Tag Archives: british columbia

#BCPoli | David Eby |
The Political Death of An Autocratic Spendthrift

#CdnPoli | Canadian Politics, BC Politics, Canada, canadian politics, Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

David Eby’s Political Waterloo: How Arrogance, Autocracy and Fiscal Irresponsibility Brought Down British Columbia’s NDP

There is an old lesson in politics that ambitious Premiers, convinced of their own brilliance, have a peculiar habit of learning only when it is too late: the public may forgive a government for making mistakes, but it is considerably less forgiving of a government that refuses to listen, refuses to admit its mistakes, and behaves as though the people who elected it have an obligation to accept whatever their political masters decide is good for them.

David Eby has now learned that lesson the hard way.

On October 24, 2026, British Columbians delivered their verdict on a Premiership that began with considerable promise, but increasingly came to be defined by centralized authority, extravagant spending, an astonishing faith in the righteousness of its own decisions, and a governing style that too often seemed to confuse political leadership with the imposition of one man’s will.

The result was a devastating political defeat for the BC New Democratic Party, leaving it with approximately 27 seats, a diminished caucus, and the unwelcome prospect of rebuilding its credibility from the opposition benches.

Eby had gone to the polls on September 22nd, despite having roughly two years remaining in his mandate. He did so against the reported misgivings of members of his own Cabinet and caucus, wagering that an early election would strengthen his personal authority and give British Columbians a fresh opportunity to endorse his government’s direction.

Instead, he turned an election he did not need to call into a referendum on his own judgment, or lack thereof.

The tragedy for the BC NDP is that its defeat was not inevitable.

Nor was it simply the consequence of an unfavourable political climate, an opposition that found its footing, or a weary electorate looking for change.

David Eby himself supplied his opponents with much of the material they needed.

Eby’s government accumulated grievances among municipal leaders, professional associations, citizens across British Columbia, housing advocates, and ordinary everyday folks who increasingly felt that their concerns were being treated as obstacles to be overcome rather than democratic voices deserving consideration.

The Premier who wanted to demonstrate that he was the smartest person in the room ultimately discovered that the room belonged to the voters.

And the voters were finished listening.

The Arrogance of a Premier Who Believed He Knew Best

To understand the defeat of the David Eby government, it is necessary to look beyond the election campaign and examine the political temperament that shaped his government.

David Eby arrived in provincial politics with a formidable reputation as a lawyer, an advocate for vulnerable people, and a politician prepared to take on difficult problems. His work with Vancouver’s Pivot Legal Society, beginning in 2007, reflected a commitment to people whose voices were routinely ignored by those with power.

That background should have served him well as Premier. It should have reminded him that government exists to serve people, not to instruct them on what they ought to want.

Somewhere along the way, however, the advocate became the authority, and the authority became increasingly convinced that his preferred solutions were the only sensible ones.

David Eby could be intellectually formidable, impatient with opposition, and dismissive of arguments he considered uninformed. Those qualities can be assets in a courtroom or a political debate. In government they can become habitual, liabilities of the first order.

A Premier cannot run a province as though every disagreement were an argument to be won and every critic an obstacle to be defeated.

Mayors and Councillors have responsibilities to their communities. Doctors have professional obligations to their patients. Lawyers have duties to their clients and to the administration of justice. Citizens have every right to ask whether the government is spending their money wisely. Members of a governing caucus have a responsibility to question their leader when they believe he is making a mistake.

David Eby’s problem was not that he exercised authority. Every Premier must do so. His problem was that his government increasingly gave the impression that consultation was an inconvenience, dissent was disloyalty, and compromise represented weakness.

The distinction matters.

Strong leadership means making difficult decisions after listening carefully to competing arguments. Arrogance means deciding that listening is unnecessary because the answer is already known.

British Columbians had ample reason to conclude that their Premier was increasingly practicing the latter.

Bills 44, 46 and 47: Victoria’s declaration of war on municipal autonomy

Graphic courtesy of Randy Helten and Stephen Bohus at CityHallWatch

Nowhere was this governing philosophy more evident than in Eby’s sweeping housing legislation.

In late 2023, his government introduced three major pieces of legislation: Bill 44, the Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act; Bill 46, the Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act; and Bill 47, the Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act.

Together, they represented a profound restructuring of the relationship between the provincial government and local governments.

The objective was understandable.

British Columbia faced an increasingly desperate housing affordability crisis. Young people were being priced out of the communities in which they had grown up. Renters struggled with escalating costs. Families found home ownership increasingly unattainable. The province needed more homes, and it needed them faster.

But a worthy objective does not automatically justify every means employed to achieve it.

Bill 44 required municipalities with more than 5,000 residents to permit small-scale, multi-unit housing on lots previously restricted to single-family homes or duplexes. Depending on lot size and location, the legislation permitted three or four units on many properties, with additional density possible near qualifying frequent-transit stops.

It also reduced the scope for public hearings on residential projects consistent with a municipality’s official community plan, while requiring local governments to update their planning documents and housing-needs assessments.

Bill 46 changed the financing framework for growth. It expanded the infrastructure costs that municipalities could recover from development, including certain policing, fire-protection and solid-waste facilities, and introduced amenity cost charges to help fund infrastructure such as parks, recreation facilities and childcare spaces.

