Nuanced. - 236. Peter Milobar: Running for BC Conservative Leader — DRIPA, Economy & Taxes

Episode Date: April 29, 2026

Peter Milobar, sitting MLA, BC Conservative finance critic, and leadership candidate, joins Aaron Pete to discuss DRIPA, property rights, BC’s deficit, economic stagnation, and the future of British Columbia.Send us Fan MailSupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

You're running for the BC Conservative race. Why are you doing that? I realized, you know, if not now, when, in terms of the $100 billion provincial budget that is in total crisis and still needing to be able to deliver those public services. So on balance, when I added everything together, I realized I had something to offer. You are the finance critic, as you mentioned earlier,

and we've seen several credit downgrades in the past couple of months. What would your budget be? How would it look different? And fundamentally, we have a premier that accepts mediocrity. He was told that his budget got a degrade, and he accepted that and said he was okay with it. I'm not okay with it. I live in British Columbia. I don't want a government ever delivering a failing budget for any British Columbia. Let's talk about DRIPA. What's your issue with DRIPA? Peter Milobar, thank you so much for being willing to join us today.

It's a privilege to have you on the show. would you mind briefly introducing yourself? Sure, I'm Peter Milibar. I'm from Camelot Center. I'm currently the opposition finance critic, have been previously a city councilor, a mayor, and of Camelps, and a small business owner as well. You're running for the BC conservative race. Why are you doing that?

Well, you know, over the years, I certainly have developed, I think, a skill set of problem-solving consensus building, working kind of up through the governmental ranks. I was six years as a city counselor while I had a young family and was working in the family business and then became the mayor for nine years of Kamloops and was able to still continue to operate and own the business, a hotel liquor store pub operation and still be able to do that kind of community volunteerism and coaching and all of that that goes with it.

So kind of have experienced all sides of that. And, you know, as I reflected on this, once I ran in 2017 provincially, I've always been a bit of a front bench considered front bench critic. I was our host leader for 18 months and now finance critic for the last four years. And that's given me a lot of depth of understanding of what's going on provincially as well. But when I became the mayor in 2008, that's when there's the economic downturn across North America on the housing crisis. And so I started to reflect back and realize I developed a lot of skills in terms. of, you know, still figuring out how to manage and deliver critical public services

within a very tight fiscal framework that we would have to operate back then without overly impacting then property tax payers. And so really, upon reflection, I realized, you know, if not now, when in terms of the $100 billion provincial budget that is in total crisis and still needing to be able to deliver those public services. So on balance, when I, when I added everything together, I realized I had something to offer. I had a view on how to improve things, bring hope back into the equation for British Columbians, especially the younger generation, and still make sure we're providing those, those key public services. And so it just seemed like the timing was

right to advance and try to become the leader. Much is being made of a lot of the people's running's history, their relationship with the BC Liberal Party and how perhaps BC conservatives are a different political philosophy than that of the BC liberals. I'm just wondering, can you walk us through your political philosophy as it relates to the former BC liberals to now the BC conservatives today? Yeah, you know, I think we have to be realistic about the political history of the rate of center voter in British Columbia. be it the social credit days, be it B.C. liberals or now B.C. Conservatives. I've said all along in this race, I'm not as worried about, I don't worry about how you vote federally,

because this is about provincial politics, this is about provincial initiatives and things that we need to advance forward. And so if you believe in things like the repeal of DRIPA, if you believe that, you know, we need to have safer streets, better educational outcomes in K to 12 in our fundamental core subjects. and you would like to see a private sector economy thriving and a health care system that is actually providing better outcomes for people and work satisfaction for frontline workers. If you agree on those fundamental core pieces, that's what the right of center vote has always been. If this turns into who is the bluest of the blue leadership race, we will not win the next provincial election. It's that simple. And so it's not about compromising principles. It's about recognizing that those parties have always represented all of that.

I was in BC Liberal caucus rooms. We did talk about very similar things, if not the same, as we're talking about in a BC Conservative caucus room right now, because that's reflective of that broader right of center conversations that we have all the time. And so I think we have to be mindful of that, and we have to move forward in the context of that. This is not about attracting the reddest of the red as it comes to federal liberal voters. This is about attracting those federal liberal voters that also share those core provincial fundamental priorities

in contrast to how the NDP handles things. And that's, I think, where we need to stay focused. I guess what I would say to that is I think the NDP would agree with a lot of what you said, other than perhaps repealing DRIPA. I don't think the NDP is outwardly advocating for more dangerous streets, a worse health care system, a worse economy, less private sector involvement. And so those are all like policy perspectives. I guess I'm just wondering, like, when it comes to the political philosophy of like the individual of our relationship with taxes,

could you just elaborate a little bit more? Because I think most British Columbians would agree broadly with what you're saying. Well, they would agree, except it's how the NEP does it. And I would suggest they say they agree with those things, and then their actions are the complete different. And what we've seen over the last nine years is them trying to lay around more and more and exert more and more government control over how people lead their lives. The regulations and the rules and the red tape they put in the way to try to grow that private sector economy. And the results are actually speak volumes in terms or lack of result speaks volumes to that. And so I think that is where that core principle piece comes in.

It's not about talking about a private sector economy. It's about actually taking action and moving things out of the way from governmental side so that entrepreneurs and business owners can actually thrive, can actually feel like BC is a place to invest in, to expand their operations, to renew and reinvest with more modern equipment. People say, well, how are you going to bring hope back for the younger generation? Well, if you're going to work every day and you know that your boss, whatever company size it is, is worried, is talking about not replacing more and out equipment because they're not sure what the future holds,

they can't afford it, they're not talking about expansion, they're talking about how to cut back hours here and there for general employees. You go home pretty worried about your future. If your boss is talking about expanding, if they're talking about new equipment coming to modernize, if they're talking about, you know, a new space being open up in a different city. If you're that a younger employee, you're seeing, you're getting hope that you can actually grow with the company. You can become a higher level. And within it, you might be able to spin off and start your own entrepreneurial project.

