Nuanced. - 284. Elenore Sturko: CentreBC Leader on SOGI, DRIPA and the BC Conservatives

Episode Date: October 14, 2026

CentreBC leader Elenore Sturko shares her criticisms of David Eby and the BC Conservatives, discusses SOGI in schools, and debates how to balance reconciliation and private property rights in light of the Cowichan decision and DRIPA with host Chief Aaron Pete.Send us Fan MailINFORMEDISH: Real life. Artificial cohost.Movies, parenting and life's absurdities. Jason and his AI cohost Heather take sides.Listen on: Apple Podcasts   SpotifySupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

I'm Eleanor Sterko. I'm the leader of Center BC. BC Liberals is who you sign up with. Over to conservatives, then to independents, now to Center BC. I felt in 24 I actually stood up for something I didn't believe in. How could I ever look my children in the face? And go back, they know what I went through. They saw me crying. Where do you stand on Soji now?

I don't see any reason for us at this time to remove Soji as a resource for schools. How would you make communities safer? Mental illnesses and addiction. Can't explain why some of this stuff is happening, but they shouldn't be an excuse to allow it to keep happening. We have to help people to break these cycles. What are your thoughts on DRIPA? Should we amend it, repeal it, modify it? Center BC does want to move away from legislation that has created uncertainty. Our position is that we respect First Nations rights. Would you make a deal with the NDP? Eleanor Stercoe, thank you so much for arranging this and for having us in your space. I'm wondering if you could briefly introduce. introduce yourself. Yeah, I'm Eleanor Sterco. I'm the leader of Center BC, candidate for MLA for Surrey South. I'm a Surrey resident. I live here in Surrey South with my spouse, Melissa,

and we have three kids. I have been elected to government or opposition since 2022, elected in this riding in 2022 with the BC Liberals, elected in 2024 with the conservatives in Cloverdale. And now I'm here back at my home running with the center option, Center BC. I feel really proud, but I love my community and I feel like this is a great opportunity to represent the values that I share with a lot of British Columbians. My thinking is that many people listening to this, they're not keeping up with every single change, every new party that's come about. Would you mind walking us through from your experience, from your decision, BC Liberals is who you sign up with, over to conservatives, then to independence, now to

Center BC, would you mind just giving us just a walkthrough of your journey through all of that? Yeah. So I was invited to run with Kevin Falkin in 2022. Previous to that, like I was an RCP officer here in Surrey. And my entire career, seeing the challenges that people were facing on the street, the wrong path that we were heading in terms of dealing with serious mental illness and addiction, I left at the opportunity. And because at the time the BC Liberals were sort of a broad-based coalition, myself as a centrist, that was a comfortable home for me. It was really unfortunate actually what happened with, you know, BC Liberals. So the name change, obviously, to BC United had some impact.

But I would really say, you know, the demise of that party was when the name became unrecognizable. we had a large wave of support for the conservatives of British Columbia and you know John Rustad at the time and his team had come to me and asked if I would consider joining them and you know at the time it was actually not a very easy decision because I was concerned that I wouldn't be well aligned my personal values with the party but was assured at that time that the party was again like the liberal is going to be a broad-based COVID. where we would be focused on the, you know, core issues that matter the most to British Colombians. But unfortunately, you know, that really wasn't my experience there. And even during the campaign in 2024 with the conservatives, you know, only several days after I had crossed the floor, there was candidates, you know, tweeting sort of dog whistles to the homophobic groups of people and doing things that made me feel deeply uncomfortable.

That was discussed with, you know, the campaign team at the time. And it was something that was difficult to deal with. Right before our first in-person caucus meeting, I had answered an inquiry by CBC that was about a woman who had resigned from the Vancouver Police Board. And because she had made some controversial comments about the newcomer community and about trans people. and I had in a CBC interview sort of defended that, you know, it's probably appropriate that this person stepped down because it might erode trust for the police. And 13 people in the caucus before ever meeting me face to face wrote a letter trying to compel me to, you know, withdraw that statement or, or, yeah. And so, you know, that actually got leaked publicly and it was really hard for me because, you know,

you know, obviously, that's not, wouldn't be well aligned with where I stand, you know. And so we, there was issues, you know, they, Heather Moss, for example, invited ARPA to the legislature that's an organization that's anti-LGB, anti-choice, anti-made, anti-in vitro. So what does ARPA stand for? It's like, what is it? It's like action for reformed, it's an organization like a Christian national historical organization that advocates for a certain views and values that are anti-gay, you know, anti-made, anti-in-vito, anti-choice. And so, you know, these were the things that when I had joined the

conservatives, I was told that these weren't going to be a focus, you know, but they were invited this group into the Hall of Honor. And that was for me something deeply unsettling. You know, but the ultimate, the reason I actually got expelled from the conservative caucus more than a year ago now was that after John Rustad had his leadership review, you know, during that time it had come to light that they had signed up a bunch of members and on a single or couple credit cards and broke the Elections Act, including having a few people that were deceased as signed up as members from beyond the grave, I guess. And when I was wanting to raise a lot of, issues about that in caucus, and I was pretty strong about that. You know, I ended up being fired.

So I think that it was probably, and I've often said this, you know, Dallas Brody and I have had lots of conversations who sit beside each other in the legislature. And I think this is why I actually have some, a lack of faith in the conservatives even now that their ability to stay together is actually solid. Because, you know, on the one hand, when John Rustad recruited me, it was like with this idea that don't worry, we're bringing you because we're moving to the center. But he was telling people like Dallas Brody, we'll never sell out to the liberals, you know? And so I don't know if he just forgot we'd ever be in the same room together, but it certainly didn't get us off to a very

good start. And of course, when people go into public office, like I explained to you in the beginning, one of the reasons I went into this job was because I had ideas about mental health and addictions and crime that I wanted to bring forward. And if another candidate is coming in and their sole purpose for coming in is because they think that the LGBT community is pedophiles and groomers, then that is going to be the agenda that they are pushing. And so I don't understand even now how Lauren Dirkson, you know, can continue to have some of these candidates knowing and having himself experienced what that meant.

