentation, the Hansard record shows members of the committee were surprised and unaware that input for the core review was part of their expanded terms of reference. When I raised this issue” — ‘I’ being Adam Olsen here — “with the committee on October 2, 2013, in Nanaimo, the committee’s Chair, the member for Penticton, reassured me” — again, Adam Olsen — “this was just the beginning. As the Parliamentary Secretary, and I have spoken to the minister today…. There is going to be ample opportunity for public input into the core review services.’

“‘You have to understand that it is only starting at this point and carries on until 2014. So through your local MLAs and, I’m quite sure, through other public processes, there will be ample opportunity. But anything that is said today will be discussed by this committee and, upon agreement of the committee, will be included in the report that will be given to the Legislative Assembly.’

“When internal cabinet documents were leaked last November, we were given a glimpse of what the government’s intentions were. In response to growing concern by British Columbians, the Minister of Energy and Mines reassured British Columbians that ‘nothing that the core review process could potentially do would reduce the protection of farmland in British Columbia.’ He said: ‘Bottom line. There is nothing that we could contemplate that would reduce or undermine the central principle of the agricultural land reserve, which is the protection of farmland and the sustainability of farming.’

“On November 14, 2013, I” — again, that’s Adam Olsen — “continued my inquiry with an open letter to the Premier. Shocked by how dysfunctional this whole process was, I asked the Premier to remove the ALC and the ALR from the core review process. I” — again, that’s Adam Olsen — “heard nothing from the government until mid-January 2014.

“On January, 2014, the Agriculture Minister responded that his government was committed to ‘protect the most productive agricultural land.’ However, that is not the mandate of the ALC. Their mandate is to protect and enhance all land within the ALR.

“All the while the Minister of Energy and Mines has made a concerted effort  to diminish the value of land outside the Lower Mainland, Okanagan and Vancouver Island.

“While announcing Bill 25, the Minister of Energy and Mines said: ‘Folks, I’ve been waiting a long time to say this…. There’s a huge, diverse land base out there that, frankly, the media and probably the urban public is largely unaware of…. There is some land within the agricultural land reserve that actually is useless to agriculture…. That land could be located in a region where there’s six months of winter. In some cases, the land is covered by forest. I’ve seen the land within the reserve that’s mountainous. It’s steep; it’s rocky; it’s swampy. It has really poor-quality soil and no feasible access to water.’

“None of the concerns he raises require the proposed changes in Bill 24. All of them can be addressed with the current powers of the commission to undertake boundary reviews. The government’s message is clear: 90 percent of agricultural land in British Columbia, the land in the north and southeast, is poor quality and unsuitable for agriculture.

“This is absurd. While the highest-quality land is in the southern British Columbia, there’s plenty of quality agricultural production in the north and southeast. The Ministry of Agriculture website proudly announces that 85 to 90 percent of grain production in the province occurs in the Peace River region.

“Finally, the Minister of Energy and Mines was asked about the failure to consult and engage British Columbians on changes to the ALC, and he simply shrugged it off, saying this: ‘I know that we could have done a better job of consultation, and I take my mea culpa.’

“The Minister of Energy and Mines’s proposals to open up 90 percent of the ALR for all kinds of development that will not be of any benefit to agriculture, and essentially remove the requirement of the commission to consider the immediate and long-term food security of British Columbia, are a reversal of what he stated in early November.

“Not only did members of the government promise public input and not deliver; they made statements to British Columbians that reassured us we had nothing to be concerned about when, in reality, everything they said they wouldn’t do, they did.”

That’s the end quote for the piece from Adam Olsen.

This is not an account that reads favourably of the government’s efforts to communicate their intentions, nor does it provide sound footing for any claims that this bill comes with the support of our agricultural community. In fact, what we’ve seen instead is a growing number of groups and individuals speaking out against this bill.

One of the more noticeable groups is the B.C. Agriculture Council, the organization that represents 14,000 B.C. farmers and ranchers. The B.C. Agriculture Council reversed its support for the bill, with the council unanimously opposing the changes.

In addition, I’ve been witness to the growing public backlash against not only this bill but also the process by which the government is attempting to make these changes. I want to take a moment to read a letter that was published in quite a number of local papers in the Kootenays, very close to the riding of the Minister of Energy and Mines. I think it provides important insight into the issue from a member of B.C.’s farming community. This letter was written by a fellow named Andrew Bennett and was published on April 8, 2014. It’s entitled this: “Scrap ALR Proposal and Save Small Farmers — A Rossland Perspective.” This is his letter.