That's the difference between us and the NDP and certainly myself in the NDP. Can you give an example of like a policy that would result in? in those types of outcomes that's different than what the NDP's putting forward? Well, absolutely. We see the NEP have creatively, have consistently created an environment that is simply not competitive. And so what we have right now is a lot of uncertainty. That does, frankly, tie in a lot with DRIPA in terms of the investment climate and the uncertainty and unease of what may happen moving forward. but there's also the lack of competitiveness when it comes to our tax structure, our tax structure for innovation to reward or encourage expansion, reinvestment into one's operations.

Forestry is a good example. Yes, the duties are impactful to forestry, but we've been warning for years now that under the NEPs watch, forestry has become the most expensive jurisdiction in North America to operate in. you know, permitting times are taking too long. Four and a half, five years to get a force service road permit is simply just adding layers and layers of cost. In the building sector, the finance minister has been warned for years now that the sector of our economy with the least productivity is construction.

Well, in the backdrop of a housing crisis and housing cost pressures, this government has done precious little to strep away regulation as it relates to, housing, and the areas that actually does draw drag, they've brought in legislation around increasing desification, but not the actual fundamental legislation that are changes that they need to actually bring more efficiency into the construction sector, which would actually lower the prices. So it's those types of areas that this government has failed miserably at that I would certainly be attacking right away. You are the finance critic, as you mentioned earlier, and we've seen several credit downgrades in the past couple of months.

What would your budget be? How would it look different? Yeah, I think we have to do two things. And so first off, we have to get our spending under control. And I've advocated for several years now. Even a 2% efficiency in government would create a $2 billion savings. Now, we're not talking closing hospitals and closing schools as the NDP would want to fear longer. we're saying that we don't think government's running at 100% efficiency right now.

And we think we can find some reasonable savings by reframing how things are looked at, how decisions are made, and reallocate some of those funds and create savings. We also have to look at the contingency funds that keep ballooning skyrocketing. So essentially the Premier has a slush fund after budget estimates are done to run around and do pet projects around this province with no real oversight. we could save a few billion dollars out of that while still protecting against floods and fires and things of that nature. But then the hard work really, really begins in terms of growing the economy.

And fundamentally, we have a premier that accepts mediocrity. He was told that his budget got a degrade. And he accepted that and said he was okay with it. I'm not okay with it. I live in British Columbia. I don't want a government ever delivering a failing budget for any British Columbians. And so you need to be budgeting at that 1.3 GDP growth that the Economic Forecast Council has been suggesting, absolutely. And then as a premier, you need to sit down with your cabinet and say, we need to make 1.3, 1.7 and not be patting ourselves on the back like this government does, if they come in at 1.2.

If you had a publicly traded company that was underperforming for earning projections every quarter for nine years, it would be worthless, the stock. If you had that same company and was exceeding expectations, it would be skyrocketing, and that's where everyone would be wanting to buy stock and invest in. That's what we have to bring to the table here. And that's how you grow the economy higher over and above what you've budgeted for to start closing that gap on the deficit and the debt. That's what we need to be seen to be focusing on.

We can do it. It's going to take very hard work, admittedly. But again, that's the difference between, accepting mediocrity like this, this NDP does, and saying, no, we're going to strive and we're going to try to achieve. And that cuts through right from the top, I firmly believe. It cuts through education. It cuts through health care outcomes.

It cuts through everything we're seeing because we have a government and a preamination that's accepting mediocrity. On that note, and you kind of alluded to it, there's a lot of people who feel like when they look at conservatives, I'm thinking of vulnerable populations, people who live in poverty, people who rely on social assistance, they don't believe that you're as a conservative there for them. That when you talk about cuts, it's to social programs, it's to resources, it's to things people depend on on a daily basis. That's the felt sense, whether you agree with it or not, is a different thing. But I think that's often the felt sense of those vulnerable communities.

What would you say to them? Yeah, I would say, how's it going for you so far under the MVP? you know, the reality is that we've seen a continued erosion of those services this year's budget was highlighted by that. Again, we need to actually be looking at ways that we can deliver these services more cost effectively, so we actually get more money back to the end user. You know, I get asked a lot about persons with disability payments. We need to actually make sure that we have that program and that ministry recalibrated in such

away that it is running as efficiently as possible to be able to pull those same dollars away from the bureaucratic back end and actually get it into the hands of the people that actually need a change in the persons with disability monthly payment. So it's not necessarily always about spending more. But what this government has done is they attach success to dollars spent. And so the example I always use is health care, a $17 billion budget when the NDP took office. It's now 40. And I don't think anyone would say that health care has gotten two and a half times better under their watch. And so again, I would say we are very mindful. We are very compassionate. As BC Conservatives, we get that there's people that need help. You know, the dithering and the dragging

of the feet the NDP has done around addictions and recovery has just led to suffering and cruelty to those people. Every time we've been advocating for real and meaningful treatment options for people and gets lip service from the government and not action. So I would suggest that people are starting to realize that the words and the actions aren't matching up and they're willing to give us a shot at it, but we have to actually deliver and we have to have meaningful and tangible programs in place. And for the types of cuts we're talking about, again, when I'm talking cuts, I'm not talking about frontline cuts, two percent of operations.

it should not be earth shattering to any government across this country. It's just a case of saying, okay, we've let things kind of run amok, we need to dial things back in a meaningful way, and yes, there'll be some change, but that doesn't mean that we're going to punch down on those that are most in need of government support. It's just about finding efficiencies, and I don't think I'm being unrealistic when I say 2%. That should not be a shockwave to any operation. it might change how they have to work on a daily basis, but it shouldn't impact the end user of the program or the service that's being relied upon.

You're asking to manage the province's finances, but your campaign was fined $40,000 for a late fee. Can you explain? Well, we weren't fined $40,000. We were fined $7,500 for a $40,000 payment. Look, we had communicated back and forth with the party on other payments, made it very clear that payments were literally on their way. My financial agents based out of Camelms, my financial teams based out of

of Camelps, the party never had an issue with that leading up to this. We made sure that they knew it was already on the way. It was postmarked for March 26th for an April 1st delivery or deadline. They knew in advance. There was no indications this would be a serious problem. The fine came out of the blue to us as well. It wasn't registered mail, so we take the party at their word that they received it on the very next delivery day. And so we paid it and we moved on.