So, you know, after being removed from caucus, which was, you know, despite the fact that it probably was a blessing for me, it was still quite shocking. And, you know, you have to adapt to being on your own. So for about a year, I was an independent. I continued to work very hard, doubling my efforts, I would say, to represent people here in Surrey, especially in Cloverdale, and be a strong voice for those things that I, wanted to advocate for, you know, safety, health care. And, you know, I got to this place where I was like, you know what, I would rather stand on my own for what I believe in than belong to a group or a party that I just can't defend the values that they're representing or, you know, where I would feel uncomfortable standing up for the views of a, of a teammate. And so, you know, when I was asked by

Peter when you'd come over to Center BC, you know, I had already spoken to Center BC before. I liked the value set. I am a centrist. So I felt this was a good fit for me. When they left and invited me to come, I knew that I couldn't go back because it wasn't going to be, it's the same party, same people, same conflict. And I felt that, you know, again, just as it was when I was an independent and I you know standing on your own I'd rather stand up for what I believe in. It's the same with this party. I would rather stay with Center BC even though it might be a steeper hill to climb because I know that we are you know really fighting for values that we believe in. We're looking to represent people who have felt unrepresented in this province, the center voice. And so,

you know, I feel good about that. Could you lay out me when you were trying to understand CenterBC, it's easy to know what a conservative kind of off-the-cuff thinks. It's easy to kind of get a grasp on what the NDP, at their core, likely believe. Now, I know that they went and they took some policies and they've moved a little bit more to the middle on certain approaches. But I'm wondering for you, what does Center BC believe? What is its values? To be in the middle is kind of to be in no man's land of people being able to understand what your values are. So could you lay that out? Yeah, for sure. And I think that a lot of British Colombians probably feel this way where they have, when you're in the middle, some of your policies

might be slightly right of center and some of the things that you believe in might be slightly left of center. But what I can say is that we are a fiscally prudent, socially responsible party. So, you know, our wallet might be in our right pocket, but our hearts are here on the left. And so we want to make sure that, you know, we actually in our platform, which we're releasing, the things that we're putting forward are actually achievable results for British Columbians with a pathway to balance. And so we want to have policies that, yes, we show fiscal restraint and we also are developing and diversifying our economy by supporting natural resources and manufacturing and value-added manufacturing and lots of different industries. but at the same time doing it in a manner that is protecting core services that people rely on and making sure that we are always like a service-centered government. And one of the things that sets us apart, I have to say, is that we don't tolerate bigotry within our

ranks. That unlike Lauren Dirkson, if I had someone who was using discriminatory language or categorizing groups of people as groomers and pedophiles, I would certainly fire them. We'll be back after a quick break. My Batman costume, though, you're going to think this is outlandish. I spent $500 on this thing. $500 on a Batman costume is outlandish, and I respect it completely.

That's Jason. I'm Heather, his AI co-host. Welcome to Informedish. Real Life. Artificial co-host. Very real opinions. Movies, parenting. sports and the tangents nobody planned. Search InformDish on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Start with our latest episode. Come pick aside. On that note, you had made this decision not too long ago on which direction you were going to go. I don't know if you've seen Katie Merrifield has come out and said that you were reaching out, inquiring whether or not you could rejoin the conservative ranks. Can you just give us your perspective on that? Yeah, it's funny because I actually didn't even see the tweet myself because, you know, I can certainly say as the leader of a political party, I have better things to do than to get into a tweet war with Katie Maryfield.

And I would think that as someone leading a major campaign here, that she would also have more important things to do. But no, I wasn't asking to come back. And, you know, before the nomination process was done actually, and early on after I announced that I was going to lead this party, I had multiple MLAs from the BC Conservatives, and even subsequent to the nominations, I had people from different campaigns reaching out to me to beg me not to put a candidate in their writing, also to ask me now,

would I please work strategically with them so that we can work to defeat the NDP? And once I started getting those calls early on, and before we had nominated all of our candidates, we were able to. I did have a conversation with Lorne, and I did have a conversation with Dimitri Panazopoulos to say, like, is there something strategic that we want to think about? I'm making sure that we do not keep David E.D.'s government in place, because I don't want to. That is not my desire to keep David E.B.'s government in place. He's incompetent. They've run us

financially into the ground. They haven't taken good social care of this province. So, but I had an opportunity. Lorne even said on television, they invited me back. I said, no, thank you. Those conversations, which I did have with them, were about, do you want to work strategically? Is there something you want to discuss? Ultimately, no. You know, we didn't. And, you know, even since my sort of final talk there, Lauren, who have known, he left BC liberals, like the week before me. I've known him and we've been actually friends since 2022. You know, we just spoke on the phone. He was just checking in and we checked on each other, you know, just a week ago, but there was certainly no talk about coming back. I've had people who are part of Megan Knight's campaign here

in Sarasov begging me before the nominations. Please go and run in Cloverdale. Don't run against Megan. You know, or people associated to the conservatives, whether with their knowledge or not, reaching out and saying, please go back to Cloverdale. I bet they'll let you run with the conservatives. You go in with the conservatives, right? Go there. But that's not crossed my mind to go back. And I, you know, the reason for me is like a really solid reason. I, you know, when the day that we all had the Zoom meeting and it was like Peter Milibar, Rosalmbert, and Alia, who, you know, is also a close friend and Donagall. And we were there and Teresa, we were on the, a Zoom call, Ian Payton, and it was a very, it was a cordial conversation. There was tears,

you know, not just me, but because we've actually been through a lot together. And, you know, they are facing these MLAs also conflict within themselves about what is the right thing to do. I know this. We took a break from the Zoom meeting. So the offer was made, we could go back, all of us can go back. They would take us all. And I said, oh, I know. need to talk to my, um, my spouse. And so I went, I had texted her and said they said I could come back. Those guys are leaving. Um, I just want to talk to you. She actually came to where I was and my daughter was there too. And I was actually, I was upset because you know what? Like everything that I thought on the Friday was happening dissolved by Monday and it was a different reality for me. And,

And what would I do, right? Do I have the strength to take on this challenge or what will I do? So I talked to my spouse, my daughter, and, you know, I was like, I can never go back there. Would it be the easier choice? Yeah, of course. But I'm not willing to, I felt in 2024 I actually stood up for something I didn't believe in. you know something that I was led to believe would we be one thing and was like obviously very far from you know the homophobia that I faced within that caucus um you know

Heather Ma was actually to my face said I was immoral because I'm gay and um it was really difficult so I looked at my own daughter I have also two young sons and I was like how could I ever look my children in the face and go back, they know what I went through. They saw me crying, you know, when things happened and it was so difficult at times. And how could I set that example where I say to my children, you know what, if you should just go back to your bully or you should for political expediency, don't stand up for your values, go somewhere where it would be easier to get elected. That's not who I am. That's not the lesson I want to show my children. And I don't, That's not the lesson I want to show British Columbians, you know, whether this results in me

carrying on as a member of the legislature and as a leader of a party, or it means change for me. I can face my children. I can face my neighbors. And I can face British Columbians and say that I made a stand for what I believe is right. And I'm not going to compromise my values. Like, actually, I did feel like I did in 2024. And it was proven to me by all the things that happened. and so this is where we are.

