Yuri Fulmer, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Caroline Elliott, Peter Milobar, Iain Black
I was very honoured to be invited by Resource Works to the Global TV Studios for the May 9, 2026, British Columbia Conservative Party’s leadership debate. The event was managed so well by the Global TV team, especially the moderator Ben O’Hara-Byrne, that the one and a half hours passed by quickly.
There is little policy difference in the five candidates’ platforms and the narrative of the current caucus in the legislature and in public. Which says to me, policy-wise, the Party and its various components are very much in sync, united really. However, there are tactical differences and on some issues stark.
What follows is a summary of the tactical agreements and disagreements, with a focus on the latter, along with my strategic takeaways.
Uniting the Party
The moderator opened the debate with this question: How would you go about uniting the Party? Yuri Fulmer presented a deal he said he had crafted with Dallas Brodie and OneBC. He argued that the Right in British Columbia has never beaten the NDP when the conservative movement was divided. The deal was a concession to OneBC to not run a BC Conservative candidate in five ridings to be determined later.
Kerry‑Lynne Findlay rejected the idea. She said the latest OneBC polling was only four per cent. She said unity required running a full slate of candidates and presenting a clear conservative alternative to the NDP.
Caroline Elliott opposed the pact, saying it would “institutionalize the divide” and that unity should be built within the party rather than negotiated with another one. She said unity required broadening the party’s appeal and keeping the focus on shared goals.
Peter Milobar said unity required a stable caucus. He focused on caucus logistics, including who would resign to give a new leader a seat in the legislature and how that would affect a caucus elected only 18 months ago.
Iain Black said unity depended on shared conservative values and message discipline. He cautioned against purity tests that exclude people who have supported other parties in the past.
Issues of general agreement
Across the debate, the candidates showed broad agreement on several major issues. On crime and public safety, all supported stronger enforcement, better coordination, and clearer consequences for repeat offenders. On addiction, they agreed the current system is failing, and that treatment capacity, recovery options, and accountability must increase. On housing, they shared the view that more supply, faster permitting, and predictable processes are essential. On taxation, they agreed the overall burden is too high and that spending and regulation must be brought under control. They also aligned on the need for faster project approvals, improved relationships with First Nations, and restoring investor confidence. These topics generated emphasis differences but no meaningful disagreements.
The DRIPA divide
All five candidates said they support repealing DRIPA. Their differences were tactical.
Yuri Fulmer said the repeal required stopping voluntary land and money transfers to First Nations until a new framework is in place. Later in the debate, he clarified that he was referring to matters like the $18 million that three Lower Mainland First Nations received regarding FIFA.
Kerry‑Lynne Findlay said repeal required removing DRIPA‑style language across multiple statutes containing similar wording. She said the province should not adopt UN language that affects provincial jurisdiction.
Caroline Elliott said DRIPA should be repealed and that it should be done without unnecessary disruption, with clarity and predictability for First Nations and industry, and with agreements negotiated directly and transparently.
Peter Milobar said the repeal required diplomacy and stable relationships with First Nations and industry. He said the province should avoid escalating tensions and focus on predictable processes.
Iain Black said repeal should be paired with constitutional change to entrench private property rights. He said the province should work with business, labour, municipalities, and First Nations to build a new framework.
Candidate qualifications and debate performance
All of the candidates have been highly accomplished throughout their careers — look them up. Because qualifications are subjective and often self‑serving when presented by the candidates themselves, I will provide a basic resume for each and my take on how each presented themselves in the debate.
Iain Black: Former MLA and Minister; tech‑sector executive and community leader. Thoughtful and a bit bookish in presentation.
Yuri Fulmer: Successful businessman, philanthropist, and community leader. Goes by the numbers and shows very little tolerance for nuance.
Kerry‑Lynne Findlay: Lawyer; longtime federal MP and Minister. Focused on legislation and process.
Peter Milobar: Small‑business operator; councillor and mayor of Kamloops from 2002 to 2017; MLA since 2017. Presents in a calming manner with a focus on relationships.
Caroline Elliott: Ten‑year political staffer in the Gordon Campbell government; worked on regulatory requirements for the Site C dam; holds a PhD in political science; years of public advocacy for property rights. Energetic and brings her generation’s insights to the debate.
It is my opinion that each and every one of these candidates qualifies for the job, remembering that success and results are not a guarantee.
Personal takeaways
The candidates are generally aligned on policy, but offer a wide range of tactical approaches.
Caroline Elliott is correct when she says the pact with OneBC would “institutionalize” the divide that already exists within the broader conservative movement.
Peter Milobar is right, saying that giving up five ridings to OneBC would create caucus grievances and further disruption.
And Iain Black is also correct that “purity tests” exclude almost everyone who has ever voted for another party.
Yuri Fulmer theatrically threatening to stand in the legislature hallway and sign permits on a scrap of paper is ridiculous, and it would be a personal invitation to militant environmentalists to retool and get back on the field.
For Kerry-Lynne Findlay to claim that a politician’s marriage to an Indigenous person amounts to a “conflict of interest” is repulsive, at least to me.
I keep thinking about why property rights never found their way into the Charter of Rights, despite being central to British jurisprudence. The reasons given at the time included provincial fears that courts would nullify legislation, federal NDP concerns that courts would interfere with social programs and regulation, and unease about judicial interpretations of property and compensation.
And Finally
Governments in Canada regularly claim to champion private property rights — but the record says otherwise.
They can’t fault the public for being upset, nor First Nations for being assertive. But governments — NDP or Conservative — still have to fix the property‑rights gap.
Jim Rushton is a 46-year veteran of BC’s resource and transportation sectors, with experience in union representation, economic development, and terminal management. Reach him at [email protected].
Resource Works News