“To the leaders of my province, I am a 34-year-old farmer in the southern Interior working with my wife and son to build a business growing and selling food. We do not have the finances to own farmland, so we operate entirely on leased parcels. Because large agribusiness and government subsidies to the industrial food system keep food prices incredibly low, it’s very difficult to compete in the market.

“We small, local farmers distinguish ourselves by offering much higher quality produce — vegetables and various meats in my case — with more nutrients, more flavour, more humane livestock management, better soil management, quicker turnaround, happier employees and so on. We also add vibrancy and resilience to our local economy.

“Perhaps what many fail to realize is that our farm, and the many other young farms just now sprouting all over the countryside, are the foundation of our future economy, the one we’ll need once we’re left with toothpicks for forests and gaping holes in the ground.”

Frankly, this sounds a bit to me like he’s reading from The Lorax.

“With all the mills shutting down, the best solution on the table is a couple thousand measly temporary jobs to build a pipeline that carries a grave risk to water and land? Very, very silly.

“Our local food economy guarantees to bring long-term prosperity by not only keeping us fed but by keeping currency in local circulation. Everyone needs to eat, and right now more than 95 percent of the $25 billion B.C. consumers spend annually on food leaves the province.”

Read that again: 95 percent of the $25 billion B.C. consumers spend annually on food leaving the province.

“We’re bleeding money.”

And I would add: what a lost opportunity.

“And there’s no need to bleed. I can grow almost everything we need right here, right now. We can keep at least $10 billion in B.C. very fast if the government conspired with us instead of against us.”

I’m not sure why he used the word “conspired,” but it’s there anyway.

“Imagine the impacts. Look at my customers. Almost all of them are professionals, many working out of province or out of country, bringing money to my small town in the Kootenays. It’s my job and the job of other local business people to keep that money going round and round right here in B.C.

“Your ALR proposal is a disaster waiting to happen. My farm depends on the well-to-do folks who have bought farmland for an estate but with no plans or knowledge for how to use it. Not being able to develop on it ensures that they are willing to cooperate with farmers such as myself. Of course, they would like to develop it! They would make more money.

“If you allow them building and subdivision rights, will they be willing to cooperate with me and the legion of up-and-coming young farmers who I collaborate with and mentor every day? No. And farmers like me all over the province will lose any chance we ever had of owning a farm, because farmland will not only crumble into postage stamps, but prices will skyrocket.

“Your Bill 24 is not a long-term proposition. Even the faintest notion of a possibility of development — like Bill 24 threatens with its two-tier approach to the ALR — directly impacts my ability to lease land, grow amazing food and sell it for reasonable prices despite heavy competition from a global market.

“My farm also depends on being able to secure farm status for these same wealthy landowners. It’s my way of compensating them for the use of their land — by lowering…taxes — without having to incur an expense that cuts into my already slim margins.

“Between the ALR and farm status assessments, that’s about all the government has ever done for me and others who, despite the challenges, continue to work hard to ensure food security, local employment and a strengthened local economy.

“The reality is that the British Columbia and federal governments make my life harder, loading small producers with unreasonable restrictions and bureaucracy, and we get nothing comparable to the hefty handouts and tax breaks large industrial farmers receive.

“The ALR and farm status being all the government has ever done for us, now you’d like to start eroding that too?

“Shame on you. You risk the future of all your children for your political gain and the financial greed in the minority you serve in the name of ‘democracy.’ Shame on you.

“You claim to speak for the ‘everyday Canadian.’ Not the ones I speak with, and I speak with more than you do. Or at least I actually listen” — spelt with capital letters. “I can guarantee that. My job depends on widespread networking with regular folks. This hardly seems to be required for political leadership.

“No, my so-called leaders, you clearly speak on behalf of a moneyed elite. Prove to me otherwise, and scrap this bill.

“Andrew Bennett, Rossland”

I reiterate that this letter appeared in numerous communities in the Kootenays. Most of the local papers there published such a letter.

Consulting with the general public is a necessity for governing in this day and age if they are to claim to have the required social licence needed to proceed on many of their larger initiatives.

Let me give two recent examples — the first being the B.C. Water Sustainability Act and the consultations that took place in the second, the northern gateway pipeline. Both of these illustrate most succinctly the requirement and the ability the government has to actually engage the public to seek a social licence.

This government conducted substantial engagement on the new Water Sustainability Act and watched earlier this session as it got the unanimous support of every single member of this House.

