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 Budgeted $35,000 Of Your Money On A Party With Open Bar

** Editors note 2026/04/06: Amended $35,000 “spent” to “budgeted”. Actual amount spent was $11,680. Thank you Ada for pointing out the error!

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

Taxpayers are raising concerns after newly released documents showed more than $35,000 in public funds was budgeted for 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 $11,680, 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.

Majority Of Residents Support Effort To Dissolve The Village Of Sayward

Push to Dissolve the Village of Sayward Reaches Key Milestone as Majority Support Claimed

A campaign to dissolve the Village of Sayward has reached what organizers describe as a major turning point, with supporters saying they have collected signatures from more than half of local residents who favour eliminating the municipality and shifting governance to the Strathcona Regional District. The petition, circulated throughout the North Island community in recent months, seeks to revoke Sayward’s municipal status and transfer responsibility for local services to the regional district. Organizers say surpassing their targeted threshold shows widespread and growing dissatisfaction with the village’s current governance structure. They plan to submit the petition to the Government of British Columbia, which has the authority to review and potentially dissolve municipalities under provincial legislation.

Mounting Frustration Over Governance and Finances

The push comes during a period of intense political and financial strain for Sayward. Residents have been facing the prospect of steep property tax increases as council works to stabilize municipal finances and maintain essential services. For many in the community of roughly 300 people, the proposed hikes have become a flashpoint for broader concerns about transparency, governance, and long‑term sustainability. Critics argue that the administrative costs of running such a small municipality place an outsized burden on taxpayers. With a limited tax base and rising infrastructure demands, the village has struggled for years to balance its budget while keeping services intact. Supporters of dissolution believe regional administration could spread costs across a larger population and deliver services more efficiently, while also offering greater stability after years of political turbulence.

What Dissolution Would Mean

If the province approves the proposal, Sayward would cease to exist as an incorporated municipality and would instead become an unincorporated area governed by the Strathcona Regional District. This shift would change how services such such as land‑use planning, bylaw enforcement, road maintenance, and administrative functions are delivered. Residents would elect a regional director rather than a mayor and council. The province would likely conduct a formal review—including financial and governance analyses—and hold public consultations before making any decision. Such reviews typically assess the cost of maintaining municipal status compared with alternative governance models.

Community Divided Over the Future

Despite the petition’s momentum, the community remains divided. Some residents fear that losing municipal status would diminish Sayward’s local voice and reduce its influence over decisions affecting the area. Others worry that regional governance may not fully reflect the needs of a small, remote community. Questions also remain about how municipal assets, debts, and infrastructure would be handled if the village were dissolved. For many longtime residents, the debate touches on issues of identity and autonomy as much as finances.

Province Holds the Final Say

The future of Sayward ultimately rests with the provincial government, which can restructure municipalities if it determines such changes are in the public interest. In past cases, the province has required additional studies or referendums before approving major governance shifts. For now, the petition’s claimed majority support signals that a significant portion of the community is open to a dramatic rethinking of local governance. As the proposal moves toward provincial review, the debate is likely to intensify, with residents weighing potential financial relief against the loss of local control.

BC Residents Urge Province to Rein In Spending Instead of Raising Taxes or Increasing Debt

As the provincial government prepares to release its next budget, many residents in Sayward and other small communities are questioning how British Columbia is managing taxpayer dollars. Local taxpayers and fiscal advocates are urging Finance Minister Brenda Bailey to curb provincial spending rather than relying on higher taxes and increased borrowing.

Advocates note that provincial spending has grown rapidly in recent years and now exceeds the pace of B.C.’s economic growth. They argue this trajectory is unsustainable and places added pressure on families already dealing with rising costs for groceries, fuel, housing, and other essentials.

In practical terms, the province is projected to spend billions more this year than it did just a few years ago, even after adjusting for inflation. Meanwhile, economic growth has lagged behind, leaving less wealth to support expanding government budgets. Those monitoring the province’s finances say this imbalance is contributing to larger deficits and mounting debt — costs that ultimately fall on taxpayers through future tax hikes or reduced services.

For residents of Sayward, these broader fiscal concerns feel very real. Rural communities rely heavily on core public services such as health care, education, transportation, and emergency response. But when government debt grows, interest payments consume a larger share of the budget, leaving fewer resources for frontline services that communities depend on.

Critics of the current spending path are calling on the province to reassess its priorities and identify meaningful savings. They argue this could include reviewing the size of the provincial bureaucracy, cutting wasteful or low‑value spending, and focusing on essential services that directly support communities rather than expanding programs without clear justification.

Supporters of fiscal restraint say responsible budgeting today can help prevent steeper tax increases in the future and protect vital services for the next generation. As budget discussions continue in Victoria, residents in Sayward will be watching closely to see whether provincial leaders respond to calls for spending discipline — and whether the upcoming budget reflects the affordability concerns of rural British Columbians.