S

Here are some basic political facts for some of our more strident friends on “X” and other social media platforms.

There are at best 2 to 4 potentially realistic pickups for the Conservative Party of BC on the Island, North and Interior. That’s being super aggressive but let’s say that’s in play.

To win a comfortable majority and defeat the NDP, Conservatives must win the Lower Mainland. That means holding Langley, possibly pick up 2 to 3 seats in Surrey and Richmond, win 2 to 3 in the Tri-Cities, pick up 2 to 6 in Vancouver / Burnaby / North Shore.

There is no other path.

The Conservative Party has already nearly maxed out in the interior and north.

Defeating the NDP will require compromises within the party.

It will require that members commit to backing the winner of this race.

It means that members put the people of BC ahead of their personal definition of purity and perfection.

There is simply no other option.

If you want single issue purity, start a podcast.

If you want the NDP gone, smaller government, fiscal responsibility, protection of private property, the end of government in the drug business, hospitals that are open when you need them, safer streets and any number of issues we can all agree on, then help with the hard work of winning.

Regardless of who the new leader is …

Regardless of your pet issue ...

Regardless of your personal view of purity ...

BC is counting on us now and if you can’t put province over Party, you will only be of service to the NDP.

Lecture over.


Brad Zubyk … was Chief of Staff to former BC Conservative Party leader John Rustad.

Over a dozen years ago, while my brother and I were on a road trip with our motorcycles, we stopped at the BC Legislature. I was impressed by the architecture, and the many murals that adorned the building, especially the four which are on the ceiling of the dome. If you research them, you’ll find they were painted nearly a century ago (1935) by George Southwell. Each depicts one of provinces then key industries; agriculture, fishing, mining, and forestry.

But back to that government media release I mentioned a moment ago. Included in the text of the release was this statement:

Through BC Business House, the Province is working with industry leaders to host sector showcases that will highlight key industries, including tourism, energy, life sciences, mining, technology, agriculture and food (let’s say that includes fishing), and trade and logistics infrastructure.

Anyone notice what I did? For me, it jumped out immediately.

Where is Forestry?

It should not be a surprise to anyone that forestry is missing from that list. Over the past decade the provincial government of Premier David Eby, and in particular Forestry Minister Ravi Parmar, have overseen a devastating collapse of the industry.

In just the past four years alone, an estimated 15,000 men and women have seen their jobs disappear as nearly two dozen mills closed.

Over three hundred communities, that rely on forestry and logging, have seen their tax base drastically reduced – and many residents and families, in these mostly rural communities, have had to move elsewhere to try and find work.

At an average $100,000 per year (including benefits) those 15,000 job losses have resulted in a direct hit to the economy of $1.5 billion dollars.

I understand that each of those forestry jobs support another three to five individuals who work in jobs directly dependent on forestry, as well as secondary jobs such as grocery workers, restaurant servers, retail workers, etc.

Using the low side of three, we can say that has resulted in an additional 45,000 jobs vanishing from BC’s economy. Little wonder then that Stats-Can reports 40,200 jobs lost in the first four months of 2026.

Overall, British Columbia has seen 60,000 direct and indirect jobs, relating to forestry, vanish ... with a hit to the BC economy amounting to a staggering $4.164* BILLION dollars!

Given all that, is it any wonder that Eby’s NDP government no longer considers forestry to be a key industry in our province?

For all intents and purposes, at least for this government, it appears that forestry is indeed a sunset industry. Back in 1935, whoever would have thought that would be its future?

Alan Forseth … is a Kamloops resident. For 50+ years he has been active, in a number of capacities, in local, provincial and federal politics, including running as a candidate for the BC Reform Party in the 1996 provincial election, and as a four-time provincial campaign manager.

*The initial $1.5 billion from direct forest job losses as well as $2.664 billion from indirect job losses from an average BC median wage of $59, 200 - includes tips)

On June 1st, the race will be over, and the Conservative Party of BC will have a new leader.

Then what?

Well, if anybody except Milobar wins, the province will have to host a by-election somewhere because none of the other leadership candidates have a seat in the race.

If Milobar doesn’t win, which MLA will resign their seat (and become unemployed) in order to facilitate a by-election so the new leader can try and win a seat so as to be able to represent the party in the BC legislature?

If Findlay wins, I assume her husband, Brent Chapman would step aside, “all in the family” style. Would Chapman step aside if Black, Elliot or Fulmer win, though?

Do the MLA’s get to decide themselves if they want to become suddenly unemployed, or can the party fire one of them to force a by-election?

My decaf coffee must be hitting the spot this morning because my brain is busy. Or maybe it’s because it’s a Pro-D day at my kids’ school, so instead of packing lunch for my son and homeschooling my daughter, my mind is ... elsewhere.

Beyond the by-election, how is each candidate’s messaging likely to change in the lead up to a general election?

I imagine Milobar‘s messaging will stay steady. He doesn’t have to change a thing about what he is communicating to come across as an all-around reasonable choice for BC. If anything changes from his mouth, it will likely be a more detailed policy as negotiated around the caucus table (that he already sits at) with his colleagues.

Alternatively, I imagine that we would see Caroline Elliot‘s messaging soften. As the candidate with a $1M + communications and market research budget, Elliot is the queen of telling BC Conservative members what they want to hear, in order to try and win the race. So, when the target changes to a general population, and her marketing intel informs her (and her campaign team) that the people want to hear different things, will we witness her shapeshift?

As for Black, unless demographics in the province lean towards everybody making $300k plus, it’s hard to imagine his platform landing with the general population.

His immediate Day One 20 percent tax cut is going to be undressed as underwhelming for most British Columbians because the average median earnings in the province is $57k. His 20 percent income tax cut will only deliver approximately $47 per month into people’s pockets each month. That on top of Black’s goal to privatize everything that can be privatized, and a deficit bigger than the BC NDP (which his 20 percent tax cut will create), I don’t see how his is a winning plan.

If he wins, my family will see about an extra $650 each month into our bank account due to our family income, which would be appreciated, so I guess my family (and families like ours) are his target market. As nothing is free, I can’t help but wonder if our family will get to keep the extra income, or if it would soon become a pay one pocket and take from the other situation. Bottom line, would Black be willing to change his plan for a general election if his BC Conservative Party colleagues think it would be a ballot box bust?

As for Findlay, I can’t see her changing her tune in order to appease the general public. In this way, she is the most like Milobar, which I respect. What you see is what you get. If British Columbians are ready for a confident, non-apologetic, conservative pure blood to lead change in the province, Kerry-Lynne Findlay is the pick.

Will it be chaotic and dramatic? Absolutely. Is she the most like Trump? I think so. Would she be good for BC? Anybody is better than the BC NDP, and as a bit of a social conservative myself, I do welcome the changes I know she will push forward. That said, my pick is still Milobar because I think we’ll see the same necessary social changes while also benefiting from Milobar’s calm, calculated and community minded stewardship.

I’ve had enough crisis, and to me, Findlay feels exhausting when I look forward. But can Findlay win a general election on a solidly social conservative platform and a continued pattern of cheap shots, alarmist accusations, losing teammates, her own past conflict of interest issues and the baggage of her husband’s past racist remarks … or would the public reject her personality like they rejected Poilievre in the last election?

I’m pretty sure a sponge could win against Eby at the moment, however if she wins, my thinking is that Eby won’t be who she is up against come the next election. Everybody knew Trudeau couldn’t win, but nobody expected the Conservatives to lose to Carney - he wasn’t on anyone’s radar. – so who would her opponent be?

As for Yuri. If you believe Caroline Elliot’s hit piece, he is a social shape shifter based on the audience. However, if he wins, I suspect he would be less likely to soften because his agreement with OneBC would prevent him. Could Yuri and OneBC pull off a general election win? I don’t think so, but it could make for an interesting situation in the BC legislature as I imagine we’d see a lot more Independents seated...if not an entirely new party form (BC Liberal 3.0)?

