NEW FROM ARPA:

MARK YOUR CALENDARS

COMING FALL 2026!

WHAT IS IT?

This event exists to equip thoughtful Christians with a deeper understanding of how faith
shapes public life, exploring what it means to pursue justice, order, and the common good
in a culture that often misunderstands or marginalizes biblical convictions.

We aim to encourage our audience not necessarily just to do more, but to think more
biblically, and stand more confidently in the public square as those entrusted with a gospel
that speaks to all of life.

Over Four Weeks In Ottawa, You’ll:

Dig into the biblical foundation
for political action

Learn about Canada’s constitutional history and legal system

Tackle today’s most pressing legal issues

Sharpen your skills through readings, assignments, and interactive seminars

Why does it matter?

The Academy isn’t just a program-it’s a launchpad. Living and learning in Ottawa gives you:

• Connection with ARPA Staff and leaders in Canada’s Capital
• Experience that can lead to roles on Parliament Hill, in provincial legislatures, or with Christian Non-Profits
• Confidence to apply your faith wherever God calls you
• Even if politics isn’t your career path, this one-month experience will deepen your worldview and prepare you to be a faithful, informed citizen.

Register Now!

What’s it all about?

ARPA Canada is hosting a one-month educational training program to prepare young people for faithful political engagement. Participants will explore biblical foundations for political action, learn about Canada’s constitutional history and legal system, study current policy issues, and develop skills through readings, assignments, and interactive seminars. ARPA Academy will serve to equip young people to face the opportunities and challenges of engaging in the public square.  

ARPA Academy is for Christian young people, ages 18-25, who are keen to apply their faith to the public square. ARPA Academy will deepen your worldview and open doors to further political action.  

The 2026 Academy will run from August 4-28.

Application Process

If you are interested in applying, please submit an application package including the following:

• Resume
• Latest school transcript
• Name and contact information of two references (at least one should be a pastor or elder) 
• Personal statement of faith 
• Short video (no more than 2 minutes) explaining who you are and why you want to participate in ARPA Academy. Include future career goals and intentions for career growth.  
• Brief explanation of what it means to be involved in politics as a Christian. How do faith and politics interact? (No more than 500 words).  

Applications are open from December 1st, 2025 to February 28th 2026

Register Now!

---

Information Meeting Dates

Applications for the 2026 ARPA Academy will open in December 2025 and close at the end of February 2026.  

In the meantime, we would like to invite you or other prospective applicants to a Microsoft Teams meeting so you can hear about the Academy firsthand and we can answer any questions you might have.

• November 27 at 8 PM EST
• January 29 at 8 PM EST

Please reach out to [email protected] to request a meeting link.

Please send any questions or expressions of interest to [email protected].

Please Note: ARPA Canada is very grateful for any interest shown in this program. However, due to time constraints and other responsibilities, we reserve the right to not interview all applicants. The deadline for applications may also be changed as we deem necessary.

Despite Ontario’s and British Columbia’s efforts to redefine parenthood, the biblical design for the family is simple.  

In Genesis 1:27-28, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.’” Thus in the very first chapter of Genesis, God’s good design is that children would be born to married parents: one mother and one father.  

But the fall into sin has broken, shattered, and complicated the structure of families and even the very roles of motherhood and fatherhood. Death, divorce, and abandonment deprive children of a present father or mother. Adoption and remarriage – although positive actions that try to alleviate the harms of sin – lead to children having more than two parents (e.g. two biological parents plus a step-dad). Parentage has become less straightforward after the Fall. 

The Disruption of Assisted Reproduction 

The growing practice of assisted reproduction only adds to the confusion. Assisted reproduction can occur in all sorts of ways: artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, traditional and gestational surrogacy, and sperm donation by sexual intercourse. While assisted reproduction often uses the gametes – the sperm and the egg – from a husband and a wife to help them conceive a child, donated sperm, eggs, and embryos are common. The very nature of assisted reproduction introduces at least one more person into the wondrous process of begetting a child.  

There are two possible purposes for assisted reproduction. First, it can be used to overcome one effect of the fall: infertility. For example, consider a couple where a wife’s eggs were all destroyed because of chemotherapy that successfully treated cancer. The couple might use the husband’s sperm and another woman’s egg to create an embryo through in vitro fertilization. That embryo could be implanted into the wife’s womb, and she would give birth to the child.  

Second, assisted reproduction can be used to overcome our created limitations. Consider a same-sex couple. They, of course, have no chance of having a child themselves. While they both may have healthy sperm, they have no egg. A doctor could use the sperm of one of the men in a gay marriage to inseminate a third-party surrogate. That surrogate mother gestates the child, gives birth to the child, and surrenders the child to the gay couple. 

