POLITICS
They have proven they can win votes. Kerry-Lynne Findlay now has to prove they can govern.
Chad Dashly shares a conservative perspective on fiscal restraint, local enterprise, and why community-led solutions beat distant bureaucracy.
They have proven they can win votes. Kerry-Lynne Findlay now has to prove they can govern.
By Chad Dashly | The Current
There is an uncomfortable conversation conservatives in British Columbia need to have.
The BC Conservatives are not ready for primetime.
That doesn’t mean British Columbia doesn’t need a conservative government. Quite the opposite.
Conservatives believe in fiscal discipline, personal responsibility, free enterprise, public safety and governments that respect the taxpayers who ultimately pay the bills.
British Columbia desperately needs a credible alternative capable of advancing those principles.
But wanting a Conservative government and believing the current Conservative Party is ready to govern are two very different things.
And conservatives shouldn’t be afraid to say so.
Give Them Credit
Let’s start by acknowledging what the BC Conservatives have accomplished.
Their rise has been remarkable.
In an extraordinarily short period, they went from the political wilderness to the Official Opposition and came within striking distance of forming government in 2024.
They have also built a serious fundraising operation.
According to Elections BC, the Conservatives raised more than $1.08 million in the first quarter of 2026 and another $1.146 million in the second quarter.
Those aren’t insignificant numbers.
This is no longer a fringe political organization.
It is a major provincial political party with a large grassroots constituency and a legitimate opportunity to form the next government.
But that is exactly why the standard must now be higher.
The Findlay Era Begins
Kerry-Lynne Findlay inherited both an enormous opportunity and an enormous challenge when she won the Conservative leadership on May 30.
And it was hardly an overwhelming mandate.
Findlay defeated Caroline Elliott 51 per cent to 49 per cent on the fourth ballot.
That tells us something important.
The party remains a coalition of different conservative factions, personalities and political traditions.
Findlay’s first responsibility isn’t simply defeating David Eby.
It is demonstrating that she can turn that coalition into a disciplined political organization capable of governing British Columbia.
That means moving beyond the insurgent politics that helped build the party.
It means becoming professional.
Predictable.
Disciplined.
And boring when necessary.
Because governing is frequently boring.
The Revolving Door Has to Stop
The recent changes at the top of the party organization demonstrate just how much rebuilding remains.
In August, party president Aisha Estey and vice-president Sharon White were replaced, with Mauro Francis becoming president and Pavneet Singh taking over as vice-president.
Perhaps those changes will ultimately strengthen the organization.
But they also continue a pattern of transition that has surrounded the Conservatives since their explosive rise.
Leadership changes.
Caucus changes.
Organizational changes.
Internal disputes.
Personnel controversies.
At some point, the rebuilding has to end and the governing preparation has to begin.
British Columbians aren’t electing a political start-up.
They are choosing a potential government.
Candidate Vetting Must Improve
This is another area where conservatives should demand higher standards.
Candidate vetting isn’t glamorous.
But it may be one of the most important responsibilities of a political party.
When you nominate someone to run for the legislature, you aren’t simply finding somebody to put their name on a lawn sign.
You are potentially selecting a future MLA.
Perhaps a parliamentary secretary.
Perhaps a cabinet minister.
Perhaps someone responsible for billions of dollars in public spending.
The standard therefore has to be substantially higher than finding people who agree with the party.
A government-in-waiting needs candidates with judgment, experience, credibility and the ability to withstand serious public scrutiny.
The next BC Conservative candidate class should be vetted accordingly.
Where Is the Governing Blueprint?
This may be the biggest issue of all.
What exactly would a BC Conservative government do?
Not philosophically.
Specifically.
If spending is too high, what gets cut?
If taxes are too high, which ones are reduced first?
If regulations are preventing investment, which regulations change?
If health care is broken, what structural reforms happen in the first 100 days?
If crime and addiction policies aren’t working, what replaces them?
If British Columbia wants more mining, forestry, LNG and energy development, what approvals change and how quickly?
How does the province reconcile resource development with Indigenous rights and consultation?
How does a Conservative government accelerate housing construction?
How quickly can the budget realistically return to balance?
These questions require more than slogans.
They require numbers.
Timelines.
Legislation.
Implementation plans.
And people capable of executing them.
That work should already be underway.
Opposition Is Easy
There is another political reality conservatives should understand.
Opposition is easy compared with government.
It is relatively easy to stand in Question Period and identify something that isn’t working.
It is much harder to fix it.
“Cut waste” sounds great.
What waste?
Which department?
Which program?
How much?
How quickly?
What happens to the people currently receiving the service?
“Reduce red tape.”
Excellent.
Which regulations?
“Fix health care.”
How?
“Build more housing.”
Where?
“Develop our natural resources.”
On what timeline?
That is where political rhetoric collides with governing reality.
A serious government-in-waiting has answers to those questions before the election begins.
Build the Cabinet Before You Need One
Findlay should also be thinking about something political parties often leave far too late:
Who actually governs?