Time to refill my coffee cup...

A commentary from a self-proclaimed socially awkward peasant wearing sweatpants. Sharing thoughts and other stuff.

Share

I continue to be puzzled by things that BC Conservative leadership candidate Kerry-Lynne Findlay says, or maybe the better term would be ‘implies’.

Today was a perfect example, as I received the following message from her campaign team:

The NDP government has neglected critical transportation routes like the Rogers Pass, putting vital trade corridors and BC’s economy at risk.

The Rogers Pass is one of British Columbia’s most important trade and transportation routes. But today, there is growing uncertainty about its long-term safety.

More than 4,000 vehicles and 40 trains move through Rogers Pass every day. It is a vital route for jobs, trade, tourism, and resource development.

My Western Alliance plan will connect Alberta and Saskatchewan by responsibly unlocking our natural resources and investing in the needed infrastructure to grow our economy.

British Columbians deserve leadership that will fight for world-class transportation infrastructure that supports economic growth.

I am guessing that she has brought up the issue of the Rogers Pass due to a recent announcement from the federal government that it will no longer provide Canadian Armed Forces personnel for avalanche control, beginning next year.

Now for supporters, or prospective supporters of Findlay, who may not pay close attention to the news, this is the ideal type of communication.

She has taken an event, and turned it to what will hopefully be her advantage. Was this deliberate? That’s up to you to decide, but I believe it was.

First of all, I do not recall seeing or hearing anything about the NDP, as Findlay stated, “neglecting” critical routes like the Rogers Pass.

With the federal government saying it will no longer provide avalanche control, that could indeed become a serious issue when (not if) major slides occur, but this is something out of the hands of the provincial government. That said the NDP government of David Eby should be doing everything in their power to have the fed’s reverse this decision.

From there, Findlay then goes into her pitch for ‘investing in the needed infrastructure’ and that she’ll fight for ‘world-class transportation infrastructure’.

I’m not sure what the federal government abandoning a highway and rail safety program in the Rogers Pass has to do with Kerry-Lynne’s assertion that the NDP has neglected this transportation corridor, but hopefully someone in the mainstream media will pose that question to her.

This is not the first time that Findlay has, in my opinion, presented questionable information.

At a meet and greet held in Kamloops on April 1st, she had this to say about hospital care for an expectant mother:

“At a get-together in Abbotsford there was a lady there. Her daughter was in labour and went to Langley Memorial Hospital and they said, ‘You didn’t have the two COVID shots. We will not help you because you don’t have the two COVID shots.’

She’s in active labour. She went home. There was nowhere to go. She had the baby at home on the floor.”

FACT: There are no vaccine mandates; they were rescinded on July 26^th, 2024. According to the provincial government, no individual will be turned away from receiving hospital care, prenatal care, or delivery if they are unvaccinated.

ANYONE that follows the news will know this, so why did Findlay make such a claim? I’ll hazard a guess it’s because she was making her pitch to those who get their so-called news(?) from independent sources that make wild claims and promote conspiracy theories.

Here’s another.

In an email communication Findlay’s team sent out on May 9^th, she spoke about the Taylor Bridge, which was built in 1960. She stated that the bridge has ‘required constant repairs and resurfacing’. That is indeed true.

Her next words -- “it even collapsed a few decades ago” — were wrong.

FACT: It was the OLD Taylor suspension bridge, built during the Second World War which in 1957 collapsed — NOT the 1960’s replacement.

It’s bad enough that there is still no timeline to replace this over 60 year old structure, but it’s worth asking why she would confuse people, living outside the Peace River region, with an entirely different bridge.

I have concerns that Kerry-Lynne Findlay has made statements that are questionable. With that in mind, and given she wishes to lead the Conservative Party of BC, it should be of utmost importance that information she presents to members is thoroughly fact-checked for accuracy.

For those who will be voting shortly, these things might be worth considering.

Alan Forseth … is a Kamloops resident. For 40+ years he has been active, in a number of capacities, in local, provincial and federal politics, including running as a candidate for the BC Reform Party in the 1996 provincial election, and as a four-time provincial campaign manager.

For years, politics in British Columbia followed a fairly familiar pattern.

You had the BC Liberals, later rebranded as BC United, the BC New Democratic Party, and the BC Green Party. Those were the major political forces that shaped conversations and elections across the province for decades.

But over the past few years, something has clearly shifted.

British Columbia’s political landscape is changing rapidly, and for the first time in a long time, it feels like the province is standing at a crossroads.

The rise of the Conservative Party of British Columbia has changed the conversation entirely. Whether people support the party or not, there is no denying that it has tapped into frustration that many British Columbians have been feeling on issues like affordability, housing, public safety, and trust in government.

At the same time, the governing NDP continues to hold strong support, particularly in urban areas and regions where population density is highest.

That is one of the realities of governing British Columbia.

The province is incredibly diverse, not just culturally, but politically and economically as well. The priorities of someone living in downtown Vancouver are naturally going to be different from someone living in the Interior, Northern BC, or smaller communities like Kamloops.

In Kamloops, conversations often revolve around affordability, resource industries, healthcare access, infrastructure, and community safety. In other parts of the province, the focus may be transit, density, climate policy, or urban growth.

Neither perspective is necessarily wrong. They are simply shaped by different realities. And that is where governing British Columbia becomes complicated.

Historically, some premiers managed to bridge those regional divides more effectively than others. Former premier W. A. C. Bennett is often remembered for building support across multiple regions of the province by focusing heavily on infrastructure, economic development, and large-scale provincial projects. Whether people agreed with every decision or not, there was a sense that the province was being approached as a whole.

Today, politics feels more fragmented.

Federal politics have also played a role in shaping provincial conversations. Political trends in Ottawa and even the United States increasingly influence how people view issues here at home.

Social media has amplified that even further, creating a political environment that moves faster and feels more polarized than it once did. That influence can now be seen across the spectrum of political parties in British Columbia.

Smaller parties, including newer movements such as OneBC, are attempting to carve out their own space by appealing to voters who feel disconnected from the traditional political structure. Meanwhile, the Greens continue to approach issues from a different perspective entirely, particularly around environmental policy and sustainability.

One thing I do find encouraging, regardless of party, is seeing younger voices becoming more involved in politics. That matters.

Politics cannot be shaped by the same generation forever. New perspectives are important because every generation experiences the province differently and faces different challenges. At the same time, experience still matters too.

That balance between experience and change is part of what makes this moment in British Columbia politics so interesting.

Right now, it feels like the province is trying to decide what direction it wants to move in next. There are debates happening around affordability, healthcare, housing, energy, economic development, and the relationship between urban and rural British Columbia. And unlike in previous years, the outcome no longer feels predictable.

That uncertainty is not necessarily a bad thing. In many ways, it reflects a population that is reassessing what it wants from government and leadership moving forward.

No matter where people fall politically, one thing seems clear; British Columbia politics is entering a very different era than the one many people were used to only a few years ago.

Nicholas Hamson ... is a third-year communications student at Thompson Rivers University, focusing on public relations. He has experience working in political communications at both the provincial and campaign levels and currently works for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. His interests include public engagement, media, and helping people better understand how politics works.

On Saturday, following the Global TV debate amongst the Conservative Party of BC leadership candidates, I removed Kerry-Lynne Findlay from my ballot.

Findlay’s attack on Peter Milobar suggesting he has a conflict of interest because his wife is Indigenous wasn’t just unfair, it was politically and legally inept, strategically reckless, and it revealed a stunning lack of judgment.

It’s clear that Findlay runs on feelings, not facts. She’s a mess. Nobody should be surprised, though.

