We’ve known it all along, but at last we hear it out loud. Robin Silvester, the President and CEO of Port Metro Vancouver, has stated that:

“Agriculture is emotionally important, but economically [of] relatively low importance to the Lower Mainland. And in terms of food security, [it] is almost meaningless for the Lower Mainland.”

So there we have it...finally, honesty from someone in a position of power. Our Premiers and their governments have known it was too political to admit to -- that Delta’s agricultural land will be turned into an industrial park.

And to put the icing on Delta’s cake, so to speak, the Premier commented at a recent dinner to the construction industry that those silly people in Delta don’t want the Port: how unpatriotic can they be? Look at the jobs, the opportunity to be “Canada’s face to Asia,” to contribute to the good of the province and of Canada!

Well, Madam Premier, we know the value of Deltaport to BC and to Canada. We live with it. We accept its presence. And we have given up more than you can imagine in order to host the port, as well as its access roads, its rail tracks, the overpasses, the highways and the causeways it requires to operate efficiently.

We have contributed to the economic prosperity of our country and region. And enough is enough. Credible alternatives are available in Vancouver harbor and at Prince Rupert so it is irresponsible to destroy more farmland and internationally-significant habitat for world-renowned salmon runs, Canada’s major stopover for migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway, and endangered southern resident orcas.

Now we know that the Premier and her industrial supporters intend to lay waste to what is left of the Fraser estuary. Now we know that any obligation to community, to family, to history, to wildlife (both marine and avian) migrations, to the finest agricultural land in Canada, is not on the provincial agenda. Habitat and farmland are being sacrificed for business and a plan that could ultimately be unfeasible. This is also about rezoning farmland, a lucrative enterprise for the business associates of government.

Many of those fighting to preserve what is left of Delta’s agricultural heritage and the migratory bird flyway that depends on those uplands have known that government policies supported Silvester’s position. It has been clear from its reports that the Gateway Council controls the government agenda. But to hear the comment finally spoken aloud is still a jarring experience.

Yes, Mr. Silvester, it is emotional. Our community – our families, our history, our agricultural industry, our soul and our quality of our life depend on the land. So does the entire Pacific population of migrating waterfowl and shorebirds. But the people don’t matter. Nor does wildlife or the morality of protecting an international Treaty obligation to preserve the habitat on which that migration depends.

The people of B.C. recognize the importance of credible business and trade but question the motives of unnecessarily destroying the environment and fine agricultural land.

We deserve a say in the decisions that affect our communities and lives. Does anyone else feel there is a reason people are occupying Wall Street?

Vicki Huntington is the Independent BC MLA for Delta South and a contributor to The Common Sense Canadian

As she begins her tenure as premier, I ask only one thing of Christy Clark—that she will lead this province into a renaissance of open and honest democratic government. That’s all.

British Columbia and its people have been bruised by this government and its secretive, arrogant, centralized leadership.  Now is the perfect time for the new Premier to heed demands for a renewal of democracy in B.C. and a change to the way in which politics is done.

How might things change?  Certainly, government needs to change how it responds to the people.  But for the elected MLAs to actually do their job, and to represent the people as they expect us to do, our political institutions also need to change.

There are three broken elements in B.C. politics.  One is the centralization of power and influence—and the resulting failure to respond to and respect the people. Second is the manner in which the legislature does its business.  And third is the structure of the party system itself. 

We all have sensed the centralization of power, but what we might not have seen is how that influences the decisions of government and sets up the reality that the people—and the opposition—become nothing more than distractions. 

And when that power has an ideology, it naturally listens to those who reflect and can make that ideology a reality. We saw it with the NDP and we are seeing it with the Liberals. We are witnessing the remaking of the institutions of government to serve a corporate citizen.

Power has responded to industry in many ways:  the Forestry Act was gutted; the Clean Energy Act has centred power in the Cabinet; the new Water Act contemplates the sale of water licences, which will mean the eventual control of that resource by industry.  Environmental legislation has been manipulated to favour developers.  Regional land use powers have been stripped.  The Oil and Gas Commission is a captured agency with little legislative control.

And the power to oversee the use of resources is now centred in one super ministry—a secret decision made exclusively by the former premier.

We are losing trust in our institutions. Which means we are losing faith in government. So how might we stop the unrestricted centralization and abuse of power? 

First, the elected Caucus should choose its leader. That doesn’t mean favour won’t be curried and the leader won’t exercise power; but it does mean Caucus will have influence and provide a check and balance to the unrestrained exercise of power. It does mean there is an internal mechanism that can resist the centralization of decision-making.

A Caucus should be able to vote secretly during internal debates and the decision of a Caucus must influence Cabinet policy.  Secret votes are the only way to ensure caucus members can’t be influenced by fear or favour as they express the will of their constituents. 

The second issue is how the Legislature does its business.  Our system is supposedly one where the government is held to account during question period.  Where legislation is tabled and debated.  Where the Throne Speech is deliberated and where the Budget is reviewed. It is the forum, supposedly, in which the people are represented.

But in reality, no one is listening, because no one has to listen. 