But it was nothing more than that. You know, and frankly, every other, I'm not going to litigate it with the party, but pretty much every other payment relies on postmarks. If your income taxes or anything like that is postmark. So it was quite honestly just that simple. I'm not going to throw a volunteer under the bus. I'm not going to throw the party under the bus. what it is, but that's far from the scale of what it was made out to be. Okay.

The other piece that you're well aware of is there was a major shakeup tied to an elections BC investigation. What exactly happened there? Well, I found out about the, even that there was even an investigation on the day that that report was released. And so I had no idea leading up to it. Obviously, I was in the BC Conservative Caucus at the time, or the BC United Caucus at the time that that website went up.

I can tell you, the caucus members, myself included, we all assumed it was internal fighting within the BC Conservatives. So I had no knowledge that there was any connection back to the BC United at all. Obviously, you know, my campaign manager in this race was tied to it. He had been brought in by BC United to try to straighten things out if we were staying in the race. He insists that he did not know about it. I have no way to verify or deny either side of that. And ultimately, you know, he's no longer part of the campaign.

You may have heard John Rustad's comments that that's a claim, but it might not be credible. And he directed that towards Caroline Elliott when she made her response. But what's your thoughts on whether or not your claim that you didn't know is not credible? Well, my claim is the truth. And so that's all I can stand by. I've been elected between city council, mayor, and as an MLA for 23 straight years now, I take my honesty and my integrity very, very seriously. And I stand by because I did not know.

And I quite literally only found out on that Wednesday. And so, you know, that's really all. I can't answer to what other people did or didn't know. And even my statement when it came out, when I published it, I purposely referenced other titles within BC United because I don't know the timeline, even based on that report of when the website was actually taken down or not, how long it was running for, if it was running after the collapse of BC United into the BC Conservatives or not. I had no level of knowledge, and I still don't, and to any of that.

And so I, you know, I rightfully referred it back to those that may be able to reasonably answer those questions. you're pitching yourself as the candidate that's ready to go because you don't need an election. You're already a sitting MLA. The others would need to run in an election in order to get a seat to lead the party officially. And so I'm wondering if you can lay out a little bit more detail to your point on that piece. Yeah. And again, this is no knock on any individual in the race. This is just political reality of how operationally,

things work when it comes to if you have a seat in the legislature or not. And we've seen this when other leaders have needed to find a seat. They do not get the same media coverage for the party. They don't have access to the gallery. They don't have the media gallery. They don't have access to the chamber or anything like that. You know, that's part of it. But the reality is you'd need to find somebody in MLA to step away and say that they don't want to be an MLA anymore midterm. There's consequences to that decision in terms of very serious financial consequences, actually, for the people in their private lives. And so it's not as easy to find somebody that's willing to do that as one might think. You then need to see as it even a winnable riding.

We won a lot of close writings last time. Those could be quite the battlegrounds. But that's kind of a secondary piece. The Premier then controls the timing of an election by election. and let's remember they only have a one seat majority right now. So a by-election being created means the MLA has already resigned, which means there's one last seat. And that gives the Premier and the NDP an extra six months or so

of an extra seat majority in the legislature. And we saw the political brinkmanship around, you know, whether or not a confidence vote would bring the government down, you know, just a few days ago. That's a very real world consequence. So you would essentially be giving the, the NDP when we could be exerting maximum pressure to try to bring them down with a, with a fractured caucus, a breathing room and a chance to get their feet under them again. And that's, that's significant. And so, you know, it really does play into it. Now, it's just one factor. People are going to make decisions around how to vote across the board.

Obviously, I'm going to to make sure people understand how this all works procedurally and the consequence around that. and they can add that into their kind of decision-making matrix, just as other candidates are pushing forward why it is or isn't a problem or something around me is more of a problem than it is for them. That's part of the leadership process. And so, you know, I don't bring this up as any big personal attack. It's just, again, one campaign touting very obvious political realities around situations. I'm wondering if we could just spend a minute on how you think about politics.

And I'll start with, I guess, taxes is an area that I'd be interested in your thoughts on. When I look at things like taxes, I get very concerned, particularly around the property transfer tax, because I did a breakdown on that, and I view it as a complete friction tax and removing people's mobility rights. And during the last election, both parties had said that they would tinker with that tax, but they wouldn't really address the underlying problem. They said, oh, if it's over a million, then it would still exist. but anything under a million.

And I just think that is tinkering with a very, a very bad tax that has not delivered when it was brought in on the argument that it was put out to be, which was that it was going to reduce speculation and turnovers. It has not done that. And it is a huge, obvious barrier for any leader that looks at it and goes, is this benefiting British Columbians? No.

Is it improving the lives of them? No. Is it preventing them from moving? Yes. Is it restricting their ability to buy into the market? Yes. And so I'm wondering, can you talk about your philosophy on taxes? Yeah, and there's so many taxes, especially, that have been layered in tied to real estate right now.

And then the government wonders why real estate keeps getting more expensive. And so what I've committed to and what I've always committed to, and again, I'm maybe to my detriment and things like a leadership race, I'm not about trying to be clickbait and rage bait. I like to have depth and honesty to the answers that I'm providing, because especially when I know the complexities of, of the subject areas we're talking about, in good conscience, I can't just make it sound as simple as it is. So on taxation, let's face it, we have record deficits. We're in the glue. We just talked about having to find spending efficiencies. And we might have to take it on the chin in the first year or so with a tax realignment. But we need to be careful. And again, I've said this for quite

some time. We need to actually be realigning our taxes and targeting tax change, especially in the short term, for areas that can really actually get that economy booming and growing so that we actually can get ourselves out of this deficit and debt spiral so that we actually have more money available for those core services. And what I mean by that is there are all sorts of taxes we can make a change on that will enable you and myself to go be able to buy one extra, you know, small Tim Horton's coffee a day, which doesn't really move the needle on the overall economy. And then there's some other tax changes we can make that would invigorate reinvestment in our economy. It would trigger all sorts of investment sitting on the sidelines right now to come

back to BC and say, okay, it's a place we can grow, it's a place we can invest in. That's significant. That's the type of tax change we need in the short term. Over this last eight years, we've created four public sector paid jobs, so taxpayer paid jobs for every one private sector paid job. A healthy economy is the reverse. And so we need to flip that on its head. The construction sector is a good example of that. We're seeing a housing slowdown. We're seeing start slowdown.