If discussing spouses is fair game, let’s chat about her choice to be married to Brent Chapman. Chapman caused the BC Conservative Party much negative public press last election thanks to a smattering of disturbingly crude, and racist, comments about children that he posted online. To say the pair of them together within the party is a liability is a huge understatement.

And I’ll take it one step further.

Kerry-Lee Findlay’s mouth isn’t just a liability to the BC Conservatives, if she gets elected leader, her mouth will be a liability to the province, and to the country. No wonder she lost her very safe federal conservative seat in the last election. If her own community doesn’t have faith in her, why should we?

Somebody like Milobar has maintained the confidence of Kamloops for decades via various roles - from city counselor to mayor to MLA; he’s got clout via the best endorsement possible, his own community. And in his earlier years, he did all that while simultaneously managing the family business.

But back to Kerry Lynne Findlay’s accusation. By trying to weaponize Milobar’s marriage and family ties, Findlay managed to do three things at once:
Divide the party … alienate voters the BC Conservatives need to reach … and hand the NDP exactly the kind of clip they would use in a general election.

Milobar’s response wasn’t just right and fair, his delivery was cool, calm and collected, which is exactly what the BC conservative party and this province needs. I think many husbands would have become furious at Findlay and maybe even gone so far as to yell and make her cower in fear.

Maybe that’s what she was hoping for - to make him snap. But Milobar is steady and composed no matter what you toss at him, which is why I like him, and why I wasn’t surprised when his response was:

“I’ve never heard of anything so ridiculous.”

A perfect response that immediately reduced Kerry-Lynne Findlay down to the crude, detail-dim, divisive mouth that she is. Whoever writes for her is kidding themselves - she’ll never be a reliable parrot. She lacks the character necessary for diplomacy and that’s a detail that matters, and a detail that cannot be taught.

Personal family connections are not conflicts of interest. If that standard were applied consistently, anyone married to a nurse would be barred from health policy. Anyone with an American spouse would be barred from trade discussions. Anyone with a child in public school would be barred from education policy, and they all would be barred from leadership of a political party.

No serious party, government, or jurisdiction operates that way.

Milobar’s marriage is not a liability. It is a strength. It gives him lived insight into one of the most difficult issues facing British Columbia; how to balance Indigenous rights, private property protections, legal certainty, economic growth, and social cohesion.

His wife Lianne, their children, and son-in-law — a member of Tk’emlúps te Secwepemc — are part of that daily reality. That should make him more credible on these issues, not less.

Findlay should have known better.

Instead, she exposed a serious weakness in her political instincts. At the exact moment BC Conservatives need discipline, clarity, and seriousness, she chose a clumsy personal attack that looked desperate, divisive, and amateur.

Worse, her argument collapses under basic scrutiny.

The Indian Act’s second-generation cutoff rule means there is no meaningful long-term generational benefit for Milobar’s family in the way Findlay implied. Status and associated entitlements generally end after two generations of marrying out unless further status marriages occur. That directly undercuts the suggestion of some sweeping multi-generational self-interest.

It also aligns with federal Conservative concerns about the so-called “disappearing Indian” problem and efforts such as the federal conservatives Bill S-2 to address the second-generation cutoff issue.

So not only was Findlay’s attack ugly — it was poorly thought out. That is the real issue.

Leaders do not get to be careless with explosive subjects. They do not get to toss family, race, marriage, and reconciliation into a blender and hope it lands as a clever debate point. That is not a glint in her eye, that is incompetence.

Milobar offers the clearest and most pragmatic path forward:

Repeal DRIPA, restore title certainty, pursue extinguishment to protect private property rights, and rebuild investor confidence without lighting the province on fire with protests.

On Saturday night Findlay, by contrast, showed she may be willing to burn down party unity for a cheap hit that does not even survive contact with logic.

BC Conservatives cannot afford this kind of political malpractice.

Against a renewed NDP, this line of attack would be devastating. It would alienate moderate voters, repel First Nations communities, and reinforce every caricature opponents want to paint of the party. It would create resentment where the party needs trust, and division where the province needs practical negotiation.

Peter Milobar has the experience, credibility, discipline, and temperament to lead on these issues. Findlay showed that she does not.

Peter Milobar is the strongest candidate to unite the party, win the election, and govern British Columbia with clarity and competence.

A commentary from a self-proclaimed socially awkward peasant wearing sweatpants. Sharing thoughts and other stuff.

One of their favorite tools to quell criticism and dissent in the early stages is intimidation.

Rather than passing censorship legislation they instead use existing legal tools to intimidate their opponents. This might include formal investigations or even criminal charges that are doomed to fail against their loudest critics. These acts ensure that smaller voices know that they are being watched with a careful eye. The message is always step out of line and you’re next.

This brings us to the what is going on in the United States that is now bleeding into Canada.

First, let me make this abundantly clear: none of the people the Trump regime have gone after have broken any laws in the United States. This is not about law enforcement or protecting the public.

Second, I wrote a post some years back proposing the following: would it be a good policy to force everyone on social media to use their real names, phone numbers, and email addresses? My argument was that it is the anonymity of social media that breeds the toxicity it has become know for. We have all seen fake accounts online spewing absolute garbage ranging from science denialism to racism to anti-government conspiracies.

My proposal was met with a strong no, not from the left or centre but from the political right. Small “c” conservatives were over 90% opposed to that. They passionately argued that citizens require the option to be anonymous so they can be protected from a tyrannical government. I actually found myself agreeing with them after reading through their comments. They had a point and my idea, was turned out to be a bad one.

This brings us, today, to the Trump regime issuing administrative subpoenas from the Department of Homeland Security to get the personal information of its critics. This information includes first and last name, phone numbers, home address, location data from devices, credit card and banking information.

In the United States government agencies can use two kinds of subpoenas: judicial or administrative.

Judicial subpoenas are issued by courts or lawyers on active court cases that come with court oversight. If a lawyer issues a subpoena during a case the opposing lawyer can ask the court to verify that it is valid, lawful, and materially relevant to the issue at hand. If you’ve ever watched an American legal drama you’ll have heard the term fishing expedition which refers to the use of subpoenas to get additional information not directly related to the case before the court but might be useful in another unrelated case.

Administrative subpoenas do not come from courts but from government agencies themselves. They are not tested for legal validity or on constitutional grounds. Agencies will issue them usually because they believe those receiving the subpoena will simply comply with them, seeing as they are coming from a government agency. The key is that these subpoenas have no legal oversight and a judge hasn’t been consulted or signed off on them. There is no opposing council to refuse them.

In this case a Canadian critic of Donald Trump is intervening in a case with Google. Google has received an administrative subpoena for his information. Google has said it will not comply and the matter may be headed to court. Google will fight this one right to the Supreme Court of the United States because their business very much relies on freedom from government interference and its prying eyes.

In this case other than MAGA Republicans, everyone else seems to agree that the Trump regime has gone too far. Seeking personal information including location data and banking details is over the top. There is no issue here of public safety. This is about sending a message that if you criticize the regime, the regime is going to look carefully at you.

That the Trump regime is looking to go after critics outside their borders is even more unusual. In fact, the only other developed or modern country that openly works like this is China. The Chinese government keeps tabs on overseas critics and compiles dossiers on every critic. If you’ve ever criticized China’s government, they’ve got your name already. That might be all they have, but they have your name.

All of this should concern Canadians as it is clear Trump is looking at us with a stern eye.

Donald Trump’s henchmen are looking at you for what you’ve said or written about them on social media. That information might simply sit in a database for use at some later date or it might never be used. One obvious consequence of that data to critics is that they may find themselves barred from entry to the United States.

No matter how one looks at this, the Trump regime has taken yet another step into authoritarianism.

Which begs the question: does anyone out there still think Donald Trump and his government are not authoritarians?