And what I'm finding is that the place that I'm in is not a lonely place. There are many British Columbians who are well aligned with CenterBC and our biggest challenge is making sure that they know we're here. On that note, can you just give me your perspective on the people? Like, it just feels like you had a whole bunch of people join Center BC and left, and you kind of described that a little bit. But I think for so many British Columbians, it's hard to believe many of these people have any values.

if you're so quick to hop from party to party to party, I mean, there's been three different ones. And I think British Columbians are having a tough time figuring out, what do you believe? And like, I think you illustrated that quite well, which is you're in an uphill battle now. You've chosen a very nascent party that's not well known. You're at high risk of not winning your own seat now,

but you can at least know that you were principled in your beliefs standing the test of time. And I'm just wondering, how do you look at those people who are like, I'm sure in their mind they were like, well, if I run for Center BC, that's not established. My community is a conservative stronghold. I want to win. So I need to do the politically expedient thing. And I just wonder, is that bringing out the best politics for our society? Well, and I guess like, you put it so eloquently because, and this is the ultimate question, right? Like, I've had lots of

people. And in fact, this is something that really stuck with me. And I love Alia Orbus. I really do. She invited me and my family actually to participate in a ceremony for her daughter's coming of age. And I saw a ceremony that blew my mind and changed me. And, you know, I love her. And she had said, you know, when we were making this decision, do you want to be at the table? Or do you want to be outside the building throwing rocks? Right. And then it made me think of my experience over the last, like from 2024 when I got elected

until I got expelled. And it's like, well, of course, it's always better to be at the table. But when people sitting at that table with you are throwing rocks at you, that is not a great place to be. And of course, I think that, you know, wanting to be able to have a voice, but at what cost? And for me, like, I'll tell you that, like, when I was in the RC&P, I did a lot of advocacy for the LGBT community.

I have been on a curation council for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. So I was on part of a visioning committee for the National Monument for the LGBT Purge. My uncle was a purge victim. And when I was part of the concertist, I had to kind of hide that because, you know, didn't want to upset the base, right? And it's like, but you have to, at the end of the day, what do you stand for? You know, where do you draw that line? And I guess, no, I don't, I feel that maybe if people are taking,

the expedient route instead of truly standing up for their values? You know, what is the point? My community is vulnerable. You know, the indigenous community is vulnerable. We have a vulnerable, many vulnerable communities that need powerful voices. But if you're willing to compromise, are you doing a disservice by adding that strength? That's something actually that I thought a lot about. and, you know, when I joined the conservatives and I took a lot of heat, that's probably one of the most difficult things I ever did. It was actually much harder to join them than it was to be kicked out and be independent. And people from my own community were pretty upset.

And I was like, well, is it better to be inside and helping change from within or, you know, or not be there at all? It's like, well, Eleanor, when you joined them, you gave them legitimacy. and you made people believe that it would be a safe place because you were there. But ultimately, it wasn't a safe place for me. And I don't think it's a safe place for our community. So I'm not going to, I wasn't willing to lend that legitimacy. And it makes me sad if those who left have compromised their values or beliefs, I'm sad for them.

But more so, I'm sad for the people they represent. On that note, you, decades later, after your great uncle was expelled from the RCMP, you wore your uniform to the government's apology. Can you just reflect on that thing? Yeah. And, you know, at the time, it was so, that was a great day and an interesting experience that it's really hard to describe. And I wore my uniform because I felt that it would be a tribute to my uncle whose reputation. his life was altered. He, who he was was shamed. You know, he died being shamed.

And I wanted to, like, my goal, even, I had written a book as well, and the proceeds went to schools in Nunavu. And it was sort of a translation of my uncle's diary from his time in the north into eunctitude. And, you know, I was like, I want to restore my uncle's honor, so I wore my red surge.

And then after the apology, when I actually connected more so with Rainbow Veterans of Canada and other survivors. And I hadn't really considered that maybe some people would be uncomfortable with my uniform, you know. So on the one hand, I'm tremendously proud that I was able to represent and to wear the Red Surge on Parliament for this, you know, to go and have lunch in the parliamentary restaurant and then go to the special ceremony and listen to the prime minister speaking and meet all these great people. And on the other hand, I was like, you know, I wish I had also considered maybe a little bit more some of the people who were pursued by the RCMP. We were both victim and villain in the story. And I think that embracing that, even as an RCMP officer, knowing that in some stories were villains and some stories were heroes, you know, is something that I'm much more aware of now having connected on that deeper level with these purge survivors.

Getting to current politics, I'm wondering, what would your government do if, or what would your party do if you hold the balance of power? It's looking like there's a lot of polls in different directions. You have the Greens, I think having a record amount of candidates. Your parties come about. The conservatives are seeking support. There's going to come a moment, I imagine. My theory is that there's going to come a moment where a party needs to make a deal with another. Would you make a deal with the NDP?