Except for the occasional problem a minister takes under consideration not one word spoken in the legislature has any impact on government.  The only impact is through the media, which means the Fourth Estate – the media – is the actual repository of opposition power.

In this modern world, with everyone watching and capable of being involved, the Members of the Legislative Assembly must have influence if representation is to mean anything.  And that means a substantial change to the legislative committee structure is critical.

Committees are creatures of the Legislature.  Even so, they only meet when empowered by a government motion and in fact, most never meet.  Environment, Health, Crown Corporations, Education – none has met since I took my seat in the House.

Rules must require regular meetings. Committees must be independent of Ministers and able to set their own agendas.  While the Committee Chairs are ostensibly elected, it is a leader’s decision and that must change. Committee membership should be an even-number-plus-one of government members, although I would argue that the very real need for checks and balances within the parliamentary system make it reasonable to suggest that the committee majority should lie with the Opposition.

To ensure MLAs are actually able to act as the people’s representatives, the government should be obliged to accept and action the recommendations of committee reports.  And finally, committees must have the authority to review legislation—and the government should have to debate in the Assembly why it is not accepting committee amendments.

These procedural reforms would change the entire dynamic of the Legislature.  It would be a fundamental reform to representative democracy in B.C. It would create checks and balances within the system.  And to get there, the Speaker must strike a special committee to recommend the reform of parliament.

Lastly is the manner in which parties choose their candidates, whether at the riding or leadership level. 

Good people require access to the opportunity to run and that requires both reasonable spending and contribution levels, which the system imposes during elections, but which don’t necessarily exist at the party level.  This needs to change.

But the other horror of the system is the membership drive. It is shady and demeaning. The parties must impose a membership cut-off at the time a vote is set.  I have seen people walk into a party headquarters and deliver hundreds (or thousands) of membership applications and tens of thousands of dollars – all in one lump drop. Corruption is inherent and the privilege of a vote is meaningless.

The parties won’t stop it because it’s money and future fundraising lists.  So the individuals who understand the party’s values, who organize and contribute and who should be determining our candidates, have to stand and watch an odious process they cannot control.

And the only way to bring reason to the system is to threaten legislation and oversight by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Power is a component of leadership, and change ultimately depends on the responsiveness of the leader.  The people won’t and shouldn’t tolerate the kind of government we’ve been getting.  We need change. And I hope I can support Premier Clark as she leads us into a democratic renewal of politics in B.C. 

What trumps the best soil in North America? Or what my father (an agrologist in a very early life) once told me was the “finest soil in the world, second only to the Nile Valley”? What trumps pioneer farmers whose families cleared the land and built the dykes? What trumps an international commitment to a migratory bird flyway? Or protection of the Fraser River estuary? Or a commitment to law and the land, the environment and the people?

Pavement trumps, of course. Big business with undue influence on government trumps. So does government that abandons ethical responsibility for the quality of life in the communities where people live their lives, pay their taxes, and raise their children - people who want only to be heard, and to know that common sense will rule.

The South Fraser component of Gateway is a 40-year-old transportation plan that definitely trumps modern thinking. The government ignores its environmental responsibility while hypocritically flaunting buzz terms like “sustainable”, “green”, “living smart”, and “carbon neutral” – a futile attempt to sanitize this dirty and wasteful development.

In other words, the South Fraser Perimeter Road trumps everything with this government’s “pavement politics”.

There are many reasons to oppose this blacktop boondoggle: it destroys precious farmland, dislocates people, demolishes habitat of threatened species. It increases pollution and congestion, and encourages real estate speculation.

But another major problem can be found in a report commissioned by former federal Minister of International Trade David Emerson, on the planned port-related transportation network known as Gateway. The report observed that the efficiency and competitiveness of the Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) had little to do with the construction of a new transportation network, and everything to do with modernizing the labour structure and distribution systems that service port activity. The paper noted that unless those elements changed, building new infrastructure would not be the panacea either big business or PMV were seeking. In other words, infrastructure alone would not enable the Port to effectively compete with the great ports of the world that had already addressed labour and distribution issues.

What does this mean? Simply, it means that a distribution system which is not operating around the clock is fundamentally inefficient and uncompetitive. It also means that outdated labour rules and rates will fail to serve us in the competitive global market.

And the real travesty is that the creators of Gateway know this is true. They have been asked time and again why they need new highways when the existing infrastructure is used only eight hours a day. And their answer? The distribution system says it would need a vast change in present practice. The truckers don’t want to work at night. And the excuses multiply. The Port executives know the problem. So do the distributors. So do the truckers. And so does the government.

But rather than confront the reality of an inefficient, underused system, we will spend over a billion dollars to go around the roadblock. Instead of issuing an executive order to run the port and its distribution network 18 or 24 hours a day, an irresponsible government finds it easier to pave the land.

Who is the winner? Certainly not the people. Trucks may move faster for the same eight hours a day. Gigantic distribution warehouses and miles of new blacktop will deliver containers and goods – for the same eight hours a day. And the people and the land and the environment will pay - forever.