The government's doing nothing to try to, again, bring efficiency into that system. Why that matters is for every housing unit that's created, $15,000 of personal income tax is generated from the tradespeople that work on that housing unit. So what we're going to be seeing over the next little while with a housing slowdown is fewer units being built, which will then add to the price pressure that we're seeing. But we're also going to see a personal income tax drop to the provincial government at the same time because obviously there's not people working on those job sites. And so we have to look at these tax changes with that lens of how do we actually use it to

to reinvigorate the investment climate, get investment going so that people see a future in British Columbia. And I go back to my earlier statement. If your workplace feels like it's expanding and looking for new opportunities, you go home from work, feeling much more energized about your options and future than if you're going home from work going, wow, I lasted another day without a layoff notice. There's a complete different mindset to the general population as well when that investment climate is created. And it's created by the government getting out of the way and actually getting taxis out of the way that will create that environment, not creating more impediments to it.

The other piece I wanted to ask you about was democracy, because I don't personally believe that democracy is one day of voting every four years. I think it shows up in a lot of different ways. And I look over at Alberta, and I see them last year they did the Alberta next panel where they did several town halls all throughout their province and gathered feedback. listened to what their communities wanted, and it ranged, and then they put together a package, and I believe this fall they're going to be putting forward a referendum on the key issues that they were hearing from their constituents. That to me, I know a lot of people will not agree with what they're debating and what their referendum is on, but that is a sign of a healthy democracy, because it's a form in which

the general public can share their concerns and frustrations in real policy details. And I think that's really missing in British Columbia with your time. talking about DRIPA, let's talk about reconciliation, let's talk about budgets, let's talk about all of these different things, and really let the public vent formally and give you guidance on how to lead. How do you feel about that and the approach a premier and a leader should take in democracy? Yeah, I think you always should be willing to listen to the broader public and create those avenues. We've seen precious little of this government, I can tell you, I'm from Camelops. I'm the only one in this race that has a seat in the legislature. I'm also the only one

in this race that doesn't live in Metro Vancouver. And so I see it on the ground on a daily basis. The lack of attention this government provides across this province and even in the lower mainland. It's not just the minister. It's the cabinet ministers. It's everybody. They pretty much go to ground. They're great to show up at a ribbon cutting. But they don't. really want to hear from the public in any great way, shape, or form. Now, I agree with that you do need to have that input and a slightly more structured way that, you know, that kind of town hall feel. It's certainly a good way to do that as a former mayor of Cabloups. Again, we had lots of public meetings, lots of public engagement sessions around budget, around unofficial community plans,

those types of things. They're valuable. And the key to it all, though, is, and it's interesting, I write my first campaign in 2002 to run for city council. I actually campaign saying, you know, we're elected to make timely decisions. And so there's absolutely a space and a need to get that input. And then you actually need a government and a premier and a cabinet that are willing to digest it in a reasonable time frame and actually start to make actual decisions instead of the dithering that we're seeing because it's the dithering that creates the indecision and the, investment risk. It's the accepting of mediocre that creates the investment risk and question marks to the broader communities. And that's, that's really, I guess, the difference of operational

styles is, and so yeah, I definitely agree with the public input side to a point. And then it's time to actually get on with the job and make a decision. I'll be honest with you, Peter. I personally think it was an error for you not to attend the Juno News debate. I don't agree with the premier. I don't think Juno News is run by white supremacists or people who are white supremacist sympathizers. I think the opportunity there was to have something outside of the party system. And I'll be honest with you as well. I don't trust any political party because there are people internally who have preferences and bias and thoughts on how things should go and who should win. And I think my evidence for that would be the two times I interviewed Daryl Plexis

and he laid out to me very clearly how the party really controlled him and what he was able to say and what he was able to think and how that operates behind the scenes. And so I'll be watching those debates inside the Conservative Party, but I don't trust them to the same extent I'll trust the Juno News one because they didn't have a reinforced system behind them that had preferences and biases the same way that you have within a party structure. And I'm just wondering if you can reflect there's been a lot that's come out of that debate. I think it was largely successful for people developing their opinions. I think Aaron Gunn sitting in on that, he was kind of the person everybody was talking about before the leadership race took place as like the guy who could be leading and him sitting there moderating it, pulled in a lot of eyeballs and made people really interested in.

And your lack of attendance was notable. And I'm just wondering if you can reflect on that. Yeah, I mean, honestly, and Juno News has reinforced this. We were notified. and we said right away, we already had a scheduling conflict back then. I had already tried a couple of times to get into the NIMO. I had committed early on that we would get there

before the end of leaderships or candidate, sorry, party membership sales. And that was literally my last opportunity. I've had other days in the travel schedule that I've had to block off because I'm the only member in the legislature. I don't have the freedom to get around the province, ahead of April 18th or after April 18th, like other members do.

And that's just part of the responsibility in any leadership race when you have members that are part of the legislature. It's just this case is unique because I'm the only one. So we did try working with them. We stayed in constant contact. I was messaging back and forth with Aaron as well. I was not hiding from it. I kept insisting that if things changed, if I had missed the ferry had canceled on that morning,

the Tuesday morning I was heading over to the island. I would have been in the Vancouver area and I would have happily gone to the debate. I have a long track record of doing debates. I've been in eight general elections. I've won all eight general elections and I've participated in multiple, multiple debates in all of those, including the last general election where I did not hide from debates as a BC conservative candidate. And so, you know, I get where some people may have been disappointed. But again, I had those other commitments that I had made.

and was trying to be as up front as possible. When Juno had mentioned a possibility of switching the date, we were good with that. We could have made those other later dates work. Other teams suddenly decided they didn't want to. So there's right and wrong across the board in all of these types of things. I'll be there at Canada Strong and Free. My understanding is it's moderated by without diminishment,

which is, again, arm's length. In fact, one of the candidates is a contributing or founder of that. agency. So, you know, there's always going to be those connections. So it has nothing to do with any of that. It literally was as up front as it was as I was trying to be and as again, open and transparent as possible. Understood. Thank you for sharing that. Let's talk about DRIPA. What's your issue with DRIPA? Well, DRIPA, I mean, fundamentally, it is created issue. So yes, I was in the legislature when it was voted for, we were assured that what we're seeing unfold by the government would not happen. Those concerns and scenarios were raised and continued to be rebuffed by the government.