Bill 47 went further still. It established mandatory transit-oriented development areas around designated rapid-transit stations and major bus exchanges, requiring municipalities to permit specified minimum building heights and densities and removing minimum residential off-street parking requirements within designated areas.

In practical terms, the province was telling municipalities that decisions historically made through local planning processes would increasingly be governed by provincial rules.

There is a powerful argument for provincial intervention when local zoning practices frustrate the construction of desperately needed homes. Municipal governments cannot indefinitely invoke neighbourhood character to prevent younger and lower-income residents from finding a place to live.

But there is an equally important democratic principle: communities must have a meaningful voice in determining how growth occurs, how infrastructure is financed, and how public services keep pace with development.

David Eby too often treated those principles as though they were mutually exclusive.

The provincial government could have pursued density while engaging municipal leaders in a serious conversation about implementation, infrastructure funding, transit capacity, school places, water and sewer systems, and the timing of new development. Eby could have made a more compelling case for change while acknowledging that municipalities possessed practical knowledge the provincial government did not.

Instead, the legislation became a symbol of a government prepared to impose its preferences and expect local elected officials to make the best of the consequences.

For Mayors and Councillors, the message was unmistakable: you may be elected by your residents, but when David Eby has decided how your community should grow, your discretion has limits.

That approach might produce uniformity. It does not necessarily produce trust.

And trust is not an optional extra in democratic government.

David Eby could have been remembered as the Premier who confronted exclusionary zoning and helped build a more affordable province. Instead, his handling of the housing reforms risked making him a symbol of provincial overreach.

The irony is that housing policy requires co-operation among every level of government, developers, infrastructure providers and the public. No single Premier can decree his way out of a housing crisis.

You cannot legislate homes into existence simply by changing zoning rules. You need financing, construction capacity, skilled workers, infrastructure and a viable economic environment. And you need governments capable of working together.

Eby understood the urgency of the housing problem. What he seemed unwilling to acknowledge was understanding a problem does not mean possessing every answer.

That was the recurring failure of his Premiership: an understandable sense of urgency becoming an excuse for insufficient humility.

When government reaches into the professions

The same pattern emerged in two other consequential areas: the regulation of medical professionals, and the governance of the legal profession.

Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act, was passed in 2022 and came substantially into force on April 1, 2026. It overhauled the regulatory framework for health professions, including consolidating regulatory colleges and expanding government oversight. The province presented the changes as a means of strengthening accountability, transparency and public protection.

Those objectives deserve to be taken seriously. Professional self-regulation is not infallible, and the public must be protected from misconduct, discrimination and failures of accountability.

But the question is not whether doctors should be accountable. Of course they should. The question is how that accountability can be strengthened without unnecessarily compromising the independence of professional judgment.

When government increases its influence over the bodies responsible for regulating physicians and other health professionals, it must explain how it will prevent political considerations from displacing professional expertise.

It must also demonstrate that the new arrangements will genuinely improve public protection rather than merely transfer authority to Victoria.

David Eby’s government did not escape serious criticism on these questions. The changes were consequential enough to warrant sustained consultation, careful explanation and a willingness to address the profession’s concerns.

Bill 21 removes the right of lawyers to regulate their own profession and was challenged by legal organizations in B.C. Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. Photo by Jason Payne /PNG

The same issue arose with Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act, passed in 2024. It established a framework for bringing lawyers, notaries and paralegals under a unified regulatory structure, changing the governance arrangements that had historically allowed the Law Society of British Columbia to regulate lawyers. The legislation prompted substantial opposition from legal organizations concerned about the independence of the legal profession.

These concerns were not trivial turf battles. An independent bar is an important safeguard in a constitutional democracy because lawyers must be able to represent clients challenging government decisions without fearing that the government itself will exert inappropriate influence over their professional regulator.

Reforming professional regulation is not inherently authoritarian. Neither is requiring greater accountability from doctors or lawyers. But independence, accountability and public oversight must be balanced carefully, especially when the state is restructuring institutions that may have to challenge the state itself.

The political failure lay in the impression that Eby’s government regarded established institutional independence as something to be reorganized from above, rather than a democratic safeguard that required exceptional care.

The more often a government centralizes authority, the more important it becomes for its leader to demonstrate restraint.

David Eby seemed to believe that the merits of his objectives would vindicate his methods. He underestimated how much trust could be lost along the way.

The fiscal recklessness that revived an old NDP stereotype

For decades, British Columbia’s more conservative political forces promoted a familiar accusation: give the New Democrats the keys to the treasury and they will spend the province into trouble. An NDP government, they insisted, couldn’t manage a popsicle stand in the heat of a British Columbia summer.

John Horgan understood that this caricature was politically damaging. Alongside Finance Minister Carole James, and subsequently Finance Minister Selina Robinson, his government sought to demonstrate that progressive government and responsible fiscal management were not mutually exclusive.

The Horgan years included substantial surpluses in several pre-pandemic budgets. That record helped undermine the notion that an NDP government was automatically a threat to the provincial treasury.

David Eby has done considerably less to sustain that achievement.

There is an important accounting distinction here. The audited surplus for 2022–23, the fiscal year in which Eby became Premier, was approximately $704 million, rather than $5.6 billion. His first full fiscal year, 2023–24, ended with an operating deficit of approximately $5 billion. The subsequent 2024–25 deficit reached approximately $7.3 billion.

The precise numbers matter. But so does the broader political question: how did a government that inherited a comparatively strong fiscal position move so quickly into substantial deficits and rising debt?

