BC MLA Peter Milobar Takes Tough Policy Stances While Positioning as Alternative to Current NDP Government

B.C. Conservative MLA Peter Milobar brought his leadership campaign to Port Coquitlam this week as part of his “Win Back B.C.” tour.

Milobar, who represents Kamloops-Centre, spoke to about 40 supporters at a meet-and-greet event at the Cat & Fiddle Pub, where he outlined his vision for the party and the province.

He argued that both the party and the province are in need of change, saying a Conservative victory would be critical to improving conditions in British Columbia.

Positioning himself as the most electable candidate, Milobar pointed to his experience as a former mayor of Kamloops and noted that he is currently the only leadership contender serving as an elected MLA in the provincial legislature.

Milobar previously ran under the B.C. United banner (formerly the B.C. Liberals) but joined the Conservative Party of B.C. ahead of the last provincial election. That race ended with the NDP forming a narrow one-seat majority, a result Milobar says shows the Conservatives are within reach of forming government.

He told supporters he is best positioned to turn that close result into a majority win in the next election.

On policy, Milobar emphasized key Conservative priorities, including a tougher approach to crime, improvements to the healthcare system, and changes to education policy — specifically repealing the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI 123) program in schools.

He also highlighted plans to strengthen property rights, including repealing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA).

Milobar said his broader leadership platform will focus on addressing affordability challenges facing younger residents, clarifying how proposed policy changes would be implemented, and supporting a transparent review of claims surrounding the reported discovery of children’s remains at the former Kamloops residential school site.

BC Woman Offered Assisted Suicide Before Any Treatment Options Presented Upon Arrival At Hospital

An 84-year-old woman from British Columbia says she was offered medical assistance in dying (MAID) before other treatment options after being taken to hospital with severe back pain — an experience she found shocking and inappropriate.

Miriam Lancaster was transported by ambulance to Vancouver General Hospital in April 2025 after experiencing intense lower back pain. She was later diagnosed with a fractured sacrum, a break in a bone at the base of the spine often linked to osteoporosis.

According to Lancaster and her daughter, Jordan Weaver, a doctor raised MAID as an option while she was still in the emergency department.

Weaver recalled that the doctor acknowledged Lancaster’s pain and then immediately suggested MAID. Both she and her mother, who are practicing Catholics, rejected the idea outright. They say only after refusing were other treatment options, including rehabilitation, discussed.

Lancaster chose to pursue recovery. After about 10 days in hospital followed by several weeks in a rehabilitation program, she regained her strength. Within six weeks, she was well enough to walk her daughter down the aisle at her wedding. In the months that followed, she travelled internationally and even climbed Guatemala’s Pacaya volcano.

Lancaster said the suggestion of assisted death caught her completely off guard. Her focus at the time was understanding and treating her pain, not ending her life.

Her case has become part of a broader debate in Canada over whether doctors should introduce MAID to patients who have not asked about it. Some critics argue that raising the option too early — especially in non-terminal situations — risks undermining trust and shifting the focus away from care and recovery.

In a statement, Vancouver Coastal Health said it could not confirm the specific interaction due to privacy rules but noted that clinicians may use their judgment when discussing care options. However, it also said emergency department staff are generally not expected to initiate conversations about MAID.

Under Canadian law, MAID is available to patients with serious and incurable conditions who are in an advanced state of decline and experiencing intolerable suffering, as confirmed by two medical professionals.

Lancaster said she chose not to file a formal complaint, as she preferred to move on from the experience. She emphasized that aside from the MAID discussion, she received good care and successfully recovered through rest and rehabilitation.

While she respects that MAID is a legal option that may be appropriate for some, she believes the timing of when it is introduced matters. She argued that patients in emergency situations — often in pain, distress, or under medication — are not in the right state to consider such a life-ending decision.

Weaver echoed those concerns, saying her mother’s condition was treatable and not life-threatening. She described the experience as discouraging and questioned whether elderly patients might be unfairly viewed as less worth treating.

The story has sparked mixed reactions online. Some expressed concern about vulnerable patients being presented with MAID too quickly, while others argued that offering the option is not the same as pressuring someone to accept it.

Lancaster maintains that her objection is not to MAID itself, but to how and when it is introduced — particularly in moments when patients are at their most vulnerable.

BC Government Bureaucrats Spent $35,000 Of Your Money On A Party With Open Bar

Taxpayers Question $35,000 Government Tab for Bureaucrats’ Open-Bar Party

Taxpayers are raising concerns after newly released documents showed more than $35,000 in public funds was spent on a government-hosted event that reportedly featured an open bar for federal bureaucrats.

Growing Criticism Over Use of Public Money

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is pressing the federal government for a full explanation, arguing that taxpayers deserve to know why public dollars were used to fund what appears to have been a social gathering for government staff. Access‑to‑information records indicate the event included catered food and alcohol, with critics saying the open bar significantly inflated the overall cost at a time when many Canadians are struggling with rising expenses.

