In September of 2022 after 27 years and 11 months at the Georgia Straight, I was fired along with every other employee. It came as a result of the paper being sold to a new owner. None of us received severance pay or vacation pay. Some ex-colleagues have filed complaints with Employment Standards but their case is tied up in an appeal.

I was incredibly fortunate. A registered charity called the Society of We Are Canadians Too approached me about creating a new online media outlet. Within days of my firing, the society hired me. We went to work on an extremely low budget with the goal of amplifying the voices and achievements of diverse and underrepresented artists.

The society already had a talented designer, Jessica Sung, and an exceptional website builder, Michelle Wu. On November 8, 2022, we launched Pancouver.

In just over two years, we’ve published more than 1,000 articles in English. We also have sections in Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, Punjabi, and French.

It was so much fun creating a new media outlet from scratch. I am eternally grateful to the Society of We Are Canadians Too for giving me this opportunity. Through Pancouver, we are countering systemic discrimination in arts and culture and the historic marginalization of underrepresented artists.

We did it because arts and culture open up pathways to empathy. Artists help us see the world in different ways. They have been a bulwark against bigotry and us-and-them thinking for generations. They teach us about colonialism not only in Canada but from around the world.

For the good of the planet, we need to transition the economy from mass consumption of goods to the enjoyment of experiences.

Last month, Pancouver co-presented two panel discussions at the Vancouver Central Library as part of our Beyond Chinese project. On the first day, we brought together panelists born in China, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong to speak about how identity informs their artistry in Vancouver.

The following day, representatives of the Vancouver Art Gallery, Chinese Canadian Museum, and Museum of Vancouver talked about how their institutions reflect the diversity of diasporic populations.

Today, many of us are receiving requests from registered charities and nonprofit societies because it’s Giving Tuesday. This movement was hatched in New York City in 2012. To date, I have not accepted offers of money from readers of my Substack account, though I appreciate their generosity. I’m keeping this platform free.

However, if you want to support Pancouver, I encourage you to donate to the Society of We Are Canadians Too. This registered charity was kind enough to provide me with a lifeline after I was fired without cause after nearly 28 years at the Georgia Straight. The general manager, Charlie Wu, wanted to ensure that I would continue writing about diverse artists. He provided the capacity for me to do this.

Best of all, you will receive a tax credit through a donation to the Society of We Are Canadians Too. Here is the link.

Follow Charlie Smith on Bluesky @charliesmithvcr.bluesky.social.

With the return of Donald Trump to the White House, the United States will be convulsed in turmoil for the next several years. It’s hard not to conclude that he’s laying the foundation for dictatorial government, given some of his key cabinet picks.

Putting Matt Gaetz in as attorney general, Kristi Noem in charge of homeland security, and possibly Kash Patel as FBI director ensures that Trump will have ardent loyalists overseeing key mechanisms of federal power. Less than a year ago, Patel declared that a second Trump administration would go after “the conspirators not just in government, but in media”.

These are not normal times.

In 1922, Benito Mussolini’s National Fascist Party attempted a coup with a March on Rome. That led to a constitutional transfer of power to Mussolini’s party, enabling him to become leader through intimidation. The fascists won the 1924 election in which the party with the largest share of votes received two-thirds of seats in Parliament. The next year, Mussolini ended Italy’s experiment with democracy.

Less than a decade later, Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany in the midst of the Great Depression. In 1930, the Nazis became the second-largest party in the Weimar Republic after capturing 19 percent of the votes. There were four chancellors in three years, culminating in Hitler, who ruled through presidential decrees. It didn’t take long for Hitler to crush opposition and eliminate perceived threats in his own party through the Röhm Purge.

Wealthy businesspeople thought they could restrain Hitler and Mussolini, but that proved to be illusory. Fascist dictators also rose to power in Spain and Portugal, leaving these countries impoverished for decades.

Trump has surrounded himself with outsiders who’ve lusted for power for many years. They include his nominated national intelligence director, Tulsi Gabbard, who’s been accused by some Democrats of being a Russian asset. Then, there’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom Trump has nominated for health and human services secretary.

Gabbard and Kennedy are both former Democrats who’ve criticized Trump in the past. If we’re really looking at a future Trump dictatorship, they could easily be forced out as Trump centralizes power around his two closest and most trustworthy allies, Patel and Gaetz.

In they are confirmed, Patel and Gaetz could easily manufacture evidence and mount a prosecution against any member of the cabinet, including Gabbard and RFK Jr.

The truth doesn’t matter to Trump and his inner circle. Even the incoming vice president, J.D. Vance, isn’t immune from prosecution. Especially if Trump decides that he no longer needs him to speak on television because Patel has already defanged the media.

Putin let oligarchs in Russia know who was boss when the country’s richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsy, was charged with fraud in 2003. This was three-and-a-half years after Putin became president.

If businesspeople like Jamie Dimon or Elon Musk or Peter Thiel think that they can control Trump, they need to brush up on their history. Fascist agents of chaos, like Trump, thrive by creating “enemies of the people”. I suspect that this term won’t only be applied to undocumented migrants.

There’s no guarantee that Dimon, Thiel, and Musk won’t also be swallowed up by the revolution that they helped foment. Musk and Thiel actively backed Trump, whereas Dimon, a Wall Street tycoon, played a supporting role by not resisting the rise of fascism.

Trump ally Vivek Ramaswamy also needs to be mindful of history if he wants to avoid the fate of Ernst Röhm, who felt that Hitler wasn’t moving quickly enough.

However, I’m most concerned about brave voices who tried to stem the Trump tide when there was still a chance to stop him. They include MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell, New York attorney general Letitia James, Rep. Eric Swalwell, and former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson. They’ve all proven to be true American patriots, which will make them popular targets for the MAGA die-hards.

The bottom line is that Trump—like Putin and so many other dictators—knows that as soon as he leaves office, he’ll likely spend the rest of his days in court or in jail. As a result, he’ll take whatever actions are necessary to avoid that fate. So we shouldn’t be surprised if Trump tries to dispense with constitutional norms so that he can remain president for life.

As a former independent candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport, I’m happy to report that I may have generated some distress within the B.C. Conservative camp.

According to a Chinese-language article in Ming Pao Daily, my B.C. Conservative opponent, Teresa Wat, accused her independent opponents of putting tremendous pressure on her. The newspaper notes that she never experienced such stress in her three previous election runs as a B.C. Liberal candidate in Richmond.

“During this campaign, she felt attacked by independent candidates even more than the B.C. NDP,” Ming Pao Daily reported.

I’ll repeat what was written in Traditional Chinese for those who can read this language.

屈潔冰感慨，回首四次參選的經歷，從來沒有這麼辛苦，壓力這麼大，甚至令她感到痛心，因為很多事情不該發生。在此次競選過程中，她感受到來自獨立候選人的攻擊甚至超過了卑詩新民主黨。

Ming Pao Daily did not elaborate on the “attacks”. The only other independent, Glynnis Hoi Sum Chan, was a former BC United organizer. I will only speak for myself in this post.

Regular readers of this Substack feed will know that I made noise about one BC United caucus allegation made last summer. According to a tweet by reporter Richard Zussman, BC United claimed that “Teresa Wat’s team downloaded a significant amount of confidential member information prior to her decision to leave.”

This BC United allegation has never been proven.

Nevertheless, as an independent candidate, I called on Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey to initiate an independent investigation to determine if there was any downloading that violated the Personal Information and Privacy Act. Harvey has authority to do this in the absence of a complaint. So far, he has not chosen to go down this road.

Under Section 34 of the Personal Information Protection Act, BC United had a legal obligation to make “reasonable security arrangements to prevent unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure, copying, modification or disposal” of information about members.

I want to know if BC United membership information was used by the B.C. Conservatives in their campaign. If so, was that done in violation of provincial privacy law?

I can understand why my pursuit of this issue might cause Wat to feel distress. Perhaps it will come as a relief to her that no one in the Chinese-language or English-language media has felt that this merits any coverage.

As someone with more than three decades of experience in the media, I strongly disagree with their position. But it’s not for me to tell members of the B.C. press gallery, the alternative media, or the Chinese-language media reporters how to do their jobs.

Crossing the floor to the B.C. Conservatives

Wat might also have felt distress in connection with my evaluation of the B.C. Conservative fiscal plan or my suggestion that she didn’t need to cross the floor after qualifying for a six-figure MLA pension.

Maybe it bugged her that I asked if Wat, a former minister of multiculturalism, could be counted on to stand up for Muslims facing discrimination, given her silence in response to bigotry within her own party. I also raised concerns in the campaign about the B.C. Conservatives’ plan to increase plastic pollution. This came just as Wat was running to represent a constituency that straddles the greatest sockeye-salmon supporting river in the world.

Then, there was my post questioning Wat’s decision to join a party that was built, in part, by people who called for Nuremberg 2.0 trials against journalists, public-health officials, and politicians.

Or perhaps Wat didn’t like me raising concerns about her party’s news release calling for an end to “drug dens” in Richmond. I had the temerity to point out that there is not a single stand-alone supervised consumption site or cannabis store in the entire city.

I also demanded that the B.C. Conservatives come clean on whether they want to ban books in public school classrooms. These are the types of things that candidates should be doing in an election campaign. If Wat perceives these to be “attacks”, then I plead guilty.

Who told Wat that BC United had no future?

Ming Pao Daily’s article included a couple of interesting revelations. For example, Wat claimed that before she switched parties on July 29, senior figures in BC United talked to her and made it clear that BC United had no future. Moreover, Wat stated that if she wanted to continue speaking out for immigrants and improve their status, she had no choice but to join the B.C. Conservatives.

“She emphasized that she would rather serve the people than serve a certain party,” Ming Pao Daily declared.

Here’s the Traditional Chinese version of this paragraph for the benefit of those who can read the language.

她透露，在她轉黨之前，卑詩聯合黨的元老級人物曾找她談話，並明確指出卑詩聯合黨沒有未來，如果她希望繼續為移民發聲，提升移民的地位，沒有其他選擇，只能轉投卑詩保守黨。她強調，相比為某個黨服務，她更願意為民眾服務。

The election campaign is over. But this passage leaves me with a big question.

Who were the senior BC United officials who told Wat that their party had no future in July?

Perhaps someone in the B.C. media will pursue this. The answer might interest former BC United MLAs who continued knocking on doors and raising money for their party until Kevin Falcon suspended nominations on August 28.

I’m encountering more people who are contracting COVID and some of them are seniors. This is becoming the norm when we have fall elections in B.C. just as the number of COVID infections is increasing.

Health officials would have known about the rising caseload in September when wastewater data showed high levels of the virus in many regions. But the provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, kept quiet about this. Perhaps she didn’t want to inject COVID into the conversation during a provincial campaign.

Now that the election is over, people can talk about COVID again. That was drolly noted on X by the province’s premier public-health advocate, retired emergency physician Dr. Lyne Filiatrault.

In the midst of the campaign, Dr. Filiatrault wrote a sensible open letter to Premier David Eby. Sadly, it was ignored by virtually every candidate running for public office in B.C. except me.

Dr. Filiatrault called for three things to reduce the spread of COVID:

1.       Improve COVID prevention in healthcare facilities. “Doing so will significantly relieve pressure on hospital beds and reduce the number of health care workers off sick,” she declared.

2.       Ensure that British Columbians gain immediate access to new updated COVID vaccines. “This would prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations, lessen transmission and disease severity and would also protect health care providers and keep them on the job,” Dr. Filiatrault wrote.

3.       Bring masks and clean air into all healthcare settings. “Yes, you can still wash your hands, but to prevent COVID infections, it’s the air that matters,” she stated.

This morning, provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry will offer an update about “respiratory illness season”. Yes, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control continues referring to COVID as a respiratory illness. In reality, COVID later causes immune dysregulation in at least 10 percent of severe infections. In some people, it increases the likelihood of heart attacks and brain injuries.

I don’t expect Dr. Henry to speak about these serious long-term consequences of contracting COVID. That’s because she has consistently underplayed this topic in her previous briefings. But wouldn’t it be amazing if the provincial health officer actually endorsed Dr. Filiatrault’s three common-sense recommendations to the premier?