David Eby inherited major pressures that cannot simply be wished away.

Housing costs, healthcare demands, infrastructure requirements and the economic consequences of international trade disputes all impose genuine obligations on government. Public investment is not inherently wasteful, and borrowing for worthwhile infrastructure is not automatically irresponsible.

But these considerations do not absolve a Premier of the responsibility to establish priorities, assess the long-term costs of his decisions, and explain how public spending will be sustained.

The public is entitled to ask whether the government’s spending commitments were properly sequenced, whether promised benefits justified their costs, and whether the province was building sufficient fiscal resilience against an uncertain future.

David Eby’s government increasingly faced those questions against the backdrop of mounting deficits and debt.

That is how an old political stereotype returns: not necessarily because every expenditure was wrong, but because the government failed to persuade enough people that its spending was disciplined, sustainable and delivering results commensurate with the money being spent.

British Columbians were being asked to trust the Premier with ever-larger financial commitments while confronting affordability pressures in their own lives. For many households, the contrast was difficult to ignore.

A government cannot indefinitely substitute announcements for results, or the moral attractiveness of its objectives for a convincing account of what those objectives cost.

The voters’ verdict suggests that David Eby failed to make that case.

Big promises, disappointing delivery

Consider childcare, one of the most consequential examples of the gap between political ambition and the lived experience of British Columbian families.

The NDP made $10-a-day childcare a signature commitment in 2017. The idea was transformative: reduce the cost of care, help parents return to work if they wished, improve family finances and make early childhood education accessible to more children.

It was precisely the kind of policy that could have defined progressive government.

There has been genuine progress. British Columbia expanded fee-reduction programmes and increased the number of childcare spaces receiving support. The $10-a-day initiative became a real programme for participating families and providers, rather than remaining merely an election slogan.

But universal access to $10-a-day childcare was not achieved. Families continued to encounter shortages of spaces, uneven availability and costs that remained well above the advertised figure when they could not obtain a subsidized place.

The distinction between a programme that exists and a promise that has been fulfilled is not semantic. It is the difference between a government announcing a destination and actually getting people there.

David Eby’s government inherited the childcare commitment, but it also inherited the responsibility to deliver on it. Eight years after the original promise, families were entitled to ask why access to affordable, dependable childcare remained so difficult.

This was the wider weakness of David Eby’s Premiership. Its communications operation could explain the ambition behind its policies, but too often the government struggled to demonstrate that the results matched the rhetoric.

The same question applied to housing. The province could mandate zoning changes, establish density targets and accelerate planning processes, but ordinary British Columbians still needed homes they could afford.

It applied to healthcare, where systemic reform and new investments had to translate into timely access to care.

And it applied to the broader cost of living, where families were not interested in winning an ideological argument. They wanted to know whether their lives were improving.

As BC Green Party leader Emily Lowan put it, in the formulation supplied for this editorial, “Today’s bribe to British Columbians is tomorrow’s broken promise.”

It is a sharp political accusation, but it captures the danger of governing through a succession of attractive announcements without demonstrating consistent delivery.

A promise becomes a liability when it is repeated often enough that the public begins to measure the government by what remains unfinished.

Being “Eby-ed”: a cautionary tale for Canadian politicians

There is another lesson in Eby’s defeat, one that extends well beyond British Columbia.

Former Ontario Premier David Peterson’s 1990 defeat remains a cautionary tale about calling an early election when a government has no compelling reason to do so.

David Peterson had won a majority government in 1987. Three years later, he called an election while still enjoying the advantages of incumbency, only to see Bob Rae’s New Democrats defeat his Liberals and form government.

The decision became an enduring example of how a seemingly confident Premier can transform a manageable political situation into a personal catastrophe.

David Eby had his own reasons for calling an early election. He argued that the threat posed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade policies required a strong mandate. The Conservative opposition had been in turmoil, and its leadership had recently changed. Eby evidently believed the circumstances favoured an early vote.

But the opposition’s difficulties were not a permanent feature of British Columbia politics. They were a temporary advantage, and the Premier’s decision gave his opponents a common target.

Instead of allowing the Conservatives to work through their problems while the NDP governed, Eby gave them an immediate opportunity to unite around a straightforward question: why was the Premier asking British Columbians to vote again when the existing mandate had years left to run?

That question proved damaging because it was so difficult to answer convincingly.

A Premier who calls an unnecessary election assumes responsibility for the consequences. He cannot blame the calendar, the opposition, or the electorate when the gamble fails.

And when the gamble is motivated, even in part, by a desire to consolidate personal authority, the consequences can be especially unforgiving.

In the aftermath of October 24th, the expression “being Eby-ed” may well become shorthand in Canadian political conversation for a leader who mistakes a temporary advantage for a mandate to gamble with his government’s future.

The phrase would be cruelly appropriate.

The Election David Eby Did Not Need to Call

Source: CTV News / James Moore; The Canadian Press

The most consequential decision of Eby’s final months in office was not a housing bill, a budget announcement or a dispute with a professional association.

It was the decision to call the election in the first place.

On September 22nd, David Eby sent British Columbians to the polls with almost two years remaining in the ordinary electoral cycle. He chose to do so while facing concerns within his own political ranks and while municipal leaders had reason to object to the timing, which overlapped with local election campaigns.