But assisted human reproduction raises all sorts of questions of who should count as the parents of a child. Is the genetic father (the man who donated the sperm) or the intended father (the man who wanted the child) the “real” father? Is the genetic mother, the surrogate mother, or the intended mother the “real” mother? Or should all parties be counted as parents?  

Returning to God’s Original Design 

All of these questions can be answered when we return to God’s original design for the family. All people and all institutions of society should aim for children to be conceived by married parents, born to married parents, and raised by married parents. Biblically, God designed one father and one mother for each child. And to apply the biblical injunction to a new area of family life, “what God has joined together, let no man separate.” As much as possible, laws should steer would-be parents in this direction. Christians should stridently object to many facets of assisted reproduction (see our policy reports on IVF and surrogacy). 

And yet, assisted reproduction happens. And it is becoming increasingly common. So, when it does happen, who should be counted as the parents? 

When these unavoidable gray areas arise, the law should base parenthood upon genetics. This best accords with a reading of God’s wonderful book of general revelation. Children might be conceived within or outside of the bonds of marriage. Children may be conceived intentionally or unintentionally. Children might now be conceived in a petri dish and gestated in a surrogate. But a child can’t be conceived without a sperm and an egg. Thus, marriage, intention, and gestation are all unstable grounds upon which to build a definition of parentage in a post-fall world. Genetics – the man who provided the sperm and the woman who provided the egg – is the only consistent foundation for parenthood. 

Redefining parenthood prioritizes the desires of adults over the interests of children 

One of the overriding (though unstated) issues of the proposal is that this overhaul of British Columbia’s Family Law Act prioritizes the desires of adults over the best interests of children. It puts “us” adults before “them” children. 

According to Katy Faust & Stacy Manning in their book Them Before Us, this is a backwards way of viewing the family. Adults should put the interests of children above their own wants. The academic literature is fairly unanimous in the finding that children thrive best when they are conceived by, born to, and raised by their married mother and father (all other things being equal). That is the gold standard for child well-being (which, unsurprisingly, is God’s pattern for families).  

But the proposed changes in BC’s Family Law Act depart further from this gold standard.  Preconception agreements allow people with no biological connection to the child to become parents. That’s putting the desires of people to become parents above the best interests of children. Allowing “sperm donation through sexual intercourse”? That endorses family abandonment by the father. Defining parenthood along the lines of intention to parent rather than biological connection? While that may seem to put the interests of children first (you’d expect someone who intended to become a parent to care more for the child than someone who did not intend to become a parent), it still puts the desires of adults first and foremost in the equation by intentionally cutting off children from their natural parents.  

Basing parenthood on intention above all else is also the logic that has justified the killing of millions of pre-born children. Abortion is the ultimate example of putting the desire of adults above the best interests of children. 

Redefining parenthood commodifies children 

Another fundamental problem with British Columbia’s family law – both as it exists right now and the proposed updates – is that it commodifies children. 

Consider the following argument from our policy report on surrogacy: 

All children possess human dignity and are worthy of love, respect, and care, because they are made in God’s image.[61] Canadian public policy rightly recognizes that the commodification of human life is abhorrent, as reflected in the prohibition of commercial surrogacy in the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. As the Baird Commission Report stated: “Commodifying human beings and their bodies for commercial gain is unacceptable because this instrumentalization is injurious to human dignity and ultimately dehumanizing.”[62] This principle needs to be better reflected in Canadian policy and its enforcement. 

Supporters of commercial surrogacy argue that those seeking to be parents through surrogacy are not paying for a child or for parental rights, but that they are contracting for gestational services.[63] This objection does not withstand scrutiny, however. If the intending parents are only paying for the surrogate mother’s services and the child is not a term or commodity of the contract, they could not require the mother to relinquish the child after birth.[64] But that is the very object of the agreement – the transfer of a child to paying clients, the intended parents. 

According to article 2(a) of the “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children” of which Canada is a signatory, “Sale of children means any act or transaction whereby a child is transferred by any person or group of persons to another for remuneration or any other consideration.”[65] A plain reading of this definition demonstrates that any commercial surrogacy arrangement amounts to the sale of a child contrary to the protocol. In fact, the reference to “any other consideration” in article 2(a) may also include reimbursement of expenses and all forms of surrogacy violate the rights affirmed in the Convention.[66] 

One child born through traditional surrogacy explained his concerns with the practice: “It looks to me like I was bought and sold … The fact is that someone has contracted you to make a child, give up your parental rights and hand over your flesh and blood child … When you exchange [something] for [m]oney it is called a commodity. Babies are not commodities. Babies are human beings.”[67] It is immensely damaging for children to grow up feeling both abandoned by their birth mother and purchased by their legal parents. These emotions are a natural consequence of the commodification of babies. 