The results are in and only 121 people voted for me as the independent candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport. I shouldn’t be surprised. I didn’t knock on a single door, create a flyer, erect an election sign, or even ask anyone in the constituency to vote for me. I didn’t spend a dime on my campaign, nor did I create a campaign website.

I submitted my nomination papers to Elections BC three hours ahead of the September 27 deadline. That likely made me the last candidate to get on the ballot.

That’s not a smart thing to do if you actually want to win. I even joked that I wasn’t in a popularity contest. It’s the antithesis of what any politician should say or think.

So why did I do this? It bugs me that Premier David Eby basically vetoed a supervised consumption site near Richmond Hospital and halted a 90-unit social housing project at the corner of Cambie and Sexsmith roads. I thought that if I ran as a candidate, I could draw attention to those issues through my Substack and X accounts.

Much to my delight, Richmond News reporter Adam Campbell interviewed me so I could express my thoughts on a newspaper website.

It also troubles me that under the B.C. NDP government, health authorities have rejected basic protocols—like visitors wearing masks in Richmond Hospital—to prevent the spread of COVID-19. And I’m heartbroken over the unnecessary deaths of so many drug users because two major parties in B.C. reject the one thing that will keep them alive: a safe supply.

Was it worth it putting my name on a ballot for the first time in my life? Most definitely. I learned new things about the electoral process and the professionalism of election officials. I also discovered how incredibly difficult it is for an independent to open an election account—which is required—at a Canadian chartered bank.

It was a lot of fun participating in a Richmond Chamber of Commerce candidates’ forum. There, I had an opportunity to plead with B.C. Conservative incumbent Teresa Wat to DO SOMETHING to save drug users’ lives.

The election campaign also inspired me to write posts on various issues. I tried to solve TransLink’s $580-million financial shortfall. In another, I explained why the B.C. Conservatives’ fiscal plan was a stink bomb. In yet another, I articulated my concerns about how David Eby’s crusade against money laundering has tarnished law-abiding immigrants from China. Then, there was a column about B.C. Conservatives and book banning.

Here’s the kicker. My number of subscribers dropped by six percent over the course of the campaign. I don’t charge for my posts, so these were cancelled free subscriptions. Let that be a lesson for other Substackers considering a run for provincial office.

Was there a privacy breach?

During the campaign, I also raised concerns about party membership lists. When Wat abandoned her BC United colleagues on July 29 and joined the B.C. Conservatives, her former caucus made an allegation. And that caught my attention.

“BC United is claiming Teresa Wat’s team downloaded a significant amount of confidential member information prior to her decision to leave,” tweeted Global News BC reporter Richard Zussman.

This raises a bunch of questions:

1.       Is this true? BC United did not provide proof of its allegation.

2.       If it is true, was it membership information for Richmond-Bridgeport or membership information for other Richmond constituencies or membership information for the whole province?

3.       If this membership information was downloaded, was it shared with the B.C. Conservatives or used in the B.C. Conservative campaign?

4.       Under Section 6 of B.C.’s Personal Information Protection Act, an organization must not disclose personal information about an individual unless the individual gives consent to the disclosure. However, Section 8 of the act outlines what constitutes “implicit consent”. Moreover, Sections 14 and 15 stipulate limitations on the use of personal information and its use without consent. Sections 17 and 18 deal with disclosure of personal information. If downloading occurred, did this violate the spirit or the letter of the Personal Information Protection Act?

5.       Section 34 of the act states: “An organization must protect personal information in its custody or under its control by making reasonable security arrangements to prevent unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure, copying, modification or disposal or similar risks.” Did BC United make reasonable security arrangements? If not, did any action by BC United or Wat’s team breach the privacy rights of BC United members who had shared personal information with their party?

6.       Under Section 36 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey can initiate investigations and audits. He can do this to ensure compliance with any provision of the act—even in the absence of a complaint.

7.       I alerted the commissioner’s office about my concerns over social media. I called for an investigation. In response, I received a message saying that I could file a complaint but the office didn’t react to "complaints by social media”. I maintain that calling for an investigation is not the same thing as making a complaint.

8.       Under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the commissioner has authority to conduct investigations and audits to ensure compliance with any provision of this act. No complaint is necessary. He can also issue a legally binding order following an investigation.

9.       Under the B.C. Privacy Act, it is “a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person, wilfully and without a claim of right, to violate the privacy of another”. If BC United membership information was downloaded in a way that violated the Personal Information Protection Act, would this constitute a tort, i.e. a civil wrong? And if so, who could file this claim and who would be the defendant? Would the party be liable or would a person who did the downloading be liable? Would members of BC United be in a position to claim damages? Or could this extend to former MLAs who ran as independents, as they too are members? Could liability extend to the B.C. Conservatives if it could ever be proven in court that they were part of a conspiracy to download information belonging to BC United about BC United members?

10.   Could candidates from other parties have a legal claim if the B.C. Conservative campaign relied in part on BC United membership lists or membership lists from other parties, including at the civic and federal levels?

I do not know the answers to these questions. After all, I was just a candidate, not a lawyer who specializes in privacy rights.

Rob Botterell to the rescue?

Fortunately, the citizens of Saanich North and the Islands have elected one of B.C.’s foremost privacy-law experts as their new B.C. Green MLA. Rob Botterell led the team that created the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. He also offered advice on the Personal Property Security Act, according to his personal website.

Botterell is highly regarded in this area of law. B.C. is very lucky to have him in the legislature when such a thorny issue has emerged.

Here are my thoughts as a candidate in the recent provincial election. At the very least, I think that Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey should order an investigation into BC United’s handling of membership lists. He can do this under Section 36 of the Personal Information Protection Act. Failing that, he should order an investigation under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

But I do not think that Harvey should be the investigator or adjudicator. That’s because he is an Officer of the Legislature. He was hired by all MLAs, who have the power to re-appoint him when his current six-year term expires in 2030. The soon-to-be-sworn-in B.C. Conservative caucus will be part of the group that is Harvey’s de facto employer!

There’s a very famous legal phrase issued more than 100 years ago, which applies in this situation. In R v Sussex Justices, Lord Chief Justice Hewart declared: “Justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

For justice to be seen to be done, Harvey must assign the investigation and adjudication of this issue to an outside party. It requires someone who will be universally viewed as a disinterested decisionmaker. It cannot be anyone on the payroll of the B.C. legislature.

One very big question

Here’s my biggest question, which I want answered: was the B.C. Conservatives’ success in the election linked in any way to a violation of provincial privacy legislation? There’s no evidence of that. But if it turned out to be true, what is the remedy for opposing candidates and for members of the BC United party?

Furthermore, did BC United Leader Kevin Falcon know whether the B.C. Conservatives had membership information when he prohibited nominated candidates from running under the party banner? Was this a topic of discussion in his negotiations with B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad?

I must reiterate that there is no proof that any individual or any political party broke any laws. This could only be determined through an independent investigation by a disinterested decisionmaker followed by a legal order. That order would then be the subject of judicial review in B.C. Supreme Court.

It’s serious stuff. And it’s why I reiterate my request to Michael Harvey to initiate an independent investigation into this issue in the absence of a complaint. He is authorized to do so under provincial legislation.

I’m keen to hear if Botterell or B.C. NDP Leader David Eby will echo my request to the commissioner.

In closing, I want to thank everyone who voted for me despite my lack of campaigning. I also want to thank those who wanted to volunteer on my campaign or donate money. I knew I was going to lose so I rejected those offers. In fact, I told one person that it would be better to donate to the food bank.

That’s because my primary purpose behind running was to elevate awareness about public issues rather than winning. I hope I have accomplished that with this post.

Back in 2004, a Vancouver mayor famously compared the federal Conservatives to “barbarians at the gate”. He was referring to Conservative strength in the Vancouver suburbs during an election campaign.

I’m going to update that statement by saying the “financial barbarians” are now at the gate in Richmond, where I’m running as an independent. I’m not talking about the B.C. NDP, despite its projected $9-billion deficit (updated forecast).

Get this: the B.C. Conservative fiscal plan will deliver an $11-billion deficit in the first year! But that’s not all. Public finance policy analyst Alex Hemingway pointed out that this shortfall doesn’t include the $5.7 billion in annual revenue losses that will come from John Rustad’s rental and mortgage tax rebate and elimination of the carbon tax.

When that comes in, it will wreak holy havoc on the B.C. budget.

In more than 30 years of journalism, I have never seen a more financially reckless fiscal plan. It’s revoltingly irresponsible.

The B.C. Conservatives might as well have shot a cannon at the provincial treasury. If not offset with savage spending cuts, the B.C. Conservatives will flush B.C.’s credit rating down the toilet.

That, in turn, will jack up interest payments on the debt. The taxpayer-supported provincial debt is already going to stand at $93.3 billion (updated forecast) at the end of this fiscal year. That’s 30 percent of the provincial gross domestic product.

A fiscal wrecking ball

In this fiscal year, 4.2 cents of every dollar in provincial government revenue will go toward interest on the debt. Without yet-to-be-announced cuts, the B.C. Conservatives will significantly increase that number. That will eat into program spending in important areas like healthcare and education.

In March, Canada’s debt-to-GDP ratio stood 69.4 percent. Is it any wonder the Canadian dollar is creeping ever closer to US$0.70?

Moreover, the B.C. Conservatives’ appalling fiscal plan will add more bricks to the wall of provincial and federal debt depressing the value of the loonie. This will contribute to higher food costs and more expensive international travel.

If you’re an investor saving for retirement, you might want to think about swapping Canadian stocks for U.S. stocks to protect yourself against a falling loonie and higher prices in the future. I call this investing strategy the “Rustad Reversal”.

In reality, the B.C. Conservatives’ math doesn’t add up for a party that claims to have taxpayers’ interest at heart. It’s despicable that B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad would wait until after hundreds of thousands of people had voted before releasing his financial stink bomb.

It offers a hint of how sleazy the B.C. Conservatives will behave with the taxpayers if they form government after the polls close on Saturday (October 19).

Crackpots and nincompoops

There were already very good reasons not to vote for the B.C. Conservatives before they dropped a last-minute fiscal rotten egg.

Press Progress had already disclosed that four of their original candidates financially supported the wretched convoy to Ottawa, which disrupted the national capital for weeks. Lots of B.C. Conservative candidates are on the record opposing anti-mRNA vaccines. The leader even expressed regret about taking a COVID vaccine.

Another B.C. Conservative candidate compared COVID-19 restrictions to the actions of fascist European countries in the 1930s and gun control laws to the incarceration of Japanese Canadians in the Second World War. Yet another B.C. Conservative candidate made vile comments about Palestinian Muslims. He also tweeted imagery showing U.S. Democrats the proper way to commit suicide with a handgun.

Five others claimed that Joe Biden stole the U.S. presidential election. Another brazenly tweeted sexist comments. Meanwhile, the party’s executive director and its former house leader have been photographed in Make America Great Again caps.

Barbarians at gate, indeed.

If you live in Richmond and you cannot stomach the B.C. NDP, that is NO reason to vote B.C. Conservative. There are acceptable moderate independent candidates in every single Richmond constituency.

Better alternatives in Richmond

In Richmond-Queensborough, Cindy Wu is not a convoy supporter (unlike an anti-immigration independent named Errol Povah). In Richmond-Steveston, independent Jackie Lee is worth supporting if you don’t want to vote NDP or Green. He is no insurrectionist.

Richmond Centre has two independent candidates and one unaffiliated candidate, Wendy Yuan.  She is fluently trilingual and has a legitimate chance of winning, judging by the number of her signs. A former B.C. United candidate, Yuan is not a climate-change denier and she doesn’t harbour discriminatory attitudes toward the LGBTQ community.

If the people of Richmond-Bridgeport don’t like me, there are three better alternatives than voting for another B.C. Conservative to ruin government finances. This is also no time to support a party that is helping U.S. election deniers and convoy supporters become members of the B.C. legislature.

New Democrat Linda Li, B.C. Green Tamás Revóczi, and Independent Glynnis Hoi Sum Chan are all honourable people with long and impressive records of community service. I may not agree with them on some public policies. However, they will never embarrass the people of Richmond-Bridgeport with their behaviour on social media. I also expect them to behave far more responsibly than the B.C. Conservative caucus if there’s ever another pandemic. 