You know, you've probably heard the saying that a zebra can't change its stripes. I've seen David E.B. Stripes and, you know, as a really a fiscal imbecile, someone that could turn a $6 billion surplus into nearly $14 billion in deficit and is like digging down. So I'm not likely to form any alliances with the NDP. But that being said, I think that discussions need to be had. You know, the reason why I do hope that we're in a position where we have influenced in the legislature, even if it's only a couple of seats, hope for more, obviously, but is because the things which I have feared about a conservative government, which is pursuing socially conservative issues that would harm my community,

would harm others, perhaps, you know, defunding of choice-related, women's services, I want to be able to have a voice in that legislature to be able to make sure that we're taming that, making sure that we're guiding where the government is going. And whether that, let's say whether that was with the NDP, which from my perspective, I wouldn't be likely to support them at this point, or whether it was with a Lauren Dirkson conservative government, I think those are, these are important conversations to have. They know what our values are. And I know what their, certainly their history has been and what I believe their values to be. To make sure that we uphold the government accountable and making sure that they're upholding values

that we believe reflect, you know, a socially responsible government would be extremely important to me. What do you say to the fact that if the NDP can't court your vote, they're likely to go to the BC Greens? You know, they've had partnerships with the Greens before. And I think that's another reason why it's important to have this party elected into, as a voice in the legislature, we, you know, we've seen what the Greens are up to. They want to bring back David E.B's field, safe supply, unwitnessed, expanding, unmedical options of care for drugs that frankly were disastrous and really did prove in to have diverted drugs into the hands of non-drug users, including kids. This is, I don't support that at all. I don't support decriminalization. This is also something that they've been really big on.

And, you know, so I would really hope that people remember what some of their policies are, which are very far left. And, you know, we sit, I think, in a very comfortable place in the middle where, yes, we are socially responsible. Of course, we're going to give care to British Columbians with addictions, mental health issues, hold people accountable. but at the same time, there has to be a limit to what types of policies and experiments a government is willing to do. So I honestly see an NDP green government as a disaster for British Columbians. That's what I'm wondering, though. If you're given the opportunity, say the NDP ends up being able to court votes, if you say no, they will go more to the left. Depends how many seats we all have, right?

And that's, it's going to be an interesting mathematical equation. But I would say in terms of, you know, law and order, especially, because you have to think that some of the positions that I've worked on over the last four years of service to British Columbians are actually reflected in the conservative zone policies, you know, being in safe supply, looking for a recovery-oriented system of care. Many of these things that I had fought for before the conservatives were even, they had no members in government.

And so I think in that regard, we are well aligned to work together on some of those things. Where we're not necessarily well aligned, you know, our beliefs in education, particularly surrounding Soji. And even I think in some of the ways they have characterized how DRIPA is impacting, you know, certain court decisions and stuff. Where do you stand on Soji now? I you know it's interesting because I don't see any reason for us at this time to remove soji as as a resource for schools and I think that one of the worst things that the conservatives are doing right now certainly is the way in which they're characterizing it this is a resource that is for teachers I actually brought forward in 2024 during budget estimates at the time it was minister of education was Ratchna Singh and I have had been asking her questions about Soji. I said, what's Soji? And she said, you know, sometimes kids have two moms, two dads. But secretly, I had some graphic pictures from some books that were in the school district. And one of them was, like, very graphic. And so I had given the

minister the pictures. And then I said, could the minister answer whether or not she believes that books like this are necessary in school in order for people to understand that sometimes people have two moms, do dads? Of course, she was really shocked. by what she saw. But I later found out that those books were not part of Soji. They were brought in by librarians. This is something that I confirm with the school district. And in fact, in 2024, the NDP had committed $300,000 to refresh the resource and also to make sure that books in schools were relevant to curriculum, age appropriate, and approved. And so, you know, if we're talking about, I think most British Columbians would agree that we need to make sure that resources in school

are approved, relevant to the curriculum that kids are learning about, and age appropriate. Those are no-brainers. And I think that most people would also agree that parents should know what their kids are learning at school. Very important. And if we're talking about those things, I agree. But if we're talking about just erasing an entire resource based on a charter protected category, well, then that's actually already forbidden by the Supreme Court of Canada. So if your reason to say, like, I want to get rid of a book because it's very sexually explicit and, you know, it's not, it's an adult book and it's not relevant to our curriculum. It's not relevant to what we're teaching kids here. Fair enough. But if you want to remove references to LGBT people because you think that's morally wrong

and you just want to simply erase those identities from any kind of materials, that's wrong. And what I hear over and over from the conservatives is we're going to replace it with any bullying. Yeah, that's what they always say. Well, first of all, Soji actually came in in 2016 because of changes to the human rights code. And even the Charter of Rights had changed to recognize gender identity and expression as being charter protected categories. And so as such, individuals have the right to be reflected in our society, in our education system. And more importantly, because they have a right to be free from discrimination based on those categories. So, you know, if your problem that you're identifying, Mr. Dirkson, is that books are not age-appropriate, we agree.

But if your whole campaign hinges around not wanting kids to know it's okay to be gay, then I fundamentally disagree. And you can't take a resource which provides materials based on these charter protected categories and just say that you're going to replace it with an anti-bullying policy. Does that mean you'll also replace those books with LGBT characters or themes? Are you going to just replace those with other ones? Are those now forbidden? Because there is a fundamental difference, I think, between talking about appropriate, age-appropriate materials and whether or not you just don't want someone to tell your kid,

other gay kids are okay. Can I ask? Because I do feel like this is a common perspective, which is at some point in time, and correct me if you disagree, it went from we need to respect and understand and listen, sympathize, and not be discriminatory, to overt celebration, to more of a celebration, I think, can be the best term. And that's what I hear a lot of conservatives push back against, is not that you need to understand that people are born the way that they are and that you need to respect that, but that it's gone towards more of a celebration.

That's what I hear conservatives critique a lot. So a celebration in schools? Yeah, like gay pride month and like the celebrations have gotten bigger, pride parades, these types of things. That's not what a lot of people jumped on board with. But that's also not soji. I agree. I'm just trying to go to the root of what their frustration. You know what?

I don't know if it's a frustration because of actual things that are documented and existing in schools are just homophobia. because I used to be the critic for education from 2022 to 2024. And in the two years that I was the critic for education, I rarely heard about Soji from people that actually had kids in school. And, you know, I have three children in the Surrey School District. They don't celebrate pride at school. In fact, my kids' elementary school and every school might be different. There's no pride flag.

They don't celebrate Pride Month. You know, I think that, you know, also I kind of reject why, shouldn't people celebrate who they are? If we want to celebrate Indigenous History Month and celebrate identities that are from indigenous culture or celebrate Muslim culture or celebrate, you know, even Christian culture, celebrate many different cultures, religions, backgrounds, learn about all them. And the LGBT community also is a culture and also is a protected identity within British Columbia. And so I get it. It doesn't, you know, necessarily align with the beliefs of others, but we live in a country where freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

I don't have to, you know, ascribe to the belief that being who I am is a sin or being who I ammerell makes me immoral. You know, I'm a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces of the RCMP. I've been a public servant now for two terms in the BC legislature, and I try to do my very best for my province. And all I want is for families like my own to be able to have kids that can go to school without, you know, being discriminated against because of who I am. And, you know, to be comfortable in walking down the street without a fear of being attacked because of, you know, who my kids' parents are. When should treatment not be voluntary?