Even if no money is exchanged through agreements and contracts around the conception of children, children are still commodified. God’s intention for children is not that they would be a commodity produced through some impersonal contract by two or more random people. Children are to be conceived in the intimate, conventional relationship of marriage. If not seen as something to be avoided entirely, children have been reduced to the level of objects rather than persons. 

Conclusion 

God’s design for the family is for children to be conceived by, born to, and raised by one father and one mother, united in the conventional bond of marriage. Unsurprisingly, when families follow this formula, children tend to thrive. But when they abandon this formula – as family law in British Columbia enables them to do – children’s outcomes tend to be worse. Many studies confirm this across a wide variety of factors. The charts from this study easily demonstrate how, from educational attainment to sexual abuse to criminal activity, children in intact families have better outcomes than in any other family structure.  

God’s plan for the family is good. It is good morally. But it is also empirically good. 

And it is this goodness of the natural family that we must stand to defend. 

What is a parent?  

In recent decades, society has been asking questions whose answers should be self-evident. What is marriage? What is a woman? These questions are being asked because our society doesn’t want to accept God’s created designs for humanity. Instead, they want to create their own standards and their own definitions. 

This humanist endeavour is continuing with British Columbia’s announcement that it will be updating the definition of parentage in its Family Law Act. Among other things, the proposed changes would allow all children (not just those born through assisted reproduction) to have up to four parents, define parentage based on “intent” rather than biology, permit “sperm donation through sexual intercourse” (e.g. Tinder for reproduction), and expunge all gendered language from the law.  

In 2016, we raised the alarm bells when Ontario made similar changes in its All Families are Equal Act. The British Columbia Family Law Act is already bad enough and in need of reform. But rather than reforming the law to better harmonize with God’s pattern for parenthood, this new British Columbia proposal is the province’s equivalent of the All Families are Equal Act.  

But before we get to the proposal itself, what does British Columbia’s family law say right now? 

Current BC Family Law

British Columbia’s current Family Law Act starts well. The law clearly states that for “the birth of a child not born as a result of assisted reproduction, the child’s parents are the birth mother and the child’s biological father.” This presumption of parentage would cover the vast majority of children. So far, so good. Biology rules. 

But of course, assisted reproduction complicates this. In fact, British Columbia’s 2011 Family Law Act comprehensively addressed new forms of assisted reproduction. The Family Law Act clearly states that sperm, egg, and embryo donors are not automatically parents of a child born through assisted reproduction unless they expressly consent to be a parent prior to conception. Generally speaking, the birth mother and her spouse are considered the legal parents.  

However, if a surrogate mother is impregnated and gives birth to a child, she may “surrender” the child to an intended parent or intended parents. She forfeits her claim to be the legal parent of that child. With low barriers to surrogacy, a British Columbia Law Institute report commissioned by the government as a basis for the update of the parentage law, suggested that British Columbia is “the most ‘surrogacy-friendly’” province in Canada.  

Further complicating matters, before a child is conceived through assisted reproduction, an intended parent or intended parents may enter a written agreement with a potential birth mother and her spouse and/or the genetic mother and genetic father so that up to all six can be recognized as parents of the agreed-upon child. Thus, BC’s current family law allows for a child born through assisted reproduction to have up to six parents: up to three mothers and three fathers. 

This family law regime tears parenthood apart. Fatherhood is trifurcated into intended fatherhood, step-fatherhood (the spouse of the birth mother), and genetic fatherhood. Motherhood is further divided into intended mother, birth mother, and genetic mother.  

Intended Changes to BC Family Law 

But British Columbia is proposing to undermine the family unit even more. In their Intentions Paper for the Family Law Act, the province lists various misguided changes to parentage rules. 

First of all, the paper recommends “removing legislative inconsistencies for children conceived through sexual intercourse and children conceived using assisted reproduction.” Apparently, recognizing more parents of children conceived through assisted reproduction than natural reproduction is discriminatory. Why should a child born through assisted reproduction have up to six parents, but a child born through sexual intercourse only two parents? Never mind the creational fact that it is not good for fatherhood and motherhood to be bifurcated and even trifurcated through assisted reproduction. Now the government is proposing that children conceived naturally also have shattered parents. If all four parties sign a written agreement before the child is conceived, a naturally conceived child can have four parents: a genetic mother, a genetic father, an intended mother, and an intended father. 

One of the justifications for this change is the shifting social and even legal perceptions of parenthood. The British Columbia Law Institute report describes a recent legal case involving a polyamorous triad. 