In closing, I say shame on my B.C. Conservative opponent in Richmond-Bridgeport, Teresa Wat, for crossing the floor from B.C. United and joining a gang of anti-science nincompoops. I urge the voters of Richmond-Bridgeport to send Wat into retirement on Saturday. Let’s clear the way for a new generation of political leadership that has greater respect for taxpayers and public health.

This morning, I woke up with the following thoughts in my mind.

It’s not good enough to say that you deserve my vote because you’re not an extremist.

It’s not good enough to say that you deserve my vote just because you accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Especially when you endorse “Net Zero LNG” projects that are not even in the universe of net-zero fossil-fuel emissions on the upstream (production) and downstream (use of the finished product).

It’s not good enough to say that you support tough action on the climate when you are willing to cancel the carbon tax and you won’t supply another demand-side solution in its place.

It’s not good enough to say that you support evidence-based responses to COVID-19 when you utterly ignore best practices to contain the spread of the virus.

It’s not good enough to say that you care about people who use street drugs when you refuse to embrace the only viable solution to prevent thousands of toxic-drug deaths in B.C.: a safe supply.

This is my predicament when it comes to the B.C. NDP.

Then after having these thoughts, I started scrolling through the Unmask the Right feed on X (formerly Twitter). It’s a veritable gallery of extremists, anthropogenic global warming deniers, anti-mRNA activists, and neo-Nazis. Some of the people featured here are running for the legislature with the B.C. Conservatives.

I can’t remember when B.C. politics was so depressing.

Credit where credit is due

I recognize that the B.C. NDP has some accomplishments. First of all, it is turning the ship of state toward true reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

Moreover, I admire how Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon promotes real solutions to the housing shortage while preventing huge rent increases for tenants who are able to remain in their buildings.

Under former premier John Horgan, the government also took steps to address the high cost of childcare, though progress stalled somewhat after David Eby became premier. More health workers have been hired. ICBC rates are lower.

It’s worth noting, however, that these low rates are coming at considerable cost. Some crash victims have no hope in hell of replacing lost income under Eby’s no-fault fiat. And it may not matter how many health workers are hired as long as the government avoids appropriate measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in hospitals.

Yet my primary problem with the B.C. NDP government continues to lie in its willingness to embrace “mass death among less grievable subjects”, to quote U.S. scholar Martha Lincoln. These mass deaths will inevitably occur as a result of politicians’ refusal to do the right things.

This includes the party’s responses to toxic drugs and COVID-19. We’re also seeing it in its policies around rising greenhouse gas emissions, which will inevitably lead to more deadly heat domes and highway-wrecking atmospheric rivers.

The B.C. NDP does a magnificent job with communications. It has focused an entire election campaign around the anti-science malcontents running as B.C. Conservative candidates. That will return David Eby to the premier’s office, notwithstanding his government’s failure to reduce mass preventable deaths.

By Saturday (October19) night, Eby will have persuaded enough British Columbians to vote for him primarily because he’s not a right-wing extremist.

But afterward, we’ll continue to see mass death among less grievable subjects.

I am running as an independent candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport because I believe that the B.C. government can do better. A good start would be for us to bring mass death among less grievable subjects into the spotlight.

This is one way to change public attitudes.

Memorials focus minds and open hearts

To that end, I propose that the B.C. government create two prominent memorials in very public and accessible spaces to those who’ve lost their lives to toxic drugs and COVID-19.

There’s a memorial to victims of the 1985 Air India bombings in Stanley Park. This serves as a permanent reminder of that these terrorist bomb plots executed in B.C. claimed the lives of 331 innocent people.

There is a Vancouver AIDS Memorial at English Bay in Vancouver. There are memorials across the country to Canadian military members who made the ultimate sacrifice.

In addition, there are memorials for murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls in different parts of Canada, including Stella Joan Plaza in North Vancouver and CRAB Park in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

Last year, we lost 2,500 British Columbians to toxic street drugs. We don’t even know how many thousands of British Columbians died due to complications from COVID-19. That’s because some of those complications—including brain injuries and heart attacks—didn’t occur until after the virus had led to immune dysfunction.

Let’s remember these lost loved ones in a public way. Let’s do it to comfort family members. Let’s also do it to help make mass death of less grievable subjects more socially unacceptable in the future.

Polls are like crack cocaine to journalists looking for a quick hit in a provincial election. This week, the polls have been very good to the B.C. NDP, showing a four-to-five percentage point lead for David Eby’s party.

But what really matters is who turns up to vote. In the pandemic election of 2020, only 53.86 percent of registered voters cast their ballots. That was an all-time low going back to 1928 and far lower than the 61.16 percent turnout in 2017.

Low turnout set the stage for the greatest B.C. NDP landslide in history in 2020.

That’s because the B.C. NDP has a strong “ground game”. This year, it has more money and lots of volunteers, including many from the labour movement, to identify potential supporters and urge them to vote.

The B.C. Conservatives, on the other hand, are a newer political organization in their current incarnation. They have less money and, in my opinion, less capacity to identify potential supporters and get them to the polls. As a result, I expect the B.C. Conservatives to attract a lower percentage of the actual vote than their final polling percentages.

However, this may not be the case in Richmond-Bridgeport, where I am running as an independent.

When Teresa Wat, the B.C. Conservative candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport, crossed the floor from BC United, her former caucus made an astonishing allegation. It accused her or her staff of improperly downloading “a significant amount of member information prior to her decision to leave”, according to Global News BC reporter Richard Zussman.

What information was this? Was it BC United information on voters in Richmond-Bridgeport who were members of BC United? Did it include BC United members in other Richmond constituencies?

As an independent candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport, I have previously urged B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey on this platform to examine whether Wat or her staff downloaded confidential information for the candidate’s personal benefit. I have no proof that this occurred. However, I do wonder if any of this downloading, if true, was in violation of provincial privacy legislation.

If Harvey won’t conduct an investigation, it’s incumbent on Elections B.C. to do this. I have invested considerable time in this campaign, as have three other candidates running against Wat.

Election officials must assure all of us that one candidate did not derive an unfair advantage in this election when crossing the floor by downloading information that did not belong to them in violation of provincial privacy legislation. Elections must be free and fair.

It’s particularly important in Richmond-Bridgeport, which is a new constituency created from redistribution. That’s because this part of B.C. had among the lowest voter turnout in B.C. It also has a large immigrant population—and newcomers to the country deserve to know if elections are free and fair in Canada. If they don’t believe this is the case, it will discourage them from voting in the future, thereby undermining our democracy.

Richmond-Bridgeport crosses the northern part of Richmond from Terra Nova Park to No. 5 Road and includes Sea Island. In the last provincial election, sections of the two constituencies with the lowest voter turnout in B.C. were combined into Richmond-Bridgeport.

In 2020, Richmond South Centre’s voter turnout was 40.12 percent. In Richmond North Centre, the turnout was 40.36 percent. These are dreadfully low numbers. I ran in this part of the Lower Mainland to stimulate discussion about public issues.

Richmond-Bridgeport also includes a small part of the former area of Richmond-Queensborough, where voter turnout reached 49.56 percent in the last election.

For those who are interested, here is a list of 23 constituencies where voter turnout was below 50 percent in 2020. (Keep in mind that as a result of redistribution, some have new names and/or new constituency boundaries in the 2024 election.)

1. Richmond South Centre: 40.12 percent

2. Richmond North Centre: 40.36 percent

3. North Coast: 40.45 percent

4. Surrey-Whalley: 40.59 percent

5. Peace River South: 41.66 percent

6. Burnaby-Deer Lake: 43.78 percent

7. Burnaby-Edmonds: 44.36 percent

8. Vancouver-Kingsway: 44.5 percent

9. Surrey-Guildford: 45.69 percent

10. Peace River North: 46.48 percent

11. Chilliwack: 47.04 percent

12. Surrey-Green Timbers: 47.2 percent

13. Prince George-Valemount: 47.42 percent

14. Surrey-Newton: 47.91 percent

15. Vancouver-Mount Pleasant: 48.01 percent

16. Abbotsford South: 48.46 percent

17. Kelowna West: 48.87 percent

18. Kelowna-Lake Country: 49.01 percent

19. Prince George-Mackenzie: 49.06 percent

20. Vancouver-Langara: 49.45 percent

21. Richmond-Queensborough: 49.56 percent

22. Nechako Lakes: 49.91 percent

23. Abbotsford West 49.96 percent

People who’ve immigrated from China and Taiwan need no reminder of the horrors of book banning.

Chairman Mao Zedong ruled China with an iron fist (铁拳) from 1949 to 1976—and he foisted his quotations on virtually everyone. The Communist Party of China set an audacious goal of having 99 percent of the population read Mao’s Little Red Book.

At the same time, scores upon scores of other books were prohibited. In addition to the banning of western literature, books by Chinese leftists such as Hu Feng (胡风) and Ba Jin (李尧棠) were burned.

“Every town in China should establish a museum about the Cultural Revolution,” Ba Jin famously said in the aftermath of this anti-intellectual frenzy lasting from 1966 to 1976.

Meanwhile in the White Terror period in Taiwan under another dictator, Chiang Kai-shek, many books were also banned. They included works that addressed the February 28, 1947 massacre and the Japanese colonial period from 1895 to 1945.

Su Bing’s landmark 400 Year History of Taiwan was also banned. Under martial law, the Kuomintang government also prohibited distribution of Lu Xun’s (魯迅) The True Story of Ah-Q (阿Q正傳), Jin Yong’s (金庸) Legends of the Condor Heroes (射鵰英雄傳), and Lao She’s (老社) Rickshaw Boy (駱駝祥子), according to the Taipei Times.

B.C. Conservatives want to remove classroom material

I mention this to reinforce why the B.C. Conservatives are facing a backlash against their education platform.

In an October 14 news release, the B.C. Conservatives declared their opposition to “introducing ideological programs into classrooms that erode from core learning.”

The party stated: “Remove classroom material that instills guilt based on ethnicity, nationality, or religion, focusing instead on uplifting students and helping them thrive.”

What does that mean, anyway? Does it restrict teachers from educating students about the Chinese head tax from 1885 to 1923 or the incarceration of Japanese Canadians in the Second World War? How will it influence education about Indian residential schools, which existed for more than a century?

Remove classroom material? It sounds to me like government censorship of education. This will strike a nerve for anyone who has moved to Richmond to escape dictatorship.

Far-right extremists have a long history of prohibiting books in the United States. More than 1,600 books were banned in U.S. school libraries in the 2021-22 school year. Censoring books undermines education. Furthermore, censorship makes it more difficult for children to succeed once they reach university.

I’m running as an independent candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport against a Conservative incumbent, Teresa Wat. If elected, I will fight any attempt by any B.C. Conservative MLA to ban books in schools.

I urge Teresa Wat to repudiate her party’s statement that it would “remove classroom material that instills guilt based on ethnicity, nationality, or religion”.

Professional educators must be free to choose learning materials based on broader goals outlined in the provincial curriculum. There’s no place for CPC- or KMT-style brainwashing in Richmond public schools.

As I see it, here’s the sum total of B.C. NDP Leader David Eby’s re-election campaign.

1.       Tell everyone how awful the B.C. Conservatives are.

2.       Repeat how awful the B.C. Conservatives are on every single day of the campaign.

3.       Periodically mention that the B.C. NDP is increasing housing supply

4.       Announce a plan to finance 40 percent of the purchase price with a limited number of first-time homebuyers. Say that the government and the homebuyer will split the capital gain when the home is sold years later. Don’t make a big deal out of the fact that government financing would account for just 1.4 percent of the overall value of home sales in a slow year.

5.       Give a free transit pass to seniors to use in off-peak hours, even though TransLink is facing a $580-million annual structural deficit starting in 2026. The farebox generates 25 percent of TransLink’s revenues. Don’t mention in the B.C. NDP news release if the province will offset TransLink’s revenue loss from this free transit program.

6.       Say how awful the B.C. Conservatives are.

7.       Promise a new school in Campbell River, a respite centre on the North Shore, an investment in a recreation centre in Coquitlam, a hospital tower in Langley, a hospital helipad at Prince George, and free transit for students in Queensborough to help B.C. NDP candidates in constituencies in danger of swinging to the B.C. Conservatives.

