Like, how do you characterize what's going on?

I do think this is something that we need to take notice of.

We do see an evolving behavior within Canada among those who are trying to organize around the idea of secession, but also changing behavior south of the border, an increased willingness by officials within the State Department, and we know, including at the level of Cabinet, folks like Scott Bassant talking about The idea of separation of Alberta in positive terms and being really encouraging about those ideas and not in necessarily a formal setting making a declaratory statement, but still encouraging that kind of sentiment.

And just this week we saw Elon Musk.

Again, not an official member of Trump's cabinet anymore, but clearly someone close to the president who is endorsing and enthusiastic about the idea of a Western separation of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

So that's new.

And in my view, that requires a response, looking back to how Canada has dealt with intrusions in our domestic policy in the past.

So, I mean, is there a line? And if there is, when do you cross it, I guess?

But that was shut down right away, right? Like, we had a fairly firm response to that almost immediately.

That's right.

And, uh, uh, the, the prime minister at the time, Mike Pearson, was not, uh, keen to, to fan the flames, to, to draw, uh, additional attention to it.

But there was a sense at the cabinet table then that, uh, some response was necessary.

Make it polite.

Make it no longer than it needs to be.

Uh, talk about the enduring bonds between allies, so don't b-be escalatory in your language.

Yeah

Like, is there room for them to slip in here?

I think for those who are really looking to register a kind of a protest of the direction of the province, and certainly there are voters out there every time I'm on a call-in show, I certainly hear from them.

The voters who are looking for a more environmentally sustainable province are feeling left out of this conversation, absolutely.

I think the challenge for the Greens is to find a way to to send that message and to do it loudly and clearly, but also to address the other anxieties voters are feeling because lurking in the background, not in necessarily the way that Mr. Eby was talking about, but clearly the economic situation globally, the situation with the United States has people worried in a generalized sense and not necessarily tagging it to Mr. Dirksen as a kind of MAGA North or that sort of thing, but it says that governments do have to meet this moment somehow.

So providing for an environmentally sustainable future while doing so in a way that also provides for an economically sustainable future.

That's the messages I think the Greens really have to find a way to sell if they are to start to pick a way at the NDP.

I'm just pointing out it wouldn't be the first time Andrew Weaver in the riding of Oak Bay Gordon head has managed to put a party on the map in the legislature.

Some attention, but they need to find ways to show that they are... a thoroughgoing concern for the province able to run candidates in a majority of ridings or at least enough to make them a plausible place to park votes.

But is this, what he's saying, a real concern or a misreading of what's on the table?

It's a question you can answer in different ways.

On the one hand, it's definitely not a concern.

The things that he is trying to get Canadians worried about, those are almost certainly not going to happen.

There's no likely universe, I should say, where Canada is... contributing to the EU budget.

That isn't the arrangement being discussed.

And there are huge hurdles to Canada actually taking that step, even if Canadians were interested.

I wonder where should countries like Japan and South Korea fit in to all of this?

He's taking advantage of this implosion of the B.C. conservatives, but also blaming it on things like Trump and tariffs where he just wants to secure things because maybe he wouldn't have as good of a chance if he stuck to the fixed date in two years.

Yeah, I think you've hit on the logic and the example that the NDP is looking to.

And in 2020, there was an opportunity to lock in some gains.

The NDP were relatively popular in their handling of the pandemic to that moment.

And I think there was a sense that things might take a turn in a more sour direction as people got more and more tired of the uncertainty and frustrations of that period.

This is a little different because I don't know that the NDP can say they're particularly popular right now.

They have come up in the polls a little bit, but it feels more like they're perhaps less unpopular.

If he does and we find ourselves as British Columbians having two dueling elections, what does that do? Do people get not confused? I think people know the difference, but is there going to be fatigue? Is it too much? What are the optics of having dueling elections?

How much risk is there?

Yeah, in the short term, it doesn't seem like there is much risk.

This is a popular agenda.

Canadians want to see economic development.

I do think this is in part a response to some of the frustrations we heard articulated during the latter days of Justin Trudeau as well, where it seemed like it was very hard for for governments to do things.

We got through COVID and government was quite efficient in its response in some ways, but since then things really ground down.

So there's, I think, a kind of relief.

And if those issues don't get addressed, all this other stuff doesn't matter, right? Like the concerns of Canadians are still there, aren't they?

And, uh, I guess I was wondering, uh, like, how did you first come to that conclusion, that he was actually more of a Conservative than a liberal to begin with? Because I'll tell you, Stuart, you say that to liberals, and they get very testy about that [laughs] sort of comment.

I mean, it is interesting.

There ha- the, the, the piece has had some reaction.

And, and even among liberals it's been somewhat divided.