The parties conceived a child through sexual intercourse. This resulted in two biological parents, and a non-biological parent. Due to the restrictions outlined above, the parties were forced to make a court application to have the non-biological party named a parent. In reviewing the Family Law Act in this case, the court stated:  

there is a gap in the FLA with regard to children conceived through sexual intercourse who have more than two parents. The evidence indicates that the legislature did not foresee the possibility a child might be conceived through sexual intercourse and have more than two parents. Put bluntly, the legislature did not contemplate polyamorous families. This oversight is perhaps a reflection of changing social conditions and attitudes . . . or perhaps is simply a misstep by the legislature. Regardless, the FLA does not adequately provide for polyamorous families in the context of parentage. 

But of course, the legislature didn’t contemplate polyamorous families! Polygamy – the recognition of a marriage between more than two people – is illegal. The federal government, which has jurisdiction over the definition of marriage, has clearly stated that marriage is only between two people, to the exclusion of all else. Why would the government legally recognize all members of a polyamorous relationship as parents when it doesn’t recognize polygamy itself? (As an aside, this is exactly the avenue taken in the legalization of same-sex marriage. Governments began recognizing same-sex couples as parents of children that were not their own. After this recognition, the argument essentially was that if you recognize a same-sex couple as parents of a child, why shouldn’t the government recognize the same-sex marriage itself.) 

Second, the policy intentions paper suggests “considering parentage when a child is conceived using assisted reproduction from the lens of ‘intention to parent’ rather than genetic connection.” In other words, the creational pattern that parenthood is defined by biology is fully severed. Like so many other areas of public policy in the modern day, only intention and consent now matter. Sperm donors, egg donors, or surrogate mothers are simply tools to get the job done. They are usually denied parenthood status. (Unless, of course, the intended parents want these reproductive actors to be parents as well. Then they do get to become parents.) 

Third, the paper counsels that family law permit “sperm donation by sexual intercourse.” Currently, British Columbia requires assisted reproduction to use procedures such as in vitro fertilization – where a sperm fertilizes an egg in a petri dish –  or artificial insemination – where a turkey baster-like device deposits the sperm into a woman. “Sperm donation by sexual intercourse” is more natural… but far more immoral. It requires a man to have sex with a woman who is not his wife and who may already be married, so that she becomes pregnant.  

Imagine (or don’t imagine) a husband and wife of many years, Jack and Jane. They are unable to have children, so they invite Bob to sleep with Jane so that she becomes pregnant. But since pregnancy often doesn’t happen “on the first try,” Bob may have to have sex with Jane many times before Jack and Jane get what they want: a child. Genetically speaking, Bob would be the genetic parent of the child. But as long as he signs a pre-conception agreement with Jack and Jane that he doesn’t want to be the father, he won’t be legally recognized as the father. Unless, of course, Jack and Jane and Bob want him to be a third parent. All of this is, in the words of the report, so that families “have more reproductive choice.” 

Thankfully, the report rejected a recommendation from the British Columbia Law Institute that suggested that children should be able to have an unlimited number of parents. The committee writing the report was “concerned that any number set out in legislation would be arbitrary and would have the effect of cutting out some families… in the committee’s view, the law shouldn’t be looking for ways to keep them out of forming families. It should aim to treat everyone with dignity and on the same footing.” 

The committee is right that any number would be arbitrary. Any number, of course, but two. The genetic mother and the genetic father. 

Finally, the report advises that the Family Law Act replace gendered language with language that is more inclusive, “regardless of family members’ gender, gender identity, sex, or sexual orientation.” So, no more mention of fathers or mothers. “He” and “she” pronouns will be deleted. The gender-neutral term “parents” will remain in the legislation, but people will be described as the “person who provides the egg” or the “person who provides the sperm.” The cumbersome terms “the person’s” or the grammatically ambiguous “their” will likely be used in place of pronouns. All in an attempt to erase the sex binary from the legislation. 

Conclusion 

There is no definitive timetable for when legislation to make these changes will be proposed. The Policy Intentions Paper states, “The Paper allows the Ministry to share its intentions for policy change before the legislative amendments are drafted and introduced to Cabinet.” In the government’s press release, “the proposed policy changes will inform amendments to the FLA, which will be introduced to the legislature for consideration as soon as is feasible.” The legislature reconvenes on October 6 for the better part of two months, making that the first day that we could see new legislation tabled. 

Sign up for bagged lunch

For more information, go to marchforlife.ca

Sign up for bagged lunch

---

Register for workshops

For more information, go to torontomarchforlife.ca

Winnipeg Flag Display

For more information, go to lifeculture.ca/flags

Saskatchewan March for Life

March for Life starting from the legislative grounds.
Click the button below for more information about the March for Life.

