I know that housing is top of mind for so many people in North Vancouver. Sixteen years of neglect have allowed our real estate market to get out of … - Bowinn Ma

I get that the job of an opposition is to oppose. I get that. But they’re supposed to at least oppose on behalf of the people, not themselves. Let me read a quote from the leader of the B.C. Liberals from last year: “We currently have a government where we’re in opposition, and our job is to convince the public that we should form government once again.” I find this quote completely demonstrative of the power motive that drives that party. The role of an opposition party is to challenge government to implement the best possible policies and legislation for the public by ensuring that differing views are expressed and defended, not to plot their way back into power. This motion and the fractured narrative that they’re trying to build is just another pitiful example of how they’re more concerned about playing politics than they are of actually helping people, more concerned about confusing the public than they are in supporting them. I don’t know, and I don’t think they know anymore, who they represent. They are flailing, because without big money in politics, without their big corporate donors telling them what to do, they’re learning the ugly truth of it all. They don’t know how to work for people.

We, as a society, have grown so car-centric that we somehow have allowed ourselves to fall into the trap of believing that personal vehicles are the only way to get around in an urban setting and that failing to invest every transportation dollar into roadways is somehow a disservice to society. I absolutely insist it is not. We must recognize that when it comes to transportation planning, the goal is to move as many people and as much goods around as possible, as time-efficiently as possible, for as little money per trip as possible, expending as few GHGs as possible, while ensuring safety is a core consideration. Doing that means being more of what I might refer to as being mode-agnostic and mode-diverse. Cars, bikes, buses, trucks, trains, gondolas, ferries, SeaBuses and shoes — they are all valid ways to get around. It is not about cars; it is about people. And people can move around in a whole lot of different ways. For the North Shore, our commitment to public transportation as a way forward is absolutely critical. You know what? Whether it’s more SeaBuses, more buses, new routes or aspirational concepts like underwater tunnels for transit, SkyTrain to the North Shore, or more, it’s time for us to shift the conversation from the question of how we move cars around to how we move more people around. That’s why we must also commit to encouraging active transportation options as a way to allow people the choice of leaving their cars at home so that existing roadway capacity can be better utilized for goods movement and used by people who depend on their cars to get around. If done properly, biking infrastructure is an effective way of keeping cars off of our roads. Let’s be absolutely clear, however. Being pro–public transit and pro–active transportation doesn’t mean that the family of six that depends on their car to shuttle their children to school and soccer games should be forced to leave their car at home. It means that the options to allow other people, like myself, to get off of the roadways and onto my bicycle or onto a bus is available so that that family of six can get around in their vehicle more quickly. It also means that the ability for their children to travel by bus on their own when they’re old enough and responsible enough exists so that their parents are not transporting them around until they have their own driver’s licence or their own vehicle. It is about choice. It is about health. It is about freedom. It’s about people.

I will be supporting this throne speech because climate change, poverty, opioid overdoses, homelessness and hopelessness — these are all real issues. I do believe that this should not be a question of whether or not we can afford to resolve them, but rather a question of whether we, as a society, can afford not to.