You know, decisions were made in terms of trying to aim good faith, show a signal to indigenous communities that this isn't about creating conflict. And so, you know, being in opposition, the government would pass regardless. And we thought, okay, we'll take the government at their word that this is not going to create the problems that it's now creating. From my perspective, the 2021 Interpretation Act changes that the Premier then Attorney General brought forward with 14 minutes of debate before it was deemed to be closed and passed has created a bigger problem in terms of how the courts and ministers are now instructed to literally interpret it.

Obviously, Section 7 within DRIPA creates the feeling of a veto and it's actually created conflict even within indigenous nations where one nation is not wanting a different nations project to proceed. So I just fundamentally say it's not working as intended. I fully recognize we still have a constitution we have to operate under. And DRIPA is not a constitutional document. And so it doesn't, in my mind, strip away rights from indigenous peoples in that sense. We still need to work with indigenous nations around, you know, the duty to consult and accommodate and move forward in that way, in a good faith way, as we were doing and as we were improving pre-DRIP. You know, 20 years ago, you could count on maybe one hand how many nations were actively

engaging and getting projects moving in a timely fashion or opposing it with, you know, the backing of all the types of documentation and technical reports needed to better push back against the project moving forward. Now I've lost count of how many nations are actively engaged in that broader economy, getting projects moving forward. Most of those agreements started pre-DRIPA. And so I don't view it as an either-or. I just view it as a piece of legislation that's flawed,

not delivering the intended result. And, you know, let's remember the Land Act changes. The Premier wanted to bring forward before the last general election in 2024. myself and many others, including Ellis Ross, we were pushing back very, very hard on those land act changes, and a lot of that was predicated around Section 7 of DRIPA, and the Premier walked away from it then. So, you know, this flip-flopping that he's been creating

and the mess he has created within this file, he's got a long track record of being all over the map on what DRIPA does or doesn't mean, and when he's prepared to actually take a hard stand or not. my understanding is there's a few provisions within DRIPA that created the issue within the court system and in response to that the Premier had proposed changes to address that one of those was the Interpretation Act which you're describing I just don't see I guess I'm misunderstanding the argument for a full repeal and again I'm on record saying I don't care this isn't my legislation I have no invested interest I don't think this is a cornerstone reconciliation

but I'm not hearing a coherent argument as to why a full repeal is necessary as opposed to what David E.B. was putting forward, I guess a few days ago. I mean, he's now said he's not doing anything to DRIPA, but when he was, it was focused on the provisions that were causing issues. It's a very long act. What's wrong with all the other provisions? Well, fundamentally, we don't know what the Premier was bringing forward respectfully. We don't know what they were even going to bring forward on the Land Act changes that was going to. to be heavily tied on the premise of Tripah. So the Land Act changes. We had them saying the legislation was drafted. They said it was coming forward. Then the minister said it hasn't in fact been drafted. And, you know, it would be very short if and when it was drafted.

It only have to be half a page. They were all over the map. No one actually knew what actually happened because every time we questioned it, they would hide behind cabinet confidentiality. Then you fast forward to now with DRIPA. So you have the Premier saying, you know, people don't really have anything to worry about, well, no, actually they do have something to worry about. Well, Dripak is creating massive legal exposure to the province of British Columbia. Well, it's his responsibility as the Premier. If he

knows there's a massive legal exposure that can be changed and corrected by legislation, where the heck's the legislation then? How does that magically disappear? These are his own statements on it. Then he says, well, it just needs to have an amendment. Then he says it needs to have a three-year pause. Then he shops around a one-year pause. And none of us have seen any of us. And none of us have seen any of this because he hasn't actually brought any of it forward. Then he said it will be a confidence vote. Now he has said it will be a non-conf, it won't have confidence attached to it. And then just yesterday, he suddenly says he's not bringing forward at all. Well, then what happened to the legal exposure to those 20 cases? This is the problem. We are simply saying we campaigned in 2024.

We've been very consistent on this. We need to repeal DRIPA. It's creating a lot of uncertainty. It's creating a lot of ambiguity. Again, I'm fully understanding that there are still constitutional rights for indigenous peoples in this country. I'm not remotely suggesting to strip those away. What we need to do is get back to a place where we can actually advance things in a good faith way and rebuild some of that trust. You know, we have watched year over year under these provisions and under this kind of meandering way that this government's handled things, that it's simply created so much uncertainty in division. We have to just admit that that is not working.

And if the Premier is saying a three-year pause is needed for court cases that he knows are going to take well more than three years, why is that the case? How is a pause any different than a repeal? I'm not sure. I'm trying to get him on the show to explain those things. I guess I would just take it back. if we can do a metaphor, and this is a vehicle, and DRIPA is a vehicle, and are you saying

that this is a 1995 broken down old vehicle that shouldn't exist? Is this a case? Like, I guess what I'm trying to understand is, are the tires just broken on this thing? Are there other ways to salvage this legislation? Is it just politically expedient for all of, like, I mean, all of the candidates, I think, running are repeal DRIPA now. So to say, like, repeal, parts or address certain parts is not going to hit as hard, but I just don't understand how the whole legislation is flawed. I just feel like I'm missing some substance. Yeah, I don't think it's as simple as political expediency because, again, we've been, we've been raising the alarm bills on this for a while. We, again, even back when I was with

BC United, we pushed back very hard on the Land Act changes because it was, it was being done in the same way as this. You look at the mess they've made with the Heritage Conservation Act changes. You look at the mess they've made with the Water Act changes. You look at the secret deal that was cut, and I say secret deal, because the government very easily could have released that before the last general election on the Sunshine Coast, a seashell area, and they decided not to, and then they magically release it after the election is over. That has undermined public trust across the board. and there are nations when I talk with them. They were frustrated with Undrip in the performative nature of Undrip when it was first brought in.