Alberta March for Life

For more information, go to albertamarchforlife.com

Sign up for bagged lunch

For more information, go to m4lvictoria.ca

---

If you are unable to join the March for Life in Victoria, please join us at Christ Covenant Church on May 8 for a Pro-life Flag Display and Prayer Breakfast.

RSVP for breakfast

We would love to see you there.

The registration page is in the works… Stay tuned!

There are a limited number of spots so be sure to apply early!

Register Below!

Election Day Is October 19, 2024⁩

The writ has dropped. That means the 2024 British Columbia election is underway!

This is shaping up to be quite the election. After Premier David Eby took over the reins from former Premier John Horgan almost two years ago, it seemed like the New Democratic Party would easily cruise to re-election. But, in the last year or so, the BC Conservative Party, which hadn’t elected an MLA in 50 years, has come back to life. In an unprecedented move, BC United (formerly the BC Liberals) have announced that they will not be running any candidates this election, clearing the way for a clear one vs one battle between the BC Conservative and the BC NDP.

Every Friday during the campaign, Mike and Levi will release a short podcast episode discussing the election campaign, chatting about the issues at stake in the election, and doing all that they can to educate, equip, and encourage Reformed Christians in BC to cast an informed ballot.

The 2024 Election Guide

Below you can find your 2024 Election Guide, a comparison of where each of the six major parties generally stands on seven current political issues of note. This guide is designed not only to help you cast an informed vote but also to help you engage with local candidates on these issues of focus.

A GUIDE TO HOSTING ALL-CANDIDATES MEETINGS

All-Candidates Meetings are opportunities for local candidates and local voters to directly interact. Rather than simply hearing party leaders make promises, voters at all-candidates meetings can get to know the personal values and positions of their local candidates. Organizing all-candidates meetings are excellent opportunities for churches and Christians to focus discussion on key issues that matter to them, such as free speech, family law and conscience rights. We hope that this guide will help churches, ARPA chapters, and other Christian organizations host an all-candidates meeting of their own and positively shape the public discourse around election time.

This week, BC United Leader Kevin Falcon suddenly announced that the BC United party would be suspending their campaign, clearing the way for the increasingly popular BC Conservative party to have a legitimate shot at winning the next election.

The number one goal of the suspension of the BC United campaign, echoed over and over by Kevin Falcon and BC Conservative leader John Rustad in a joint press conference held on Wednesday afternoon, is to put together a team that can beat the NDP in the coming election. Even with the BC United polling at around 10%, that still could pull enough support away from the BC Conservatives to hand the NDP another term in government. The vote on the right would be split. This decision aims to eliminate that vote split and allow the parties on the right to present a united front against the incumbent government in the coming provincial election on October 19.

A History of Liberal Collapse

The BC United’s collapse, and even the renaming of the BC Liberals to BC United last year, is part of a broader trend in western Canada.

As recently as 2008, the Liberals in Alberta were the official opposition, though they haven’t formed government since 1917. Liberals there have failed to elect a single MLA in the last two elections.

In Saskatchewan, the Liberals haven’t been the official opposition since 1995 and were last in government in 1967. They too failed to elect any candidates in the last five elections and changed their name to the Saskatchewan Progress Party in 2023.

In Manitoba, the Liberal party was last in power in 1953 and last in the official opposition in 1988. The party has staved off entire extinction, electing 1-3 MLAs in the last 9 elections.

The BC Liberals were the last stronghold of a liberal named party in western Canada. They won four elections in the twenty-first century (2001, 2005, 2009, and 2013), including the largest ever win in BC’s history (77 of 79 seats) before losing the 2017 election by a single seat. As late as May 2023, a month after they changed their name from the BC Liberals to BC United, the party appeared to be in a solid position. It seemed to be only a matter of time before British Columbians would tire of the NDP and turn to the BC Liberals when they were ready for a change in government.

Obviously, that dream has been dashed in one of the most dramatic collapses of a political party in recent Canadian history. Just 15 short months ago, the BC United party was a government in waiting. Now they’ve announced they won’t be running any candidates in an election that is only seven weeks away.

So, what happens now?

The BC Conservatives had nominated over 80 candidates and the BC United over 50 candidates. Election BC requires all candidates to be nominated by September 28^th, one week after the campaign officially starts. The party leaders announced that they will be working to field the best possible slate of candidates from between their two pools of candidates. The majority of the candidates that will be ultimately running under the BC Conservative banner in the election will likely be the Conservative candidates nominated already, but some more experienced or competent BC United candidates might be added as well.

What remains to be seen is if key BC United candidates, volunteers, and employees try to keep the party going in some fashion. Will some candidates, disgruntled by the discontinuation of the BC United campaign, run as independents? Will remaining BC United voters vote for the Conservatives or refrain from voting at all? Will BC United supporters move to the NDP with their time, money, and expertise? It is unprecedented in modern Canadian political history for a major party to suspend their campaign this close to an election, so there are a wide variety of unknowns that will need to be solved in the next few weeks.

