The province stands on the threshold of change: an election race in which the Conservatives hold only a narrow lead over the NDP, multibillion-dollar deficits have become a political norm, and a legal battle over Cowichan Nation land threatens to reshape property ownership and infrastructure.
British Columbia: Deficits as the New Political Norm
The election campaign in British Columbia promises voters a miraculous rescue of the province’s finances. But, as Rob Shaw’s analysis for Business in Vancouver shows, neither of the two leading parties can offer a genuine way out of the debt trap. Regardless of who wins on Saturday, multibillion-dollar deficits will remain with the province for years, while campaign promises of fiscal discipline amount to little more than rhetoric.
The New Democrats (NDP), led by incumbent Premier David Eby, are projecting a combined deficit of $38.4 billion over three years: $13.7 billion this year, $12.6 billion in 2027–28 and $12 billion in 2028–29. It is difficult to call this the “path to balance” Eby promised during last year’s election campaign and has repeated ever since. The Conservatives, who might be expected to advocate the opposite approach, estimate an even larger deficit—$39.5 billion over three years ($13.7 billion this year, followed by $13.5 billion and $12.3 billion).
Both leaders are trying to portray their plans as an effort to regain control over spending, although everything points in the opposite direction. Both also accuse each other of overly optimistic estimates, omitted budget items and “creative math.” Eby directly attacked the Conservatives, calling them “the most negative and incredible group of hateful candidates” with a platform that allegedly conceals billions of dollars in health-care cuts. His own platform, he said, would instead expand health-care services across the province by raising taxes on the wealthiest residents.
The platform figures do indeed look paradoxical. The NDP promise $2.6 billion in new spending over three years, offset by $4 billion in new revenue from raising income taxes on those earning more than $190,000, increasing the speculation and vacancy tax, and achieving “targeted economic growth.” The Conservatives promise only $831 million in new spending, but would lose $7.6 billion in revenue by scrapping the PST on capital equipment, introducing a youth tax credit and reducing income taxes by $1,000. They plan to compensate for this through $2.6 billion in revenue growth and $7.7 billion in “spending restraint” achieved by freezing hiring, reviewing the government’s core functions and reducing annual reserves from $5 billion to $3 billion.
The main vulnerability of the Conservative plan is its economic-growth projections, which the article’s author calls “wildly ambitious.” Private forecasts put provincial GDP growth at roughly 1.5–1.7 percent next year and around two percent by 2028. The Conservatives, however, are budgeting for 2.5 percent and 2.8 percent, rising to 3.2 percent by 2029–30—figures that, in Shaw’s words, “go right off the charts.” Conservative Leader John Rustad brushed aside the criticism, saying the party was forecasting “roughly one percentage point more optimism” than the NDP and that this was “entirely achievable,” since many sectors were “just waiting for a change in government to invest in the province.”
Amid all this bickering, the central fact is being lost: the province will remain deeply in the red for the foreseeable future, and debt-servicing costs—already the fourth-largest budget item—will continue to grow. Against this backdrop, the Greens are the only party with a real plan to eliminate the deficit. Emily Lowan proposes introducing a wealth tax on fortunes exceeding $50 million, which she says would generate $22 billion and eliminate the deficit entirely in a single year. The idea is radical and unlikely to be acceptable to Eby, even if he needs Green support in a minority government. But for now, she is the only one offering any kind of way out, while everyone else simply continues to spend more than they have.
For context, several terms require explanation. A budget deficit is the excess of spending over revenue in a given year. Unlike a one-time shortfall, a chronic deficit accumulates as public debt, and servicing that debt—paying interest to creditors—takes money away from the same schools and hospitals. PST, or Provincial Sales Tax, is the provincial sales tax. Under the Conservative plan, eliminating it on capital equipment is intended to encourage business investment, but it would also deprive the treasury of billions. “Spending restraint” through a hiring freeze and a review of government functions is a standard cost-cutting tool, although its actual effect is usually more modest than advertised. The speculation and vacancy tax, which the New Democrats propose increasing, targets the resale of housing for profit and raises revenue from investors and house flippers. Finally, a “path to balance” means a promise to bring spending and revenue into equilibrium without a deficit—an aspiration that, in this case, remains merely a slogan.
The article’s central conclusion is simple and discouraging: the platforms of both parties are built on mutually incompatible assumptions and mutual accusations, but they agree on one thing—the deficit is not going anywhere. Eby accuses Rustad of concealing health-care cuts; Rustad promises to maintain funding at current levels; and both accuse each other of overstating revenue. Meanwhile, debt-servicing costs are rising, and no one offers a genuine alternative to budgetary discipline apart from the Greens’ radical proposal. The only question is who will manage this mountain of debt—and how many more years voters will have to listen to promises of a “balance” that never arrives.