They were frustrated with DRIPA with how it was being handled by the government. Others are being very frustrated now because they're starting to see their economic growth potentially be hampered under the provisions of DRIPA as well. They won't publicly say that for obvious reasons. And when I talk to the business community and I point out to them and I say, if I gave you the powers of DRIPA to negotiate your next big land deal, would you take it? Would you be able to cut a good deal with that? And they say, absolutely.

I say, now if I remove it for your next following land deal, would you be happy with that? And they say no. So like everyone agrees, like this is not, frankly, I'm not hyper-focused on trying to demonize the First Nations around this. They are doing their fiduciary duty to their people in terms of using every and all negotiating power that the government has granted through these types of pieces of legislation. It's the government that has completely mishandled the implementation of all of this. And they are the ones that has created this division.

They are the ones that has created a lot of these commentary we're feeling out there. You know, again, it's been very well publicized. This is, believe me, not the path of the least resistance for me. I have an indigenous wife and children. that comes up all the time. Well, I can't be trusted on one side of the argument because people say I won't actually follow through with a repeal. And others say, you know, so that's not turned into an easy conversation of my household as it wouldn't in any indigenous household. And so no, you know, as I say to people, when they say, yeah, but you won't do it because it's going to be really noisy. And I say, yes, and not doing anything is going to be really noisy. Like if people think we've gotten to a point where, where, we're, you're, Everyone can just pretend this never happened and that these conversations haven't happened. They're kidding themselves. If people think all you can do is repeal DRIPA and then just pretend First Nations no longer exist and have no voice,

you're kidding yourself. And any candidate that's trying to make it sound that way needs to be either better informed or needs to be more forthright with the BC Conservative membership as to what the real legal realities in Canada and British Columbia actually are. DRIPA is simply a bad piece of legislation that is not working as intended. And we need to recognize that. And then we need to get back to those hard work conversations with indigenous nations on how we can collectively move things forward and benefit to all. I guess my other issue with the repeal DRIPA move is I don't feel there's a lot of clarity, Peter,

on there's, I think there's two issues that are really causing reconciliation to go in the other direction. And when I say reconciliation, I mean my belief that First Nations people and the West more broadly or British Columbians are coming back together. We're going in the opposite direction right now in my estimation. And so what's causing that is primarily the Cowichin decision and the unmarked Graves anomaly story that was reported in the CBC originally. Those seem to be the two, and then this muskweem agreement is somewhat causing some uncertainty as well. The repealing DRIPA addresses neither of those broader overarching concerns from British Colombians. It won't bring back private property rights or the security of them, and it will

not resolve this question about the 215 at Camloops. And so that seems to be the substance of what's dividing many British Columbians and First Nations people. How do you address that, the real substance of the issue of what I'm seeing? Well, you also, though, failed to reference the appeals court decision on, I always get the name wrong, the Gittsla, the mineral tenure, which is tied to drip up. And it's time directly to...

I'm just saying most people are not bringing me mineral, like, when I feel comments online. Yeah, yeah, that's all right. I understand that. And I, but that's part of that. So there's two streams here. There's how the point. public is digesting all of this.

And then there's myself as a legislator and others that are legislators that are sitting in that legislature right now, understanding the interconnected play between all of these issues and the legislative pieces. And we can't ignore that Supreme Court ruling around DRIPA because that is what's creating the legal consequence that the Premier is talking about. And there's heightened worries for people. And so I don't expect a layperson to understand the nuanced difference between college and being related to Section 35 of the Constitution

and what happened with a completely different case around many or tenures. But moving forward, it's not front of a stretch to see how future court cases, based on those two rulings, will now be structured in such a way that nations, and understandably so, again, it's their responsibility for their own people to do that,

will tie the two together in future court rulings or court actions. And so that is the exposure piece that I do have concerns around. And yes, all of that does get mixed together. And it creates an overarching narrative. I would suggest to you, our caucus has been pretty clear about where we stand and where we stand as a party. The caucus that is all over the map on this is actually the NDP. You know, if you listen to Scott McKinness, our critic, he very clearly articulates that couch in his Section 35 and the mineral tenure is tied

more to drip up. So that is where I see these things, but we function, you myself and others, function in that, that interconnection of public discourse and legislative reality. And so we have to actually figure out a way forward on that, that will actually get that public buy-in. If we do not have public buy-in, you will not have reconciliation. I think it's safe that we can all agree on that, hopefully. And so if there's a piece of legislation, that for whatever reason has been so badly mishandled by the provincial government. Again, I don't blame the First Nations on how DRIPA has come to be. I blame the provincial government for how they have handled its implementation.

But if you have a provincial government that has mishandled something as badly as they have, you have to take a step back and say, okay, hang on. All sides need to take a half a step back and say, what is the actual end goal we are going for? And I'm a big believer, less so about partisanship and more about end goal. and it doesn't matter what topic it is, whether it's health care outcomes or educational outcomes or reconciliation outcomes. If we can all actually recognize

that DRIPA has created this flashpoint that has created this us versus them to a whole level that didn't even exist pre-Drippa, maybe it's time to actually just acknowledge the obvious. And the Premier saying he needs to pause it for three years. Pause it in its entirety is my understanding. That is as good as say, I want to repeal it for three years,

and then bring it back in. He's essentially saying the same thing we are now. He just won't actually say the words. He did the same, frankly. I'm not trying to tie the two as one and the same. But he has done this on legislation previously. He did it on decriminalization, where they pretended there was no problem with the legislation

around parks and playgrounds and drug use, and then they quietly had to grudgeonly bring something in. Then they had to quietly try to actually change when people could charge, and then they finally had to admit the obvious that it actually can't be extended and it needs to end. You know, this is, this is, we're heading in that same path with his track record of grudgingly, you know, when you really break down what he is saying, he is saying drip is not working. It's created a legal exposure to the British, British Columbians.

He wants to take action on it. His caucus won't allow him to take action on it and pause it for three years because they view that pause as a repeal as well, a short-term repeal. but a repeal nonetheless. You know, if I'd set a three-year repeal instead of a three-year pause, that's the exact same thing. I'm saying a full repeal so we can actually not waste three years of battling back and forth.

We can spend those three years trying to rebuild these relationships to actually get proper working together moving forward. Peter, I think you acknowledged a lot of what my point was, but I still feel like I need a plan for the other piece, which is I think, I don't think DRIPA created the flashpoint. I don't hear people in the common section talking about Gittala or minimal rights deals or anything like that. They have concerns about private property rights from the Cowchin decision and the unmarked Graves story.

