Letter to the Editor

During the BC Liberal’s Party convention in November of 2016, Christy Clark was clearly revving up party engines for the upcoming May 9 election fight. She labeled the BC NDP party as a “bunch of guys who want to go back into the past” reported the Nov. 9 edition of the Vancouver MetroNews. She also called them “ a party of quitters and ideologues.”

First, by definition, an “ideologue” is anyone who adheres to a particular ideology and who tends to be uncompromising, dogmatic and partisan in their views.

In the same speech, Clark also referred to her own Liberals as “a party of ideas … that will bust forward into a bright new future.” Perhaps the Premier might want to be more careful regarding her “name calling” and her choice of words. Apparently the same old uncompromising, dogmatic and partisan views are contained in many of her own present day policies.

That “ bright new future” must also refer to BC Liberal social services, health care or education policies. Liberal underfunding has been a consistent policy for many years. The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled on a 15 year old BCTF contractual dispute, forcing the BC Liberals to reconsider their “cuts” to the educational system. School districts even began charging parents for busing, due to funding shortages. (That edict however, was suddenly rescinded … as election time nears.)

Waiting times and doctor shortages at B.C. hospitals continue to grow and fester, assuming you even have a doctor.

The fentanyl drug crisis claimed over 800 lives in 2016, highest in Canada with no end in sight.

Premier Clark claims that she is “for the people” and that she is “investing in the people.” The poverty level in B.C. is perhaps the best measuring stick to evaluate these claims. B.C. has the reputation for the highest overall poverty level as well as highest child poverty. Are these Statistics Canada figures also part of a “bright new future?”

Site C was conceived over 40 years ago and has been resurrected several times. The Premier vowed to take the dam “to the point of no return.” No mention is made of the exponential costs associated with the project to taxpayers. The former Chair of the Joint Review Panel for Site C, Harry Swain, stated publicly that the government decision to proceed with Site C, under present circumstances is a political “dereliction of duty.” His words. Still looking like a “bright new future?”

Meanwhile, our Minister of Energy and Mines, the Hon. Bill Bennett, stated publicly that the building of the Site C mega dam is a “political” decision, not an economic one. The project will be financed entirely on borrowed money. ($8.8 billion and counting.) BC Hydro has also admitted that repayment for Site C may take up to 90 years. By some estimates the lifespan of Site C is only 70 years. There are no fixed buyers for the electricity. Exports of electricity continue to look gloomy into the next decade.

Will the ratepayers be stuck with the cost of paying for this over supply of electricity as part of our “bright new future?”

The Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) was established to protect the small amounts of agricultural land remaining. Public hearings are always required if land is to be used for any non- agricultural purposes (such as a dam reservoir). For Site C, however, this requirement was entirely omitted by political means through an “Order in Council.” Are double standards part of Christy Clark’s, ”bright new future?”

Clark made one final comment in her speech during that BC Liberal Party convention, stating that she will be criticized for “not being perfect.” This seems to be a juvenile interpretation for the term “criticism.”

Premier Clark will be criticized because it comes with the job and is based on her performance.

Period.

Rick Koechl,

Charlie Lake

Article Share