Well, we have actually a really clear criteria under the Mental Health Act that currently allows for involuntary care. And so, you know, obviously, I think it's generally accepted that when you can have someone voluntarily come forward to have treatment, absolutely we need to make that on demand, including things like detox programs that are supported at home and taking advantage of every earliest opportunity to get people into the care that they would like to pursue. And that even includes in BC corrections. but there are people who have, because of their illness, are unable to participate in their own care, who are risked to themselves or others, and those criteria in British Columbia make them eligible for involuntary care. And, you know, thankfully they've actually expanded under the guidance of Dr. Vigo, who actually has done some good things for the province, they've expanded their ability to recognize addiction and serious substance use disorders under the Mental Health Act to be able to give people

care for the complex issues that they're facing. How would you make communities safer? Well, one of the things is listening, okay? And I know that sounds like really base, but we've been hearing it for so long that at the street level, the disorder that people are seeing in particularly public drug use is making people feel unsafe. And in some, aspects, it is unsafe, running a gauntlet of some sort of substance smoke or people who are experiencing behavioral health issues or psychosis, you know, or even just committing multiple crimes because they're feeding an addiction or maybe they have a brain injury or a mental health problem. We have to address those. And so from a Center BC perspective, you know,

drug crimes are federal crimes, even possession, unless it becomes. delegated to the DC Prosecution Service. Even though decriminalization was rolled back and it's illegal to possess drugs, which is to do drugs, the federal Crown Prosecution Service is still under a directive to not charge people. And so one of the things we're going to do is get the feds to change the directive. That, you know, we can set a different criteria, particularly though if it's a person who's using substances and also involved in repeat crime. We need to be able to charge people to use our court system to help compel them to care and really ramp up those kinds of services within BC corrections and through our bail system that helps break that cycle. Like I get it. You know,

mental illnesses and addictions can explain why some of this stuff is happening. But they shouldn't be an excuse to allow it to keep happening. We have to help people to break these cycles or we're not going to break the cycle of chaos and people seeing things and experiencing them that make them feel unsafe. On housing, I had an interesting conversation with an individual from UBC on housing policy. And one of his chief complaints is that we focus so much on building affordable housing that you're basically paying a developer to build a brand new building. for people really struggling. And his counterpoint to that was, why not just ask for cash from the developers?

And then give that back to British Columbians so they can buy into the housing market and encourage the housing system. Rather than building a $30 million project, use that $30 million, give it to British Columbians and let them be able to invest in themselves. And that way you're not forcing government to spend more on housing. And I thought that was really interesting. And I think there's still a place for affordable housing. But how would you approach them?

Man, why didn't you tell me that before my platform? Yeah, we do have some ideas. But I think fundamentally, one of the things that, you know, even David Evey, when he made his announcement that he would, you know, tax the unsold condos and essentially punishing developers who are taking a huge risk when they're building something, all the carrying costs are going on them, they're not sitting on empty condos for fun. They're losing money as those things are sitting there. And one of the problems that we have here in British Columbia is that the cost of building things has exceeded the market's ability to pay for them. The reason the condos are empty is because they cost more than people can pay. One of the biggest solutions to that is making sure that you're making it cheaper to build and the cost lower so that people can buy it. And you're right, you could give the public $30 million, but will it bring the cost?

of building structures down. I think one of the things that is going to be part of our platform, it is, I'm announcing it now, I guess, on your show. It's that we are going to contribute to the costs that are usually associated with DCCs to municipalities through grants programs so that infrastructure costs and amenities costs are covered by the provincial government so that the developers don't have to tack that on to the cost of the building. And so that it will allow the market to have some more, less price. places for people to buy. You know, we need all kinds of houses. You know, I have a big family, three kids and guinea pigs and dog and a cat and the whole bit. And it is hard, even though I'm very fortunate. You know, I've had a great public service career. My spouse has retired, great public service career. Housing is expensive and it's challenging. And frankly, there's so many

people that are living right on the edge of being able to make a go of it here in BC. that we need to be able to find ways to make housing less expensive. So, you know, that will ensure that we're having the ability for families to buy, for young people to buy, and also to have rentals that actually don't start off at $3,000 a unit because they cost less. And so, you know, that's one of the ways. We have some other ideas to, which I'll save for the platform, but making housing less expensive, finding ways of saying to developers who are bearers.

the brunt of the risk, it's, we're going to help cover some of the cost. Cities, don't worry. We're going to, we need to have parks. We need sidewalks. We need infrastructure like sewer water roads. And there has to be a balance there. There's only so much that the market can sustain in terms of what you're piling on the per door cost. Okay. I'm wondering, how do we bring in better paying jobs to address some of these pieces from your perspective? Well, our very first announcement that we ever did was actually $60 million over three years in skilled trades professionals training. The exciting part about the drive that I think every party so far, I don't know about the Greens, but everybody so far indicated

they want to participate in projects of national interest, right? We want to expand LNG. We want to see the Pacific Link pipeline. And there's going to be even more, especially if we end up, you know, with more manufacturing, even hydro projects. There's going to be lots of work, particular, in the skilled trades. And we've already, we know that there's already a shortage and that many people are actually retiring from the skilled trades. And we aren't keeping up with that. So in addition to what the government had already pledged another $60 million over three years,

so that British Columbians can be first in line to these jobs. Like 70,000 jobs are expected to come just associated with the Pacific Link pipeline alone. We don't want to, and nothing against people from Newfoundland, but we don't want to truck in people from another province when we have this amazing base of people that we want to help them access training. We want to help them to access and be first in line for all of the jobs and these opportunities that are coming with these major projects. You know, if we're going to be taking the risk here in BC, we need to make sure that our people of British Columbia benefit the most. So we're going to make an investment in people to grow our professional workforce. I was just watching an interview between Premier Daniel Smith and Premier Doug Ford, and they were both celebrating their skilled trades college.