You’ve got to be deep in the cult to think otherwise.


Devon Kruggel ... is a 52-year-old Caucasian male, who has lived in BC since 1990, and on Vancouver Island since 1993. According to Devon, he was a right winger of sorts from the age of 16 until he was about 47 or so. He has 2 Bachelors degrees; one in History and Political Science, and the other in Computer Science.

I consider myself to be a long-suffering member of the Conservative Party of BC.

Long-suffering in that I have been a supporter going back to the days of John Cummins, who took over the leadership of the party after many years as a Member of Parliament (MP) in Ottawa. In the elections of 2013*, 2017, and 2020, not one single BC Conservative candidate was elected … and while there was electoral success in the 2024 provincial election, we came up short of becoming government by several hundred votes**.

A year and a half later, BC’s Conservatives now stand on a precipice as we take the final steps of electing a new party leader, to take over from Trevor Halford who has done an amazing job (IMHO) as interim leader.

From an initial 11 individuals, who declared they wanted to lead the party, we are now done to the final five:

Iain Black … served two-term as an MLA (2005 – 2011) and was a cabinet minister in three key economic portfolios. Black was also President and CEO of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade from 2011 to 2019

Caroline Elliott … a senior fellow with a leading public policy think-tank. Early in her career she worked at the BC Legislature for the Gordon Campbell government. She was also instrumental in negotiating the deal that saw BC United stand down in the 2024 provincial election

Kerry-Lynne Findlay … a lawyer and former Conservative Party Cabinet Minister (elected 2011 to 2015 and 2019 to 2025). Kerry-Lynne was named the Golden Scissors Award recipient in 2015 by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business for leadership in cutting red tape for small business

Yuri Fulmer … a Vancouver-based business leader, and community builder. He is currently the Global Chair of United Way Worldwide, Chancellor of Capilano University, and Chairman & CEO of Fulmer & Company

Peter Milobar … elected MLA for Kamloops-North Thompson in 2017 and 2020, and Kamloops Centre in 2024. Peter was the Mayor of Kamloops for three terms. He also served as Thompson Regional Hospital District Chair for five terms and as a director for the Thompson-Nicola Regional District.

So, who among those 5 people will make the best leader of the Conservative Party of BC, keeping in mind that their primary job will be to build a team, and platform, to defeat the BC NDP.

British Columbia cannot afford another term of the NDP. In my opinion they must be defeated, and at the earliest possible opportunity.

I believe only one individual is capable of doing that job, and that is Kamloops-Centre MLA Peter Milobar.

We cannot afford to have a leader sitting on the sidelines because they do not have a seat in the legislature. We cannot afford to have one of our elected MLA’s stand down and then wait for months before David Eby calls a by-election. We need a leader ready to go on day one.

Like many reading this, Peter understands the needs of families; he raised three children and now has grandchildren as well. Just like you, he has seen the deterioration of our public health system; something vital to expectant mothers and children that need a doctor when a health crisis arises. Sadly, that is something families can no longer expect will be available to them.

Our current government has allowed that to happen, and it cannot be allowed to continue.

Schools are overcrowded, with many having portables in areas where children once played. There is a shortage of teachers … a shortage of funding … and a lack of schools being built in areas of rapid growth in cities and towns across the province.

Seniors are wondering where they’ll live, and how long they’ll have to wait, given the BC NDP government is falling further and further behind in providing much needed long-term care beds. To increase concerns, the NDP government of David Eby has just cancelled 5 new long-term care facilities that were scheduled to begin construction.

The drug crisis … mental health issues … street-crime … prolific offenders … All remain out-of-control, and our current government, after nine years in power, still remains unable to provide solutions.

Another area of deep concern is the provincial debt, which continues to rise unabated. This ever increasing debt is consuming an ever-growing portion of the provinces’ finances to pay interest charges (now at $5.1 billion for the current fiscal year, and projected to be $8.7 billion by 2028/29).

Consider this. Our annual debt servicing costs are enough to build nearly 80 new schools ... two to three new hospitals ... nearly 3,000 beds in long-term-care facilities ... and it would provide addiction recovery services for thousands of people?

Now granted, the government will always have debt, and debt servicing costs, however, a more than doubling of debt servicing costs (since the NDP took power in 2017) is an outrageous waste of tax payer resources.

Can all of these issues and problems be fixed overnight? No of course not. But unless we begin taking steps now, we are in for a serious financial crisis.

Peter has committed to:

· restoring accountability across government — with clear benchmarks, transparent reporting, and ministers responsible for delivering results

· creating an environment for private-sector growth, reduced barriers to investment, and responsible fiscal management to restore opportunity, affordability, and confidence in BC’s economy

· ensuring accountability from health authorities, with set measurable targets, and access to timely, reliable care

· safe streets, thriving local businesses, and real consequences for criminal activity.

· repealing DRIPA and bringing in a legislative framework that will provide transparency, certainty and consistency while affirming First Nation constitutional rights

As a three-term elected MLA, with 30 years of public service, Peter Milobar has the skills, knowledge, and experience needed to get those things done.

For Peter Milobar there will be NO learning curve, and he knows our current caucus inside out!

The next leader of the Conservative Party of BC must be able to go on the offensive immediately after being declared the winner. And Peter Milobar will do it as an elected MLA, from within the BC Legislature.

When I receive my ballot, my #1 choice will be Peter Milobar; I ask you to make him your first choice, as well.

With Peter at the helm of our party, we can be confident he’ll lead us to victory whenever the next election is called; and he’ll do it with a team of MLA’s we can all be proud of.

*It should be noted that Stockwell Day (former Canadian Alliance leader and a Conservative Party MP) has just endorsed Caroline Elliott. Day turned his back on BC’s Conservatives in the 2013 election, instead supporting the BC Liberal Party.

** The NDP took Surrey-Guildford by just 27 votes, and Juan de Fuca-Malahat by 141

Alan Forseth … is a Kamloops resident. For 40+ years he has been active, in a number of capacities, in local, provincial and federal politics, including running as a candidate for the BC Reform Party in the 1996 provincial election, and as a four-time provincial campaign manager.

“When government makes it harder for people to access public records, it makes it harder for people to hold government accountable. Bill 9 is not about improving transparency, it is about giving the NDP government more tools to delay, deny, and discourage scrutiny. British Columbians deserve a government that opens the books, not one that writes new rules to keep them closed,” said Halford.

For hour after hour yesterday our Conservative Caucus attempted to have the provincial government implement a 6-month delay on Bill 9 (the Freedom of Information Amendment Act, 2026).

As I stated in the BC Legislature last night:
“It wasn’t about obstruction for the sake of obstruction, it’s not about avoiding debate, and it’s also not about preventing reform. It’s about accountability, and it’s about transparency. It’s about ensuring that when this Legislature changes the rules surrounding access to information, public oversight and government accountability, we actually understand the consequences before we proceed.”

I continued, “Once trust in public institutions is lost, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild. British Columbians are already asking serious questions about transparency in our government. (The public is) asking, Why freedom-of-information requests are taking so long.”

The people of British Columbia have every right to ask that!

The government would lead us to believe that 84% of the time, Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are being met. But that’s untrue. Instead, all we seem to get are longer and longer timelines, and changes in the wording in the law.

We’ve gone from “withholding delay” to “withholding reasonable delay.”

Why are we changing it to reasonable? If, statutorily, we’ve already got it in the law that information is supposed to be provided in 30 days, why are we changing it from “without delay” to “without reasonable delay”?

To me, that sounds either redundant, or an opportunity to expand that timeline.

I asked the government specifically, “Why are we using those words, and why are we allowing public servants to either interpret or misinterpret those words? Words like ‘frivolous’, as an example.”

Why has the government added that type of nondescript language? The answer, in my opinion, is simple ... because it can be interpreted in many different ways.