In addition, we’ve seen the debate around the northern gateway pipeline marked by steadfast opposition to a proposal that many people fear was preordained for approval. Nothing creates more resistance than a process that was never intended to inform the outcome. This is what appears to have taken place with Bill 24, and the bill is poorer for it.

Going beyond just the social licence component, consultation allows government to hear arguments and evidence they may have overlooked. Let’s be clear, consultation is a two-way process. It’s not just about reading a number of e-mails submitted to a minister. It was quite a positive development when the Government House Leader announced the amendment to Bill 2 earlier this session, in part, because of the concerns raised in this House by the opposition. I hope that a similar ear is being provided to the arguments taking place with Bill 24.

Finally, one of the other major issues that should underpin every critique of this bill is that the evidence does not support the arguments that have been advanced in favour of the bill. In the introduction of this bill to the media, the minister took the time to outline a number of examples of how the current operation of the ALR is inadequate to address the needs of farmers. These examples were meant to make a case for why changes to the ALR were necessary.

The problem, however, is that the ALR currently has a mechanism, through its boundary review process, to address these examples and provide exceptions where necessary.

The government’s press release also identified “regional differences” as one of the key concepts underpinning this policy and made me wonder what data underpins the decision to create the two zones, as proposed in this legislation.

On April 4 of 2014 a group of soil scientists, many of whom are my colleagues that I’ve worked with over the years, wrote to the Premier and expressed their concerns with this bill. To quote just a couple of lines, here’s what they said:

“Bill 24 creates a two-tiered ALR and a lower quality of agriculture lands and climate in zone 2 has been stated and assumed several times. However, these assertions are patently false when examined in the light of objective soil science data and agriculture capability ratings, ratings that incorporate a substantial body of climate data gathered during the Canada land inventory.

“In actual fact, there is far more class 1 to 4 land in zone 2 than in zone 1 — about 85 percent or 2 million hectares in zone 2 versus only 15 percent or 350,000 hectares in zone 1.”

That’s coming from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture in 1978.

This is not to say that lands of the same capability are directly comparable. A class 3 soil in the Fraser Valley is different from a class 3 soil in the Peace, etc. Capability, based on the range of crops, needs to be considered along with the suitability and productivity of individual crops on specific soils in specific local climates.

“Lower capability soils can be highly productive for a particular crop. For example, a capability class 5 soil that is restricted to producing a forage crop, hay or silage, is often highly productive for that one narrow cropping option. It is for this reason class 5 lands were included in the ALR. where they form the basis for some types of agriculture — i.e. important forage-production lands in ranching areas and class 5 organic, bog soils suited to the production of blueberries or cranberries.

“Similarly, some class 6 lands are important components of livestock production, notably the natural grasslands of the southern Interior. These provide the often limited early spring and fall grazing, thereby reducing both the labour and feed costs of ranchers.”

Given that the government’s claim that the land is less productive in zone 2 has been entirely refuted by experts, I’m hoping that this is not a case of decision-based evidence-making being brought before us here, where a desired conclusion was established and the evidence simply created around it to support a preordained decision. Our agriculture is simply far too important for the sustainability of our province’s future to be used for shortsighted politicking. The changes that face our province, whether it is the increasingly evident impact of climate change or the changes facing many of our communities, cannot be addressed by shortsighted decision-making.

I started my remarks by commenting that this was not a debate about change or the fear of change. I said this, in part, to head off what I suspect will be the government’s line: that opposition to this bill is merely opposition to change and that the official opposition, in particular, would never contemplate any changes to the ALC or the ALR under a Liberal government.

The fact is that they have eliminated this line of argument by pursuing a process that almost no one can support: an unclear and insufficient consultation, followed by a bill that goes against the scientific evidence and a minister who says that despite any additional consultation, the bill is going to pass this session and it’s going to have two zones in it.

The words from the member for Cowichan Valley again come to mind: this sounds a lot like jiggery-pokery. These are not the words, the minister put forward, of someone who is committed to building a social licence that is necessary to make such sweeping changes. They are also not the words of someone who will review the evidence that is available and allow it to inform policy. These are not the words of someone who will look at science and use science to inform policy. These are the words of someone whose foundation for policy development is decision-based evidence-making.

Bill 24 is not in the best interests of British Columbia, and I will not be supporting its passage through this House. I wholeheartedly support the opposition in its continued opposition to this bill through the next week or weeks of this session.