Eby framed the election as an opportunity to secure a mandate for defending British Columbia against American economic threats. Yet his opponents had a more immediate question for voters: why should a province already struggling with affordability, healthcare pressures and fiscal uncertainty be asked to endure an unnecessary provincial campaign?

The decision consumed political attention, divided the government from potential allies and placed Eby’s leadership on trial.

In the end, the electorate delivered its judgment.

The preliminary election picture was devastating: the Conservatives emerged with a commanding lead, while the NDP was reduced to approximately 27 or 28 seats in the initial count, with final counting still to come. The Greens retained two seats. Eby announced his resignation as NDP leader, although he won his own seat in Vancouver-Point Grey.

For the New Democrats, the consequences were immense. A party that had governed British Columbia was left to contemplate opposition, renewal and the painful work of explaining how it had squandered its political advantage.

And consider what David Eby and his colleagues will not be able to celebrate as a government in 2027: the anticipated completion of the Millennium Line extension along Broadway to Arbutus Street, and the opening of the new St. Paul’s Hospital.

These are major projects with consequences for transit, healthcare and the future of Vancouver. They will proceed under a new political administration, and their eventual opening will belong to the people of British Columbia, not to any one Premier or party.

That is how government should work. Public achievements belong to the public.

Yet for David Eby, there is a bitter irony in leaving office before the completion of projects that could have formed part of his government’s legacy. He had the opportunity to remain Premier, continue governing, and allow British Columbians to judge his administration on the full record of its accomplishments and failures.

Instead, he chose an early election.

The decision followed him through the campaign, shadowing his announcements and competing with his arguments about the economy, housing and healthcare. Every time he asked voters to trust his judgment, they could ask why that judgment had led him to call an election he did not need.

He could explain his reasons, but he could not make the question disappear.

In that sense, the election became a referendum on something more fundamental than any individual policy: whether British Columbians trusted Eby to make decisions in their interests, even when those decisions were difficult or politically inconvenient.

On October 24, enough voters answered no.

The final lesson is not that strong governments should avoid ambitious reforms, or that premiers should never intervene when local institutions fail to act. British Columbia needs housing, reliable healthcare, affordable childcare and public infrastructure. It needs governments prepared to make difficult decisions.

But it also needs leaders who understand the limits of their own authority.

A Premier is not the province’s proprietor. A legislative majority is not a licence to disregard every objection. And intelligence, however formidable, is no substitute for humility.

David Eby may have been convinced that he possessed the answers British Columbia needed. His mistake was behaving as though the province’s other elected officials, professional institutions and ordinary citizens were simply required to catch up with him.

They were not.

The people of British Columbia had their own judgment to exercise, and they exercised it at the ballot box.

There is a final, melancholy lesson in all of this.

David Eby began his Premiership with the opportunity to show that progressive government could combine social ambition with fiscal discipline, institutional respect and a willingness to listen. He could have demonstrated that a government can pursue transformative housing reform without treating municipalities as adversaries, and that promises are most powerful when they are matched by delivery.

Instead, his final chapter was consumed by the consequences of an unnecessary election and the growing perception that his confidence had hardened into arrogance.

The man who sought a renewed mandate received a political repudiation. The Premier who wanted to demonstrate strength weakened his own party. The leader who believed he could impose his timetable on British Columbia discovered that voters had a timetable of their own.

David Peterson’s snap-election gamble became a cautionary tale for generations of Canadian politicians. David Eby’s has now joined it.

And perhaps that is the most enduring truth of October 24, 2026: no matter how clever the strategist, how persuasive the speechwriter, or how convinced a Premier becomes of his own indispensability, democracy retains the final word.

A leader may call an election to prove that he is right.

The electorate is under no obligation to agree.

Migawd, we thought we were angry about David Eby’s decision to call a snap election, and were concerned about today’s column as coming across as too pointed, critical and unkind to David Eby, and a seemingly mute Cabinet and caucus that allowed him to call a needless election that proved devastating for the provincial New Democratic Party.

We can’t hold a candle to the criticisms, and outright anger, of former Vancouver City Councillor / former Chief of Staff to Premier John Horgan, Geoff Meggs, who is withering in his denunciation of Premier Eby and his woefully inept, failed to deliver on NDP commitments, fiscally irresponsible, and incompetent New Democratic Party government.

In Meggs’s Substack article, Laying the foundations for a post-Eby BC NDP: a tough hill to climb, but we’ve been here before, Meggs writes that the seeds of the October 24 defeat were sown in the near-death experience of David Eby’s one-seat majority victory in 2024, creating a government that never really stabilized.

Meggs’ Substack column may be found here. Definitely worth a read.

Perhaps even more angry and disappointed — and mightily disheartened — is Ron Johnson, a longtime New Democratic Party stalwart and former NDP candidate in Vancouver whose decades of service to both the federal and provincial parties have made him a respected behind-the-scenes political operative.

An eminence grise of the New Democratic Party, Ron Johnson has contributed a wealth of institutional knowledge, strategic insight and political experience to the NDP, helping shape its campaigns, nurture its candidates and sustain its organizational strength. A steadfast New Democrat, Johnson represents the enduring commitment, loyalty and hard-earned wisdom of the party’s grassroots political tradition.

In Johnson’s Substack article, We must build a renewed BC NDP from the bottom up, he writes that social democrats and democratic socialists must work together to forge a revitalized membership-focused working people’s BC NDP and be ready to win in 2030.