A spokesperson for the federation said the spending raises questions about judgment and priorities, noting that taxpayers “shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for open‑bar parties for bureaucrats.”

What the Documents Reveal

Records show the event’s total cost reached roughly $35,000, covering the venue, catering, and beverages. While government departments do occasionally host staff events for recognition or professional development, the size of the bill has renewed debate about spending practices within the federal public service.

Critics argue the incident reflects a broader pattern of questionable expenditures that often remain hidden until disclosed through formal records requests. They say stronger transparency measures are needed to ensure public funds are used responsibly.

Differing Views on Staff Events

Some defenders of the spending say workplace gatherings can help with morale, retention, and team cohesion—especially in large departments where staff rarely interact in person. They argue that occasional events may have value, even if they come with a price tag.

Watchdog groups counter that any use of taxpayer money for social functions must be subject to strict scrutiny. They are calling for more details, including which department organized the event, who attended, and how the expenses were approved.

Calls for Accountability

The controversy comes as the federal government faces increasing pressure to demonstrate fiscal restraint. With public frustration growing, critics say Canadians deserve a clear explanation of how tens of thousands of dollars were spent on what appears to have been a government‑funded celebration.

BC Government Sticks Taxpayers With $400 Million Corporate Slush Fund As Provincial Debt Continues Climbing

New B.C. Investment Fund Draws Criticism as Corporate “Slush Fund”

A newly announced provincial investment fund is facing backlash from taxpayer advocates, who argue the initiative amounts to corporate welfare paid for by British Columbians.

The plan, unveiled by Premier David Eby, would establish a $400‑million government fund aimed at supporting selected companies and industries. Supporters say the program is designed to attract investment and boost economic development. Critics counter that it represents another expensive subsidy scheme that benefits large corporations at the expense of taxpayers.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has been particularly vocal, arguing the fund gives government officials broad discretion to hand out public money to preferred companies instead of reducing taxes for all businesses. B.C. director Carson Binda says the province is raising taxes on families and small businesses while offering financial incentives to major corporations — a move he calls unfair and poorly timed.

Concerns Tied to Rising Taxes and Growing Debt

The announcement comes on the heels of the province’s latest budget, which includes tax increases and a significant rise in projected borrowing. Critics question whether launching a new subsidy program is responsible when the province is already expecting to add tens of billions of dollars in new debt in the coming years.

Taxpayer advocates argue that directing public funds to corporations effectively shifts money collected from individuals and small businesses to larger companies chosen by government decision‑makers.

Ongoing Debate Over Corporate Welfare

Financial incentives, grants and subsidies for businesses are often labeled corporate welfare by opponents, who argue such programs distort markets by allowing governments to pick economic “winners and losers.”

Supporters maintain that targeted investments can help attract industries, create jobs and strengthen the province’s competitive position.

British Columbia has introduced several similar initiatives in recent years. Programs like the CleanBC Industry Fund have provided millions in support to major companies, including multinational firms operating in the province.

A Debate That Isn’t Going Away

The introduction of the new $400‑million fund is expected to intensify ongoing debates about government spending, economic strategy and the role of subsidies in B.C.’s economy.

Backers say strategic investments can stimulate growth and create employment. Critics argue that lower taxes and fewer subsidies would do more to support long‑term economic health.

As the province moves ahead with the initiative, corporate subsidies and fiscal policy are likely to remain central issues in B.C.’s political and economic conversations.

BC Budget Hits Taxpayers With Higher Taxes And Rising Debt

B.C. Budget Faces Pushback Over Tax Hikes and Rising Debt

British Columbia’s newest provincial budget is drawing sharp criticism from taxpayer advocates, who argue it will add financial strain to households already coping with high living costs — including those in smaller Vancouver Island communities.

The budget, introduced by Premier David Eby and his government, features a mix of tax changes, increased spending and significant new borrowing. Critics say the result will be higher taxes for residents and a growing long‑term debt load for the province.

Higher Taxes and Fewer Exemptions

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says several measures in the budget will directly affect household finances. Among the most notable is an increase to the lowest provincial income tax bracket, a change that could mean higher annual income tax bills for many British Columbians, including working families on the North Island.

The government is also pausing inflation indexing for personal income tax brackets. Normally, indexing prevents taxpayers from being pushed into higher tax brackets simply because wages rise with inflation. Without it, more workers may face “bracket creep,” paying higher taxes even if their real purchasing power hasn’t improved.

In addition, the budget removes several provincial sales tax exemptions. Clothing repairs and certain telecommunications services — such as cable TV and landline phones — will now be subject to PST. While each change may seem minor on its own, critics argue the cumulative effect adds to the financial pressure on households.

Expanding Provincial Spending

The budget outlines billions in new spending for healthcare, housing, infrastructure and public services. Supporters say these investments are necessary to keep pace with population growth and address ongoing challenges like housing shortages and strained healthcare capacity.