Years ago, everything was done on paper. Now everything’s on computer and yet the government says they’re overwhelmed, understaffed and that that’s why they’re having challenges with meeting those timelines.

Nobody supported Bill 9. In fact, a citizen’s coalition had a 10,000-name petition opposing it. I haven’t had one single person say to me, “Hey, we really need this legislation.”

Last night in the legislature I stated, “Government members may not like hearing this, but these concerns are real. Again, we’re hearing that from journalists. We’re hearing it from local governments. We’re hearing it from businesses. We’re hearing it from advocacy organizations. Best, we’re hearing it from ordinary citizens that are just trying to access records.”

That is why we put forth an amendment to allow us more time for broader consultation on Bill 9.

Here’s a question ...

If it was such a big hurry to get this this bill through, how come the government hadn’t already acted on the recommendations made by the all-party committee in 2022? After all, they been in government for nine years.

Instead, what we’ve seen since the committee was struck are longer timelines, more redactions, and more things happening behind closed doors.

That is exactly why we need freedom-of-information protection.

We asked for a six-month delay, however, the government wasn’t going to permit that to happen.

What were they afraid of that would come out during those six months? Why the urgency to limit access to information?

Good legislation withstands scrutiny. Only weak legislation fears delay. The six-month delay we requested was not about politics. It was about protecting the public’s right to know.

Regrettably at 4am this morning Premier Eby’s government, with the support of Independent MLA’s Elenore Sturko and Amelia Boultbee, passed Bill 9. Our Conservative Caucus, along with Green Party MLA’s Rob Botterell and Jeremy Valeriote, all voted No.

As an editorial in the North Shore News stated in late March;
“Access to information is a basic form of public scrutiny and a cornerstone of democracy. And democracy isn’t efficient or streamlined. It’s messy. It’s work.”

I believe it’s important for government to be open, transparent, and fully accountable to the taxpayers of this province.

Regrettably, has chosen the exact opposite.

I’m going to put this into perspective first. Former Alberta Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk’s Forever Canadian petition turned in 456,000 signatures and 438,568 were deemed valid.

The Alberta separatists have turned in 300,000 and they need to have 177,732 be valid to meet the legal requirements to hold a referendum. Now before any one on their side celebrates there will be signatures on the petition that will be deemed invalid. This is why we have to wait for the review of the signatures to see if they actually meet the legal threshold.

It needs to be noted that Danielle Smith’s UCP government passed Bill 54 in 2025 altering the Citizen Initiative Act in 2025 to change the threshold from 20% of the voters to 10% of the voters. This gave the separatists an additional month as well. Anyone still think the United Conservative Party is loyal and patriotic?

Let’s say they hit the threshold.

There will be legal challenges from First Nations as to the legality of holding a referendum where lands involved are under Treaty. There are plenty of legal sticking points. The odds of a referendum this fall are still rather low.

Okay, let’s say they still manage to hold a referendum. What are their odds of winning? Is there a mathematical path to victory?

The math is very clear: there is not a single poll today that gives the separatist movement over 31% in favor of their position. When you dig into those numbers from some of the polls the situation changes.

In Alberta, according to pollster Ipsos there are three categories of separatist.

The first is the committed group. These are people that are ready to vote yes and leave Canada. They make up 56% of self identified separatists.

The second group are conditional separatists, and they are 25% of separatists. These are people that identify as separatists, but they would only vote to separate given a variety of conditions were met. You can call these people lukewarm separatists.

The final group are symbolic separatists, and they are not going to vote to separate. They make up 19% of all separatists. Symbolic separatists are poker players that are bluffing. They believe the threat of separatism is what is needed to get a better deal in Confederation.

This means that the referendum where the support was say the average of 27%, it would be more like 22% if we take the symbolic separatists out of equation. If we remove 50% of the conditional separatists, the Yes side is even weaker coming in at around 19%. Just to be transparent I have rounded all my numbers up to inflate the separatist position.

So, at 19%, based on the average support for separatism and using Ipsos’ numbers to see who would actually vote Yes, the math changes. And not for the better for the separatists.

When we circle back to the Forever Canadian petition we can see one thing very clearly: their side is very much more organized, much stronger, and would absolutely win a referendum.

Is there a chance the separatists forces could win? The math clearly says no today.

Here’s another good reason: there isn’t the same enthusiasm for separation as there is for staying in Canada. Both the separatist and Forever Canadian petitions operated under the same legal guidelines. The separatists turned in 300,000 signatures. Forever Canadian turned in 456,000 and had 438,568 as valid. We have yet to see how many of the separatist signatures survive review, but they could fall under the legal threshold and that would be the end of their movement for a few years. Or longer.

The separatists collected far fewer signatures which tells me, as a very long time political observer, that their movement has an extremely strong and devoted base. What it lacks is the broad public support it requires to actually succeed at the ballot box.

I think this is a fatal mistake for the movement moving for a referendum now.

They should have tested their movement at the next provincial election with an Alberta separatist party. There is such a party too and it is barely a blip on the polls. Actually, there are three such parties. They are the Wildrose Independence Party of Alberta, the Independence Party of Alberta, and the Republican Party of Alberta. That least one, the Republican Party is the only one to ever show any support on the polls at around 3%.

This tells us the movement isn’t unified or organized which further tells us a referendum on separation is going to have multiple conflicting voices trying to sell three or more different views of separation. That’s going to confuse voters and lead to an epic defeat at the ballot box.

In conclusion, Alberta separatists have likely reached for that brass ring only to set themselves up for a spectacular fall.

Devon Kruggel ... is a 52-year-old Caucasian male, who has lived in BC since 1990, and on Vancouver Island since 1993. According to Devon, he was a right winger of sorts from the age of 16 until he was about 47 or so. He has 2 Bachelors degrees; one in History and Political Science, and the other in Computer Science.

When land is taken and cultures are dismantled through systems of colonial violence, the question of responsibility doesn’t disappear, it deepens over time. Reconciliation is not a gesture of goodwill; it is a basic ethical requirement when harm has been done on a structural scale and continues to shape present realities.

What stands out in Canada is the tension between values that are widely taught and values that are often not practiced. Many settlers grow up with what might be called “Sunday School rules”—simple but profound teachings about kindness, honesty, humility, and treating others as you would want to be treated. These are not complex ideas. They are foundational moral expectations in much of Christian teaching and broader civic ethics.

And yet, in the context of Indigenous-settler relations, those lessons are often set aside. They get replaced by discomfort, denial, defensiveness, or selective memory. The moral clarity of those teachings is too often abandoned when it requires confronting what colonization actually did — and what it continues to do.

Throwing out those “Sunday School rules” is not always intentional or conscious.

It happens through systems, institutions, and inherited narratives that normalize injustice. But the result is still the same: a gap between stated values, and lived reality, especially when it comes to land, history, and responsibility.

Reconciliation asks for the opposite posture. It asks for consistency between belief and action.

If kindness is a principle, it has to include those who were harmed. If honesty matters, it has to include the full truth of how this country was built. And if moral teaching means anything at all, it has to extend beyond comfort and into accountability.

Without that, “rules” remain just words—applied selectively, and too often absent where they are needed most.

Cormac McCann ... is a writer, commentator, political organizer, and visual and graphic storyteller whose work sits at the intersection of politics, culture, and community. An eco-socialist, he advocates for a society grounded in collective well-being, democratic participation, and ecological responsibility, with a deep commitment to freedom, self-determination, and robustly representative governance.

Whether through political analysis, editorial work, or visual communication, he strives to make complex ideas accessible and to support movements working toward justice, equity, and collective liberation.

We are now governed by First Nations. Democracy no longer exists in practice provincially in BC.