Ron Johnson’s must-read Substack column may be found here.

#BCPoli | Ridings in Contention in the Interior, the North & the Kootenays

BC Election 2024, BC Politics, BC Votes 2024, Canada, canadian politics, Essay, News, Politics, , , , , , , , ,

With the 2024 British Columbia election now underway, several key ridings in the Interior of the province, including in the Okanagan, the Kootenays, and northern British Columbia look to play pivotal roles in determining the overall outcome.

These regions are historically less urbanized, with a mix of rural and resource-based economies, making them more politically diverse. The B.C. New Democratic Party (NDP), the resurgent B.C. Conservative Party, and a handful of high-profile Independents, including former B.C. United MLAs, are all vying for influence.

The B.C. Conservative Party, under leader John Rustad, is expected to make significant gains, particularly in the more conservative and rural areas of the province.

The party has capitalized on growing discontent with both the B.C. NDP government and the now virtually defunct B.C. United.

With Rustad steering the party towards a platform that resonates with socially conservative and populist voters, the B.C. Conservatives could emerge as the dominant opposition in the northern and Interior ridings.

In regions like the Okanagan and the Kootenays, where small-c conservative values have a strong foothold, the B.C. Conservatives are expected to gain traction.

In ridings such as Peace River North and Peace River South, long-time former B.C. United MLAs Dan Davies and Mike Bernier, respectively, are now running as Independents.


To read Vote Mate candidate profiles of the Peace River North candidates, click here.

These ridings, which have traditionally voted conservative, will see fierce competition between these Independents, and the B.C. Conservative candidates.

If the vote splits between Independent conservatives and the B.C. Conservatives, it could allow the B.C. NDP to secure an unexpected victory — if they were running a candidate in either riding, which as of this writing they most decidedly are not. The B.C. NDP must figure it’s a lost cause.


To read Vote Mate candidate profiles of the Peace River South candidates, click here.

As we say above, former B.C. United MLAs running as Independents could significantly impact the political dynamics in their respective ridings.

These candidates carry local recognition and established track records, but the collapse of B.C. United has left a vacuum that both the B.C. Conservatives and NDP are seeking to fill. The presence of high-profile Independent candidates, such as Bernier in Peace River South, Dan Davies in Peace River North, Coralee Oakes in Cariboo North, and Tom Shypitka in Kootenay-Rockies, could lead to a fragmentation of the right-leaning vote.

Mike Bernier, for example, has deep roots in Peace River South, and his decision to run as an Independent is likely to retain a significant portion of his previous support. However, he faces competition from a growing B.C. Conservative presence in the area. Similarly, Coralee Oakes in Cariboo North may siphon votes away from the B.C. Conservative candidate, potentially paving the way for a closer contest with the B.C. NDP.

Before we leave the North, let’s take a look at …

Bulkley Valley-Stikine. The Stikine has been in the NDP column since 2009 with Doug Donaldson. Prior to 2009, Bulkley Valley-Stikine had been held by Dennis McKay of the B.C. Liberals. It’s the smallest riding in the province by population, and the largest by geography. The NDP’s Nathan Cullen is the MLA for the riding, which he won handily in 2020, following a 15-year stint as the shadow Finance Critic for the federal New Democratic Party.  As was the case in 2020, Rod Taylor, the head of the Christian Heritage Party, is running again; generally, he receives about 10% of the vote. Although not announced as of this writing, word is that the B.C. Greens will run an Indigenous candidate who has been active in the anti-pipeline movement. Stir that all around, and  Bulkley Valley-Stikine could very well turn into a horse race. One to keep an eye on.

Skeena. Pair this riding with Bulkley Valley-Stikine and this could be a pick up for the NDP, now that Ellis Ross — who had held the riding for B.C. United — has jumped to the federal Conservatives, where he’ll run as a federal candidate in the Skeena riding. Sarah Zimmerman who has deep roots in Skeena, and currently sits as an elected Terrace City Councillor and was the former Executive Director of Communications for Coast Mountain College is considered to be a very strong candidate in the riding. Expect David Eby to spend time in both ridings, to secure two victories in the North.

In the Okanagan, where former B.C. United candidates Ashley Ramsay (Kelowna-Mission), Dr. Michael Humer (Kelowna Centre), Tracy St. Claire (Penticton-Summerland), and Kevin Acton (Vernon-Lumby) are now running as Independents, the political landscape is equally complicated.

The Okanagan is traditionally conservative, but the vote-splitting between Independents and B.C. Conservative candidates could offer opportunities for the NDP, particularly in historically competitive ridings such as Vernon-Lumby, which the NDP won in 2020. Acton’s candidacy will face pressure from both the B.C. NDP and a surging B.C. Conservative base. If the vote splits, it could swing the riding back into NDP control, or allow the B.C. Conservatives to make gains.


To read Vote Mate candidate profiles of the Salmon Arm-Shuswap candidates, click here.

In Salmon Arm-Shuswap, Greg McCune’s Independent bid will face similar dynamics. This riding has a deeply conservative base, but with B.C. Conservatives gaining momentum, vote-splitting could alter the outcome.

The Kootenay Ridings: NDP vs. B.C. Conservatives

In the Kootenays, the B.C. NDP has traditionally done well, especially in ridings like Kootenay West and Kootenay-Rockies, where progressive and environmentally-focused voters dominate. However, the B.C. Conservatives are working to broaden their appeal in these areas by emphasizing opposition to government overreach, particularly on resource management and rural development issues.