Opponents, however, warn that the province is leaning too heavily on borrowing to fund these commitments. The budget forecasts billions in new debt over the next several years, raising concerns about the long‑term sustainability of provincial finances.

Analysts estimate that, if current projections hold, the province’s debt will amount to tens of thousands of dollars per resident. Critics caution that today’s borrowing could translate into higher taxes down the road as the province works to service and repay its growing debt.

Effects on Rural and Small Communities

For residents of smaller communities such as Sayward and other North Island towns, the financial pressures highlighted in the budget debate can feel especially pronounced.

Rural communities often face higher transportation costs, fewer local services and economies that rely heavily on industries like forestry, tourism and resource development. When provincial taxes rise or new fees are introduced, the impact can be felt quickly by families and small businesses operating on tight margins.

In places like Sayward, where local governments are already dealing with rising infrastructure expenses and increasing municipal taxes, provincial fiscal decisions can add another layer of concern for residents trying to manage household budgets.

Local advocates say the combined effect of rising federal, provincial and municipal costs is contributing to growing frustration among taxpayers.

Ongoing Debate in the Legislature

The provincial government maintains that the budget’s spending is essential to support economic growth and maintain critical services. Investments in healthcare, housing and infrastructure remain central to its agenda.

Organizations such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation counter that the government should prioritize spending restraint and reduce the financial burden on residents.

As the budget moves through the legislative process, debate is expected to continue over whether the province has struck the right balance between funding public services and maintaining fiscal discipline.

For many British Columbians — including those in smaller Vancouver Island communities — the outcome of this debate may shape the province’s economic direction for years to come.

What Happens When You Can’t Pay Your Property Taxes

For most homeowners in Sayward, paying property taxes is a routine annual responsibility. But when finances tighten, falling behind can quickly become overwhelming. Knowing how the process works in British Columbia—and how it applies specifically in the Village of Sayward—helps residents make informed choices before the situation becomes serious.

Property Taxes Are a Legal Obligation

In British Columbia, municipal property taxes are mandatory. They are secured against the property itself rather than the individual owner. As a result, unpaid taxes stay with the land, regardless of who owns it or whether the property is refinanced.

If taxes are not paid by the annual deadline (usually July 2), penalties are applied immediately. In Sayward, as in most BC municipalities, a 10% penalty is added to any outstanding balance—even if only a small amount is overdue.

Year One: Arrears and Penalties

During the first year of non-payment, taxes move into arrears. Interest may also accumulate depending on local policy. The homeowner still retains full ownership, but the debt continues to grow.

Partial payments are typically allowed and can reduce interest charges, though they do not reverse penalties already applied.

Year Two and Beyond: The Property Tax Sale

If taxes remain unpaid for three consecutive years, the property becomes eligible for a tax sale. In BC, tax sales take place annually on the last Monday of September.

At a tax sale:

The municipality auctions the property to recover unpaid taxes, interest, and associated costs.
The opening bid equals the amount owed—not the property’s market value.
Properties may sell for significantly less than their assessed worth.

Importantly, ownership does not transfer immediately at the sale.

The One-Year Redemption Period

After the tax sale, the original owner enters a one-year redemption period. During this time, the homeowner can reclaim the property by paying:

All outstanding taxes
Interest
Penalties
Legal and administrative fees

If the full amount is paid within the year, the sale is cancelled and ownership remains with the homeowner.

If the Property Is Not Redeemed

If the homeowner does not redeem the property within the one-year period:

Ownership is legally transferred to the tax sale purchaser.
The former owner permanently loses the property.
No compensation is provided for any remaining equity.

This means a home worth hundreds of thousands of dollars can be lost over a relatively small tax debt.

Can the Municipality Take Your Home Directly?

BC municipalities cannot simply seize a property for unpaid taxes. They must follow the tax sale process. However, the end result—loss of the home—can still occur if taxes remain unpaid long enough.

Options for Homeowners Facing Difficulty

Homeowners who are struggling should act early. Possible steps include:

Contacting the Village for clarification or to discuss payment timing
Exploring refinancing or short-term borrowing
Applying for the BC Property Tax Deferment Program (available to qualifying seniors, families with children, and persons with disabilities)

Delaying action significantly reduces available options.

A Serious but Preventable Outcome

BC’s property tax enforcement system is strict but predictable. Losing a home over unpaid taxes is uncommon, yet it does happen—often because homeowners misunderstand the process or wait too long to seek help.

For Sayward residents experiencing financial hardship, early communication and a clear understanding of the system can be the difference between a temporary setback and a permanent loss.

Sign the petition for dissolution of the Village of Sayward

Signing the petition means your voice is heard in calling for: reduced administrative burden, governance improvements, respect of citizen concerns, fiscal responsibility and professionalism.