First Nations rights are taking precedence, which is how they keep winning court battles and demanding changes to our laws. Under DRIPA, legislation passed by MLAs can get sent back until it meets First Nations approval. Our MLAs no longer have the ability to pass laws legislation that serves British Columbians, the legislation must now serve First Nations.

That is not reconciliation. That is installing a new veto layer above our elected government. Co-governance? No. First Nations are now the government in every way that matters most.

UNDRIP recognizes First Nations rights. Good. But it does not demand endless new land claims while ignoring all the infrastructure, housing, health care, education, and services Canadian taxpayers have already provided. Those contributions count for something.

A real reconciliation framework should keep reconciliation issues out of the courts, not flood our courts with new claims. The recent surge in aggressive claims, blockades, and title assertions under this activist BC NDP government smells opportunistic. Why now?

Good faith negotiation requires good faith on both sides, however, First Nations are not coming to the table good faith anymore. DRIPA created this mess and it needs fixing, not protecting.

I respect the argument for addressing historical Indigenous claims. But these claims need to be considered through reasonableness, practicality, today’s realities, sovereignty, national security, national identity, and our democracy.

Reconciliation, by definition, is supposed to be a coming together in harmony after dispute. Not a UN arranged, one sided, law changing, democracy demolishing court order.

Via democracy, the collective rights and interests of the millions of people who live in British Columbia (and Canada), including First Nations, should take clear precedence over any one group’s ability to rule the rest of us through vetoes, changes to our laws, court ordered land transfers, perpetual payments, tax exclusions, and exclusive access to resources, no matter who that group is.

It is unhealthy for kids born here to grow up feeling shame or being labeled perpetual settlers. The same goes for millions of long-established British Columbians.

Old agreements from centuries ago can and should be updated for the people living here today. That said, democracy must stay supreme, accountable to all of us, and not parallel systems (or vetoes) held by one group.

We are all native to this land now. Creating second class citizens out of the rest of us is wrong. Division only puts all our futures at risk.

I think we need to get back to basic human rights, not special human rights for various specific segments of the population.

Shared with permission of the author, who has requested anonymity.

I find that rather ironic given that pretty much anyone can punch holes through that statement.

Yes times are certainly tough as the over 40,000 people who lost their jobs, between February and March, are likely finding themselves in a severe economic squeeze. I find it hard to believe any of them would congratulate Eby’s NDP government for making life more affordable for them.

Protecting services? On a weekly basis Health Authorities are announcing ER closures leaving residents without vital medical services. Hospitals are announcing that maternity services for expectant mothers are unavailable. And now one of several announced cancer centres has been cancelled.

As for cuts to vital services?

I would call cancelling projects that residents across the provinces have been expecting will be built — after much fanfare and the razzle dazzle of photo ops showcasing BC NDP cabinet ministers — a definite cut to vital services.

Confirmed contracts to build long-term care homes for BC seniors in Delta, Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Kelowna and Fort St. John have all been, as Infrastructure Minister Bowinn Ma called it, “deferred“, “rescheduled“, and “re-paced”.

According to a CBC news story, “Project stakeholders say they feel misled, and the official Opposition is calling for more transparency about when – or if – these projects will be completed.”

Let’s call it what it is --- CANCELLED.

And let’s not forget Burnaby where phase two of a redevelopment project to build a new ICU, cardiac telemetry, a cancer centre, along with additional beds has now been ... CANCELLED with no new estimated start date.

According to Delta South BC Conservative MLA Ian Paton:
“The company that’s actually got the contract that’s working on it, that’s already spent $15 million preparing the site for our new extended care ward, have been told pack up your tools, your excavators, and you’re done“

Hmmmmm ... protecting vital services ... so says the BC NDP.

I feel fairly certain the people of Burnaby would strongly disagree

When something is ‘deferred’, it means it has been delayed until a later specified time. WHAT is the later ‘specified’ time Bowinn?

There is a universal understanding that when something is “Rescheduled” it means something (ie: infrastructure projects) has been changed to a new date. WHAT is the ‘new date’, Bowinn?

And as for ‘Repaced’?

In reality, according to AI Overview it actually means to pace again, retrace steps, or walk over an area again in the opposite direction. The NDP government of Premier David Eby, however, has repurposed the word, to suit them, by wordsmithing it to now mean to pause or delay what had previously been confirmed projects vital to the well-being of British Columbians.

I know you’re not supposed to call people liars but really, what should it be called when promises made are revoked outright?

This government has wreaked havoc on our resource industry ... has racked up billions and billions in new debt ... and the reality is, we have nothing to show for it.

I have an idea ... can we go back to October 19^th, 2024, and ‘repace’ Eby’s government on to the Opposition benches?

Alan Forseth … is a Kamloops resident. For 40+ years he has been active, in a number of capacities, in local, provincial and federal politics, including running as a candidate for the BC Reform Party in the 1996 provincial election, and as a four-time provincial campaign manager.

Depending on which poll you read the answer is a clear no.

The latest Nanos poll pegs the debt and deficit as a major issue for just 4% of Canadians. That is just 1 in 25. In the most recent Abacus poll debt and deficit do not even hit the top 10. The latest Angus Reid poll is the same as debt and deficit do not show up in the top 10 either.

This begs two questions.

The first is why aren’t Canadians more concerned about debt and deficit?

I think the answer there is that most Canadians understand that public debt, aka sovereign debt, isn’t the same as household or individual debt. No one calls it in. Creditors don’t call the shots on a sovereign debt. The debtor does.

Yes, some people will yell but what about Greece! Europe Union member states don’t have their own sovereign debts because they don’t have their own central banks. That’s both a strength of the EU and a weakness. They have just one really big and really powerful central bank that does it all but leaves individual states without that flexibility.

That’s the thing about sovereign debt, once you understand how it works, you really don’t get all that concerned by it. The numbers are actually rather meaningless.

The second question is why are the Conservatives making debt and deficit the central plank of their talking points? That question is definitely partisan. But it is still important.

The top three issues from Nanos are Jobs/Economy, Inflation, and Trump/US Relations. Pierre Poilievre has talked about the first two a good amount. I think there are very few commentators that would say he’s properly addressed Trump/US Relations. In place of that issue he’s talks about Liberal debts and Liberal deficits.

When only 4% of people are actively looking at debt and deficit as an issue spending so much time and effort talking about them is a complete waste.

Why does Poilievre talk about debt and deficit so much? Why not take on Trump/US Relations full steam ahead?

My only argument here is that the Conservative strategy team over estimates the Conservative base admiration and alignment with Donald Trump. The Conservative base has always been somewhat more pro-America than any other party base. Today that’s likely still true, but is that pro-America stance really so overpowering that it must be treated with velvet gloves?

I don’t think so. I think Poilievre’s base would enthusiastically follow where ever he led them.

Poilievre had cultivated a very strong relationship between his personal brand and his base. We’ve seen him pick up issues and the base immediately picks them up whether it is transgender rights, climate change, the carbon tax, or whatever. These people follow the leader like a puppy dog. They never question. They never disagree.

Regardless of that, one thing is certain coming from three polling companies: the vast majority of Canadians are not concerned with the national debt or the deficit.

This gives Mark Carney a lot of leeway in governing.

Devon Kruggel ... is a 52-year-old Caucasian male, who has lived in BC since 1990, and on Vancouver Island since 1993. According to Devon, he was a right winger of sorts from the age of 16 until he was about 47 or so. He has 2 Bachelors degrees; one in History and Political Science, and the other in Computer Science.

Her complaints to Lutnick were straight up and to the point: the Trump regime’s attacks on Canada whether they be rhetorical or economic through tariffs are hurting American workers and families.

Shaheen ran through tourism numbers for Vermont and other states. She pointed out a 30% drop in tourism and activity in Vermont alone. The impacts have hit the state she represents very hard.