To read Vote Mate candidate profiles of the Kootenay-Central candidates, click here.

The B.C. Greens have historically been a strong force in Nelson and surrounding areas, appealing to environmentally conscious voters who support sustainable resource management and climate action. In ridings like Kootenay-West (the old Nelson-Creston riding) the Greens are expected to remain a key player, with potential to siphon votes away from the B.C. NDP. However, it is unlikely that the B.C. Conservatives will gain significant traction here due to the progressive nature of the electorate.


To read Vote Mate candidate profiles of the Kootenay-Rockies candidates, click here.

In Kootenay-Rockies, Tom Shypitka’s decision to run as an Independent, having previously been a B.C. United MLA, will complicate the conservative vote. The B.C. Conservatives are likely to perform well in this region, but Shypitka’s local popularity could create a fragmented right-leaning vote, giving the NDP a chance to maintain or even expand their influence.

The Kamloops Ridings

Kamloops has historically been a battleground, with ridings like Kamloops-North Thompson and Kamloops-Centre frequently seeing close contests.

The B.C. Conservatives, emboldened by their recent growth, are aiming to make headway in these ridings.

To read Vote Mate candidate profiles of the Kamloops-North Thompson candidates, click here.

In Kamloops-North Thompson, where rural concerns about resource industries and housing affordability dominate, the B.C. Conservatives are expected to perform well, potentially at the expense of the B.C. NDP.


To read Vote Mate candidate profiles of the Kamloops-Centre candidates, click here.

Kamloops-Centre, with a more urban electorate the Conservatives could retain the seat with former B.C. United / B.C. Liberal candidate Peter Milobar holding down the fort for the Conservatives, unless voters disillusioned with both the remnants of B.C. United. and decide to cast their ballot for a reinvigorated B.C. New Democratic Party.

The 2024 B.C. election in the Interior, Okanagan, Kootenays, and the North is shaping up to be one of the most competitive in recent history.

The B.C. Conservatives are positioned to make significant gains, particularly in more rural, conservative-leaning ridings. However, the presence of high-profile Independents, especially former B.C. United MLAs, adds complexity to the race, creating the potential for vote-splitting and unexpected outcomes.

The B.C. Greens will remain strong in progressive enclaves, particularly around Nelson, while the B.C. NDP faces the challenge of defending its gains from 2020 in the face of a re-energized conservative movement.

As of today, we are 25 days away from October 19th Election Day.

2024 British Columbia Provincial Election | Regional Riding Analysis

Part 1 | Vancouver Island | Five Ridings in Contention, and Subject to Change


The Hotel Pacifico podcast will broadcast daily, Monday thru Friday, throughout the 2024 election

The good folks at Air Quotes Media’s Hotel Pacifico podcast — featuring Mike McDonald, Christy Clark’s campaign manager in 2013; Geoff Meggs, Premier John Horgan’s Chief of Staff; and Kate Hammer, a former Globe and Mail British Columbia legislative reporter — will “broadcast” on the B.C. Election each day, Monday through Friday.

VanRamblings will post the podcast, for your edification and enjoyment.

#BCPoli | BC NDP Will Implement a Dignified Province-Wide Supportive Housing Agenda

#VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Election 2024, BC Votes 2024, Canada, Essay, Food & Health, Politics, Vancouver, , , , , , , , ,

In British Columbia, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units have long served as a last resort for many of the province’s most vulnerable individuals, including low-income residents, those with mental health challenges, and people grappling with homelessness.

However, these aging, often dilapidated buildings are increasingly unfit for human habitation. As such, there is an urgent need for the British Columbia government to transition vulnerable populations out of rundown SROs in Vancouver, Victoria and elsewhere, toward sustainable, supportive housing models.

By providing care similar to the successful systems used in European countries like Finland, B.C. can address the root causes of homelessness, poverty, and social marginalization while promoting long-term well-being and social integration.

In a 2022 interview with B.C. Legislative reporter Katie DeRosa, then with the Vancouver Sun and now in the same role with the CBC, B.C.’s New Democratic Party Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing, David Eby — who was running to replace Premier John Horgan, who had resigned as Premier for health reasons, as leader of the BC NDP — had the following to say about the need for government to provide dignified supportive housing for members of British Columbia’s vulnerable populations living in communities across the province, and move these abandoned individuals out of rundown SROs …

Premier David Eby addresses need to transition people out of SROs

“There really hasn’t been a co-ordinated strategy or a plan about how we get out of the problems of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, Victoria and elsewhere. I think … putting an invisible fence around neighbourhoods and saying ‘this is the best we can do’ and just hope that things work out, it’s a strategy that will no longer carry us forward.” Eby said if he’s successful in his bid to replace Premier John Horgan … he’ll co-ordinate a long-term response to homelessness issues across the province, with the support and assistance from the federal government, our province’s towns and cities, and concerned groups.

In point of fact, Premier David Eby has committed to just that, copying the Finnish model that provides supported and affordable housing.

Juha Kaakinen, Finnish CEO of the Y-Foundation, providing low-cost housing to the homeless

“We had to get rid of the night shelters and short-term hostels we still had back then. They had a very long history in Finland, and everyone could see they were not getting people out of homelessness. We decided to reverse the assumptions,” says Juha Kaakinen, CEO of Finland’s Y-Foundation, which provides low-cost flats to homeless people across Finland.

