Dermod Travis: Why are the B.C. Liberals afraid of a little debate?

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      “Today's B.C. Liberals” may have taken a little inspiration during last year's election campaign from former Canadian prime minister Kim Campbell when she bluntly stated in 1993 that "an election is no time to discuss serious issues".

      It's why British Columbians could be forgiven for thinking that they missed something during the campaign after seeing some of the legislation introduced during the current session of the B.C. legislature.

      Heck, in some cases, “Today's B.C. Liberals” didn't even communicate some of their plans through a Monty Python "Know what I mean? Nudge, nudge. Say no more" sketch.

      And if they were forced up against a wall in the campaign and had no choice but to stake out a position, many of those lofty words run directly counter to what they're now doing firmly ensconced back in office.

      Here's what “Today’s B.C. Liberals” told Metro Vancouver last year about the Agricultural Land Reserve: “In 2011, we reaffirmed our commitment to the ALR with amendments to the ALC Act and $1.6 million in additional one-time funding in order to strengthen compliance and enforcement and provide additional resources.” Nothing there about creating a two-tier land reserve.

      Trawling for votes in B.C.'s coastal communities, this is what “Today’s B.C. Liberals” had to say about B.C. Ferries: "...we need to do more to ensure coastal communities have access to a high quality ferry service that affordably meets the needs of the travelling public."

      Not a hint about service cuts, scrapping free senior travel, or putting a glorified tugboat on the Discovery Coast ferry route for the nine-hour trip to Bella Coola.

      Even February's speech from the throne opted for boredom over setting out the government's agenda.

      In the eight four-day weeks that the B.C. legislature has sat so far this year, the government has tabled 26 pieces of legislation, most of them not having garnered a single syllable in that February speech.

      One bill would create that two-tiered Agricultural Land Reserve. Another bill allows research in B.C. parks, for what and by whom is still a mystery.

      Another piece of legislation will freeze the status of 17 provincial ridings ostensibly because of their rural nature, but in a bizarre twist, the two ridings that make up Prince George and the two that make up Kamloops suddenly became vast, remote ridings and are thrown in as well.

      The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act fails to tackle the principal recommendation from the 2010 Local Government Elections Task Force: campaign spending limits. After one white paper, one discussion paper, and four years of procrastination the government tables two bills on local elections in one day with a total of 101 sections in one, 213 sections in the other and the campaign spending elephant is still in the room.

      And all of these bills—despite their significance to the province's future—are being debated and passed in a matter of hours. Eleven have passed third reading.

      It's not a stretch to imagine that there was more debate among MLAs on the fallout over Speaker Linda Reid's $733 muffin and snack rack than there was over the Park Amendment Act.

      Which leads to the obvious question: why the rush?

      The Agricultural Land Reserve has existed for more than 40 years. If the government's plans for a two-tier land reserve are as innocuous as its talking points make them out to be, a few months of consultation won't upset the apple cart.

      The minister responsible, Bill Bennett, has already apologized for the lack of it, saying, “I know that we could have done a better job of consultations and I take my mea culpa.”

      That's nice, but why not fix it with an all-party committee of the legislature and public consultations across B.C. with the goal of going to second and third reading in the fall session of the legislature?

      At the end of the day, no one expects that an election campaign can touch on every issue, but when it does and the party that wins completely reverses course, voters might feel like they were taken for fools.

      But then maybe it is the fault of B.C. voters for not fully appreciating that the B.C. Liberals might have been quite literal when they used the term “Today's B.C. Liberals” throughout the last campaign.

      Comments

      4 Comments

      True Lies

      Apr 10, 2014 at 11:49am

      They don't want to discuss...

      - BC Rail, a scandal in need of a formal inquiry, Royal Commission Style,

      - Record Debt & Corporate Welfare,

      - PPP Corporate Welfare for their Friends in forcing BC Hydro to buy above market rate power at huge cost in the tens of billions to be paid for by the people of BC, voters or not,

      - More Corporate Welfare for LNG already $200 Million+++ announced,

      - ill conceived ballooning Site C Costs in the tens of Billions,

      - $565+ million for a leaky tarp roof at BC Place,

      - Gross mismanagement of Finances with yup Record Debt!

      - Nuturing the ALR in 'Rural' areas to open up for Oil & Gas Development aka FRACKING!

      - Ramming Legislation via a Dictatorial Majority with no checks & balances.

      etc etc it's no wonder they don't want to talk about that or anything else.

      0 0Rating: 0

      bo fodchuk

      Apr 10, 2014 at 9:59pm

      The BC Liberal party is not really a "liberal" political party. It is masquerading as such. How did that happen?

      Time for liberals to retake their party. How can we do that?

      0 0Rating: 0

      Xtina

      Apr 11, 2014 at 10:41am

      The current provincial government are devoted representatives for the misunderstood and downtrodden corporations of our world. Those deep pocketed bastions of mining, oil, forestry, pharma, and the New Car Dealership Ass. who long ago calculated how to play our First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system with it's inevitable reduction of viable political parties which produces the one party dominance with that one party holding majority for decades--see "Alberta". The good news is people are becoming politically active and aware.

      0 0Rating: 0

      HD

      May 4, 2014 at 2:52pm

      There has been much concern about BC’s prehospital care system of late; I feel it’s high time someone provided the actual facts of the matter.
      No matter what any PHSA official or 'hired gun, ex-paramedic' tells us, understand this fact: BC does not have a ‘best-possible-patient-outcome-prehospital-care-EMS-system, BC has a ‘lowest cost per patient transported EMS system’. We do not have a ‘patient first’ system we have a ‘service provider (BCAS) first’ EMS system. Truth be known, BC has nothing even remotely close to a ‘first class’ EMS system, we have something between a 3rd and 4th class EMS system. Here’s why: ‘first class’ EMS systems make widespread use of specially trained doctors in the prehospital setting. ‘Second class’ EMS systems make widespread use of Advanced Life Support paramedics (ALS). ‘Third class’ systems make widespread use of ‘full-time’ Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulance attendants. ‘Fourth class’ EMS systems make-wide spread use of part-time and full-time BLS attendants, and that's what we have in BC.
      BC currently has circa 3,650 ambulance attendants, of that, over 2,000 are part-timer Basic Life Support attendants and only 5% of all BC ambulance attendants are actual ALS certified paramedics. BCAS does NOT use any doctors prehospital at all. First class (international) EMS systems report their ‘lights and Sirens’ (life and limb saving) responses in ‘90th percentile’ times, BCAS reports their Code 3 responses in '50th percentile' (i.e. 'average' response time). While the layperson may not immediately see the difference between the two reporting systems, it is significant; 90th percentile times show the lapse time for the ambulance to ‘arrive on scene’ at or less than the stated time, 90% of the time, BC’s chosen reporting process shows the ‘average’ time it took for an ambulance to arrive on scene, meaning BC ambulance code 3 times show the time it took for an ambulance to arrive on scene for only half the calls, meaning half the response times were longer than indicated.
      Another fact I am sure PHSA/BCAS will never share with British Columbians is, prehospital care patients continue to die in BC from highly treatable conditions, ones that have not routinely caused death in other ‘first class’ EMS systems in literally decades. Most people don’t know that a high number of heart attack deaths start as ‘time sensitive conditions’ and only

      0 0Rating: 0