In just over a year we will have an election in British Columbia, and if voters follow through on their current trajectory, the BCLiberals will lose power. In fact, it may end in a Kim Campbell style wipe out for the governing party. So it makes sense that people are starting to look for the door.
What happens when a government changes is that the people who had power find themselves often unemployed and without skills to find employment. Those who were hired to work directly for the elected representatives are also out looking for work. And an entire new group of people start rubbing their collective hands together in excitement about their new power.
We may get to see this play out in Alberta in the coming weeks. The Progressive Conservative party in Alberta appears headed for the exit to be replaced by the more right-wing radical and untested Wild Rose Party. One of the issues on the minds of voters in Alberta is the immediate roadside prohibition scheme for driving between .05 and .08%.
Last year Alberta introduced a similar scheme to that which we have in BC. Our Premier met with theirs and spoke of the great advancement we have in BC with automatic prohibitions based on roadside breath testers. Soon after the Alberta Government introduced legislation to this effect. To their credit, Albertans were more vocal in their opposition to the scheme. And the upstart Wild Rose Party jumped into the fray. They claimed that they oppose this move and would not permit such legislation to stand.
Interestingly, although the legislation has successfully made it through the Legislature, the Alberta Government did not enact the law. It appears that they had second thoughts. Now it has been put on hold until after the election. If the Progressive Conservatives win the election (now unlikely) they will follow through with their IRP law. If they lose, the law will likely head to the scrap heap.
The fate of the IRP scheme in BC is now purely a political affair. And for the BCLiberals, it is a no-win scenario.
If they back away from the scheme, it will be another humiliating costly mistake that will further destroy their chances of hanging on in the next election. If they come back with a crappy fix (there is no other type of fix for this scheme) then it will end up in protracted litigation that could come apart in the days before the election. And no matter what, many British Columbia voters want to punish the BCLiberals for coming up with such a ridiculous scheme.
There has been no public consultation about proposed changes to the scheme since the Court rulings late last year. If there is to be new legislation, it must be introduced right away. The Government might ask the Court for an extension of the extension to buy themselves more time while everything is before the Court of Appeal. No matter what, the issue is still going to be front and centre in the next election, which is now only a year away.
Which brings us to the point: how will the next Government deal with the problem? Has anyone put it to the leaders of the NDP or BC Conservative Party? The NDP supported the IRP legislation when it was voted on and in fact put up no fight and suggested nothing by way of amendments. Only one NDP member raised a concern. This fellow, a lawyer, spoke up despite the NDP’s position on the legislation. Given the frightening unanimity of the elected members, it was a courageous albeit ultimately ineffective stance.
So, there are some questions we would like to put to the people who will ask for our votes. Will they abolish the entire scheme, part of the scheme or try to bring it back in some way? Will the new Government pass legislation to compensate the people who were given 90-day IRPs for Fail? Or will they try to limit the compensation? What type of compensation, if any, will they offer?
Do they support a .05% threshold for punishment? Will they still seek to fine people and seize the family minivan? Or will they create a truly administrative scheme where they seek to rehabilitate people rather than punishing them? If they intend to keep such a scheme, will they have the matters dealt with in Court rather than at the OSMV? Will they create a new tribunal where the hearings take place face to face? Will they appoint lawyers to be the adjudicators? Will you be able to get disclosure, and challenge the evidence by way of cross examination? Will the scheme still be predicated on the use of roadside screeners?
We could go on and on, but you get the picture. The important thing is that we hear from the candidates — that they tell us what they intend to do about the IRP scheme if they become the New BC Government.