Three Vegas casinos with hotels began a program in January to take Canadian dollars at par. Their hope is that it will bring in more Canadian tourists. Between 2024 and 2025 Canadian tourism to Las Vegas fell 18%. There is not a lot of hope for economic recovery in Las Vegas with industry watchers.

Vermont and Vegas aren’t alone in this. Washington State, Idaho, Montana, New York, Maine, and pretty much every border state or tourist-oriented state is reporting the same thing: international tourism numbers are down and Canadian numbers are down the most.

Howard Lutnick’s response to this was that Canada leans on $30 trillion American economy. He’s not wrong in that the entire world has leaned on the US economy for generations. Where his argument falls apart is that the economy outside the USA is now large enough that countries can reroute trade and find new markets. They don’t have to rely on the USA.

Perhaps what Lutnick misses is that economies don’t die from large scale hits. The British economy was already well in decline before the First World War and the Empire was well on its way out due to competition from the United States, France, and rising rival powerhouse Germany. Nations stopped relying on British goods and began making their own and trading amongst themselves.

That process was slow but as historians will state the death of the British Empire and the erosion of its economy was from a thousand paper cuts.

Canadians boycotting the United States for travel and goods are dozens of paper cuts. When you look at other countries like the European Union, ASEAN (which technically includes the USA), and the BRICS nations for example, these new regional trade groups are going to take “Made in the USA” off their shelves over time. Those are hundreds of paper cuts. Over time this will add up.

What tariff enthusiasts like Howard Lutnick fail to understand is that while trade deals are driven by national governments, consumer spending and its sentiment can be driven by nationalism as much as prices. You get enough people, angry enough and they’ll boycott your products and services wherever possible. In the retail sector there is a long-held principle: once you have lost a customer, getting them back is almost impossible.

The sheer drop in Canadian tourism numbers, like how Canadians are not buying American spirits even when it is available, or avoiding American produce in grocery stores is something not driven by the government. This is the reputational damage done to the American economy that will take decades to recover. It will only happen if the American public actively works to correct the descent their nation is on.

I’ve read some people online wondering if a 25% or a 30% drop in one sector really is that big of a drop, in terms of an overall economy. Are those numbers actually large? So, that needs to be addressed as well. A drop of 0.2% in annual tourism is something that gets the attention of American state legislatures in their own budget planning. A drop of 1% gets them very worried. Drops of under 1% are large drops when we talk about large economic numbers as they translate into hundreds of millions or even tens of billions of actual dollars for an entire economy.

When tourism is dropping 30% that’s catastrophic.

This is what Senator Jeanne Shaheen was reacting too: an unprecedented catastrophic hit to her state’s tourism industry.

A CBC article yesterday asks a question: “Have we reached a point of no return?” I think we have hit that point. I think we hit that point last year.

Certainly, there are Canadians that will visit and shop in the United States despite all that is happening. Some, however, seem to be following through with shunning the United States.

How big is this?

Let’s look at land border crossings? Between 2024 and 2025 they were down almost 25%. The numbers for January and February 2026 showed a further drop of 27% in January, and another 13% drop in February. That put the total drop since 2024 at around 31.5%.

Those are staggering declines in Canadian traffic to the USA which translates into a huge reduction in economic activity on the American side of the border.

The evidence that we have hit that point of no return is that the aversion to American products, services, and travel has not only been sustained since late January 2025 - it has accelerated and continued to deteriorate.

What is the damage being done?

The direct damage from tourism, for example, is about $8 billion a year. However, tourism is an industry with a 1.6 to 2.0 multiplier. So, the real loss in affected states totals around $12.8 to $16 billion a year.

If we look at numbers for alcohol sales, fruits and produce, the effect is even greater.

Which brings me back to the title of this post: Canadians are inflicting economic pain on the United States.

That is happening, and while I could talk about things like fruit and produce sales, and a near total collapse of the sales of American alcohol in Canada, that’s just redundant.

The truth is Canadians without being told by their government are sending the United States regime a very loud message.

You’ve lost some customers ... likely forever.

Devon Kruggel ... is a 52-year-old Caucasian male, who has lived in BC since 1990, and on Vancouver Island since 1993. According to Devon, he was a right winger of sorts from the age of 16 until he was about 47 or so. He has 2 Bachelors degrees; one in History and Political Science, and the other in Computer Science.

Yesterday (04/26) a Castanet news story was headlined, “Milobar stakes claim as steady leader in heated BC Conservative leadership debate” which included the comment that ... Peter Milobar cast himself as the “adult in the room” during the first sanctioned BC Conservative leadership debate.

I shared the story online in my BC politics Facebook Group which led Cormac McCann to respond:

I’m not a fan of Pierre Poilievre, and I’m not exactly sold on Mark Carney either, but this “adult in the room” line in Canadian politics is getting really tired.

It was one thing when Carney supporters used it during his run, framing him as the “serious one” in contrast to Poilievre. I didn’t love it then, but it was part of a broader (still pretty shallow) attempt at contrast.

Now in the BC Conservative leadership race, Peter Milobar is basically asking who can be the “adult in the room,” pointing to temperament, experience, know-how, and suggesting he’s that person....

... Because the truth is simple: you don’t prove you’re the adult by saying it. You prove it by engaging seriously, arguing clearly, and treating voters like they can handle substance.

Right now, even the “who is the adult in the room” framing just shrinks the conversation instead of raising it.

Unfortunately, I think that Cormac may have misunderstood or taken the comment about Peter being the ‘adult’ in the room out of context.

Throughout this race I have raised concerns about the petty politics being played by at least two of the candidates, and lately a third has joined the fray.

In the political realm there is no finite left, right, or centre. Every single political party has a spectrum of beliefs that unite them together, no matter whether Conservative, Liberal, Green, or NDP. That said, it always seems to be that those on the right-of-centre have a more finite yardstick to measure how conservative others may be. A ‘purity’ test, if you please.

Which of course leads to the current leadership race underway within the Conservative Party of BC.

Purity tests, out of context comments from the past, and especially insulting comments about other candidates -- rather than real policy -- are the name of the game for them.

In this context, as well as on Friday during the leadership debate, Peter has (IMHO) risen above the others to be the ‘adult’ in a room of squabbling children. (I would be remiss in not including Iain Black as also showing maturity in this contest.)

I’ll take solid performance and policy any day, instead of over-dramatic theatrics. I only hope the majority of members who will be voting shortly do as well.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. ANY party that is to the right-of-centre will NEVER win an election without also bringing on board voters who are centre right.

Fulmer, Elliott, and to some extent Findlay, can squabble all they want about who is the most conservative of conservatives, and demand purity tests as well, but should they unfortunately win the leadership of the party, they will guarantee the BC NDP win the next election.

THAT … is something we CANNOT afford to have happen!

Alan Forseth … is a Kamloops resident. For 40+ years he has been active, in a number of capacities, in local, provincial and federal politics, including running as a candidate for the BC Reform Party in the 1996 provincial election, and as a four-time provincial campaign manager.

We were already on a good path that had its foundation in Section 35 of the Constitution and pursuant jurisprudence (jurisprudence is another word for case law).

The case law I’m referring to are the court rulings that determined what Aboriginal Rights and Title is and what it isn’t.

The most important case was the Haida ruling of 2004. For us it brought peace in the woods and LNG. This ruling finally leveled the playing field between governments and First Nations while balancing society’s needs.

UNDRIP is a good document for countries just getting started in dealing with Indigenous issues. Canada is not in that situation. Canada has been making progress for 46 years.

What I feared was UNDRIP would bring us back to 1982 with court cases, roadblocks, fear, anger and uncertainty. The warnings I gave fell on deaf ears.

The business community believed government rhetoric that UNDRIP would solve everything.

The non-natives wanting to address the past, and not knowing case law, believed the political announcements as well.