But, as we’ve outlined in past articles, the demise of political parties and elections provide new opportunities to raise issues with new candidates. Issues that were once off the table are now back on the table. Incumbents who have held their seats for decades may not be running again. This is a time of political renewal in the process. Every citizen should seize this opportunity. Don’t just vote on election day. Get to know your local candidates. Volunteer for a campaign. Donate to a political party.

These opportunities only come around every four years. And the death of one party and resurrection of another only comes around once in a generation.

Four Reasons for the Collapse of BC United and the Rise of the BC Conservatives

But how did all this happen? And why did it happen so suddenly?

It seems there are four fundamental reasons for the BC United party’s collapse and the commensurate rise of the BC Conservatives.

Reason #1: The popularity of the federal conservatives in BC

The federal Conservatives elected Pierre Poilievre as their new leader in 2022 after ousting Erin O’Toole earlier that year. Ever since, the federal Conservative party has increased its popularity in British Columbia dramatically. In particular, it has been making political hay around opposing the legalization of hard drugs and promising to bring back housing affordability, two problems which plague BC more than other Canadian provinces.

Not to insult the intelligence of the average Canadian, but most Canadians don’t well understand the difference between the federal government and the provincial government. Nor do they understand that the federal Conservative and provincial Conservative parties are completely distinct entities. Couple that general lack of clarity with a hyper focus on federal politics at the expense of provincial politics, a general despising of Justin Trudeau and the Liberal brand, and high profile of Pierre Poilievre, and I suspect that many British Columbians now simply hear the word conservative and say, “that’s who I want.”

It doesn’t matter that there are differences between the federal and provincial parties. It doesn’t matter about the quality of the local candidates or unorthodox policy positions held by some within the BC Conservatives. They simply have the right name and the right time.

But that wasn’t enough to propel the BC Conservatives to where they are today. A second ingredient was needed.

Reason #2: A real leader for the BC Conservatives emerges

The BC Conservatives, despite being British Columbia’s first ever political party, hadn’t elected an MLA in almost 50 years. In that span, they only won more than 5% of the popular vote once. They churned through leaders every election cycle. In the 1986 and the 2017 elections, they didn’t even have a leader.

The BC Conservatives were dead in the water.

But that all changed recently. On August 18, 2022, MLA John Rustad was kicked out of the BC Liberal caucus for two reasons. First, he was removed after sharing posts on social media that doubted the extent to which carbon dioxide emissions were contributing to climate change. Second, he was charged with not returning leader Kevin Falcon’s phone calls. In a team sport like party politics, breaking ranks with the party on a major policy file is a heresy. Defying the leader is treason.

In order for political parties to function effectively, they need coordinated messaging. They need a leader who is willing to make tough decisions. They need discipline. But there is a balance. If party discipline is too lax, the party can get in trouble from wayward comments from candidates that can cost the entire party credibility, money, and votes. If the party discipline is too tight, then the party represents a dictatorship more than a vehicle for democratic engagement.

The BC Liberals tipped too far into the tight party discipline quagmire. In the middle of the 2020 provincial election, Chilliwack MLA Laurie Throness was forced to resign from the party over various public policy disagreements. In 2022, Aaron Gunn was prevented from running for the leadership of the party. Overly tight party discipline led Rustad to cross the internal line and also get booted from caucus.

Just over a year after Rustad was ejected, Abbotsford MLA Bruce Banman voluntarily left BC United. One of the main reasons for his decision was so that he could finally speak freely, after being forced to hold his tongue on many issues, particularly the province’s handling of COVID-19. Together, Rustad and Banman gave life to the BC Conservative party and secured the party official party status for the first time in recent memory. And – with no offence intended against any of the previous BC Conservative party leaders – the party finally had a leader with the experience, profile, and energy to make it a viable party.

Reason #3: The failed rebranding from BC Liberals to BC United

The general animosity to anything labelled liberal (thanks to Prime Minister Trudeau) and constant confusion from voters about how the BC Liberal party wasn’t anything like the federal Liberals, prompted the decision of the BC Liberals to change their name. After all, the federal Liberals were always a party on the left of the political spectrum. The BC Liberals were on the right, the party of free enterprise. And so, Kevin Falcon, in his race to replace Andrew Wilkinson as party leader, promised to change the name of the party if elected.