The, the more, uh, blue-leaning liberals say, "Yeah, th- this is part of the family.

This is, uh, uh, actually the, the way in which good liberals can operate.

They can move, uh, to the, the right when, uh, politics require it." And others saying, "Well, no, no, this is, this is not r- [laughs] this is not right." So I, I looked at the, the kinds of, of solutions that Mark Carney was interested in, in implementing, the kinds of issues he was interested in, in pursuing, and, and everything he did just took on, uh, a, uh, a tone and an approach that looked like what a Conservative politician would do.

Like, doesn't he get an A for effort, I guess, [laughs] is what I'm saying?

If they don't attract some of that energy, though, is there the concern that this just is going to fracture voters that maybe have a lot of overlap in what they're looking for, what they want to vote for? If it's going to fracture all of those voters, doesn't that hand it to the NDP?

In the short term, it absolutely makes life easier for for the ndp they they have to be breathing a bit of a sigh of relief given how rough things looked in the spring but now we see them bouncing back in the polls and and when they are competed competing against a divided opposition it certainly makes it easier for them to come up the middle and win some seats they wouldn't normally win but at the same time having a credible party that can pull together votes, not from the D.C. Conservatives, those who don't see themselves as a fit for Ms. Finlay's approach, but also for those other voters who are perhaps disaffected with the NDP but not sure where to park their votes.

It does create that alternative.

But again, this is an unstable situation in a first-past-the-post system, and And we may be headed for a prolonged period of instability, given that it seems like a stable right of centre united party is not really an option.

When we saw these two factions push themselves together after 2024, they've now blown up again.

And I don't think that's a blip that seems to be a reflection of the fact that there is as much that divides people who call themselves conservative as unites them.

What are your thoughts on is this people that are doing this because they simply can't work under these circumstances or is it sour grapes? What are your thoughts on that?

That's a great question.

Or do you think instead we will somehow find our way back to the natural BC equilibrium, which is some kind of centre-right party that might emerge out of all of this? Where do we go from here, Stewart Prest? What is this moment?

I teach a course on B.C. politics, and we spend a good chunk of the semester trying to answer that question.

But the short version is that that... free market coalition was always a little restive.

It was always a little unstable.

We'd have this breaking apart, coming together.

We saw it as the social credit gave way to the BC Liberals.

They would find ways to come together with a promise of power, essentially saying these different ways of being conservative, we can fit them together because it means if we do that, we can have a chance of winning out.

And somehow it's become the de facto choice here in BC because the Conservatives, while they were able to set aside their differences or... centrist whatever you want to call them were able to set aside their differences for decades for whatever reason have lost the ability to to do so and that is still a problem right now this week as we wait for yet more folks to decide that they simply cannot go with the policy direction that's being charted by the new leadership of the bc conservative party stewart press is a political scientist with ubc was on with their own ryan price earlier today

What did he mean that sovereignty was being jeopardized?

That's a great political science question.

It's the idea ultimately that Canada remains able to take the decisions that it needs to in an independent way to govern itself as a country and separate from other countries.

What the US was asking for, a number of the demands would have actually limited Canada's ability to set its own policy, not just on trade issues, but in how we govern ourselves on language issues, so trying to curtail the use of French in the country, for instance, and limiting Canada's ability to engage in free trade agreements with other countries, essentially saying Canada would have to abide by the United States trade policy and run prospective agreements past the U.S. government, essentially putting ourselves in a subservient position regarding policy decisions.

What is the direction of Canada? So ultimately, when we talk about threats to sovereignty, they were very direct impositions on our ability to govern ourselves.

You know, a year ago, it was all elbows up, and now it's much harder language.

Yeah, I think we are, again, seeing the... implications the consequences of this this set of actions and then reactions and of course ultimately it all flows back to the original decisions by the u.s administration to try to radically renegotiate the terms of trade to walk away from the principle of free trade so everything we're talking about is is now in the realm of managed trade between the two countries the united states simply is not interested at this moment in in free trade between canada and the united states so Over time, I think the reality, the gravity of the situation has really made itself known.

We have seen multiple phases of negotiation on Canada's part, where in the summer of 2025, it seemed like Mr. Carney was confident that a new deal could be struck, and Canada was making a number of conciliatory gestures.

blanket solution.

And there is a real risk here that what we're moving towards is a kind of recreation of the failed solutions of the past.

I think to look at this in some ways, it sounds like the mayor and council are proposing to rebuild something like Riverview Hospital.

In downtown Vancouver, we want to have a dedicated involuntary care facility for issues of mental health where people are dealing with these challenges in an institutionalized setting where they do not feel like they are making the choice to enter freely.

We know that that...