The Deplorable Conditions of SROs

SROs, originally constructed as affordable housing for the working class, have deteriorated significantly over the decades. Many SRO units in cities like Vancouver, Victoria and Kelowna are plagued by chronic disrepair, pest infestations, poor heating and ventilation systems, inadequate plumbing, and a lack of basic sanitation. These environments are not only uncomfortable but dangerous, often exacerbating the mental and physical health challenges faced by their residents.

Research shows a strong correlation between poor living conditions and poor health outcomes, including increased rates of addiction, infectious diseases, and mental health crises. Furthermore, many SRO buildings are located in areas with high crime rates, compounding the risks for residents already facing social vulnerabilities. In essence, SROs have become a symbol of the failure to provide adequate housing and services to the people who need them most. Moving vulnerable individuals out of these dangerous environments is not only a moral imperative, but also a matter of public health and safety.

The Case for Supportive Housing

Supportive housing offers a more sustainable solution to the complex needs of the vulnerable populations currently residing in SROs. Unlike SROs, which often serve as temporary, stop-gap measures, supportive housing provides stable, permanent accommodations where individuals have access to social, medical, and psychological services on-site. This model addresses not only the need for safe and secure housing but also the underlying issues that contribute to homelessness and instability, such as mental health disorders, addiction, and unemployment.


The Globe and Mail’s Kerry Gold on how Finland is solving the problem of homelessness.

In European countries like Finland and Austria, supportive housing has proven to be remarkably successful. Finland, for instance, has implemented the “Housing First” model, which provides stable housing to homeless individuals as the first step toward addressing other social issues. This approach has reduced homelessness by over 50% since its introduction in 2008, with most formerly homeless individuals remaining housed long-term. Austria follows a similar model with an emphasis on affordable, long-term housing paired with social services, which has also led to positive outcomes for at-risk populations.

For B.C., adopting a comparable approach would mean transitioning away from crisis management in the form of emergency shelters or rundown SROs and toward long-term solutions that focus on stability, health, and empowerment.

Supportive housing projects, when coupled with services such as healthcare, employment training, and mental health support, help individuals reintegrate into society, reduce their dependence on public services, and lead more fulfilling lives.

Note should be made that Premier David Eby’s government alone has a long term strategy — that they have committed to implement in their next term of government —  to transition members of our vulnerable population out of rundown SROs and substandard accommodation into supportive housing

Cost Efficiency and Long-Term Benefits of Building Supportive Housing

One of the most compelling arguments for supportive housing is its cost-effectiveness. Studies from both Europe and North America demonstrate that investing in supportive housing ultimately saves governments money in the long run. Homelessness and inadequate housing impose significant costs on public systems, including healthcare, law enforcement, and emergency services.

For instance, individuals living on the streets or in unstable environments are more likely to require emergency medical attention, experience police interactions, or become involved in the criminal justice system. In contrast, when people are find safe haven and community in supportive housing, they use fewer emergency services and are better able to manage chronic health conditions, or avoid encounters with law enforcement. Finland’s Housing First model has shown that for every dollar spent on housing and support, the government saves approximately $2 in costs related to homelessness.

B.C., with its high cost of living and significant homeless population, faces similar challenges. Building and maintaining supportive housing units may initially require significant investment, but it will result in long-term savings by reducing strain on public health, criminal justice, and social services systems. Moreover, the social and economic benefits of helping individuals regain stability, employment, and health far outweigh the upfront costs.

In a government publication titled Lost in Transition, the cost of construction of thousands of supportive housing units would be made possible in part by the savings that would accrue from merging the 277 social services agencies on the DTES into 30 umbrella organizations.

Each of the 277 social agencies employs an Executive Director — at an average annual salary of $500,000 — Directors of Finance, Directors of Human Resources, Managers of Supported Housing, Property Managers and other senior administrative staff — each of these 247 individuals earning up to $375,000 annually — a duplication of services and administration funded by the province, Merging agencies would save more than $1 billion dollars annually that would helo to pay for the cost of building supportive housing on the DTES, and across the province.

The Lost in Transition report questioned if such duplication of services properly serves the interests of those who are resident, and cared for, on the DTES.

There was also recommendation in the Lost in Transition report that argued for the provincial appointment of a Commissioner who would oversee the reformation of the provision of services on the DTES, a person with the authority of a Deputy Minister who would report only to a provincially appointed Board of Directors, which would oversee the transition of the current service model, reporting as well as to the office of the Premier.

A Moral and Social Imperative of Providing Dignified Supportive Housing


Eby government planning to take co-ordination of housing provision for B.C.’s most vulnerable citizens

Finally, there’s a moral dimension to the issue.

In a society as wealthy and resource-rich as British Columbia, allowing vulnerable members of our population to languish in unsafe, unsanitary SRO units reflects poorly on social priorities.

The government has a responsibility — a responsibility recognized by those within the B.C.  New Democrat government — to protect its most vulnerable citizens, ensuring that these individuals have access to the basic necessities of life, including safe housing, healthcare, and social support.

Housing is not just a commodity; it is a human right.

By moving away from the outdated, harmful practice of relying on SROs & instead investing in supportive housing, B.C. can take a meaningful step toward ending homelessness and improving the quality of life for our most marginalized citizens.