Within a year, Falcon followed through with his promise. With the preferred new name of the party – the British Columbia party –unavailable, he opted for BC United. This name was an unfortunate choice for a few reasons. First, it sounds more like a soccer club than a political party. Second, some drew negative connotations from the word united, tying to Alberta’s United Conservative party. And third, although the name was chosen to portray unity, the party was anything from united, as the booted Throness, the rejected Gunn, the ousted Rustad, and floor-crossing Banman could attest.

For all these reasons (as well as plain old human nature that is used to familiarity and resistant to change), the rebranding of the BC Liberals to BC United did not go well. The public, not following politics closely between elections, didn’t realize that the party had changed its name. It plunged in the polls following the name change, and the Conservatives rose in the polls. Only five months after the name change, BC United and the BC Conservatives were tied in the polls. For a few months, the parties appeared deadlocked in the public polling. In February, Conservatives opened a lead over the BC United that has only continued to grow. Polls in the last month have pegged the BC Conservatives between 35-39% and BC United between 9-12% of the popular vote. (The NDP were between 36-43% and the Greens 8-11%.)

Reason #4: The lack of political representation on the right side of the political spectrum on several political issues

And finally, there are policy issues at stake. In the deal-making process last week, Kevin Falcon admitted that he probably agreed with John Rustad and the Conservatives on 75% of the issues.

But some of the issues in that 25% matter. Especially to reformed Christians.

Take SOGI. SOGI, which stands for sexual orientation and gender identity, is the vernacular name for a suite of policies, inclusive environments, and educational resources designed to promote acceptance of homosexual and transgender identities in schools. One such policy was requiring all schools (public as well as independent) to expressly prohibit bullying based on sexual orientation or gender identity. With other prohibited grounds for discrimination – such as appearance, grades, or character – not mentioned, this has the effect of elevating a student’s gender identity or sexual orientation to an exulted status of identity.

Inclusive environments translated into gender neutral washrooms, change facilities, and showers and teachers referring to students – no matter their age or maturity – by their chosen pronouns.

The BC Liberals were the party that enshrined gender identity and sexual orientation into BC’s Human Rights Code and required schools to adopt those anti-bullying policies. While leader Kevin Falcon stated that he is in favour of parental involvement, age-propriety, and transparency in education, he refused to be specific what that might mean for SOGI.

The BC Conservatives, on the other hand, and some specific candidates in particular, have been vocal opponents of SOGI and have promised to scrap it entirely. This is a position that no other major party has ventured to propose, despite growing concerns over SOGI throughout British Columbia.

Or take independent schools. The BC Liberals have generally been supportive of the status quo for independent schools, namely that most independent schools receive 50% of the funding that their public counterparts receive. But the BC Conservatives, in their policy handbooks, support changing the funding model for all schools. Their goal is that funding will follow the student, regardless of which school a parent chooses – public school, independent, or home school.

Unfortunately, one issue that both BC United and the BC Conservatives agree on is abortion. Both leaders had publicly stated that they have no intention of restricting abortion whatsoever. After the BC March for Life on the steps of the BC legislature, BC Green leader Sonia Furstenau insisted that each party clarify its stance on abortion. Falcon declared that “women have the right of choose” and “that has been the position of the party for a long time.” Rustad insisted that abortion “is not a provincial issue and that no politician at the provincial level can change that [1988 Morgentaler] decision.”

Join us for one of the presentations listed below. You’ll leave equipped for action, and encouraged to use your freedom to speak the truth on topics of public justice.

MANITOBA

ONTARIO

BRITISH COLUMBIA

ALBERTA

from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.” – Ps. 34: 13-14

The next provincial election in British Columbia is exactly six months away and so it is time to get to work!

But why? Why prepare for an election six months away from now?

There are two connected reasons:

• BC may be going through a once-in-a-generation political shift right now, and  
• This is the time to influence local nomination races and get to know local candidates.

With an election in view, there are great opportunities for people who are willing to put in a little time and effort to make a big political difference.

BC’s Political Shift

For those who don’t follow BC politics much, there have been two main parties vying for government over BC’s history, sometimes with smaller or more fringe parties trying to get a few seats as well. But approximately once in a generation, the political landscape shifts. A political party (or multiple parties) collapses, leading to a new political situation and new opportunities for change.

The first generational shift happened in the 1940s. Up to that point in BC history, the Conservatives and Liberals took turns governing British Columbia (something that we’re used to seeing in the federal government, though the parties are not actually connected). But as the socialist NDP grew in power throughout the 1930s and 1940s, both the Conservatives and Liberals were so concerned about the NDP winning government that they formed a coalition government from 1945-1952 to keep the NDP out. When that coalition fractured, a new party initially combining some strange collectivist economic theories with more traditional conservative politics – the Social Credit Party – appeared and governed BC for the majority of four decades. The Liberals and Conservatives eventually became extinct, making the NDP the sole opposition to the SoCreds, as they were called.

