Homelessness and Rental Rates Rise Rapidly

Data from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario (FAO) reveals that known cases of homelessness in Ontario expanded by more than 23 per cent over three years, reaching upwards of 76,000 individuals. Furthermore, chronic homelessness jumped over 37 per cent in two years, representing nearly half of the province’s identified homeless population. A separate federal count showed national homelessness rose 59 per cent compared to 2020-22 figures, while unsheltered homelessness surged 89 per cent.

A primary factor behind these figures is declining housing affordability. The FAO reported that median market rent in Ontario jumped 19.3 per cent between 2022-23 and 2025-26, whereas earnings for low- and middle-income families expanded by only 14.1 per cent. Projections indicate known homelessness in Ontario could increase by almost 16 per cent by 2028-29.

National Economic Pressure and Conservative Proposals

Financial strains extend across Canada, where 63 per cent of workers cite the cost of living as their main financial stressor. Additionally, over a third of mortgage holders renewing their terms report elevated pressure due to increased interest rates. Housing construction is slowing down in major metropolitan centers like Toronto and Vancouver, with national housing starts expected to shrink by up to 38,000 units by 2028.

Attributing these economic challenges to eleven years of Liberal governance, Conservatives state they are advocating for measures to restore affordability. Proposed initiatives include removing the GST on new home purchases up to $1.3 million and implementing an Economic Action Plan designed to stimulate new development, eliminate growth-inhibiting policies, and encourage investment across the nation.

The BC Conservatives have a serious problem. But the Oremire of BC, David Eby shouldn’t start measuring the curtains for another majority just yet.

By David Chan | The Current

There is a basic lesson taught in business school that political parties occasionally forget: rapid growth can kill you almost as effectively as failure.

Growth creates complexity.

Complexity exposes weak management.

Weak management turns what looked like momentum into chaos.

Welcome to the Conservative Party of British Columbia in 2026.

When we last checked in, there were warning signs scattered around the organization. A few loose tires in the field, perhaps, but nothing you would necessarily describe as a full-blown fire.

That distinction is getting considerably harder to make.

Kerry-Lynne Findlay narrowly won the Conservative leadership on May 30 after a bruising contest against Caroline Elliott. What followed was supposed to be the relatively routine work of rebuilding a caucus, sharpening the party’s message and preparing an Official Opposition that came remarkably close to forming government in 2024.

Instead, British Columbians have been treated to one departure, controversy and internal dispute after another.

Nine MLAs have left the Conservative caucus in the recent exodus alone. The party elected 44 MLAs in 2024. It now has 28. Five former Conservatives have announced plans to operate together under a new provincial party, pitching themselves as a “stable, serious alternative” to both the NDP and the current Conservative leadership. (CityNews Vancouver)

Think about those numbers for a moment.

This wasn’t a fringe party winning a couple of accidental seats.

The BC Conservatives came within striking distance of government less than two years ago.

Today, the conversation is increasingly about whether the party can keep itself together.

That’s quite a turnaround.

And it would be a mistake to interpret all of it simply as another fight between moderates and conservatives.

Something bigger is happening.

This Looks More Like a Management Problem

Political observers naturally want to interpret everything through ideology.

Moderates versus populists.

Establishment conservatives versus grassroots conservatives.

Federal-style Conservatives versus the old BC Liberal coalition.

There is certainly some of that happening.

But ideology doesn’t adequately explain the scale of the dysfunction.

The more immediate problem facing Findlay is one familiar to anyone who has worked inside a fast-growing company: the organization expanded far faster than its internal systems.

The Conservatives scaled before they institutionalized.

In 2023, the party was effectively an insurgency.

By October 2024, it had become the Official Opposition and nearly formed government.

That’s extraordinary growth.

But gaining customers — or voters — is not the same thing as building an organization capable of serving them.

BC United’s collapse handed the Conservatives an enormous political opportunity. Voters who wanted the NDP gone consolidated behind John Rustad’s party because it suddenly became the only realistic vehicle available.