Those are the primary pieces. And at least I don't agree with 1BC, as you might imagine, on anything, but I at least comprehend their argument for constitutional reform on Section 35. Is their argument to protect private property rights? I can comprehend how they got to that decision. decision when trying to go to their constituents and say, hey, we're going to protect your private property rights. I don't understand. And my fear is that British Columbians are going to vote for the Conservative Party of BC because they're going to repeal DRIPA because they believe

that that means their private private property rights are going to be addressed, that this unmarked grave story is going to be addressed. I think that's what British Columbians are going to assume. They're not going to assume DRIPA addresses this one legal case about mineral rights and these other pieces around the Land Title Act, they're not going to assume that. And so my fear is that after the election, you're going to have a lot of frustrated British Columbians that are displeased because they just assumed,

I think rightly so, that repealing DRIPA meant protecting private property rights because that's somewhat, all of this is getting mush together into confusing messaging for British Columbia. And they're not constitutional scholars, many of them. And so I'm just wondering, what would you do besides repealing DRIPA to address those, I think, real concerns from British Columbians.

Yeah, no, and I agree with you. And I started, I was, I think, the first candidate talking about the what next. I was, I was, again, mindful of knowing that, and acknowledging that we can't just say we're repealing and we're done. And I say that in many, many events that I go to and talking to, and I've said it on podcasts and everything else. You don't have to like that there's a constitution and a constitutional duty to consult. but that is the reality that there is. And so we need to be mindful of that. We need to work within that framework.

But again, we need to actually get it back to a place that people can actually have those conversations. And so, you know, this is the underlying piece to all of this. And you're right. I agree with you. People aren't, you know, connecting that these are all somewhat separate and of their own right. But we can protect private property rights. We used to go to court and defend into feasible title and private property rights. We did not in the couching case.

And the provincial government can try to say they did all they want. They didn't. And neither did the federal government. Nowhere near how they used to in every other case. And that was direction from the provincial government, from the Attorney General at the time, David Eby. And so then there's suddenly a court ruling. And we're reacting to the court ruling. We're not actually reacting to the Constitution.

There's been lots of court rulings between now and when the Constitution was changed or before Cowichin that never had this type of language in that ruling and that judgment. Same with the Mineral Tenure ruling in the Court of Appeal around DRIPA. We'd never seen rulings like this directly attached, especially to the Interpretation Act Amendment that the Premier brought in in 2021. want, you mix in the 215 into that mix. And that piece of it has been very unfortunately dragged in as kind of that final piece to the whole issue that, yes, people are conflating the three pieces together. They're not constitutional scholars, nor do they need to be. That's why they elect politicians, not for me to be a constitutional.

scholar either, but for me to be able to tap into other expertise to provide that lay personal overview and description back to the public. But that's where we're at right now. And we can try to pretend otherwise. But if anyone can show me a path forward where you have a premier acknowledging that drip is not working that has created massive legal exposure. And you have, forget about even the couch and the private property rights piece, the premier has acknowledged that dripa isn't working and needs to be paused at a minimal. So like you and I have been conflating all three of those things together right now as well today, and this is part of the problem. But if I just go on based on Dripa in and of itself and what the Premier has been saying and his actions have been trying to lead to right now,

he has acknowledged it's a flawed piece of legislation that has created legal exposure to the province of BC and it needs to be repealed. It doesn't mean it's the cure-all for all things, but it doesn't mean you ignore it either at the same time. Another question just on this piece. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the path forward for that 215 anomaly story. I've tried to do a discussion between Francis Widowson, who's an outspoken voice saying that there are not unmarked graves at that location, and there's not evidence to support that. And of course, I take the other position,

but I'm mindful that we have not done excavations, which would conclude this. Do you think that there should be excavations to, to bring this chapter to a close? Well, I think we're at the point where everybody wants the truth. And unfortunately, though, we don't have that yet. And my understanding, and again, I've heard Cookmeek-Kazmure say this. I've heard Manny Jules, very well-respected former chief and leader within the camel's community, say the same thing as well.

So my understanding is that there's around 32 nations that had children taken to that, school. They're working with those nations around protocols, those that want excavation, those that would want exhumation, those that would want repatriation or not. And what does that look like in terms of their own cultural sensitivities? They're also working with the Vatican around trying to get records. And again, I don't know many times that the Vatican has taken this type of step and the federal and provincial government around records as well. So we're trying to all of that and come up with a game plan. But there hasn't been a very clearly understood timeline for any of that.

And so I think that's a big frustration for people and understandably so. And then, you know, the bigger sticking point for some people is that the $12 million that the federal government provided. And as I say to people, yes, I would like to know, has that all been spent or not? And people say, well, it has been. And I'm like, well, how? None of us know is the whole point. You can't say you want the truth.

and then jump to definitive statements about stuff when there hasn't been any proof provided. You know, I said, what if only a couple million has been spent and the other 10 is waiting for the excavation to happen? Is that okay then? I said, well, maybe. So, like, but when the federal government provided the documents of the money,

everything was blacked out in the FOI. So it just leads to this conversation, further erosion of public trust as to what is or isn't happening. in a very emotionally charged situation, right? And so I think, and many Jules has said this on the radio, where he had said, you know, his best case scenario is they excavate and there is nothing there at all. But no one knows, including him.