And the fruit that it's bared in terms of being able to build up that base, is that similar to what you're thinking? You know what? If you're not building up that base and you don't invest, so you're going to make me spoil all my things, but obviously in our education platform, which is a very, I think a strong approach to stable funding for post-secondary, you know, we want to make sure that whether it's K to 12 or post-secondary or even, you know, continuing education to even adapt to the changing AI work environment, we need to make sure British Columbians have those skills.

One of our biggest shortfalls here is actually human resources. We've had this sort of glut of opportunity and not always enough skilled people to fulfill these things that we need. And so I agree actually with Danielle Smith and Doug Ford that, you know, having investments in post-secondary, particularly skilled trades, nursing, medical school is obviously important, teachers. You know, we have a lot of these sort of the foundational careers, if you will, of a society. We need to make some significant investments and support people to do these core duties. And so we're ready to make those investments. Out of curiosity on that, I just read a report saying BC Hydro had to bring in $2 billion worth of energy from the U.S. in order to maintain. We've been told as a province for a long time, our hydro is going to get us there. But because of the droughts we've experienced, I believe it was Barry Penner, a former L.A., who came out with the research showing $2 billion we're purchasing from the U.S. to maintain.

How do you see energy independence for the province? Well, you know, one of the interesting, things when I was just in the opposition over the last year is that, you know, I remember asking Adrian Dix, why do we sell LNG to the United States where they have gas powered turbines and then buy electricity? Why don't we have our own gas powered turbines and produce our own electricity? And, you know, his excuse is that, you know, nobody is selling those turbines. It'll take eight years. Order it today. And in eight years from now, we could have our own. Um, energy plants. And you know what, even if we then were able to somehow become less reliant on those and move more towards hydroelectricity in times where we have enough water to make sure that

those turbines are running, we do that. But I think that, you know, what we need to really look at is where is our growth potential? If we are selling LNG to the world for power, we need to also take advantage of that. And I would like to see gas turbine electric generation, especially brought to areas of, you know, where we have the most demand right now. What is your take on climate targets? Yeah, you know, this is an important one, you know, being a parent, thinking about the future, what that will look like for my kids, but also the present. We just came through a horrific wildfire season. Awful. You know, I was still police officer when the floods happened in, you know,

in the valley. And there's things going on in this province that we can't ignore. And whether or because of the actions that we're taking here in British Columbia or whether it's because our world is changing. We have to take a pragmatic approach to that. At the same time, the things that we want to do in British Columbia require money, resource development. The world is hungry for the things that we can deliver. Mining, mineral extraction, LNG, these are things that have environmental impacts. You know, it was one of the reasons why when Andrew Weaver we'd been talking for a while, but when he wanted to come forward, you know, he, he's a very, very intelligent person. And when it comes to, you know, climate science, I love talking with him. And, you know, he's talking about innovation. One of the things that we want to do is further

incentivize people who innovate with green technologies. We want to make sure that we're fulfilling the current standards, which are net zero ready by 2030. We have to take an approach that's balanced, being pragmatic, remembering that, like you said, there's droughts. You have to have water to live. We have to make sure that we have enough water to fuel our agriculture industry. We have to take a pragmatic approach that's balancing our needs to expand, but also doing it in a responsible way. We plan on weaving in environmental considerations and lensing everything that we do as a government. if a CenterBC government would be looking at everything that we do to make sure that we're acting responsibly

and keeping the environment and our future in mind. For taxes, what would you change and who pays? Yeah, interesting. So our platform, which will be released this week, is a realistic platform. You know, we're not, you're probably not going to see us announcing a pony for every family or anything like that, but because what we wanted to do was be,

look, what is setting us apart is that what we're doing is actually practical. Something that you could do. A playbook for how to get back to balance. I'm praying that you're about to say you're going to cut the property transfer tax because it's the most illogical tax I've ever seen. Well, so we do have some tax cuts in it. But at the same time, you know, we want to make sure that we're certainly not raising taxes. But we want to make sure, look, we have huge challenges in,

every single major like public sector that we rely on. Education, health care being probably the number one that's on people's minds. There are people that I know who have cancer who cannot, they're waiting for treatment, they're waiting for surgeries. I had a bunch of constituents who are waiting more than a year with debilitating back pain and they can't get surgery. I want to be able to provide relief to those people. We need to be able to provide universal health care to people, and it's not universal if you can't access it. So we're going to take a pragmatic approach to the finances. We do have some tax cuts in there. You'll see it's coming. But we want to be realistic for people. And I think if you look at what the NDP promised in the last election and what

they actually did. You know, did you get your grocery check yet? No, you didn't. So I kind of, maybe we'll make ourselves different, not only because we like to stand up for our values and take the not easy path, but also because I don't want to lie to British Columbians. It's easy to sit in front of your camera and say, I'm cutting all the taxes and I'll never raise another tax and I'm going to, everyone gets a cotton candy machine and a pony, but that's not real. And neither are the promises David Eby's making. And I actually don't believe that the promises Lauren Dirkson's making are achievable either. It's, of course, all of us are saying we're going to grow the economy. Everyone. But it doesn't happen overnight. And in the meantime, if you've cut all the revenue

sources for the government, you're going to grow the deficit. Can we talk about specifically the property transfer tax? Because it offends me deeply. Because so you have like a, like a young family or maybe just an individual. They buy into an apartment and then they have to pay $20,000 to the government in order to move into a townhouse. And then when they're ready to go to a townhouse to an actual house, all of these being a part of like the British Columbia dream, the Canadian dream to move up on this journey. You are giving the government like by the end of it $60,000 and it doesn't create any value. It's considered what's called a friction tax because it's just your interaction with the economy. And then people have to stay because they can't

afford the cost to move up or to move down because of that price. And I just, I don't see what the value was. It was pitched like 25 years ago as being a way to cool the market. The market was never hotter over the past 10 years. It didn't deliver on the original promise. I just don't understand how anybody can stand by this. You sold me. I'm going to contact the policy team right away. I think you're right. And one of our commitments is that we will be reviewing the entire suite of taxes because I think that there are things that don't make sense and are quite punishing and actually do the opposite of what we're trying to achieve here. Like you said, it was trying to cool off the market. We never had a hotter market. So that is also something we want to do. What you're