Doesn't work.

Quite often leads to more harm than good.

And that's what I would hope happens in Vancouver, is spoil these questions in some way, don't vote on them.

Uh, you're saying politically speaking that's, that's not enough, uh, i- in your mind to contain the damage, or at the very least to the public, you know, to show that, look, he's sorry for what he said.

Well, I think at, at every turn we've seen, uh, Mr. Sim try to do the, the minimum that he could to, to turn the page.

And, and so, uh, uh, the, the report that, uh, uh, Sim apologized to Orr, i- i- it was clear from, from Sean Orr's own reaction that it, it, it didn't seem to be sincere.

And, and, and I think more to the point, a, a good apology, a true apology takes full responsibility for, for what someone has done.

Uh, it i- is very clear and upfront about how that situation came about, and it's very clear and upfront about, uh, what will change to ensure, uh, both the, the damage is repaired to the extent that it can be, and also so that similar mistakes do not happen, similar, uh, uh, choices are not made i- in the future.

And it's on those last two points where I, I think Mr. Sim's, uh, words to this point really fall short.

The, uh, the, the fact that he, uh, could not confirm that he would, uh, ensure an, uh, apology went out on, on WeChat in, in a Chinese language format f- to, to really address the people to whom the initial, uh, misinformation was, was spread to, and also to this point of, uh, not giving any kind of reflection about how, how he got to this point and how he's going to, to do things differently going forward.

Wh- why do you think that is in regards to Mr. Sim? Is it just because he's making tough decisions? Is it a question he doesn't work well with others? Is it a question of somebody from the private sector thinking they c- they understand politics and can do it well? I mean, I, I, I'm trying, I'm just fascinated by, uh, the almost four years where he's frittered away his super majority.

You're saying politically speaking, that's not enough in your mind to contain the damage or at the very least to the public, you know, to show that, look, he's sorry for what he said.

Well, I think at every turn we've seen Mr. Sim try to do the minimum that he could to turn the page.

And so the report that Sim apologized to Orr, it was clear from Sean Orr's own reaction that it didn't seem to be sincere.

And I think more to the point, a good apology, a true apology takes full responsibility for what someone has done.

It is very clear and upfront about how that situation came about.

And it's very clear and upfront about what will change to ensure both the damage is repaired to the extent that it can be and also so that similar mistakes do not happen, similar choices are not made in the future.

And it's on those last two points where I think Mr. Sim's words to this point really fall short.

I'm just fascinated by, uh, the almost four years where he's frittered away his super majority.

Uh, you're saying politically speaking, that's, that's not enough, uh, i- in your mind to contain the damage, or at the very least, to the public, you know, to show that, look, he's sorry for what he said?

Well, I think at, at every turn we've seen, uh, Mr. Sim try to do the, the minimum that he could to, to turn the page.

And, and so, uh, uh, the, the, the report that, uh, uh, Sim apologized to Orr, it, it, it was clear from, from Sean Orr's own reaction that it, it, it didn't seem to be sincere.

And, and, and I think more to the point, a, a good apology, a true apology takes full responsibility for, for what someone has done.

Uh, it i- is very clear and upfront about how that situation came about, and it's very clear and upfront about, uh, what will change to ensure, uh, both the, the damage is repaired to the extent that it can be, and also so that similar mistakes do not happen, similar, uh, uh, choices are not made i- in the future.

And it's on those last two points where I, I think Mr. Sim's, uh, words to this point really fall short.

Uh, the, the fact that he, uh, could not confirm that he would, uh, ensure an, an apology went out on, on WeChat in, in a Chinese language format to, to really address the people to whom the initial, uh, misinformation was, was spread to, and also to this point of, uh, not giving any kind of reflection about how, how he got to this point and how he's going to, to do things differently going forward, that he's going to, uh, find ways to, to, to work in, in his interests and, and towards the goals that he has without, uh, undermining reputations of others.

I'm just fascinated by, uh, the almost four years where he's frittered away his super majority.

What's going on with all this bluster about bringing us to an election over Bill 31? Yeah,

it is not what you'd expect the premier to say when the premier enjoys a razor-thin but quite real majority in the legislature, which is where we're at.

Yeah.

Essentially, the worst case scenario, as long as all the NDP are voting in line with the party on a bill like this, would be that the tie-breaking vote would have to be cast by the speaker.

And that is a politicization of the speaker's role.

And as a political scientist, I would say that's something we really want to steer clear of, to have the referee and the legislature play that political role.

it seems unlikely that we are going to be on the cusp of an election due to the fears of politicizations of the speaker over one vote.

Why is David Eby bringing this up even and bringing up the specter of an election? What's the point of doing that? Is there some other motivation there?