British Columbia on the Final Stretch: Conservatives Close in on NDP a Week Before the Election
In the Canadian province of British Columbia, known for its political instability in recent years, the election race is entering its decisive phase. According to the latest polls, published just days before voting, the Conservative Party of British Columbia, led by John Rustad, has managed to close the gap and even pull ahead by a narrow margin of the governing New Democratic Party (NDP), led by incumbent Premier David Eby. The news, reported by CTV News Vancouver, has turned a campaign that seemed predictable only recently into an unpredictable contest whose outcome could shape the region’s political landscape for the next four years.
The key point is that provincial elections in British Columbia have traditionally been viewed as a contest between two main forces: the NDP, historically supported by urban Vancouver and southern Vancouver Island, and the centre-right forces represented in recent decades by the Liberal Party and now by the Conservatives. The current campaign, however, has been marked by a tectonic shift. After the former Liberal Party collapsed and was reformatted as the “United” Party—and many of its members subsequently moved to the Conservatives—the political right consolidated around a new leader. John Rustad, a former federal Conservative MP, has managed to mobilize voters dissatisfied with the rising cost of living, health-care problems and the housing crisis, which many believe the NDP failed to resolve during its seven years in power.
A key point that should be explained to readers unfamiliar with Canadian politics is that the NDP (New Democratic Party, or BC NDP at the provincial level) is a social democratic party that supports an active government role in the economy, affordable housing and expanded social programs. Its right-wing opponents traditionally criticize it for raising taxes and imposing excessive regulation. The British Columbia Conservatives, by contrast, advocate lower taxes, support for business and a tougher approach to public safety. According to the latest data, the gap between the parties is within the margin of error, meaning that neither can feel confident. It is especially significant that the Conservatives’ lead appears to be extremely narrow: even a small shift in voter sentiment in the final days could overturn the result.
Analysts say the turbulence is linked to several factors. First is voter fatigue with the incumbent government. The NDP has been in power since 2017, and any extended period in office inevitably accumulates negative sentiment. Second, the federal political climate has played a role. The unpopularity of Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government indirectly hurts its ideological relatives at the provincial level, although the NDP is not a direct equivalent of the federal Liberals. Third, the Conservatives have made aggressive use of the housing crisis and cost-of-living issues, which matter most to residents of Vancouver and its suburbs. As one campaign observer told CTV News, “voters want change, but they are afraid of radical change, so the battle is for the undecided.”
The campaign is also taking place against a backdrop of record-high turnout in advance voting, which usually indicates strong polarization and voter motivation. This adds another element of intrigue: who actually went to the polls—angry supporters of change or status-quo supporters worried about a change in government? The key battles will take place in Vancouver’s suburbs—Surrey, Langley and Coquitlam—as well as in the Fraser Valley, home to large communities that have traditionally voted unpredictably. There, a narrow advantage for either party could determine the balance of power in the provincial legislature.
In short, the situation is this: one week before election day, British Columbia is balancing on the edge of a change in government. The Conservatives, led by John Rustad, hold a symbolic advantage in the polls, but David Eby’s NDP is not giving up and is relying on its powerful organization and support in densely populated urban ridings. The outcome will likely be determined not by the parties’ overall popularity, but by turnout in specific ridings and each campaign’s ability to mobilize its voters in the final days. If the gap remains as narrow as it is now, the results could be challenged or produce a hung legislature, something that already happened in the province in 2017. One thing is certain: the final week of this campaign will not be boring.
The Battle for the Land: Why the Cowichan Nation Ruling Could Change British Columbia
A court case that began as a historic dispute over Indigenous rights has developed into a wide-ranging confrontation involving the provincial government, federal authorities, the Port of Vancouver, the City of Richmond and other Indigenous communities. The British Columbia Court of Appeal is preparing to hear six applications in January seeking to suspend key provisions of a ruling by Justice Barbara Young, which recognized Cowichan Nation’s (Qwul’sih’yah’maht) ownership rights over a significant portion of land in the Richmond area. The applicants warn of potentially catastrophic consequences—from threats to the land-registration system to problems involving flood-control dikes and fishing—while Cowichan Nation insists that these concerns are exaggerated and manageable.
According to documents obtained by CBC News, the applicants paint a picture of impending chaos. The province says confidence in the land-title system and “critical reconciliation work” are at risk. The City of Richmond says that “thousands of its citizens” could be affected in the event of a catastrophic flood because access to dikes and pumping stations on the disputed sites has been called into question. The Port of Vancouver warns of a “chaotic situation” for its operations and hundreds of employees. The Musqueam and Tsawwassen Nations say they are being displaced from traditional fishing grounds in the south arm of the Fraser River, where salmon stocks are already depleted.