going to see also, apart from the fact that this is an achievable platform, is that in every item that we are proposing, there are layers of accountability. You know, if we're going to say that we're going to build this number of such and such, there'll be a public accountability piece where the public can check, whether it's wait time reductions, you know, whether it's adding additional seats to a school system, whether it's, you know, building up our involuntary and voluntary care systems, we want to build that accountability piece in there. This government, you know, David Eadie, I've never seen a government that had more spokespeople and spin doctors and communications staff, they're constantly changing the names of things

to make it seem like there's more, right? Like redefining what a care bed is or what's a treatment bed, you know, so it looks like more, but it's actually just different beds new, relabeled. You know, or we added this, we've added or refurbished this many beds. See, add two beds, but give a makeover to 20 beds and they say that they've added 25 new beds. You know, that's not accountability. It's spin-doctoring. It's unfair. There's no accountability for the money that the government has spent with very little to show for it. We want to be different. We want to be the government that's there saying, like, governments have no money. This is your money. How is it being spent? Is it being spent responsibly? Are the things that your government is saying they're going to do or are doing? Are they actually getting done?

And sort of that's really part of our value set as well as accountability and making sure that we're achieving our promises and not simply lying like the NDP have done over the last nine years. Then on that note, I'd like to talk a little bit about nonprofits because I have a deep frustration with nonprofits because it's a way of the government requesting programs and services and not having to hold the accountability for how those are delivered. And I have one example from the community I'm from Chilliwack where we know that there's this transition. house and it was widely known throughout the community that they would boot women out by one in the morning because they got the checkmark of having had somebody in the bed up until midnight. But there's no, then you have to go to their board of directors if you want to make it. It never gets back to the government. So there's no clear form of accountability.

And you see that with a lot of nonprofits now where they've received a large government grants and they don't have the same accountability because it's a board of directors. You could remove the board. They could go back to their same shifty ways. And I just find if the government's delivering a service, they need to deliver the service. Being able to offer it out to nonprofits can sound nice on the surface, but it doesn't actually guarantee British Columbians can hold the government accountable for those actions. Exactly. And I couldn't agree with you more. And that's also why we want to, we're going

to put up a system that requires measured outcomes and consistent measured outcomes. And I think that is, you know, we're spending millions of dollars a day on the downtown east side just as an example. what do we what are the results that are being achieved um and i'm not saying that there are no results there there probably are some results being achieved so let's find out what's working let's you know expand those programs but the ones that aren't working we need to refocus our funding on the things that work and so we've been as taxpayers dumping countless millions into things that we actually have no way of measuring right now as a province. Alberta, for example, if it is a treatment and recovery oriented, you know, system of care service that is a part of being contracted by the government,

they're required to report their results to the government. They're required to account for, you know, what is happening, what they're doing, where every dollar is going. And importantly, people who are entering into whether it's, you know, a shelter or other places, they have to give a health number and so that the system can track them. We have, you've probably seen it yourself where the government's like, well, this, you know, safe consumption site or whatever served 50,000 people. Who are they? And what happened to those people? Do we track them in any way? Was it 50,000 different people or was it the same 10 people?

50,000 times. You know what I mean? And really finding out, so what was the long-term effect of that person using a certain service? And I don't mean to single out that particular industry or whatever, but anything, whether, you know, even in our healthcare authorities, they actually don't have a single uniform tracking system, even how they measure wait times for, you know, mental health services. We have to, and this is our commitment, actually, to stand up a centralized uniform data point collection so that whether it's wait times for surgeries or a person who's waiting for mental health care, we actually are able to track that data. I don't understand how the NDP, and one of the things I was calling for for years now

is as a province-wide plan that tells us how they're actually going to be addressing what we have as a crisis here, you know, both in the voluntary system, the involuntary system, and the forensic psychiatric system, a huge chasm of. of services missing, with no forward facing plan of how to solve this problem. How do you even know how many spaces you would need? If you don't collect uniform data, you know, I feel like over the last nine years,

especially the last four years with David Eby, it's like he's just taken wads of taxpayer dollars and thrown them at the wall hoping something would stick. I'm gonna give him more, one compliment, which is slightly better after Dr. Vigo came, some of the things that they have done will be effective once they're up and running. You know, the cottages at Alouette, the mental health beds, the involuntary beds in Surrey pre-trial, these are excellent resources. Like, but that's like the last year of nine years. What the heck have you been, and I almost didn't say heck,

but what have you been doing those other eight years? We've had over 18,000 people die in this province. Communities are absolutely rocked by street disorder and oftentimes crimes related to serious mental illness, brain injury, and substance use. And all this time, the government really has squandered an opportunity. David E.B. spent a billion dollars with a B. In his first year, he made that pledge for mental health and addiction and then waited an entire year to hire an expert on mental health and addiction after the money was already spent. That's the opposite. of what Center BC wants to do. We want to be not ideologically driven. We want to be driven by data, right? Science. You hire the expert first. You collect the data. You spend taxpayers'

dollars wisely. You measure the outcomes and you report it to the public. That's the responsible thing to do. And I believe that's the way that we're going to solve these issues. On that note, Nahid Menchie from the Alberta NDP had shared that one of his only policy prescriptions he does agree with is on recovery beds, but I would also be interested to ask, what are your thoughts on DRIPA? Should we amend it, repeal it, modify it?

What is the future of the Declaration Act from your perspective? So if people remember, and if they're political junkies and been watching, I actually introduced twice a private member's bill to repeal Section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act. And CenterBC does want to move away from legislation that has created uncertainty. That being said, I think it's important to really reiterate our position is that we respect First Nations rights. We fully recognize Section 35 and the jurisprudence that goes along with that.

And we want to negotiate treaties with willing nations. First Nations have rights. We are unique in Canada in that we have not negotiated the majority of the treaties that we could here in BC and we need to be able to create certainty. The reason why we would move away from DRIPA and make those changes to the Interpretation Act is because we want to be able to negotiate with First Nations, develop those relationships, provide that certainty through treaties to both First Nations and make sure that they receive that, you know, that critical. funding, that critical investment from government, and that we create the certainty that we need around private property rights, but also the rights and title for the First Nations, and give that clarity for municipal governments. And so from our perspective, you know, it's very controversial.