Relocating vulnerable populations out of rundown SROs and into supportive housing is not just a practical solution; it is an ethical and economic necessity.

In adopting the supportive housing model, British Columbia can — and will, with the re-election of an NDP government — address homelessness more effectively, reduce the long-term social, moral and medical costs associated with inadequate housing, while promoting a more inclusive and caring society.

The time to act is now, with the re-election of a David Eby-led government.

The benefits of the B.C. New Democrats’ approach to building dignified housing for our most vulnerable population will be felt for generations to come.

#BCPoli | Whither Now BC United Chief Kevin Falcon?

BC Election 2024, BC Politics, canadian politics, Politics, , , , , ,

Kevin Falcon currently sits in the British Columbia Legislature as BC United party Leader of the Loyal Opposition, to Premier David Eby’s BC NDP government.

As we wrote yesterday, Kevin Falcon’s BC United campaign for re-election is currently in the doldrums, with the very real prospect — if polls are to be believed — that BC United might very well be wiped off the political map this fall. In fact, VanRamblings has been told that Mr. Falcon is currently running (a distant) second to the BC Conservative’s Dallas Brodie in his home riding of Vancouver Quilchena.

This past Thursday, August 15th, federal Conservative / political observer / past Managing Editor at the Vancouver Sun / 2014 Vancouver NPA candidate for Mayor / former publisher-editor of Business in Vancouver, Kirk LaPointe, wrote a withering column titled,  Time for Kevin Falcon to Bid Adieu and Become B.C.’s Biden.

“Kevin Falcon is banking on having his Gordon Wilson moment — to ignite BC United as Wilson’s Leaders’ Debate performance did for the 1991 BC Liberals, rising above the onstage bickering of the NDP’s Mike Harcourt and the Social Credit’s Rita Johnson to deliver the famous line: ‘This reminds me of a couple of kids in a sandbox. I’m not interested in what happened 10 years ago; I’m interested in what happens tomorrow.’ Falcon should worry less about an upcoming debate and more about standing in the way of change.

Falcon’s party’s understandable bitterness about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory ought to be set aside if the BC United team is serious about ending the NDP reign. If it wants to oust government, it ought to lend its experienced election machinery to the party in the best position to properly optimize it in the approaching campaign.

But it depends on the guy at the top, the guy who must regret dispatching Rustad from BC United on his birthday two years ago — to do what in his heart he must know by now is best for B.C.

If he is interested in change, Kevin Falcon needs a Biden moment.”

In point of fact, not only have several sitting members of BC United deserted the party (Lorne Doerkson, Elenore Sturko, Teresa Wat), the staff responsible for running BC United’s election campaign have also been leaving the party in droves.

Again, as we wrote yesterday, word from BC Conservative sources is that Kevin Falcon will, indeed, experience his Joe Biden moment, and resign as leader of BC United before month’s end, caving into pressure from all quarters, not to mention the pragmatism of acknowledging polling over the months that has BC United being obliterated at the polls this upcoming October.

As we wrote yesterday, we don’t believe this “speculation” / wishful thinking.

Why not?


BC United caucus members, l-r: Trevor Halford, Todd Stone, Shirley Bond, Mike Bernier, Coralee Oakes

For a start, the remaining MLAs in the BC United caucus running for re-election under the party’s banner — Todd Stone and Peter Milobar in Kamloops, Shirley Bond in Prince George, Coralee Oakes in Prince George Cariboo-North, Mike Bernier in Peace River South, Dan Davies in Peace River North, Tom Shypitka in Kootenay-Rockies, Jackie Tegart in Fraser-Nicola, Ian Paton in Delta South, and Trevor Halford in Surrey-White Rock — would be left high and dry if BC United were to fold their tent (given that the BC Conservatives have already nominated candidates in each of those ridings), a Kevin Falcon decision to step down as leader would serve to create chaos in the lives of the loyal BC United caucus members who are running for re-election, effectively snuffing out their chance at another term in the BC Legislature, not to mention their political careers and aspirations.

In addition, let us not forget the remaining 87 members of the BC United team running for election under the BC United banner in ridings across our province.

BC United enters the campaign as the second most well-funded campaign, just behind the BC NDP, and miles ahead of the BC Conservatives. Anything can happen during the course of the upcoming 28-day British Columbia election campaign. Kevin Falcon and BC United could very well experience a Lazurus or Phoenix-like re-birth, arising from the dead to fight another day for their principles, as duly elected members in good standing, in the British Columbia Legislature.

VanRamblings will have more to say about Kevin Falcon — of a kindly and generous nature — in the days to come. To be quite honest, we are flummoxed that Kevin Falcon, once a celebrated member of Gordon Campbell’s B.C. Liberal caucus, a builder of the first order, a relatively non-partisan happy warrior in Campbell’s government, who was always prepared to work across the aisle, has fallen on such hard times politically. We’ll write about that grievous circumstance another day.


Bill Tieleman, a VanRamblings neighbour and friend, great chef and oenophile, and all around good guy

Note: VanRamblings’ friend, Bill Tieleman, an all around good guy, one of the most authentic and humane men, not to mention a well-informed and principled politico, and just darn good human being, which is to say, one of the best humans of our acquaintance, now or ever — informs us that in point of fact, the Writ will be dropped on September 21st, not September 14th, as we wrote earlier (we thought there’d be a 35-day election period … apparently not … woe is us … alas).