Who says elections and politics are boring? 

The federal government campaign that concluded on April 28 proved how quickly fortunes can turn in a tumultuous world, and that all polls do not represent the gospel voters’ truth. Locally, Elizabeth May was rightly rewarded for her record as an MP and parliamentarian. 

We’d like to hope the results are a sign that Canadians have resisted the worldwide slide to right-wing authoritarianism. For as much as veteran Conservative politician Pierre Poilievre tried to appear prime ministerial during moments of the campaign, quotes and images from his long political career made it clear he prefers using insults and division to get his results, much like the current U.S. president, and that he shares some of that individual’s anti-progressive views, as do many of Poilievre’s party. 

On political discourse in general, it’s distressing that a large number of people think viciously insulting and threatening political opponents is acceptable, and that the bot farms responsible for much of the barbaric online vitriol seemingly cannot be stopped. 

Citizens have been weaponized through “rage-farming” and groomed to be manipulated by fear and hate based on unfiltered information that taps into our basest selves. It is not that people don’t have a right to feel any anger about past, present or future circumstances; it is that they don’t have the right to express it with physically or verbally violent and threatening words and tactics. Something terrible has been unleashed in the world of political/social discourse in the last 10 years and it needs to be confronted, quashed, shifted or controlled in some way. 

Political criticism and holding those with power to account are important parts of democracy. The use of sarcasm in critiquing an opponent’s position or actions is a fair tactic and can be considered a fine art. It’s not that we always have to be “nice.” But constantly gushing waterfalls of negativity and sheer crap do not contribute to a healthy democracy. Many good people have been discouraged from participating in politics in recent years due to the horrific treatment of themselves and their families. 

One wish we have for the next session of Parliament is that it will be less acrimonious than its predecessors. Hopefully when Poilievre returns to the House of Commons he will have been humbled by the rejection from his own Ottawa constituents and encouraged to leave his “attack dog” persona behind.

By FRANTS ATTORP

When trustees reinterpreted the preserve and protect mandate during an in-camera meeting in 2023, environmental protection suddenly became just another “element” to consider. Now there is evidence it is being sidelined altogether, at least on Salt Spring.

The latest shocking example is the contract the Trust signed with the consultant who undertook the recent Complete Communities Assessment. The project’s request for proposals states: “. . . the analysis must focus on growth through the lenses of housing, daily needs, transportation and infrastructure . . . .” Guess what’s missing from the “lens!” (The environment was added later according to planners, but only “through the stakeholder workshops.” It seems someone had to complain.)

Asked why the natural environment was excluded from the growth lens, a Trust spokesperson wrote: “That methodology did not require consideration of the unique mandate of the Islands Trust.” While that may be technically true, it is false in every other sense. Even the provincial Complete Communities Guide — which was never designed for protected areas — includes “preservation of the natural environment.” Furthermore, it is the responsibility of staff and trustees to apply the Islands Trust Act to all land-use planning.

Interestingly, the document required this task: “Based on input received, create a single scenario that reflects a working community vision to inform policy development . . . .” Yet when the consultant did exactly that — by highlighting “a community deeply committed to preserving its unique character and natural environment” — trustees sent his final report back for a “substantive edit.” That resulted in a revised report that planners described as “more neutral” and not reflective of “a community vision.”

Another phase of public engagement for the official community plan “update” will start soon, but already there is evidence the environment is being sidelined. Even though proposed changes are sweeping, irrevocable and a violation of existing growth limits, the scope of the project will be limited primarily to housing, and “community visioning” will be “targetted.” That is a reversal of priorities. Housing, while important, has never been the raison d’etre of the Islands Trust.

This leaves us with a burning question: Who is directing the choir as the Islands Trust sings its swan song?

That the debate about the future of Salt Spring (and the other islands) has to happen in a community newspaper is evidence of a broken process. The fundamentals of proposed policy changes should have been aired before the whole idea of “integrated solutions” was foisted on the community, before the Housing Action Program Task Force made its recommendations, before trustees tried to upzone most of the island for extra dwellings and of course before trustees resolved to nullify the mandate.

Massive changes are in the offing, both locally and at Trust Council, without the public ever having had full opportunity to weigh in on key issues of growth, sustainability and the Islands Trust Act.

Given the circumstances, we should all be grateful to the Driftwood for allowing the debate that trustees seem determined to stifle.

The writer is a Salt Spring resident.