8.       Promise families $1,000 and individuals $500 if they re-elect the B.C. NDP.

9.       Say how awful the B.C. Conservatives are.

10.   Promise to jack up the speculation and vacancy tax. Announce this even though the public has already been assured on countless occasions that this policy has already worked to turn 20,000 empty units into homes in Metro Vancouver.

Here’s what the B.C. NDP leader is not promising: deliver a safe supply of illicit drugs to put a dent in the number of deaths—about 2,500 last year across the province—from toxic street drugs.

On Sunday (October 13), Eby urged former B.C. Green voters to back his party. He purported that the B.C. NDP shares “a lot of values with the Greens, particularly on tackling climate change”.

Furstenau’s reply

This is B.C. Green Leader Sonia Furstenau’s response, which I’m publishing in full:

“David Eby’s campaign has been a disappointment. He has aligned himself with John Rustad on expanding LNG and abandoning the carbon tax. He’s taken the same approach on involuntary care, ignoring the urgent need for mental health services to be covered under MSP. He even turns a blind eye to the role multinational investment companies play in our housing affordability crisis - just like Rustad.

“Eby and Rustad have also chosen to ignore the growing humanitarian crisis of homelessness and the failure of government systems to prevent it. His platform is nothing more than a collection of disjointed promises, with no plan to pay for them, and the tired old offer of tax credits - which do little to help those who need it most.

“Throughout his campaign, Eby has focused on telling people not to vote for the BC Conservatives, and now he’s telling people not to vote for the BC Greens. What he’s failed to demonstrate is why British Columbians should vote for the BC NDP, effectively squandering the multi-point lead he had for most of this year.

“Meanwhile, the BC Greens have campaigned on a clear vision of well-being and putting people first. We’ve presented a coherent, informed, thoughtful, and fully costed platform. 

“Meaningful change comes from new ideas and forward thinking. Eby is offering more of the same tired status quo, while Rustad is stuck in the past, trying to drag us back to the 1950s. Real change for BC starts by putting Green solutions on the government’s agenda.

“And right now, we’ve got real momentum. We’re winning in Victoria-Beacon Hill and close to winning in ridings across the province. A vote for Green is a vote for meaningful, positive, progressive change - for our communities, our environment, and the future.”

What makes my candidacy different

I’m running as an independent candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport to offer voters a third alternative. I prefer the B.C. NDP’s housing policies over those of the B.C. Greens. I believe that Eby and the gutsy housing minister, Ravi Kahlon, are addressing the primary problem—a lack of supply—with many innovative measures, even if Eby’s subsidized financing plan is just a gimmick for votes.

The B.C. Greens love to talk about evidence-based solutions, but I believe that their housing policies fall far short of addressing a critical supply shortage. Moreover, I believe that the housing shortage leads to racial scapegoating, which contributes to anti-Asian hatred. That’s another reason for getting this policy right.

It’s easy for B.C. Greens to bandy about terms like curbing “financialization”. The reality is that every time someone takes a mortgage out from a credit union, that’s financialization. Financialization is rife within housing. Without financialization, there would be no homes.

To paraphrase federal Liberal activist Paul Nixey, I would have loved to purchase my apartment building when it went on the market for $130 million. But sadly, I was $130 million short of doing that.

As much as I fret about the B.C. Greens’ approach to housing—and I have for many years—I far prefer Furstenau’s evidence-based response to the toxic-drug crisis over the B.C. NDP’s head-in-the-sand policies.

I believe that if the B.C. NDP is re-elected, we’ll continue to see at least 2,000 people per year die from poisoned street drugs. The supply is unstoppable.

As a result, I can appreciate why some voters might feel that voting for the B.C. NDP goes against their deepest values. It will be more of the same if senior cabinet ministers Mike Farnworth and Adrian Dix remain in charge of public safety and health.

If Eby were to promise that Farnworth and Dix would be on the backbenches after the election, perhaps groups like Moms Against the Harm could get behind the B.C. NDP campaign. But that’s not going to happen.

So, what do you prefer? Fewer toxic drug deaths or real housing solutions? That’s the dilemma facing voters who are appalled by the B.C. Conservatives.

Fortunately, in Richmond-Bridgeport, you can have both if you vote for me, Charlie Smith. I’m the only candidate in the race who’s truly bridging this divide with a sensible housing policy and a sensible response to the toxic-drug crisis.

I’m also fiscally responsible, as demonstrated by my proposal to address TransLink’s pending $580-million structural deficit. In addition, unlike Eby and Dix, I support restoring common-sense measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in Richmond Hospital. That will save money and lives over the long term by improving hospital utilization.

Plus, I understand why a five-fold increase to the B.C. Arts Council base budget will help Richmond make a transition to a more sustainable economy. This has eluded Eby and Furstenau because neither of them pays enough attention to arts and cultural policies.

One of Eby’s MLAs, Spencer Chandra Herbert, appreciates the links between arts, culture, tourism, employment, and economic development. But to date, Eby hasn’t appointed Chandra Herbert to cabinet.

Instead, Eby has frozen the B.C. Arts Council grant this year and next year while making room for a minuscule improvement in the following year.

I realize that independents almost never win at the ballot box. But at the very least, I hope that my candidacy contributes to a more informed electorate in Richmond-Bridgeport. To me, that would constitute a victory.

Thank you for reading this post.

I made a typo in the body of the first draft, mentioning 25,000 deaths. It’s 2,500,

The wheels are falling off the B.C. Conservative bus right before our eyes. It’s not because of some of their most disturbing policies, such as around the climate, responding to the toxic-drug crisis, or their utter fiscal irresponsibility.

No, it’s because of what two high-profile nominees have said about First Nations. South Surrey Conservative candidate Brent Chapman and Vancouver-Quilchena candidate Dallas Brodie would probably have been invited into John Rustad’s cabinet were he to form government.

I don’t need to repeat what they said here—it’s all over the Internet. Both of them may still get elected and sit on the Opposition side of the legislature. However, B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad’s chance of becoming premier has gone down the drain as a result of the recent revelations.

Where does that leave voters in Richmond-Bridgeport? They have five options, including me. Here are my biased thoughts on the matter.

Teresa Wat (Conservative)

Wat chose to abandon her BC United caucus to join the B.C. Conservatives, which was built, in part, by the anti-mRNA vaccine crowd. In light of all the revelations about the people Wat is running with, her decision raises serious questions about her judgment.

Wat is a former minister of multiculturalism who represents a very diverse constituency. She’s now on a team that still hasn’t released a fully costed platform and whose candidates have offended leaders in the Muslim and First Nations communities.

One of those speaking out has been prominent Musqueam member Wade Grant. The Musqueam people have a long and glorious history in Richmond-Bridgeport. Will Wat also speak out against the B.C. Conservative candidates’ comments in solidarity with Grant? Not likely. She’ll probably just keep her mouth shut like every other B.C. Conservative candidate.

Wat has already qualified for her full MLA pension. She’s in her mid-70s, according to Wikipedia. The way the campaign is going, she will spend another four years on the Opposition side of the legislature if she’s elected in Richmond-Bridgeport.

Voters should send Wat into retirement to create space for a new generation of leaders of Chinese ancestry to carry the torch in Richmond. We need less partisan posturing and more solution-oriented thinking in Richmond-Bridgeport.

Linda Li (B.C. NDP)

The B.C. NDP candidate has an impressive record of community service. She’s a decent human being. But if the B.C. NDP is re-elected, I don’t see her going into cabinet. She’ll be a backbench MLA. As a result, she will just be another vote in the legislature rubber-stamping the policies of David Eby, who played a role in stigmatizing Chinese people in the past (and for which he has apologized).

Li would also be part of the legislature cheering section for senior ministers like Adrian Dix and Mike Farnworth, two other partisan warriors who should be thinking of retirement to clear the way for fresh blood in politics.

Furthermore, Li declined to answer one of the most critical questions on the Richmond News candidate survey: Do you support a safe supply of drugs for people with a severe substance-use disorder? Let’s get real. Last year, 2,500 British Columbians died from toxic drugs. It’s one of the most compelling issues in the election. For me, her refusal to answer this question is a deal breaker as a provincial candidate.

I think Richmond would be better served with Li on city council in the future rather than in the B.C. legislature. On council, her understanding of housing and land-use issues would be a real asset. On council, she could also learn more about a wide range of public policies before graduating to the big leagues of provincial politics.

Tamás Revóczi (B.C. Green)

Tamás is a good person, an excellent listener, and he has a quick mind. In the time I’ve gotten to know him, I feel that I share some of his core values. But here’s my problem with Tamás. He’s president of the Sea Island Community Association and he says he supports Bills 44 and 47. But he wants exemptions for Aberdeen Station.

Moreover, the two B.C. Greens in the legislature voted against Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon’s motion to pass Bill 44 unamended.

I feel this legislation is necessary to bring on much-needed housing supply. I believe that city councils across the region have played a monumental role in creating this housing shortage that’s punishing young British Columbians—and the province has responded appropriately.

Tamás is supported by Richmond city councillors who have contributed to the problem by opposing much greater densification in Burkeville, where Tamás lives.

I’m also not convinced that Tamás has enough understanding of the breadth of provincial issues and diverse communities at this point in his life to be the MLA, though he’s bright enough to learn over time. However, like Linda Li, he could be a superb city councillor in the future. I also believe he has a bright future in politics, even if he loses this election. Tamás could even be a future B.C. Green leader if he ever wanted to do this.

Glynnis Hoi Sum Chan (Independent)

Glynnis brings some genuine strengths to the table. First of all, she’s trilingual and communicates effortlessly in Mandarin, Cantonese, and English. She’s also a workhorse, which is demonstrated in how she built up a successful travel agency as a single mom. Glynnis is Hakka and Hakka women have a reputation for being incredibly hard workers.

Moreover, Glynnis is hardnosed and blunt-speaking, so I’m confident that she would demand answers on behalf of her constituents. Furthermore, she can be counted on to stand up for immigrants should she become the MLA for Richmond-Bridgeport. She has also worked hard to raise money for health charities.

In the past, Glynnis was very active with BC United. She accepts the reality of the climate crisis, unlike some B.C. Conservatives running in the election.

By now, readers are probably expecting me to get to the “but” about Glynnis. While her heart is in the right place, I strongly disagree with her approach to the drug issue. She led a campaign against a methadone clinic in Vancouver’s Chinatown.

I think Glynnis needs to sit down with the leaders of a group called Moms Against the Harm and listen to what they have to say. Truly listen. If she did that and really absorbed what they had to say, I think she would become a better politician and would be worth supporting if you’re a centrist or centre-right in your perspective.

I prefer Glynnis over Teresa Wat if you think Richmond-Bridgeport needs a fully bilingual or trilingual MLA. That’s because Glynnis would never join a party led by John Rustad and which fields candidates who oppose mRNA COVID vaccines.

Charlie Smith (Independent)

I’m tempted to say that he’s handsome, clever, considerate, compassionate, open-minded, knowledgeable, and has excellent judgment. But that would probably only bring on Internet trolls to dispute all of those assertions. So instead, I encourage you to read my recent posts on this Substack account and draw your own conclusions.

In closing, I think I’m ready to walk into the legislature and hold whatever government is in power accountable. I’ve been doing that as a B.C. journalist for more than 30 years. I also taught other journalists as a faculty member at Kwantlen’s Richmond campus for seven years. And if you wonder about my ability to represent diverse communities in Richmond-Bridgeport, I will leave the final words to my friend, journalist Ng Weng Hoong, who’s an immigrant from Singapore.

"Charlie brings a perspective and experience that will be sorely needed in culturally diverse Richmond. He understands the challenges faced by the diverse Chinese communities at a time when they are hurting from both the ordeal of Sinophobia and Sinofascism. His track record, first as the editor of the Georgia Straight (2005 to 2022), and now with his new outlet, speaks of an exceptional individual who is totally at ease working in a multicultural and diverse environment. He is tuned in to the sensitivities of the numerous ethnic groups living side by side in Canada."

After initial publication, I amended this article to better reflect Tamás Revóczi’s positions on Bills 44 and 47.

Public transit has mostly gone under the radar in this provincial election campaign. The Mayors’ Council wants candidates to commit “to fix transit’s broken funding model”, which will lead to a $580-million annual operating shortfall for TransLink.