Obviously, you know, we don't want to send a message to First Nations that we don't want to respect their rights. That's simply not the case. We do. We want to rely on Section 35 and good relations and take that decision-making out of the court and also in terms of the way in which the Interpretation Act has required lawmakers to interpret B.C.'s laws. We would like to work with First Nations to on any type of alignment of laws or with respect to the way that the Interpretation Act is now being used in British Columbia we want to take a step back from that and negotiate directly between government to government

with First Nations. One of the purposes of DRIPA was to reduce court battles. That was the whole vision behind it and that didn't follow obviously with the Gatala decision And so I'm just wondering, every government has said, we want to get away from that. But it's not up to you. It's up to First Nation communities.

And so I wonder how you square that circle because it's ultimately rarely the province, other than in on appeal, like the Cowichin decision, kind of trying to move away from litigation or from court issues. And so how do you get there? Because every government has said, we want good relations, and we want to get away from the court. And we've not been able to do that despite different changes to legislation. Yeah, and it's really challenging. And I think that, you know, when you said it's not up to me, it's up to, you know, First Nations, but I think it's up to both of us. We both of us have a responsibility, First Nations, and the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada, to come to an agreement. And I think that a lot has changed. I think you may agree that the way in which the public is suddenly alive to, you know, all the things that are happening, including people get. getting very stirred up because they, obviously, they don't want their private property to be at risk. They feel threatened. And we have to get away from this battle and recognize that this isn't about fighting each other. This is actually supposed to be about working together. We need to do a better

job of communicating with non-Indigenous British Columbians about what these partnerships can mean. they can be very prosperous not only for First Nations but for British Columbians because they allow us to move faster when it comes to project approvals, for example, when it comes to having collaborative relationships that allow us to have joint ventures together with First Nations and because these are tremendous poverty reducing tools to have a treaty, for example, with the First Nation and have that certainty and have that funding and have that opportunity coming. you know, is actually a wonderful thing that will, the economic stimulus that that represents is actually beneficial to all of us. And so we, as a center BC, we really want to do a better job, much better job than both the NEP, and certainly a better job than the conservatives, of making sure we're bringing British Columbians and other Canadians along with us. And we will want to, at every step of the way, have a full partnership with First Nations to do that. I think that there has been in the past an adversarial. It's like us versus them.

That's not right. This is a we. This is the province that we all share. We're very blessed to be here together. And I think that we haven't done enough, frankly. Yes, we've always said like, oh, we want to have a great relationship. But we haven't followed through. And relationships, they have to be truly collaborative. But I think that there has been, it's difficult to have that relationship to when the court is making decisions instead of sitting face to face and having these collaborative discussions, recognizing that we want to achieve the best result for both indigenous communities and non-indigenous. With great respect, I guess I'll disagree and say the most has been done over the past 15 years in terms of reconciliation. And I think that's what

some of British Columbians' concerns are, is that record amounts have been spent both federally and provincially. And in just watching how the DRIPA discussion with David E.B. played out, I think my disappointment was that First Nations weren't willing to say, hey, you brought in this remarkably new legislation and it sounds like your constituents, your community is not feeling like it's working for them. And they chose not to proceed on any amendments in the face of that for such a small group of people. And I can see as a British Columbia feeling like, hey, they do represent 4% of the population and they do have rights and they should be respected. But at the same time, we're the other 96% and we're feeling uncertain.

and investors are going to leave. And I just feel like there needs to be a reckoning at some point in time that we have been met in a lot of ways. My favorite program run by the provincial government was the Indigenous Housing Fund, which they canceled under David E.B. The Greens are saying they'll bring it back. But that's bringing 31 new housing units to my community, which brings people off the streets back into their community, connects them with the resources and the programs. And so I just, I wonder how you address that. So if I'm understanding you correctly, it's, you know, wondering how we justify. as some are saying that we're doing so much for only 4% of the population.

Not just, I wouldn't say why are we doing that, but at times you need to look at societal good. And that's become very controversial to say for so many politicians to say like, hey, the greater good is the 100% of everybody in this province. And I don't think that we're disagreeing here. I actually do agree with you, which is why we said that we did want to move away from this legislation. And I have entered in a amendments previously private members bills to amend the Interpretation Act. Because I do think that there is a reckoning. And we do have to recognize the public interest.

You know, who are we representing? And, you know, not to discount the concerns that the public has with DRIPA. I think that you're absolutely right. But are we going to get through it by shutting the door on First Nations and insulting? And I think there's been a lot of damage done since the Cowchin decision just in of the politicking and, you know, how we've been speaking about it. You know, and I will say we, because even in the legislature, the kind of politicking and rhetoric that's actually in some communities brought a lot of anti-indigenous sentiments, that's not helping anyone. So do I think

that there's a reckoning and that we have to look at the public interest in all the things that we're doing, including the interest of those who are not part of an indigenous First Nation? absolutely, which is why instead of continuing on with DRIPA and Section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act, it's my preference, what I would like to see done, and what I would do is to make sure that these are discussions that we're having and so that we're not having things imposed upon us and then fighting always to turn back the clock. That's, you know, we don't want to have a bad relationship, but we also don't want to have a bad relationship with everybody else in the province who is not part of a First Nation. And it's complicated.

You know it, but we're not disagreeing you and I. I think that having these things can exist together, the strong, good relationship, the partnership, where actually we do have to settle treaties, but at the same time recognizing that we do have cities, we have everything else that's come to this province, you know, since people settled here. And that's what reconciling something is. It's two sides coming together and we have to give equal footing to both indigenous first nations. who have ancestral and territorial and title claims that they are making to parts of British Columbia and those who exist here now. We have to find that balance because, you know, we're in a situation where sometimes it feels like one side's going to put up a blockade or the other one will.

We don't want to have any blockades here. The magic is going to be in the middle where we somehow find a way to find mutually agreeable terms under which we can have prosperity for everyone who lives here. Eleanor Sterko, how can people follow your work? You know what? Follow me on Instagram. Follow me on Twitter. We have a CenterBC page. Our platform will be out in a few days.

I'm going to even put it on the QR code on my button so that people can check it out anywhere. But feel free to reach out to our campaign anytime. Thank you very much for being willing to do this and for being willing to do such a long-form interview. It's greatly appreciated. I think it's the best path for British Columbia. be able to make informed decisions. So thank you for sharing your time.

Well, thank you for taking time with me too.