But those voters didn’t necessarily become ideological Conservatives overnight.

Neither did every candidate.

What the party assembled was an anti-NDP coalition.

That’s different from building a Conservative institution.

And now the difference matters.

A mature political organization needs candidate vetting, caucus discipline, leadership structures, professional communications, policy development, dispute-resolution mechanisms and experienced people capable of telling the leader something he or she does not want to hear.

Most importantly, it needs a culture capable of disagreement.

Because any organization large enough to govern British Columbia will contain people who disagree with each other.

That’s not a design flaw.

That’s democracy.

Nine Departures Aren’t Ideological Discipline

Findlay has a legitimate argument available to her.

Political parties should stand for something.

A caucus assembled at extraordinary speed was inevitably going to contain people with very different political backgrounds.

Some came from the BC Liberals.

Others were populists.

Some were traditional conservatives.

Others primarily wanted David Eby’s NDP defeated.

A leader is entitled to establish direction.

But there is a difference between creating ideological coherence and triggering organizational collapse.

Nine departures in a matter of weeks is a lot of coherence.

At some point, management has to enter the conversation.

The MLAs who left have offered different explanations. They have raised concerns about staffing decisions, caucus relations, ideological tests, leadership style and Findlay’s judgment.

Scott McInnis described the party as becoming an “exclusive private club” more concerned with ideological credentials than building the broad coalition required to govern.

Other departing MLAs raised concerns about reported connections involving senior appointees and Alberta separatist politics. Findlay herself has not advocated Alberta separatism, and it would be unfair to label her a separatist because of people around her.

But political leadership includes judgment about personnel.

Who gets hired matters.

Who gets fired matters.

Who gets invited into the room matters.

Who leaves the room matters even more.

When one employee quits, perhaps the employee is the problem.

When nine do, shareholders generally start asking questions about management.

Then Came the Abbotsford-Mission Mess

Findlay still doesn’t hold a seat in the legislature.

That problem appeared to be solved when Abbotsford-Mission MLA Reann Gasper resigned, clearing the way for Findlay to run in the September 26 by-election.

Gasper subsequently became Findlay’s deputy chief of staff. (Elections BC)

Legally, those facts alone establish nothing improper.

Politically, however, they are awkward.

The situation became considerably more serious when former Conservative MLA Ian Paton alleged he had been offered a paid adviser position if he resigned his Delta South seat so Findlay could run there.

Paton said the RCMP subsequently contacted him for an interview. The RCMP said it was aware of the allegations but, according to reporting, would not confirm or deny an investigation unless charges were laid.

Findlay has denied offering jobs in exchange for resignations and called the allegations baseless. No finding of wrongdoing has been made. (Conservative Party of British Columbia)

Those qualifications matter.

But politics isn’t a courtroom.

There is a difference between proving criminal wrongdoing and creating an impression of disorder.

Findlay desperately needs to move the conversation back to affordability, health care, housing, crime, taxes and the economy.

Instead, reporters keep asking about her caucus.

That’s a strategic disaster.

The Product Still Has a Market

Here is where the NDP should resist becoming too pleased with itself.

The collapse occurring across the aisle does not mean British Columbians have suddenly rediscovered their love for David Eby’s government.

Those are two entirely separate conclusions.

Recent polling has demonstrated just how volatile the province remains.

A Research Co. survey in June had the Conservatives and NDP tied at 42 per cent among decided voters. That same poll found 47 per cent of British Columbians believed the province needed a centre-right alternative to the two dominant parties. (Research Co.)

That should tell us something important.

There remains a very large market for change.

British Columbians still live with extraordinary housing costs.

Patients still struggle to access timely health care.

Families still worry about affordability.

Communities remain concerned about public safety, addiction and street disorder.

Businesses continue to complain about taxes, regulation and an economy that feels increasingly difficult to navigate.

Resource development, Indigenous reconciliation, land-use uncertainty and investment remain enormous questions.