The Mayors’ Council keeps repeating that it’s a $600-million shortfall. But that’s misleading. If you read the report, it clearly states $580 million and it will begin in 2026. Let’s start right off the bat by using the proper number and not fudging it upward by $20 million for PR purposes.

According to the Mayor’s Council, this shortfall would result in bus service being cut in half, SkyTrain and SeaBus trips cut by a third, and the potential elimination of West Coast Bus Service. It’s a horror story.

Under “Alternative 1”, which seeks to maximize ridership, SkyTrain and SeaBus would be cut by 10 to 15 percent; West Coast Express would be reduced from five to three round trips per day; and more than 140 bus routes would be eliminated, leaving only 90 bus routes continuing.

“Alternative 2” aims to maximize coverage, which would retain more bus routes in the suburbs. It would still result in the elimination of 65 percent of bus routes and cuts of 50 percent in SkyTrain service and 30 percent in SeaBus service.

At a Richmond Chamber of Commerce forum on Friday (October 11), respected public-affairs consultant Bruce Rozenhart asked me and other candidates in Richmond-Bridgeport and Richmond-Queensborough if we support the mayors’ desire for a better funding model. The moderator wanted a yes or no answer.

I didn’t want to respond to such a complex topic with a “yes” or “no” response. Therefore, I told Bruce that I would write my thoughts on my Substack page and email them. I also mentioned that I have serious concerns about capital spending decisions on transit, but that deserves a separate post.

As a result, I gave myself the homework assignment of writing this 2,000-word post on TransLink’s operating budget. Buckle up for the ride.

Let’s get real about transit finances

Public transit is vitally important for marginalized communities, students, and seniors. It’s also critical for the workforce, employers, and reducing car traffic, freeing up road space for the movement of goods on roads across the region. That’s to say nothing of air quality, which is better now than it was decades ago in the region.

I’m running in Richmond-Bridgeport to elevate public awareness about important issues. And I have written hundreds of articles on public transit over the years. So, I’m quite comfortable addressing this topic.

First and foremost, it’s important to understand how transit is funded.

Let’s start with the budget. Here’s one of my biggest beefs. In its operating and capital budget summary on its website, TransLink reports “taxation revenue” as one figure rather than breaking it out into the separate components.

TransLink used to make it easy to find out how much it expects to collect in annual property taxes, motor fuel taxes, and parking sales taxes. As a candidate, I demand that it reinstate these figures in its operating and capital budget summaries if it wants me to vote for more revenue.

You have to dig deeper into its 2023 statutory annual report to find these numbers—and they’re only available for individual years and not forecast several years into the future. For instance in 2023, $390.5 million was generated through fuel taxes—or nearly 15 percent of all revenue. That was down from $424.5 million in the 2022 statutory annual report.

Here’s the problem for TransLink, which I’ve written about for years. The regional transportation authority receives 18.5 cents per litre in fuel taxes. However, as more people drive electric vehicles, the total take is falling. And it will likely continue falling into the future. Not only will that hurt transit, it will undermine future maintenance of regional roads.

As a candidate for provincial office, I think it’s imperative that the legislature address this issue. But in return, TransLink must publish more transparent operating and capital budget summaries.

Later in this article, I have also attached a condition on Unifor, which represents two large transit locals.

The easiest solution to the fuel-tax imbroglio would be to raise the per-litre levy. But that punishes lower-income people who cannot afford electric or hybrid vehicles. I have a different approach.

According to Stand.earth, the B.C. NDP government’s subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry exceeded $1 billion in 2020. If elected and if TransLink and Unifor agreed to my conditions, I would introduce a private member’s bill to transfer $500 million in annual fossil-fuel subsidies to TransLink.

This would go a long way toward addressing the projected $580-million shortfall. That would also provide a longer-term cushion to offset future losses of fuel-tax revenues.

Increase the parking tax

Let’s move on to other revenue sources. In 2023, TransLink generated $463.1 million in property tax. That’s nearly 18 percent of TransLink’s total revenues. Many homeowners are already feeling stretched with higher interest rates, so I would not support increasing this rate of taxation.

The parking sales tax generated $83.8 million in 2023. It’s only three percent of total revenue. Sadly for motorists, this needs to increase beyond the 24 percent rate on parking rates. I propose increasing it to 33 percent, which would have generated another $24 million annually in 2023.

This hike would mostly be felt the most in downtown Vancouver where parking costs are highest. But there is also excellent transit service into the downtown, as well as an outstanding network of separated bike lanes. People would not feel the pinch nearly as badly in cities outside of Vancouver where there are fewer alternatives. That’s because overall parking costs are much lower outside of Vancouver and there’s lots of free street parking.

I know that the parking companies will holler about a higher tax, including one partially owned by the City of Vancouver. Too bad. Drivers have been subsidized for generations on public road expenditures, as documented by Victoria transportation researcher Todd Litman. A tweak to the parking tax is a small cost to bear in comparison to that.

Now, we’re up to $524 million of the $580-million shortfall.

Senior governments covered 25 percent of 2023 budget

Transit revenues accounted for $671.6 million in 2023—just over 25 percent of all revenues. It would be nice to eliminate transit fares, as proposed by B.C. Green Leader Sonia Furstenau. But I don’t think that’s practical in light of the budget crunch. I would recommend that TransLink continue with modest annual fare increases linked to the inflation rate to maintain this revenue source.

Another big chunk of the budget in 2023 came from “Senior Government Relief Funding” and “Senior Government Funding”--$648.4 million. That accounted for early 25 percent of overall revenues. Of this, $478.9 million was “Senior Government Relief Funding”.

This is really what the Mayor’s Council is freaked out about. Without this cushion, TransLink’s financial house of cards comes crashing down.

B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad has promised two years of “stop-gap funding”. But that does not provide long-term stability. My proposal to transfer half of the fossil-fuel subsidies from Big Oil and Gas to TransLink will do the trick at no cost to taxpayers and transit users.

Moreover, Rustad has not released a fully costed platform. So, it’s hard to take anything that he says with any seriousness.

The B.C. Greens have proposed huge increases in transportation funding in their fully costed platform. In the first year, the party would boost spending on transportation by nearly $2 billion, followed by nearly $1.5 billion in Year 2 and $1.6 billion in Year 3. That would cover TransLink’s funding shortfalls with no conditions attached.

I feel that my approach is more fiscally responsible by having Big Oil and Gas cover most of the shortfall by taking away their subsidies. Plus, it would leave more money in the budget for health and education, which are two core functions of the province.

Moreover, unlike Furstenau or any other provincial party leader, I have attached a condition on a major transit union, which I’ll get to in a moment.

Meanwhile, I couldn’t find anything in the B.C. NDP platform on TransLink’s projected operating shortfall. The party told the Access for Everyone campaign that it is very supportive of investing in public transit. And it would continue “working with TransLink and the Mayors’ Council on the Access for Everyone plan to ensure service continues to be there for people”.

Ballooning Transit Police costs

I would have preferred more specifics from the B.C. NDP on such a critical area of public policy. However, I applaud the B.C. NDP’s proposal to unify provincial enforcement teams around gambling, liquor, traffic, transit police, and tobacco in one agency to reduce duplication.  

The party’s platform does not say whether this new provincial enforcement team would also include transit police in Metro Vancouver. If that’s not the case, it should.

The cost of Transit Police shot up from $48.1 million in the 2022 budget to $61.7 million in 2024. That’s 28 percent over two years! I think that if the B.C. NDP’s proposal were to include Transit Police in Metro Vancouver—even if TransLink continued funding its portion—this could easily achieve $13.5 million in savings. That would bring TransLink’s cost back to 2022 levels.

That would bring my back-of-the-envelope funding solution to $537.5 million.

Now, let’s get to labour costs.

After two years (following a training period), transit operators were paid $39.19 per hour starting April 1, 2023, according to the collective agreement. That’s more than $80,000 per year before overtime and higher pay for working extra shifts. Unifor 111 represents more than 4,000 Metro Vancouver transit operators.

TransLink maintenance staff who’ve completed apprenticeships are all paid more than $50 per hour, which puts them over $100,000 per year. Unifor 2200 represents about 1,100 skilled trades workers employed by Coast Mountain Bus Company, which is a TransLink subsidiary.

In its budget, TransLink reports that in 2024, labour costs were budgeted to increase nine percent due to negotiated contract settlements, which included cost-of-living allowances.

The actual increase in the contracts signed by Unifor 111 and Unifor 2200 was lower. It was based on the annualized average of the BC CPI over 12 months at a minimum of two percent and a maximum of three percent. (Page 95 of the contract).

But there are other ways in which labour costs can rise. For example, in 2024, Unifor 111 and Unifor 2200 secured some improvements on vacation time for longer-term employees. Those with seven years service, rather than eight in the previous year, were eligible for an extra five days of vacation.

That meant 20 days off rather than 15. The duration period was moved back one year from 16 to 15 for those qualifying for 25 days vacation and from 23 to 22 years for those qualifying for 30 days vacation.

These are the niggling little contract measures that add to the cost of providing transit. That’s because when these workers are off for an extra five days, someone else must be paid to cover the shifts. An aging, stable workforce imposes more costs on the employer over time.

The role of Unifor

Then there are higher costs due to inflation, which has come down somewhat from the peak. I don’t believe that the figures are quite as high as TransLink is forecasting in the quote below.

“Maintenance and utilities for Bus and Rail Operations are budgeted to cost 16.8 per cent more than in 2023, primarily due to the inflation affecting costs of parts, and additional maintenance required due to our aging fleet,” TransLink states. “Contracted services, insurance, fuel and power expenses are also under inflationary pressures. Of the increase in ongoing operating costs excluding amortization and interest of 9.8 per cent in TransLink's expenditure budget, over 7 per cent is due to inflationary pressures.”

As a result of lower inflation, I would guess that this would add another $5 million to the cushion, bringing my back-of-the-envelope figure to $542.5 million.

This leaves us short of the $580-million goal by $37.5 million.

Here’s where Unifor needs to step up in the public interest. I know that Unifor’s western regional director, Gavin McGarrigle, likes to fight for his members. He’s been very effective over the years—one of the best union leaders in B.C. history, in my opinion. He’s pugnacious, tough, and employers know that he will support job action whenever it’s necessary to deliver a fair deal for workers.

As a result of his advocacy, Coast Mountain Bus Company transit operators and maintenance staff are very well paid and enjoy outstanding benefits. They get everything from a cleaning allowance for their uniforms to double time if they work more than a nine-hour shift. Gavin McGarrigle is worth every penny that the union pays him.

I also acknowledge that transit operators and maintenance staff do tough and sometimes dangerous work. But if the provincial government is going to transfer $500 million in annual revenue to TransLink, which will save many Unifor jobs, I am asking Unifor to give the public something substantial in return.

I ask that Unifor agree to roll over its 2023-2026 contract for Locals 111 and 2200 with the identical language and no pay increase from 2026 to 2029. I ask Mr. McGarrigle that he publicly support this on behalf of the more than 400,000 transit riders that his members serve so diligently.

In addition, I would ask for a similar salary freeze for TransLink and Coast Mountain Bus Company management over three years.

If TransLink and Coast Mountain Bus Company management and Mr. McGarrigle will not agree to this, I would not introduce a private member’s bill to transfer $500 million in fossil-fuel subsidies to fix the structural financial deficit at TransLink.

If they prefer the Rustad approach, which will inevitably lead to wholesale privatization and labour chaos, they can embrace that option. My offer avoids this and is a fair deal for transit users, taxpayers, and relatively well-paid transit workers and transportation managers. They all get to keep their jobs.

If the transportation managers and Mr. McGarrigle agree to this, I believe that this would offset the final $37.5-million shortfall. It would keep TransLink’s finances in the black until the next provincial election in 2028.

Voters in Richmond-Bridgeport who are worried about transit funding can be confident that I am financially literate and transit-literate. I’ve also delivered the most comprehensive response to the transit funding dilemma of any provincial candidate in the region.

I promise that if elected, I will try to act in the best interest of transit users and taxpayers. I believe that my plan to address TransLink’s operating shortfall achieves both of these objectives.