The second generational shift happened in the 1990s, when the Social Credit Party collapsed. A combination of spending nearly 40 years in government and the rise of the Reform party and movement on the federal level shocked the provincial political scene. The SoCreds collapsed in the 1990s, with the party’s former supporters migrating to the resuscitated Liberal party. While center-right voters figured out how to reorganize themselves under the Liberal party banner, the NDP governed BC for 8 years before the center-right Liberal party took back government in 2001.

We are in the midst of a third generational shift. After badly losing the 2021 election, the Liberals, who were traditionally made up of a mix of federal Liberal and Conservative voters, picked a new leader and changed their name to BC United. Unfortunately for them, there is little unity in that party. Chilliwack Liberal MLA Laurie Throness was kicked out of the party in 2020 for his socially conservative views. Nechako Lakes Liberal MLA John Rustad was also kicked out of the party for a combination of his views on climate change and his lack of cooperation within the party in 2022. In 2023, Abbotsford BC United (formerly BC Liberal) MLA Bruce Banman also left the party.

Rustad and Banman joined the defunct BC Conservatives, giving the party its largest number of seats in the legislature in 48 years. With the BC Conservatives back in the legislature with two MLAs and official party status (which gives them extra resources and allows them to ask a question like this one every question period), the party’s popularity has grown. This dovetails with a surge in the popularity in BC of the federal Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre. Most of their support has come at the expense of BC United, as shown in a recent by-election on Vancouver Island where the BC Conservatives displaced BC United for second place in the riding.

According to 338Canada (a poll aggregator and seat projector), the BC NDP are comfortably ahead in the polls with 42%. The BC Conservatives are in second with 25% of the vote, and BC United in third with 19%. (The BC Greens have 11%). With center-right voters split between the BC Conservatives and BC United, this would likely give the NDP a massive majority if an election were held today. (The current seat projection by 338Canada suggests that the NDP would win 67 seats, the BC Conservatives 20 seats, BC United 4 seats, and the BC Greens 2 seats with this level of support.)

This leaves BC at a crossroads. Will center-right votes continue to be split between the BC Conservatives and BC United and give the BC NDP a massive majority? Forget about policies for a second. One party winning 72% of the seats and having the next two largest parties fighting among themselves for second place isn’t good for parliamentary democracy. Opposition parties are supposed to be robust and hold the governing party to account. If they fail on this account, we temporarily become a one-party state.

Or will center-right voters coalescence around either the BC Conservatives or BC United? The BC Conservatives have the momentum right now, but BC United has incumbent MLAs, organizational structure, a track record, and money at its back. BC is also the only province to have a provincial Christian Heritage Party, giving you an opportunity to vote for a distinctly Christian candidate.

This is where you come in. You could simply sit on the fence for the next five months and decide which party you like best or has the best chance of winning then. But the more effective strategy is to decide which party to throw your support behind. All the parties need volunteers, donations, and even candidates to run for election. And they each need people to inform their friends and family members about the new political situation and help them to decide who to vote for.

Get Involved Now!

While the election is still six months away, there are many opportunities to get politically involved now. While voting every four years is the most common way to participate in a democracy, there are a lot more (and a lot more impactful!) ways to make your voice heard if you are willing to make the effort. Here’s what you can do:

• Get to know your local political candidates. While Elections BC does publish a live list of candidates that have officially registered to run in the next election, many candidates are slow in submitting their candidacy papers even after they’ve won a local nomination race. For a more up to date list of who your local candidates are, visit each party’s website. The BC NDP have only nominated 3 candidates so far, the BC Conservatives 57 candidates, BC United 45 candidates, and the BC Greens 12 candidates. Even if a candidate is running for your preferred party, that doesn’t necessarily mean that that they share your Christian values or, even if they do share them, that they are passionate enough about these values to actively champion the causes you care about. Ask them where they stand on issues like abortion, euthanasia, or gender transitioning and ask if they would actively seek to pass the laws that we so desperately need.
• If your area doesn’t have a candidate for your preferred party yet, join that party and vote in the nomination race for your preferred candidate. To read more about why these nomination races matter, read our recent article about nomination races.
• Volunteer in a nomination race.
• Donate to your preferred political party. British Columbians get a generous tax deduction for political donations. You receive a 75% tax credit on contributions up to $100, a 50% tax credit for contributions between $100 and $550, and a 33.3% tax credit for contributions in excess of $550. That works out to up to $500 back out of a contribution of up to $1,268. At the very least, send $100 to a political party. You’ll help your preferred party, and you’ll get $75 back on your next tax return. (Read more about how money works in BC politics.)
• Commit to volunteering in the upcoming election period (September to October). That’s when parties and candidates need the most help getting elected.