And of course, the politicians got what they wanted, standing ovations and votes.

Being ignored didn’t bother me. Neither did the slurs of being a “sellout” or “traitor”, mainly because I stuck to saying what I believed was right based on my experiences and knowledge.

Ultimately, I didn’t want what we’re seeing today.

I wanted to keep lifting people out of poverty ... build strong communities and society’s ... and to not see Canadians divide themselves to the point where we all fail.

Unfortunately, I can’t help but think that I failed in communicating these points effectively.

Formerly a BC Liberal MLA and Cabinet Minister, Ellis Ross is the Conservative Party of Canada MP for Skeena – Bulkley Valley. He lives on the Kitamaat Village Indian Reserve in British Columbia, with his wife Tracey. He’s a proud dad of two daughters and a loving grandfather to three grandchildren. Ellis Ross’s life is all about family, people, community, and building a brighter future for the next generation, not only in Northwest BC, but all across Canada.

This is fact, not opinion.

The reason that the BC Conservatives finished above 40% and came a few hundred votes short of victory was that the anti-NDP vote coalesced under the conservative brand. This was helped by BC United being an absolute vanilla and valueless mess coupled with exhaustion of the NDP.

The conservatives brought new energy and edge to the race that helped brand the centre-right differently. This was long overdue and was a stark contrast to the dithering BC United.

As well, the centre-right coalition was redefining itself both nationally and provincially. Conservatives became younger, more blue-collar and more ethnic. While I expect the NDP to be defeated in the next election, this new coalition has not won at the polls as of yet.

That doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t, and looking at different western democracies, one can reasonably assume that it is more than capable of winning.

Now to purity tests.

Elections are won in BC on the margin. Campbell had his landslide win, and Horgan easily won a pandemic election but aside from those, most are nail biters.

You cannot win by making your coalition more exclusive and unwelcoming. That doesn’t mean that you abandon core principles or can’t offer a fundamentally different vision.

This should include so called “cultural issues” and “economic issues” (In my opinion a false dichotomy pitched primarily by online keyboard warriors) as most people share concerns about both, even if prioritized somewhat differently.

The general public doesn’t care about who said or did what ten years ago.

They want change and a vision they can unite behind.

There are quality choices in this leadership race but if the campaigns continue to play “gotcha” wedge politics (an NDP specialty by the way) the public will tune out. Leadership candidates should be held to account for their record but not to the point where the race looks more like a mean girls remake than a serious debate of issues and values.

Every word spoken is being saved by the NDP to use against the eventual winner - guaranteed.

BRAD ZUBYK ...previously held the position of Chief of Staff to former BC Conservative Party leader John Rustad.

If you critique Mark Carney, or the Liberals, you’re instantly labeled a Pierre Poilievre conservative.

If you critique Pierre Poilievre, or the Conservatives, you’re dismissed as a partisan Liberal.

That’s not analysis — it’s tribal reflex.

As Niki Ashton put it: “Liberal, Tory — same old story.” And as Ed Broadbent used to frame it, it can feel like Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:

On a lot of the biggest issues — economic direction, corporate influence, the overall system — the Liberals and Conservatives line up more than they’d like to admit. Meanwhile, the loudest fights are often cultural wedge issues that keep people divided and distracted.

And yes, the influence of figures like Donald Trump has made everything more polarized, pushing people into camps where disagreement automatically equals “the other side.”

But not everyone fits neatly into those camps.

Some of us critique both — because we actually care about what’s being decided.

Canada has more than two parties. More importantly, it has more than two ways of thinking.

We don’t need less disagreement — we need better disagreement. More curiosity, less dismissal.

That’s how you build a country, not just a team.

Cormac McCann ... is a writer, commentator, political organizer, and visual and graphic storyteller whose work sits at the intersection of politics, culture, and community. An eco-socialist, he advocates for a society grounded in collective well-being, democratic participation, and ecological responsibility, with a deep commitment to freedom, self-determination, and robustly representative governance.

Whether through political analysis, editorial work, or visual communication, he strives to make complex ideas accessible and to support movements working toward justice, equity, and collective liberation.

For months now, the BC Forest Ministry has been sending out media releases inviting the public to participate in what they are calling “forest landscape planning”.

According to the government:
Engagement with forest licensees, subject-matter experts and the public is a key part of every FLP. This engagement ensures that operational expertise from forest licensees is incorporated into plan development, alongside First Nations’ interests and community-identified values.

In the past 16 months 100 Mile House and the South Cariboo … the Cariboo Chilcotin … Omineca / Mackenzie ... West Central Vancouver Island ... the Bulkley Valley ... and other areas of the province have all had this new process put in place by BC NDP Forest Minister Ravi Parmar.

What has it accomplished? Well, that’s a good question.

In late December 2024, Parmar stated:
“What excites me about forest landscape plans is they provide the opportunity to bring community together ... this is your opportunity to help shape the future of forests in our province.”

Last October he remarked:
“I encourage everyone in the region to tell us what matters most to you about nearby forests and help shape the future of forest management.”

And a month later?
“This is an opportunity ... to share what matters most about your forests ... your voices guide how they’re managed.”

I guess they were starting to run out of word-smithing ideas as the two latest, in the Cariboo/ Chilcotin and South Cariboo both stated:
“... residents are invited to share their input on the development of the ... Forest Landscape Plan (FLP) to guide long-term forest management decisions in the area”

I don’t know about you, but I’ve always thought of (the) landscape as a visual thing … like scenery, a view, the panoramic vista of an area.

Then there’s also ‘landscape’ as it relates to homeowners, and what we do with our property in terms of flowers, shrubs, lawns, etc. A quick look online will show any number of ‘landscape’ companies that do this work. What I don’t see, however, when looking online, are landscape companies beautifying our forests.

In other words, and with intended sarcasm, this is simply the government once again playing with words to make it seem like something important is happening.

Now don’t get me wrong. Our provincial forests have been the lifeblood of many rural communities, but seriously I doubt any logger or forestry worker would ever consider they’re working in a planned forest landscape.

All that aside …

What ever happened to the professionals deciding on forest cuts and where they should take place … how much would be logged … when to replant? Given they have years, and in some cases decades, of experience, these types of public offerings are insulting, and undemocratic.

Now it seems we are supposed to rely on people’s feelings about when, where, and how forests should be logged. Not only that, having a couple of 2 hour long community meetings and written submissions, in a four to six week timeline, does not represent an honest opportunity for public information and feedback

And how have things worked out as Ravi wordsmiths his way through one media release after the other?

In just over two years our province has seen 21 mill closures resulting in 15 thousand people thrown out of work. Each one of those workers earned $100,000 a year (with benefits factored in) -- a wage that allowed them to raise a family, buy a home, send their kids to college, university, or trade school.

As industry itself gets more and more sidelined, and discussions take place without them, it’s no wonder that rural BC is seeing its lifeblood sucked right out of it!

So I’m going to make a suggestion …

Ravi, instead of worrying about landscape planning, how about you ensure that BC’s sawmills have the timber they need to operate, because you sure as heck haven’t been doing that … which has resulted in BC mills (those lucky enough to still be operating) running at only 60 percent capacity.

Further, while it’s nice to hear from the public, their uninformed opinions on how and where logging should take place really should not be the basis of our forest policy.

Ravi … do your job. Get the BC forest industry off of life-support and quit worrying about landscaping the woods that sustain so many BC families.

Finally, let’s have the professionals be the ones that “shape the future of forests in our province”. After all, they are the ones who actually have the training and knowledge to manage our forests.

Alan Forseth … is a Kamloops resident. For 40+ years he has been active, in a number of capacities, in local, provincial and federal politics, including running as a candidate for the BC Reform Party in the 1996 provincial election, and as a four-time provincial campaign manager.