There is so much going through my brain right now. As the independent candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport, should I write about the climate catastrophe? It has received so little coverage in the B.C. election campaign. It makes sense, given that a second hurricane just walloped Florida this month.

Or should I highlight B.C. Conservative candidate Brent Chapman’s vile social media post about Muslims? Chapman is best known to British Columbians as the actor in the King of Floors advertisements, which repeatedly pop up during Vancouver Canucks games. He has since apologized for his comments about Muslims, which he says were made a decade ago. But he hasn’t yet posted his apology on his X feed.

Or should I focus on my Conservative opponent in Richmond-Bridgeport, Teresa Wat? She has issued so many statements in the legislature about her appreciation for our diverse and pluralistic society. Yet when the chips were down for her former BC United Party, she chose to cross the floor to join a gang of right-wing misfits, including one who clearly once had a big problem with our Muslim neighbours.

Not far from the eastern boundary of Richmond-Bridgeport is the Richmond Jamia Masjid. It is the first purpose-built mosque in B.C. and offers a reminder of Richmond’s connection to the community. The largest Islamic group in the province representing Sunnis, the B.C. Muslim Association, owns and operates Richmond Jamia Masjid.

Will Wat publicly condemn Chapman’s ugly past comment on social media to show her solidarity with Muslims in Richmond-Bridgeport? I certainly condemn his appalling tweet, as should every candidate and sitting politician in Richmond.

Social media posts drive coverage

I am running as an independent because I wanted to raise important issues in the campaign. I knew that the media would spend much of their time reporting on various candidates’ idiotic social media posts. That’s what the media tend to do in elections. I initially hoped that my candidacy would go beyond that and offer Richmond residents deeper insights into public policies.

There used to be a time when we would see detailed examinations of parties’ policies on healthcare, environment, taxation, and the like. But now, politics has devolved into two well-funded party research departments ferreting through thousands of social media posts. When one of the paid staff find a zinger that could bring down a candidate or even a whole party, they send it to the media.

The media willingly oblige by reporting on the offensive comment. It’s easier than researching long-term trends in greenhouse-gas emissions and explaining this in meaningful ways to the public. Repeating an offensive Facebook post is simpler than figuring out why water vapour is collecting at a greater rate above oceans, leading to atmospheric rivers like the one that hammered B.C. in 2021.

Unstable water system wreaks havoc

As I reported back then, climate stability has become a relic of the past due to the loss of hydrologic stationarity. This should be the central issue of concern in the election because an unstable water system affects food security, economic planning, transportation, health, tourism, and the price of goods.

In Richmond-Bridgeport, an atmospheric river or a major earthquake could easily put much of Sea Island—home to Vancouver International Airport—under water. That would have a devastating impact on the delivery of food and emergency supplies to the region.

This is deadly serious. As I wrote in 2021, without a relatively stable water system, weird things happen.

Hundreds of millimetres of rain fell on the Fraser Valley in a series of atmospheric rivers in the month of November of 2021. A sudden mudslide near Lillooet killed some motorists.

Meanwhile, Highway 8 was washed away between Merritt and Spences Bridge. Merritt itself was evacuated because of flooding from the Coldwater River. And the Coquihalla Highway was broken up in parts from rushing water.

This week, the people of Florida are dealing with a similar situation.

But Chapman’s tweet also deserves a great deal of coverage. It’s not your usual run-of-the-mill stupid comment made in the hubris of youth by a now grown-up candidate.

Chapman’s tweet is a painful arrow in the hearts of more than 125,000 Muslims living in B.C. According to the 2021 census, 7,630 Muslims live in Richmond.

Where is Teresa Wat?

In response to Chapman’s tweet, I sent out social media messages last night in Chinese, Urdu, Arabic, Indonesian, and Farsi. They all asked my opponent, Teresa Wat, to condemn what he had posted about Muslims.

This morning when I checked Wat’s X feed, there was not a word from her. Keep in mind that Wat is a former minister of multiculturalism. She has cultivated her political brand as someone who supports pluralism.

If she won’t stand up for Muslims when a member of her team expresses something disgraceful, can she be counted upon to stand up for Sikhs? Or gay people? Or Latin Americans?

If you’ve made it this far as a reader, you now know the answer to the questions that I posed at the top of this post. I dealt with all three topics: the climate catastrophe, Chapman’s offensive tweet, and Wat’s silence in response to it.

It goes to show that if you vote for me in Richmond-Bridgeport, you will have an MLA who can walk and chew gum at the same time.

On a serious note, voters can count on me to stand up for every citizen of Richmond-Bridgeport—regardless of ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, disability status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression—if they’re being smeared by a politician on the basis of their identity.

Over the years, I have received an Anti-racism Award from Spice Radio, a Medal of Honour from Radical Desi, a Community Builder Award from the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society, and a 25th-Anniversary Appreciation Award from TAIWANfest. These honours were far more meaningful than any journalism awards bestowed on me.

I’ve been in the trenches fighting discrimination for a very long time. I wish I could say the same for every B.C. Conservative candidate running in this election.

In a couple of recent posts, I’ve highlighted why I’m running as an independent against Conservative incumbent Teresa Wat in Richmond-Bridgeport. Simply put, I feel that the B.C. Conservatives are too extreme and too hostile to peer-reviewed scientific research to warrant anyone’s support. I hope voters reject Wat’s decision to abandon the more reasonable B.C. United caucus in favour of a hard right alternative.

Now, it’s time to talk about B.C. NDP Leader David Eby. There are many reasons why I’m uncomfortable voting for his party with him at the helm. I’m running in Richmond-Bridgeport in part because it has a large number of immigrants of Chinese ancestry. Also, this constituency includes the River Rock Casino, which played a pivotal role in Eby’s political rise to the top of the B.C. NDP.

In the lead-up to the 2017 election and in the immediate aftermath, I didn’t like how Eby mostly pinned the blame for rising housing prices on “foreign money” and money launderers. It troubled me that he supplied a housing researcher with data on a small group of homeowners on the West Side of Vancouver with non-anglicized Chinese names. This researcher, Andy Yan, released his “study” to the media in 2015, which contributed to a racial bonfire.

Back in those days, I sent a message to Eby stating that he wouldn’t arrange for a survey on non-anglicized names of homeowners in Harry Bains’s constituency of Surrey-Newton.

It was obvious to anyone paying serious attention that foreign investors were not the primary factor driving up housing costs in B.C. In fact, “foreign money” is a nasty way of conflating direct foreign investment from outside of the country with housing purchases by landed immigrants, who are invited into Canada and pay taxes here.

Here is the combination of factors that really drove up housing prices: sustained low interest rates, the rate of millennial household formation, quantitative easing, intergenerational wealth transfers, a well-heeled domestic class of home-hoarding investors, and a supply shortage.

The supply shortage was largely caused by municipal zoning, permitting delays, and too few construction workers. A contributing factor behind the labour shortage is various provincial governments not doing enough to educate young people in the trades, particularly outside of Metro Vancouver.

In recent years, the entry of hedge funds, along with the long-standing Real Estate Investment Trusts, are contributing to more demand and rising prices.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation recognized that foreign investors weren’t the primary drivers of high housing prices after the 2017 election. But these other factors weren’t nearly as sexy to the media.

In the video below, former Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan highlights this issue.

Foreign narrative could be monetized

Here’s the ugly reality, folks. The media focused on foreign buying and money laundering because it attracted eyeballs to websites. This web traffic could be monetized through programmatic advertising revenue.

For example, if Douglas Todd writes about Chinese people driving up housing prices—rather than focusing on religion as he did in the past—much more revenue will come to the Vancouver Sun. The bosses at Postmedia will be happy.

In a similar vein, Sam Cooper became a hot commodity to the Vancouver Sun and later Global News because he, too, could deliver page views. Cooper accomplished this with racially charged “exclusives” reliant on unnamed sources.

Talk show hosts repeatedly invited Cooper on as a guest because audiences loved hearing his sensational yarns. He is good for ratings. The Jack Webster Foundation honoured Cooper with one of its highest honours. Nobody ever asked why many of his stories couldn’t be independently verified.

That’s not to say that there isn’t a money-laundering problem. It’s just that Eby’s narrative reeked of hyperbole.

Eby persisted with his crusade against money launderers after the 2017 election, linking them to a toxic stew of high housing prices, toxic-drug deaths, and illicit cash running through the River Rock Casino. He pushed for a provincial inquiry, which ended up costing taxpayers $18.6 million. That would pay for a lot of schoolteachers.

In fact, the former B.C. Liberal government had largely cleaned up the money-laundering problem in casinos by 2015. Yet Eby continued with his showboating. By the time the inquiry actually rolled around years later, Canada was moving ever closer to a cashless society.

Prior to the government calling an inquiry, Eby retained a former senior RCMP officer, Peter German, as an advisor. He was commissioned to write reports focusing on money laundering in areas that the public associated with Chinese people: casinos, luxury cars, and horse racing. German was not commissioned to write reports on money laundered through the cannabis trade or securities markets, which are the preferred vehicles of many white organized criminals.

Real-estate, legal, and money-laundering experts were commissioned to write a report about money-laundering in the housing sector. Even though this report noted that the greatest share of money laundering was from the United States, the overall effect of Eby’s initiatives was to stigmatize the largely law-abiding community of immigrants from the People’s Republic of China. Eby also amplified the “research” of Cooper on several occasions, building up his profile.

I’ve been amused to see Cooper turning on Eby in recent years, almost like a journalistic incarnation of Frankenstein’s monster. Eby also appeared in public with Cooper’s friend, short seller Marc Cahodes, who repeatedly warned of a housing-price collapse that never truly materialized.

Why didn’t prices fall with demand-side measures?

If money laundering had, in fact, been the primary factor driving up housing prices, one would expect these prices to fall once this problem was addressed. Yet in spite of all of the B.C. NDP’s demand-side efforts to solve the housing crisis and a public inquiry, prices kept rising.

Moreover, the commissioner of the inquiry determined that money laundering was not the cause of housing unaffordability. Eventually, Eby threw in the towel and conceded that the province had to get on with increasing the supply.

A journalist whom I respect, the now-retired Ian Mulgrew, summed up the findings of the Eby-driven public inquiry in a column last year.

“Premier David Eby obviously believes he can brazen out the collapse of his decade-long crusade against money laundering,” Mulgrew declared.

“An expensive public inquiry that made some lawyers millionaires found nothing. Zip,” the veteran scribe added. “Two costly and lengthy RCMP investigations with code names — E-Pirate and E-National — uncovered nada. OK, maybe a bylaw infraction — operating without a business licence.”

Then Mulgrew offered up this comment about Eby: “On money laundering his entire thesis, however, has turned out to be threadbare.”

My friend Ng Weng Hoong has repeatedly exposed Eby’s questionable tactics in whipping up public ire over money laundering and real estate. I’ll provide just two examples here and here. Weng also wrote a blistering review of Sam Cooper’s book.

When Weng was taking enormous risks to do this important work on behalf of people of Chinese ancestry and the broader community, he received very little support, let alone encouragement, from B.C.’s political and journalistic elites. They thought he was a pest for using Twitter to shame those who peddled the foreign-money narrative.

Weng has a non-anglicized Chinese name, which he has kept for more than two decades in Canada. He’s far from the only one. One of B.C.’s most esteemed Chinese Canadians, Tung Chan, also kept his non-anglicized Chinese name.

Yet David Eby tried to make an issue of non-anglicized Chinese names, as if there’s something noteworthy about this. When the media furor reached a crescendo in 2015, 2016, and 2017, the B.C. cabinet minister with the biggest platform in the Chinese-speaking community, Teresa Wat, did not rally her constituents in opposition to what was taking place.

That only occurred years later from within the community. By then, Eby had expressed regret about using the non-anglicized nomenclature as a sociological marker. Sorry, Mr. Premier, the damage was already done by that point.

If I’m elected as the independent MLA for Richmond-Bridgeport and if Eby or any other politician tries to pull a stunt like this again, voters can count on me to raise my voice in the B.C. legislature.

Many people who’ve immigrated from the People’s Republic of China to Canada have, essentially, voted with their feet. They don’t want to live under a dictatorship, just as most of the immigrants from Iran don’t want to live under a brutal theocratic regime.