Justice Young’s 600-page ruling recognized Cowichan’s Aboriginal title to an area of up to 325 hectares, including private land as well as lands belonging to the federal Crown, the port and the City of Richmond. The court also confirmed Cowichan’s right to fish for food in waters traditionally associated with other nations. The judge further ruled that Aboriginal title can coexist with private ownership in the form of “fee simple” title, and that the question of how the two forms of ownership coexist must be resolved through negotiations between the Crown and Cowichan Nation. This part of the ruling, concerning private property and fishing rights, took effect immediately, while provisions affecting the port and Richmond were stayed for 18 months—until February 2027—to give the parties time to prepare.
However, the progress of the appeal shows that the parties have still failed to reach agreement. Lawyers for all sides gathered last week in a downtown Vancouver courtroom to establish a filing schedule. More than a dozen lawyers, most of them appearing in person, easily outnumbered the few spectators in the gallery. The appeal court registrar suggested waiving some formalities, noting that otherwise the hearing could last all day. Eight separate but related appeals have been filed, while the number of potential interveners seeking to join the case remains unknown. The Independent Contractors and Businesses Association (ICBA), for example, is asking to represent its 5,000 members in the construction industry, while a provincial lawyer referred to “10 serious potential interveners.”
The January hearing will focus on whether there is a serious legal issue, whether there is a real risk of “irreparable harm” and how the risks to each party should be weighed. Significantly, because of the unprecedented nature of the issues, the Crown has requested a hearing before a special five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal instead of the usual three. Each application for a stay concerns a different aspect of the ruling: fishing rights, ownership of Richmond’s private lands and port lands. The province is also seeking an order barring Cowichan from taking any action to protect its rights against private landowners until the court reaches a final decision.
The debate over the definition of “private landowners” is of particular interest. The case materials contain correspondence between provincial lawyers and Cowichan discussing whether the term includes future land purchasers. Cowichan’s lawyer argues that the province’s definition, which is not limited in time, improperly expands the group of people covered, while Cowichan Nation “does not and will not waive its Aboriginal title in future litigation.” This detail highlights how deeply Justice Young’s ruling affects the foundations of land relations in the province.
Cowichan lawyer David Rosenberg told CBC News that “there have been a lot of inaccurate statements made by politicians, and those statements have caused unnecessary fear and anxiety.” In his view, knowledge of the case’s history shows that it is “unique in many respects and does not have general application either to all Aboriginal title lands or to all private property.” He also stressed that his clients have solutions “for each” of the alleged harmful consequences, whether through agreements providing access to dikes or through joint fisheries management involving federal authorities.
Nevertheless, the applicants’ concerns are highly specific. The Port of Vancouver’s materials include an affidavit from Tanjit Kalhar, CEO of Euro Asia Transload Inc., a company that leases 21.4 hectares at the Richmond terminal and handles cargo ranging from alcohol and tires to electronics and steel. Kalhar says the uncertainty threatens the long-term stability of a business employing hundreds of people. Cowichan, in turn, sent Kalhar and other businesses letters offering to present a “detailed replacement proposal” for their current leases with the port. The Attorney General of Canada adds that these businesses “currently have no suitable alternative location,” and that moving would be “a major undertaking that would cause significant disruption and entail direct financial costs.”
The arguments put forward by the City of Richmond are no less dramatic. They concern two waterfront properties acquired by the city in the 1930s after their owners failed to pay taxes. Parts of a protective dike and pumping station are located on the land, protecting the “flat and low-lying” area from rising sea levels, storm surges and flooding. City lawyers argue that Richmond has no authority to enter private property unilaterally to maintain the dikes, and that existing agreements with other landowners are “formally incompatible” with Justice Young’s ruling. They are seeking an “individual stay” to ensure that critical infrastructure can be maintained, since otherwise “the safety and property of thousands of Richmond residents who are not parties to the litigation will be at risk.”
The Musqueam and Tsawwassen Nations, meanwhile, point to the threat to their fishing rights. Musqueam says its people have lived along local waterways for more than 8,000 years and that fishing has significance not only as a source of food but also culturally. Tsawwassen says it “is a fishing people, and its identity is connected to the Fraser River and the sea.” Both nations emphasize that their ability to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes “has already been severely restricted” by the sustained decline in fish stocks. They claim that after the ruling was released, Cowichan members began fishing in the south arm without consulting them, and that the increased number of boats is “displacing” them from a narrow stretch of the river, making fishing more expensive and less safe.
Cowichan’s response, due by December 18, is expected to be built around three key arguments. First, many of the problems can be resolved through negotiations and agreements—for example, concerning access to dikes and pumping stations. Second, fishing issues are primarily a matter of management that should be addressed with Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans rather than through court injunctions, because “Aboriginal rights are not exclusive; they are shared rights.” Third, the port and federal authorities were given 18 months to organize a transition period, and that is where they should focus their efforts. Rosenberg also recalled that Justice Young’s ruling recognized British Columbia’s duty to negotiate in good faith to reconcile private interests with Cowichan title.
The lawyer’s final comment gives particular weight to his position. In his view, the province’s request to prohibit Cowichan