None of that disappeared because Conservative MLAs began resigning.

David Eby’s fundamental political vulnerabilities haven’t vanished.

His opposition has simply become significantly less competent at exploiting them.

That’s not an NDP revival.

It’s an opposition failure.

There is a difference.

The New Party Could Lose Everywhere and Still Win

The creation of another centre-right party makes the mathematics even more dangerous for Findlay.

It doesn’t necessarily have to replace the Conservatives.

In fact, it could fail spectacularly by conventional measures and still transform British Columbia politics.

Under first-past-the-post, a new centre-right party polling seven or eight per cent province-wide could win very few seats.

But if those votes are concentrated among people who otherwise would have voted Conservative, it could change dozens of riding outcomes.

Imagine a riding where the NDP receives 40 per cent.

The Conservatives receive 38.

A new centre-right party takes 12.

Everyone else splits the remainder.

The new party loses badly.

The Conservatives lose narrowly.

The NDP wins comfortably.

Repeat that across enough suburban Lower Mainland, Fraser Valley, Interior and Island seats and David Eby could emerge with a significantly larger majority despite receiving little more support than before.

That is Findlay’s nightmare.

The biggest threat isn’t necessarily being replaced.

It’s being divided.

British Columbia’s political history is full of examples of what happens when the non-NDP coalition fractures.

Social Credit filled that role.

Then the BC Liberals did.

BC United attempted to continue it and collapsed.

The Conservatives inherited the market almost overnight.

Now they appear determined to reopen it.

It would be an extremely British Columbian outcome if the Conservative Party eventually succeeded in recreating the BC Liberals by driving enough former BC Liberals out of the Conservative Party.

Governing Requires People You Disagree With

This gets to the central question confronting the Conservatives.

Do they want to be a movement or a government?

Movements prize ideological consistency.

Governments build coalitions.

A movement asks: Are you one of us?

A successful political party asks: Can we work together?

Those sound similar until an organization becomes large.

Then they become dramatically different.

British Columbia isn’t Alabama.

It isn’t Alberta either.

It is a complicated province containing resource towns, union households, suburban commuters, affluent urban professionals, farmers, newcomers, First Nations communities, small-business owners and environmentally minded voters.

No centre-right party wins here by appealing exclusively to one faction.

The old BC Liberals understood that, sometimes awkwardly.

Their coalition contained federal Liberals, federal Conservatives, business conservatives, social moderates and people who simply wanted to keep the NDP out.

It wasn’t particularly elegant.

But it won elections.

Politics is ultimately a market-share business.

You can have the most loyal 28 per cent of customers imaginable and still lose to someone with 42.

Purity is considerably easier in opposition.

Government requires addition.

Abbotsford-Mission Is Now More Than a By-Election

Findlay’s September 26 contest in Abbotsford-Mission is therefore becoming a referendum on more than the local candidates.

It is the first significant market test of her leadership.

Elections BC has confirmed five candidates, including Findlay for the Conservatives and former agriculture minister Pam Alexis for the NDP. (Elections BC)

A strong Findlay victory changes the conversation.

She could reasonably argue that disgruntled MLAs and political insiders are mistaking their own unhappiness for public sentiment.

Winning decisively would put her inside the legislature, give the party a badly needed positive story and potentially stop the bleeding.

But if Abbotsford-Mission becomes unexpectedly close, things get uncomfortable.

If she loses, they become existential.

This is territory where a Conservative leader should be competitive.

The question is whether voters see the recent chaos as Victoria inside baseball or as evidence of something larger.

We’ll find out soon.

David Eby Shouldn’t Celebrate Yet

If I were advising the NDP, I wouldn’t campaign on the assumption that British Columbians have returned home.

They haven’t.

At least there is little evidence they have.

The Conservatives’ implosion provides Eby with something more valuable than renewed affection: time.

Time to repair weaknesses.

Time to improve delivery.

Time to remind British Columbians that whatever frustrations they have with his government, the alternative has to look capable of governing.