The Conservatives should already be identifying potential cabinet talent — both inside and outside their existing caucus.
Finance.
Health.
Attorney General.
Energy and Mines.
Forests.
Housing.
Transportation.
Education.
Indigenous Relations.
Economic Development.
These aren’t communications positions.
They are enormous management responsibilities.
The party should be actively recruiting accomplished British Columbians from business, law, health care, academia, local government, First Nations and the resource sector.
The objective shouldn’t simply be winning 47 seats.
It should be assembling 47 people capable of governing.
There is a difference.
Conservatives Should Demand More From Conservatives
Some Conservatives will inevitably consider this criticism disloyal.
It isn’t.
Quite the opposite.
If conservatives believe in accountability, then accountability has to begin at home.
If we expect businesses to operate professionally, our political organizations should operate professionally.
If we demand fiscal discipline from government, we should demand organizational discipline from the party seeking to replace it.
And if conservatives criticize governments for incompetence, we cannot excuse incompetence simply because the people involved happen to wear our team’s jersey.
Conservatives should expect more from Conservatives.
Findlay Has an Opportunity
There is good news in all of this.
These problems are fixable.
Findlay has political and government experience.
The Conservatives have money.
They have MLAs.
They have members.
They have volunteers.
They have an energized political base.
And most importantly, they have time.
Their fundraising numbers suggest there is substantial appetite for what they are selling.
The question is whether the organization can mature quickly enough to deliver it.
Findlay now has an opportunity to professionalize the party, strengthen candidate vetting, recruit serious talent, develop detailed policy and turn an insurgent movement into a government-in-waiting.
That should be the mission between now and the next provincial election.
The Primetime Test
The BC Conservatives have already proven they can win votes.
They have proven they can raise money.
They have proven they can build a movement.
Now comes the difficult part.
They have to prove they can govern.
British Columbians aren’t simply choosing someone to fight David Eby.
They are choosing the people who could soon be responsible for hospitals, schools, highways, courts, policing, housing, natural resources and tens of billions of dollars of public money.
That requires something more than opposition.
It requires competence.
Discipline.
Professionalism.
And a credible plan.
British Columbia needs a strong conservative alternative.
Kerry-Lynne Findlay now has an opportunity to build one.
But until the BC Conservatives demonstrate that transformation, conservatives shouldn’t be afraid to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth:
They are not ready for primetime.
Atleast. Not yet.
BC STORIES
Abbotsford-Mission candidates clash on spending, taxes and trust ahead of byelection
Abbotsford-Mission candidates sparred over PST expansion, spending, and party stability during a livestamed byelection debate ahead of the Sept. 26 vote.

Candidates clash in livestreamed forum ahead of Sept. 26 vote
Tensions flared during a live 90-minute debate hosted by the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday evening, where four Abbotsford-Mission candidates traded sharp criticisms over economic strategy, tax policies, and political stability.
NDP candidate Pam Alexis capped off the evening by targeting Conservative Party of BC candidate Kerry-Lynne Findley, claiming Findley is unfamiliar with the constituency and is focused on internal party conflicts rather than building a collaborative community. Findley had earlier criticized the ruling NDP on provincial spending, red tape, and an inability to balance B.C.’s budget.
Taxation and economic platforms take center stage
A primary point of contention was the expansion of B.C.’s PST to professional services starting Oct. 1. Findley voiced strong opposition, stating that local small business owners and seniors are distressed over growing tax burdens. She attributed the province’s rising debt and credit downgrade to Premier David Eby’s administration.
Alexis defended the expanded tax base, explaining it was necessary to maintain public services following the elimination of B.C.’s carbon tax. She assured voters that revenue raised would be managed responsibly.
During a candidate-to-candidate questioning period, Alexis pressed Findley on recent Conservative party instability, pointing to nine individuals—including Abbotsford South MLA Bruce Banman—who recently departed the party. Findley rejected the characterization that those individuals worked alongside her, attributing the exits to a competitive leadership race.
CentreBC candidate Lakhwinder Jhaj asked Alexis whether she would ever vote against an NDP budget, to which Alexis replied she would voice concerns privately within government rather than vote against her party. Findley seized on the response, advocating for greater public transparency. BC Green Party candidate Stephen Fowler urged more proactive environmental action, stating climate change drives costly flood and wildfire emergencies.
Common ground on infrastructure and flood mitigation
Despite sharp exchanges, candidates found consensus on several local issues. All four agreed that federal assistance is crucial to protect the riding from future flooding, and all supported expanding transit options to alleviate persistent highway congestion.
Additionally, both Findley and Alexis favored expanding mental health resources, supporting local food processing on Agricultural Land Reserve property, and opening inter-provincial trade barriers to bolster B.C.’s economy.
The byelection, scheduled for Saturday, Sept. 26, was triggered after former Conservative MLA Reann Gasper resigned her seat on Aug. 22 to allow Findley to seek the nomination following Findley’s move to party leadership. The debate was moderated by University of the Fraser Valley professor Hamish Telford. BC Libertarian Party candidate Jeff Monds did not participate.