Like some from Iran, lots of Chinese newcomers don’t want to state this publicly for fear of jeopardizing family members still in the country where they were born. It doesn’t mean that they’re linked to the United Front Work Department, just as those Iranian immigrants who keep their mouths shut aren’t necessarily members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. If Eby really wants to show leadership, he will articulate this publicly to help them feel more welcome in British Columbia.

As a first-time candidate for public office, I’ve received several surveys from organizations. In addition, some have taken the time to let me know about important issues in Richmond.

As the independent candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport, I am sharing a letter below from Heather Larson, who chairs the Richmond School Board. She highlights four vital issues of concern for those who, like myself, strongly support public education.

Public education is the backbone of our democracy. In the words of Malcolm X, “Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today.”

I’m so fond of that quote that I put it at the top of the education section of an arts-oriented website that I edit. I will share here that there are many educators in my extended family. My mother was a teacher and my father was a teacher who later became a mathematics professor. If elected, I will champion public education and advocate for all of the measures outlined in the letter below.

Letter calls on candidates to advocate for public schools

October 8, 2024

Dear Charlie Smith,

As Chair of the Richmond Board of Education (the Board), I am writing on behalf of the Board to bring to your attention four key areas of advocacy that are essential for enhancing the learning and working conditions of our students and staff. With the 2024 provincial election approaching, we respectfully request that you support and prioritize the needs of our public education system throughout your campaign, recognizing the important role it plays in our community's future.

Capital Funding for Two New City Centre Schools

Richmond’s city centre is experiencing significant population growth, largely driven by newly approved housing developments and an influx of young families. As a result, the district is projected to face a continued shortfall of seats and increasing enrolment numbers. Without immediate funding, the district will face significant challenges in accommodating students in city centre. This situation will directly impact the quality of education and the overall student experience. Providing adequate infrastructure now will ensure that students have access to a conducive learning environment, which is essential for their academic success and well-being.

We respectfully request your advocacy in securing provincial funding for two new schools in Richmond’s city centre to address this urgent need.

Capital Funding for Seismic Mitigation Program

The Richmond School District is facing an urgent need for capital funding to address our seismic mitigation program. 22 schools in our district, including 18 elementary schools and four secondary schools, have been identified with a high seismic risk rating. This means that over 10,000 student seats are in dire need of seismic mitigation measures. The safety and well-being of our students and staff rely on timely funding to address this critical issue.

We respectfully request your advocacy in securing provincial funding for the remediation of the remaining 22 schools in our district that have been identified with a high seismic risk rating.

Recruitment and Retention of Staff

Recruiting and retaining staff is a significant challenge for the Richmond School District. Our unionized CUPE workforce—including carpentry, plumbing, electrical, and information technology roles—faces significant competition from other agencies offering higher pay scales. The district is exploring partnerships with post-secondary institutions to create apprenticeship opportunities that will attract and retain future employees within these sectors. Additionally, the expansion of teacher training programs is essential, particularly for specializations requiring additional training, such as English language learning, learning resource, and school counselling positions. Offering these programs within our district, in collaboration with university partners, would help remove barriers related to finances, time, and location.

We respectfully request your advocacy to support the development of apprenticeship opportunities and the expansion of teacher training programs. These efforts are essential to ensure a well-supported workforce that can continue to provide quality education for every student.

Inclusive Education, Mental Health and Student Success

Inclusive education is fundamental to ensuring that every learner, regardless of background or ability, has the opportunity to succeed. This includes providing opportunities for academic success, supporting social and emotional well-being, and creating culturally responsive learning environments. Additionally, feedback from our students indicates a growing need for mental health supports, underlining the importance of access to these resources for all K-12 students. We also recognize the need for focused support for Indigenous learners, children and youth in care, and students with disabilities and diverse abilities, as well as English Language Learners (ELL) given the significant number of ELL in our district.

Conclusion

Based on the identified priorities and the pressing needs of our growing community, we respectfully request your advocacy and support in four critical areas: securing capital funding for two new schools in Richmond’s city centre, addressing seismic risks through the remediation of 22 schools, improving recruitment and retention of staff, and enhancing inclusive education and mental health resources for our students. These investments are crucial to ensuring a safe, supportive, and thriving educational environment for all learners and staff in our district. Your commitment to these priorities will not only support the educational success and well-being of our students but also strengthen the foundation of our community's future.

This week, the anti-science leader of the B.C. Conservatives apologized for his earlier response to a question about trying public-health officials for war crimes. John Rustad expressed regret for saying he would “certainly be participating with other jurisdictions”. This came after he was asked in an online meeting about his position on Nuremburg 2.0.

Rustad professed that he misunderstood the question. As the independent candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport, I am feeling skeptical. If he indeed misunderstood, then he is remarkably ignorant about a subject that has received tremendous attention in recent years.

I say this as someone who has written several articles about how opponents of mRNA vaccines have been raising a ruckus about Nuremberg-style war crime trials.

In fact, I’m currently being sued for defamation by someone who sent me a notice of liability. This notice purported that I had violated the findings of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal through my reporting on COVID-19 vaccines.

In the past, I also received threats of lawsuits from others who opposed the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. They too claimed that I was committing grave crimes through my reporting.

A group called Action4Canada created these notices of liability. They were widely distributed to politicians, health officials, and media workers.

One of them states: "Members of the Media who lied and misled the German People were executed, right along with Medical Doctors and Nurses who participated in medical experiments using living people as guinea pigs. Those who forget the past are condemned to relive it."

Sometimes, the activists would gather outside TV and radio stations and distribute these notices of liability. In one of these notices that I obtained, this message appears under a photo of Nazi war criminals being hanged.

Politicians hanged in effigy

Then, there was the highly publicized rally in front of the B.C. legislature on December 9, 2021. Provincial NDP politicians were hanged in effigy as part of the protest. This took place at an event promoted as the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials.

Just over a week later, a sandwich board sign was placed outside a Vancouver church declaring “Nuremberg Trial 2.0”. This phrase appeared above the face of Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry after she had prohibited in-person church services to stop the spread of the Omicron variant.

Earlier that year, I wrote about a COVID-19 denier who warned staff at the Castanet media outlet that they will hang for “being involved with the most corrupt hoax in history”. The man’s associate mentioned the Nuremberg trials.

I wrote another article about how a former People’s Party of Canada candidate wrote “should happen again” on social media. She did this in response to a meme declaring: “During the Nuremberg trials, even the media was prosecuted and put to death for lying to the public.”

Then, there were the mass protests at hospitals by opponents of mRNA vaccines. Outside Vancouver General Hospital, a crowd chanted “lock her up” in response to a speaker mentioning Dr. Henry by name. Health workers complained that they had trouble getting through the crowds.

“Some of these activists are eager to hold Nuremberg-like show trials for public-health officials and politicians who support vaccine passports,” I wrote at the time.

Yet Rustad claims that he misunderstood the question about Nuremberg 2.0 when he was in a Zoom meeting with people who opposed the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. This week to defuse the controversy, he insisted that it was a “distortion of history” to draw links between the crimes of the Holocaust and the mass immunization of the public against COVID-19.

A political double standard

All I can say is if Rustad did not know the meaning of Nuremberg 2.0 after playing political footsie with the people advancing this idea over the past two years, then he hasn’t really been listening to what they are saying.

I also marvel over the incredible double standard that we have in B.C. politics. When a brown and renowned pediatric cardiac surgeon accidentally hit a “like” on a tweet mentioning a Nazi war criminal, a media and political uproar drummed him out of politics. But when a white leader of a right-wing party proclaims that he misunderstood the meaning of Nuremberg 2.0 in response to a direct question, all is forgiven. Rustad is still in the race to become premier.

I’m running in Richmond-Bridgeport for several reasons. One of them is so that residents have the option of voting someone who has always favoured evidence-based responses to the COVID-19 catastrophe.

Richmond-Bridgeport has many voters of Chinese ancestry. I admire how they played a leadership role in the early days of the pandemic by being among the first to wear masks to stop the spread of COVID-19. Chinese community leaders were among the first to call for more testing and greater use of masks. I know this because I edited an article by two of them.

To her credit, my Conservative opponent who is seeking re-election in Richmond-Bridgeport issued stirring words at the start of the pandemic.

“I rise today to remind everyone that the coronavirus is a common enemy, one we must fight and overcome together,” Teresa Wat said in the legislature on February 12, 2020 as a B.C. Liberal MLA.

“We must also fight hard against the spread of fearmongering and stigmatization,” Wat continued. “Negative stereotypes towards any group have no place in British Columbia or in Canada. It is in times like this, more than ever, that we as Canadians have a responsibility to protect our multicultural communities and support our local businesses.”

Bravo.

Wat sides with the B.C. Conservatives

But now more than four years later—after Rustad pandered to the Nuremberg 2.0 crowd—Wat decided to abandon her caucus colleagues. She did this despite B.C. United caucus members consistently supporting mRNA vaccines to fight COVID-19. Instead, Wat threw her lot in with Rustad after already qualifying for a lucrative MLA pension if she chose not to seek reelection.

Wat became a B.C. Conservative MLA even though the party was built, in part, by leaders in the movement against mRNA vaccines. Some in this movement talk seriously about Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for public health officials, politicians, and journalists.

One of the anti-mRNA vaccine movement’s slogans has been “the media is the virus”. Donald Trump uses the racist phrase “China virus”.

I urge the voters of Richmond-Bridgeport to keep this history in mind when they go to the polls. I will fight for the health of all voters regardless of race, ethnicity or national origin by proposing evidence-based responses to public-health issues.

It’s an obscenity against the victims of the Holocaust to liken the work of B.C. public health officials, politicians, and hardworking journalists to sadistic mass murderers who were hanged after the Second World War.

As an independent candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport, I fully endorse a recent letter by Dr. Lyne Filiatrault to Premier David Eby. Dr. Filiatrault is a retired emergency physician who played a crucial role in preventing the spread of SARS in B.C. in 2003. The New Westminster Record published her letter to PremierEby on the weekend.

Dr. Filiatrault is also one of the founders of PoP BC: Protect Our Province. Like the founders of this group, I believe that the B.C. NDP government has not done nearly enough to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Furthermore, I believe that Health Minister Adrian Dix, Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry, and two B.C. NDP premiers have repeatedly chosen to cave in to the anti-science movement for political expediency. In our province, the political arm of the anti-science movement is the B.C. Conservative Party, which is represented by Teresa Wat in Richmond-Bridgeport.

As an independent candidate in this constituency, I advocate for evidence-based health policies not only to save lives, but also to make the wisest use of public funds.

Read Dr. Filiatrault’s letter below:

Dear Premier,

If you want to start fixing healthcare, there are three easy and obvious moves you can make. Currently, your government is doing none of these, but you could change this.

To begin with, we must acknowledge the simple fact that we are not “post-COVID” nor “post-pandemic.” 

In May 2023, WHO (World Health Organization) declared COVID-19’s emergency phase to be over but at no point did it declare the pandemic to be over. We may all be done with COVID, but COVID is not done with us.

First, it’s time to improve COVID prevention in healthcare facilities. Doing so will significantly relieve pressure on hospital beds and reduce the number of health care workers off sick.

Recently, four Fraser Health Authority hospitals — Surrey Memorial, Delta, Royal Columbian and Abbotsford Regional Hospital — all had COVID-19 outbreaks.

The situation is likely no better in B.C.’s other health authorities. We only know about Fraser Health because unlike the others, it is more transparent.

When there are already too few hospital beds, the last thing we should be doing is infecting patients who are in hospital for another reason, and needlessly prolonging their hospital stays.

For the week of Sept. 8, stats from the Canadian Nosocomial (Hospital-Acquired) Infection Surveillance Program, with data from 78 hospitals, including 16 in BC, show that 34.1 per cent of patients in hospital with COVID, acquired their infection while admitted for another medical condition.

This is a major failure by public health and Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC).

Before the pandemic began, Canada already had one of the lowest numbers of hospital beds per population out of the OECD countries. That number had never kept up with our population growth let alone with our aging demographic.

Now add to that problem lengthened hospital stays, increased COVID hospitalizations and outbreaks, and an explosion in chronic diseases and disability following repeated COVID infections.