And so I think it's something that does need more time, but it needs something that needs a little bit more transparency added to it as well. So we actually can get to the true truth. but I'm certainly not one that thinks that, you know, it was a pleasant environment for First Nations kids to be taken to in the residential schools. And again, that sometimes gets conflated in with the overall conversation around the anomalies and whether or not. And, you know, I've seen a lot of things online where there's a Karen in front of the school that has the names of the families who had children taken there. and they did a ceremony one day, and it's on a bit of a side hill down below it,

and there's crosses, and someone had posted a picture in the early days and saying, well, that looks like a sewer line, pretty straight line. Well, those crosses weren't marking any potential anomaly sites. They weren't even in the area. They were, it was essentially the equivalent of putting a wreath at a cenotaph. And so, you know, that spun into, you see, it wasn't,

it's, the anomalies aren't real, it's just, And so there's a lot of misinformation floating around out there as well. I just want the truth. And I would like to know as best as possible a reasonable timeline that we can expect updates or very clear updates, very well publicized updates on not just the financial side, but also on timeline of, you know, what next steps look like. The last piece on this issue is just a free speech element. As you know, there were some people who were willing to speak up and ask questions about this case pretty early. on and they paid consequences for being willing to share their perspective throughout this process. I think there were a few council members within your region that were handing out the book,

grave error, and then they got in trouble for that. Lindsay Shepard kind of made her issue that she was speaking out on this issue during National Truth and Reconciliation Day and said that that was one of the reasons she was removed. And now more and more people are kind of saying, okay, we do need to get a better understanding. And I guess one of my concerns is I've been trying to do this talk with Francis Woodhouse and her and I do not agree on some of the substance of the arguments, but no university will host us. They'll host me by myself, but they will not host her because they do not want to validate her opinions and fears of safety and all of these other things. And I guess my deeper concern is just that if universities aren't a place for free speech, I don't exactly know what that purpose they're serving because that is supposed to be where we're pursuing truth. and I'm just not feeling that from the universities right now,

and it does concern me, and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on that. Yeah, I mean, university, what we're seeing on campus is on a wide range of topics is concerning, especially because it does seem to push back harder. University settings seem to push back harder on speakers that would be seen to be farther right in their views

than the farther left speaker series that might want to tour around and have discussions. And so I think it's a slippery slope when you start trying to restrict speech, especially on campus. You know, there's, we have laws in place to protect against hate speech and things like that. And I think it's, it should be more incumbent on, on those laws to be followed and enforced than a student union or a Senate of a university picking and choosing. you know, there's a difference between distasteful speech and hate speech. And so it's a very slippery slope. We have to be very careful.

And it's, again, it's like a lot of things in life very complex. But, you know, my preference is always to err on the side of allowing speech to happen. And if somebody's crossing lines, then we have other legal mechanisms to address that if and when lines actually do get crossed. There are two clear front runners from everything that I've been able to follow. It's you and Caroline Elliott. Are you able to outline the differences between your two policy perspectives? You know, I think there's nuance between her, Carolines, myself and pretty much everyone else in this race as well, right?

We're all saying similar things. It really comes down to, I think, you know, how you deliver a message, you know, the tone, the tenor, what it is your, you're focusing on versus, you know, I say this all the time. You know, for me, yes, repealing drip on protecting private property rights is important. And it's important to more than just BC conservatives. You're seeing that show up and polling across the board. And that's why you're seeing a big problem in the NDP caucus right now. And so, but there's also still the economic piece.

There's the health care piece. There's the education piece. There's the crime and safety piece. And again, I've been focusing and trying to have. my message go out on those areas every bit as much because it's about proportionality. You need a premier and a cabinet that is focused, fixated on what they need to fix in the here and the now. And so, you know, it doesn't mean those broader social issues aren't talked about, discussed,

advanced, dealt with, but it's also about the portionality of time. You know, when somebody is coming home from a hard day's work and they're having to stop at a food bank instead of a grocery store, which is happening more and more in our province, that is probably that person's biggest worry. You couple that with them sitting down and realizing they have to take their child to the emergency room that night and it's going to be an eight-hour wait. Again, that's top of mind for that person. And so you need a premier, and I'm trying to convey back to the membership in the broader public. That is why I'm proportionately putting my focus into those areas. And so far, you know, it's polling with the general public, admittedly, but the whole exercise is this is finding somebody that the general public would actually vote to form a majority government.

All of that polling continues to show that that message is resonating, that people are liking the fact that I'm well versed and well broad in my view in terms of all the areas that we need to tackle. What is your final message to British Columbians? To British Columbians in general, not to be fearful of the BC Conservatives. You know, don't frankly believe the marketing of the NDP. We have a very good caucus. I've worked with these people for the better part of a year and a half, two years now. They're all very good, well-meaning people.

You know, they're not hateful. They're not racist. They are sharing concerns and bringing forward issues and thoughts that they are hearing within their communities. and as it should be. And then if you look and judge us on the work in the legislature we've been doing with private members bills or where we have stood on debates and votes, I think that we've been very thoughtful and purposeful on the work that we've been doing.

And we have a great skill set of a lot of lived experience. And then if you add in the 15 or 20 that we will have to add to that mix as new candidates to get elected to form government, I think the future is actually very optimistic under a BC conservative government. I think we can reinstill that hope to British Columbians that indeed better days are ahead and that we're not, as I say, to be feared, we're actually to be looked at and say, okay, hang on, these are serious people trying to tackle serious issues. And again, proportionately, we're focusing on those issues first and foremost.

How can people follow your work? The easiest way would be for my leadership campaign. I have my own website up, peter millibar.ca, and I have fortunate enough, I've been around long enough, that all my social media handles are the same, and as well as I even have a YouTube channel where people can see, you know,

a lot of work I've done in the legislature over the years in terms of where I've stood on speaking up on bills or question period questions and topics. So there's a lot of, easy ways to access a lot of my depth of experience and positions on issues. Thank you for being willing to do this, Peter. It's been a privilege to share this time with you. I'll say from the outset, you're very easy to schedule with. I know we wanted and preferred to try and do this in person, but I'm glad we were able to get it done in a timely fashion. It's been rather difficult to schedule with your

counterparts who are running against you. And so I encourage all of them to come on but appreciate your thoughtfulness and the nuance, I dare I say, you take on some of these issues and the calm demeanor you're bringing to what are very emotionally charged issues that I do think warrant that emotion, but we also need cooler heads to prevail. So I appreciate you being willing to share your time today. Well, thank you, Aaron. Anyone that used to play hockey games would say I leave my emotion to the ice surface and not to the political arena. So, you know, no, these are serious times, though, and they're serious issues.

And I do thank you for the time. And I do appreciate being able to provide a little more depth to, like you say, very complex areas. Because, you know, I think people ultimately need to know that elected leaders have that depth of thought behind why we were doing things. Because I think the age of governing by clickbait and rage bait are over. Agreed. Thank you again. Thank you.