NATIONAL STORIES
Why Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre Is Taking Canada’s Case Directly to American Viewers
Pierre Poilievre told CNBC in New York that Canadians feel wounded by U.S. tariffs, while refusing to criticize Prime Minister Mark Carney on foreign soil.

Cross-Border Economic Advocacy in New York
During a visit to New York aimed at restoring standard trade relations, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre spoke with reporters on the American television network CNBC on Thursday. Poilievre expressed that Canadians are feeling “wounded” and “confused” after their economy became a primary target for U.S. President Donald Trump.
Highlighting the longstanding economic ties between the two nations, Poilievre stressed that tariff-free trade remains the proper path forward. While acknowledging that both countries have past grievances—pointing to previous American buy-America restrictions on subnational markets and tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber—he argued that both sides should sit down to resolve differences for mutual economic gain.
Refusing to Engage in Domestic Politics Abroad
When co-host Joe Kernen questioned him regarding Prime Minister Mark Carney’s good faith during recent trade negotiations, Poilievre declined to criticize the prime minister while outside the country. Emphasizing that domestic politics stops at the border, he stated that his mission in the U.S. was to advocate for Canada rather than score domestic political points. Co-host Kernen noted respect for Poilievre’s stance, observing that U.S. opposition politicians do not typically adhere to that convention.
Poilievre also refrained from faulting Canada’s national economic performance over the past decade when pressed by Kernen, choosing instead to highlight past policy successes across various government levels.
Building a North American Alliance
In a statement regarding his trip, Poilievre detailed plans to meet with business leaders and investors to protect jobs on both sides of the border. He described the American public as Canada’s greatest asset, noting his intention to make the case directly to them that open trade leads to greater safety, wealth, and affordability for both nations.
Looking toward broader global challenges, the Conservative leader cautioned that risks and rivals facing the U.S. are growing. He urged the United States to strengthen its Western alliance alongside nations committed to free speech, markets, and trade to form a secure continent through collaborative effort, rather than engaging in disputes with friendly allies.
Poilievre is extending his stay in New York through Friday for the 25th anniversary of 9/11 to honor victims and mark how both nations stood united following the attacks.
BC STORIES
Canada Choice: Pay the Price of Pivoting or Risk Economic Dependency on the U.S.
PM Mark Carney addresses Canadians as reciprocal tariffs take effect, warning trade pivot carries costs but protects B.C. and national workers.

Reciprocal Tariffs Take Effect
As Canada’s new reciprocal tariffs took effect on Tuesday, Prime Minister Mark Carney addressed Canadians in a video message, warning that shifting trade away from the United States will carry financial consequences. However, Carney emphasized that inaction would carry a significantly higher price for the nation.
The federal government’s tariffs match $27.8 billion in U.S. exports, with rates running between 15 and 50 per cent on select items previously targeted by Washington, including milk, cheese, honey, and hockey sticks. The move follows last month’s decision by Carney to walk away from bilateral negotiations after the U.S. set a deadline to impose 50 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods.
National Strategy and Sectoral Impacts
The trade friction has affected Canadian industries unevenly. U.S. trade actions have focused heavily on aluminum, steel, auto, and lumber sectors, creating major impacts for workers in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, while provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta have seen less direct effect.
Carney stated that the retaliatory measures are necessary to shield workers, communities, and businesses rather than to escalate tensions. The prime minister added that the pivot toward new global trade partners aims to build long-term economic resilience and safeguard Canada’s trade independence and cultural protections.
Opposition Calls for Transparency
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, speaking in Regina on Sunday, urged the government to release full details of the rejected U.S. trade proposal. Poilievre argued that Canadians deserve complete transparency regarding the negotiations and called for Parliament to be recalled ahead of its planned Sept. 21 return date.
The trade dispute follows months of economic pressure, during which U.S. President Donald Trump suggested using economic force regarding Canada’s integration with the United States. Carney noted that the ongoing series of national video updates, which began last spring, will continue to keep the public informed on Canada’s trade stance.
-
6 days ago
Your Current 3 Day Forecast — September 5, 2026
-
7 days ago
Your Current 3 Day Forecast — September 4, 2026
-
3 days ago
Your Current 3 Day Forecast — September 8, 2026
-
LOCAL3 days ago
Why Canada’s New Counter-Tariffs May Hinder Local Businesses While Leaving Shoppers Unscathed
-
WORLD6 days ago
Why Many Canadians View the United States as an Enemy amid Trump Trade War
-
NATIONAL STORIES3 days ago
What to Know After a Veteran Vancouver Officer Denies Allegations in $3M Fraud Case
-
SPORTS6 days ago
BC Lions See Win Streak Snapped by Alouettes in 37-30 Loss
-
LOCAL4 days ago
Quebec Pause Campaign Trail for Cabinet Talks as U.S. Tariffs Loom