That final point may be the most important.

Opposition parties sometimes believe elections are referendums exclusively on governments.

They’re not.

Eventually voters walk into the booth and compare alternatives.

In 2024, enough British Columbians looked at the Conservatives and decided they were prepared to take the risk.

By 2026, some may be asking a different question:

Can these people manage themselves?

Because if you can’t manage 40 MLAs, voters are entitled to wonder how you’ll manage a $90-billion provincial government.

That’s the problem Findlay has to solve.

Not whether she is conservative enough.

Not whether the people leaving are moderates.

Not whether the media is being unfair.

Competence.

Stability.

Judgment.

Execution.

The boring things.

In business, those are often the things that determine whether a promising company becomes an institution or a cautionary tale.

Politics isn’t that different.

The 2024 election appeared to settle the biggest strategic question on British Columbia’s centre-right.

BC United was finished.

The Conservatives had inherited the coalition.

The NDP finally had one clear opponent.

Less than two years later, we’re back where we started.

The anti-NDP vote is still there.

The dissatisfaction is still there.

The opportunity is still there.

What isn’t clear anymore is who owns it.

And that may be the most remarkable part of the Conservative collapse.

They aren’t losing the market because British Columbians stopped wanting an alternative to the NDP.

They’re risking losing it because they have once again given those voters a reason to go shopping.

David Chan is our newest younger analytical reporter/commentator who looks at politics through management, economics, demographics and electoral strategy.

Emergency Talks Scheduled as Industry Shrinks

A broad coalition of British Columbia forestry stakeholders has secured an emergency meeting with the provincial government within a week after delivering an open letter to Premier David Eby. Representing loggers, truckers, First Nations, unions, and specialty groups, the 15 signatories are calling for immediate provincial intervention to stabilize a struggling sector.

The B.C. pulp industry has experienced significant contraction in recent years. “In the last 12 months, we have lost four pulp mills. In the last three years, we have lost seven. There were 17 pulp mills in B.C. three years ago – today there are 10. If we don’t take immediate action, that number will be single digits before this year ends and I believe in five-to-ten years, there will be no industry left,” stated Joe Nemeth from the B.C. Pulp and Paper Coalition.

Local Impacts and Sector Integration

In Kamloops, pulp operations form the core of the local forest sector, where the Kruger mill provides direct and indirect employment for hundreds of residents. Expanding U.S. Section 338 tariffs are anticipated to affect the pulp market, though Nemeth noted that direct trade impacts differ from lumber. “Unlike lumber, the tariffs aren’t as dramatic of a direct hit because we sell about 90 per cent of our pulp offshore, not to the United States,” Nemeth said. “We are not as exposed as lumber, which is about 50 per cent. However, pulp market pricing and pulp market demand is at a seasonal low, and it does that – it cycles up and down.”

Because wood fibre and chips account for 50 to 60 per cent of pulp manufacturing costs, pulp operations and sawmills depend heavily on one another. “If pulp mills are not operating we take six-to-seven sawmills with us for each pulp mill and vice-versa. We are closely integrated,” added Nemeth.

Permitting Delays and Proposed Relief

Industry leaders cite access to timber as their primary challenge, pointing to substantial delays in obtaining provincial approvals. “We need readily, timely access to timber. That is our number one issue. And to give you a real poignant example, if you go one province over to Alberta, it takes weeks to get a cutting permit, whereas in British Columbia, it now takes years of red tape and cost,” said Nemeth.

Kamloops MLA and forestry critic Ward Stamer expressed support for the recommendations submitted by the Council of Forest Industries (COFI), urging swift government intervention. “I support the recommendations submitted by COFI. We need to act quickly and swiftly if we are to save our forest industry. Quicker permitting for wildfire salvage and BCTS sales. Any relief from BC government in fees, fuel, taxes,” said Stamer. Industry representatives suggest that expanding the allowable cut and streamlining permit timelines offer practical avenues for rapid government action.