Second, Premier Eby, you should be ensuring that British Columbians get access to the new updated COVID vaccines immediately. This would prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations, lessen transmission and disease severity and would also protect health care providers and keep them on the job.

I know that going into an election you’d much rather not talk about COVID. However, delaying COVID vaccines until after the election, or under the guise of co-administering it with influenza vaccine, is only repeating last fall’s error.

Vaccination should always occur before infections peak. This year, the United States sped up its vaccine approval and started vaccinating at the end of August.

Health Canada has already approved the 2024-25 updated COVID-19 vaccines, what are we waiting for? 

Third, I understand Premier that you would much rather delay the re-introduction of masks (preferably well fitted and high grade) in healthcare until after the election, but that would also be a mistake.

Recall what happened in 2020, it wasn’t until two days after the election that new regulations came into effect, and by then it was too late to stop the spread.

Yes, votes matter, but so do voters’ health.

Finally, Premier, there is no longer any serious debate that COVID is spread through the air, not by the hands. Keeping COVID out of all healthcare facilities will require cleaning the air.

Yes, you can still wash your hands, but to prevent COVID infections, it’s the air that matters.

Appallingly, in 2024, B.C. public health and infection prevention and control (IPAC) leaders at hospitals and the Provincial Infection Control Network of BC still continue to push for handwashing and surface cleaning to protect against COVID.

Clearly this strategy is not working, as health care facilities outbreaks keep happening and patients and health care workers keep getting infected, with some dying and others developing Long COVID.

At this point in the pandemic, repeating the same error over and over while expecting different results is beyond madness, it is reckless and incompetent.

British Columbians deserve better public health and IPAC leaders. Health care workers should be able to rely on effective workplace health and safety measures to protect them from getting sick on the job. But most of all, patients should not fear infections whenever they seek medical care or are admitted to a hospital.

In summary, Premier Eby, getting updated COVID vaccines into arms now and bringing masks and clean air into all health care settings will help preserve BC’s health care capacity now. 

"A B.C. that works for all British Columbians" needs a functioning healthcare system.

Currently, British Columbians have neither.

- Lyne Filiatrault, retired B.C. emergency physician

When Teresa Wat became the fourth former member of the BC United caucus to join the John Rustad-led B.C. Conservatives, it stood out for a couple of reasons.

Unlike the other three—Bruce Banman, Lorne Doerkson, and Elenore Sturko—Wat had already qualified for an MLA pension.

The veteran Richmond politician was first elected in 2013. So, she had long surpassed the six-year mark for MLA pension eligibility when when she made her announcement on July 29. Wat is also over the age of 65, so she would have qualified for a full pension without penalty had she not sought re-election.

Instead, Wat chose to join a party that was supported and nurtured by opponents of mRNA vaccines. These activists aimed to supplant another free-enterprise party, BC United, that is solidly in favour of mRNA vaccines to reduce the severity of COVID-19 infections.

The maximum MLA pension is 70 percent of the member’s highest three-year average annual pensionable earnings. In her fourth year in cabinet, Wat was paid about $154,000. Therefore, it’s safe to assume Wat qualifies for a six-figure annual pension.

She didn’t need the money when she chose to abandon her former caucus colleagues, which helped lead to the demise of the B.C. United campaign.

Also, in the wake of Wat’s July 29 announcement, Global News BC reporter Richard Zussman tweeted an astonishing allegation from her former caucus.

“BC United is claiming Teresa Wat’s team downloaded a significant amount of confidential member information prior to her decision to leave,” Zussman stated.

This was also reported by other media outlets.

Commissioner should investigate BC United claim

I’m running as an independent candidate against Wat in Richmond-Bridgeport. I do not know if the BC United allegation has any validity. It could be false.

However, after reading books by journalists Susan Delacourt and Sasha Issenberg, I am well aware that political parties gather reams of information about individual voters.

As a result, I am calling on the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to conduct an investigation. I want Commissioner Michael Harvey to determine if Wat or her staff engaged in any unauthorized downloading or sharing of personal information collected by BC United about individuals or businesses in Richmond-Bridgeport.

When Wat announced that she had joined the B.C. Conservatives, she declared that she had been contemplating doing this for months. Therefore, I urge that Commissioner Harvey investigate over a period of several months prior to Wat’s July 29 announcement.

Furthermore, I would like the Office of the Information and Commissioner to go further than focusing on the privacy of residents and business owners in Richmond-Bridgeport. Given the revelations in Delacourt’s Shopping for Votes and Issenberg’s The Victory Lab, I also call upon Commissioner Harvey to examine the data-mining and data-sharing practices of all provincial political parties with MLAs in the legislature.

The commissioner must determine whether they’re acting in accordance with provincial laws, I would also like him to evaluate what systems these parties have in place to prevent unauthorized disclosures when MLAs cross the floor to join other parties or sit as independents.

If you agree with me, please share this article on social media.

Thanks for reading this. Regardless of whether you support my candidacy in Richmond-Bridgeport, I hope you’ll look at the platforms of all the independent candidates in Richmond before casting your ballot.

One of the great joys of being a provincial candidate is elevating awareness about important issues. In that vein, I’m making a dramatic proposal about arts and culture.

Today as an independent candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport, I am calling on the next B.C. government to increase the annual base budget of the B.C. Arts Council from $39 million to $200 million. That would account for 0.02 percent of the $89.4 billion in provincial government expenditures in the 2024-25 fiscal year.

This substantial increase in arts investments could easily be financed by reducing fossil-fuel subsidies. In 2020, Stand.earth documented that these subsidies had reached $1 billion annually under Premier John Horgan’s B.C. NDP government.

Cut the subsidies to the oil and natural-gas sector and invest in arts and culture. One of the benefits of boosting B.C. Arts Council funding is its jury system. This takes some of the politics out of the process.

The B.C. NDP government’s fiscal plan freezes spending on arts and culture at $38,965,000 in 2025-26 and increases it slightly in 2026-27. The B.C. Arts and Culture Endowment Special Account is frozen each year at $4,230,000.

The government states that arts and culture are “critical to the well-being of society and support vibrant, resilient, innovative, and engaged communities”. If this is the case, then why are we holding the line on investments in this sector?

Let’s get real. Paris did not become Paris without investments in the arts. New York did not become New York without investments in the arts. These investments pay off big time in tourism, employment, attracting talented executives, and quality of life. Do we really want B.C.’s suburban cities to become cultural deserts?

Keep in mind that arts organizations face inflationary pressures. Nor are they immune to the challenge of finding staff. In fact, Hill Strategies has reported that more than half of them have said that it had become more challenging to recruit and retain staff over the previous year.

Furthermore, arts and culture are critically important if we are to successfully transition to a sustainable economy. We must embrace an economy far more rooted in experiences rather than continuing to subsidize fossil-fuel production and encouraging mass consumption of goods. There is no other option if humanity is to survive in the 21st century.

Richmond-Bridgeport can play a key role in this if it has a culturally and climate-literate MLA who understands the connections between investments in the arts, tourism, equity, sustainability, and democratic discourse. Arts and culture encourage empathy for our neighbours, inspire youths, serve as a bulwark against bigotry, and promote public engagement.

The former Richmond World Festival accomplished all of these things until it fell victim to the pandemic and Richmond city council’s desire to shift resources to other events. If I were to become an MLA, I would champion the return of the Richmond World Festival, possibly within the constituency of Richmond-Bridgeport.

Meanwhile, the B.C. government estimates that in 2026, between $483 million and $581 million will be spent hosting seven FIFA World Cup matches in Vancouver. The government anticipates that these gross costs will be offset by $383 million to $436 million in revenues and recoveries, including $116 million from the federal government.

That still leaves a gap of $47 million to $198 million. As a result, more public money will be poured into B.C. Place in downtown Vancouver. These funds won’t be invested in new arts venues near Canada Line stations in Richmond-Bridgeport.

I would like to see an art gallery near Templeton Station on Sea Island. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was a new arts venue near the new Capstan Way Station between Bridgeport and Aberdeen stations? None of this is possible without political will.

Let’s get on with making the transition to a truly sustainable future rather than sinking so much money into a short-term circus like the World Cup.

Thanks for reading this. Regardless of whether you support my candidacy in Richmond-Bridgeport, I hope you’ll look at the platforms of all the independent candidates in Richmond before casting your ballot.

For those interested in learning more about the provincial budget, I’ve posted the lists of expenses and revenues below. Each figure is in millions of dollars.

These are troubling times for many families. Inflation has jacked up the price of groceries. A housing shortage has made it difficult to find a decent apartment. And transportation bottlenecks will only get worse if TransLink radically reduces bus service to deal with a financial shortfall.

So, what are the B.C. Conservatives focusing on? Today, they’re trying to destroy one of the B.C. NDP’s most effective politicians. In a letter to B.C. NDP Leader David Eby, B.C. Conservative head honcho John Rustad asked for an “investigation” into Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon.

It reminds me of the 2006 election. Back then, federal Conservatives smeared another highly effective politician, then finance minister Ralph Goodale, over changes to income-trust rules. Goodale was eventually completely cleared, but media reports during the campaign derailed the Liberals.

This resulted in the Conservatives winning the most seats, enabling Stephen Harper to replace Paul Martin as prime minister.

Rustad’s letter did not cite any section of the Members’ Conflict of Interest upon which to base an investigation. Perhaps that’s because there is zero evidence that Kahlon violated the sections of the act dealing with conflict of interest, insider information, influence, or accepting extra benefits.

Kahlon’s adult brother is a developer and his adult sister has a company that offers strategic advice to a development firm. Rustad wants Eby to inquire whether Kahlon “recused himself from discussions or decisions regarding housing targets in municipalities where his brother is developing properties”.

Let’s be clear about what a conflict of interest actually is. It’s when one’s private interest collides with one’s public interest. At the municipal level, it’s when the elected official has “a direct or indirect pecuniary (financial) interest in the matter”.

Ravi Kahlon has no pecuniary interest in what his adult siblings are doing to earn a living. Kahlon only has a pecuniary interest in whatever his wife might be doing because her earnings flow into his household income. This isn’t the case with adult siblings.

I’m not benefiting from what my siblings do for a living. Nor is it fair to hold provincial cabinet ministers accountable for the actions of their adult siblings if the politicians are simply doing jobs that the premier asks them to do.

Was former U.S. president Jimmy Carter responsible for the shenanigans of his brother Billy? Is Justin Trudeau supposed to be held accountable for anything that his brother Alexandre does for a living? Give me a break.

Getting things done

Secondly, Kahlon is not in a conflict of interest if he’s doing work that members normally engage in on behalf of constituents. This is the “interest-in-common” exception on conflict of interest.

This was actually the subject of a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling in 2022 involving former Vancouver city councillor Michael Wiebe. I know about this because I broke the story that led to the court case. Unlike Kahlon, Wiebe actually had a pecuniary interest in an issue that he advanced in council.

Wiebe owned a restaurant and he was supporting a measure that would help the entire restaurant industry. The B.C. Court of Appeal did not declare that Wiebe was disqualified from holding office, though the court quashed his “interest-in-common” defence. Rather it remitted the issue back to B.C. Supreme Court to determine whether Wiebe’s “remoteness” and “good-faith excuse” justified him remaining on council.

Whatever Kahlon did in connection with housing targets most certainly meets the interest-in-common defence. It’s precisely because he has no pecuniary interest in what his brother might be doing to earn a living. It would also meet the remoteness test. Plus, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Kahlon acted in bad faith.

Keep in mind that I’m not thrilled with everything that the B.C. NDP government has done, particularly around the toxic-drug crisis. Nor am I fan of some of Eby’s showboating in the past. It has had harmful impacts on some well-intentioned and competent people.

However, I admire Kahlon’s willingness to address a housing shortage in imaginative ways. None of his predecessors had the courage and/or the political latitude to go down the path he has chosen.

Like Ralph Goodale, Kahlon gets things done with the public interest in mind. Also like Goodale, Kahlon is the second-most important and influential politician in his party after the leader. No wonder the B.C. Conservatives are targeting him.

I’m on the ballot as an independent candidate in Richmond-Bridgeport. I’m running to elevate political discourse around important issues in the election. If you live in this constituency and you disapprove of the politics of character assassination, feel free to cast your vote for me. The advance polls open on October 10 and voting day is on October 19.