Ladies and gentlemen of British Columbia, let’s step back and take a moment to examine the curious state of our province’s politics.
The BC political landscape has been characterized for too long by policies that, quite frankly, seem more like a wish list for the extreme left than a roadmap for governing a province with the dynamism and potential of British Columbia. From carbon taxes to the current state of affordable housing—the lack of vision is palpable. And let’s not forget the chilling effect on those who dare to step out of line, like that brave teacher in Abbotsford who had the audacity to question the party line.
In a recent charged exchange in the BC legislature, John Rustad, known for his forthright style and willingness to tackle the tough topics, posed a pointed question to Premier David Eby regarding the controversial SOGI 1-2-3 policies. These policies, originally ushered in by the BC United Liberals, have since become a hotbed of contention among many BC parents and communities.
Rustad minced no words: “Thousands of British Columbians, a significant portion from minority communities, have been vocal in their protest against SOGI 123.”
The heart of the matter? A deep-seated unease by parents who perceive a sexualization of their children under the aegis of this NDP government’s educational directive. The direct query to the minister was simple yet profound: Is there an acceptance that SOGI 1-2-3 might not just be divisive, but also an infringement on the rights of parents and a potential distraction from the primary educational objectives?”
The response from Premier Eby was both surprising and, to some, emblematic of a deeper political tactic. Instead of addressing Rustad’s query head-on, Eby chose to redirect the conversation entirely. Gaslighting Rustad merely by posing the question, Eby sidestepped the core issue. He pivoted instead to the undoubtedly significant challenges of cost of living, housing affordability, healthcare, addiction, and mental health. “These,” Eby stressed, “are the real issues paramount to British Columbians.” But his most controversial remark was reserved for last, as he rhetorically questioned Rustad’s decision to challenge policies impacting a “small group” of kids.
The sharp retort from Premier David Eby, in which he deflected the issue of SOGI 1-2-3 to speak about health care and other challenges, had an unmistakable layer of irony. After all, for many BC residents, the state of healthcare is indeed a sore point. It’s almost amusing, in a sardonic way, that Eby would pivot to healthcare when the situation in BC, under his leadership, appears to be in such disarray.
Let’s break it down for a moment. When Eby cites the challenges in healthcare as being of paramount concern to British Columbians, he isn’t wrong. But what’s glaringly obvious is the government’s inefficacy in addressing these very challenges. In 2022, a damning statistic emerged: British Columbia, alongside Nova Scotia, reported the longest average wait times for patients across all of Canada, as indicated by the Medimap Walk-in Clinic Wait Time Index.
Don’t just take this as rhetoric. Let’s delve into the cold, hard numbers. Here’s a snapshot of the wait times in some of BC’s major hospitals:
- Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre: A staggering 4 hours and 29 minutes.
- Burnaby Hospital: Waiting for almost 4 hours, clocking in at 3 hours and 51 minutes.
- Chilliwack General Hospital: 3 hours and 31 minutes.
- Delta Hospital: 3 hours and 36 minutes.
- Eagle Ridge Hospital: Past the 4-hour mark at 4 hours and 12 minutes.
- Langley Memorial Hospital: Another near 4-hour wait at 3 hours and 50 minutes.
- Lions Gate Hospital: 3 hours and 37 minutes.
- Ridge Meadows Hospital: Again past 4 hours, recording 4 hours and 13 minutes.
- Royal Columbian Hospital: 4 hours and 7 minutes.
- Surrey Memorial Hospital: Edging close to 4 and a half hours with 4 hours and 23 minutes.
- Vancouver General Hospital: 4 hours and 16 minutes.
These numbers aren’t just digits on a screen. They represent people—everyday British Columbians—waiting in pain, anxiety, or discomfort. For Eby to use healthcare as a deflective tool in the midst of such an alarming crisis does raise eyebrows. If the intention was to redirect the conversation to an area where the government is making strides, healthcare might have been the wrong card to play.
It appears that the prevailing sentiment within the administration is one of resignation—that society must come to terms with addiction as an accepted norm and consequently provide addicts with access to drugs. At first glance, some might argue that this approach humanizes the addict, treating addiction as a health crisis rather than a moral failing.
However, the unintended consequences of such policies have been glaring and grim.
Sam Cooper of the Bureau has been diligent in highlighting a particularly alarming offshoot of these policies: the very drugs meant for addicts, supplied under the auspices of harm reduction, are finding their way into the sprawling black market. Worse yet, some of these substances end up in the hands of teenagers. This isn’t merely a trickle-down effect; it’s a floodgate that’s been inadvertently thrown open.
Moreover, the needle exchange programs, though conceived with the best intentions, have become hotbeds of violence and crime. Residents living in proximity to these centers often recount tales of fear, intimidation, and a sense of being besieged. Whole neighborhoods feel trapped, held hostage not just by the addicts frequenting these centers, but by the very policies that are supposed to ameliorate the drug crisis.
But let’s circle back to our education system. Education is the bedrock of society, the foundation upon which futures are built. In British Columbia, and indeed across many parts of the world, schools have evolved, continuously adapting to the changing societal landscape. However, recent shifts in our education system have raised eyebrows and sparked impassioned debates.
Why this fervent urgency to integrate intricate gender ideologies into the curriculum targeted at our young learners? The concerns are not baseless. Numerous parents, educators, and even students have shared their apprehensions. They fear that introducing such complex topics during the formative years might lead young minds into a labyrinth of confusion, potentially disrupting their natural developmental trajectory.
After all, schools, in their essence, are designed to equip students with foundational knowledge and skills. Shouldn’t explorations into deeper, multifaceted ideologies be reserved for higher education institutions where young adults can grapple with them in a more mature and comprehensive manner?
Children, with their boundless curiosity and adaptability, are like sponges, soaking in the world around them. Every experience, every lesson leaves an indelible mark. The phases of growth and adolescence are already rife with challenges – from physiological changes to emotional roller-coasters. Introducing additional complexities seems not just unnecessary, but potentially detrimental.
Instead of muddying the waters, shouldn’t we be focusing on bolstering their resilience? Equip them with life skills that teach them to navigate failures, setbacks, and the inevitable challenges life will throw their way?
In this ongoing debate, figures like John Rustad stand out. They represent a voice that questions, challenges, and seeks clarity amidst the cacophony. Rustad’s audacity to question the status quo, to champion genuine opposition, is not just commendable; it’s essential for a balanced discourse.
Provincial policies, decisions made in our very backyard, have profound ripple effects. And for BC, with its rich history and promising future, it’s not just about deserving better—it’s about demanding the best. The children, the future torchbearers of this province, deserve nothing less.
A longer version of this article was originally published on The Opposition with Dan Knight.
Discover more from THE MIDWAY ADVANCE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
