VANCOUVER — From the very back row of the Kitsilano Ballroom at Vancouver’s JW Marriott Parq hotel on Friday night, I watched British Columbia conservatism test its “new frontier” in real time.
During the evening’s main event — the first “sanctioned” BC Conservative leadership debate — the gloves came off.
Here is my on-the-ground fact-check analysis of the surprisingly intense prize fight.
Caroline Elliott’s claim (directed at Yuri Fulmer): “He has called British Columbians ‘settlers.’”
Verdict: True 🟢
Elliott made this accusation early in the debate, and used it as a clear fight strategy throughout the evening. She specifically referenced Fulmer describing British Columbians as “guilty settlers on stolen land.” The claim is accurate.
Video clips circulating on X, including one produced by the Elliott campaign with over 50,000 views, confirm the language appears in Fulmer’s earlier official statements and university-related materials. Fulmer did not deny this during the debate. Instead, he acknowledged performing land acknowledgments and framed them as a “practical reality” of doing business while acting as the Chancellor of Capilano University.
Yuri Fulmer’s claim (directed at Caroline Elliott): “You've previously called socially Conservative views ‘abhorrent’ and called Canada a ‘racist country.’”
Verdict: Partially true 🟡
Yuri Fulmer scored one of the debate’s sharpest hits when he accused Caroline Elliott of once calling socially conservative views “abhorrent” and describing Canada as a “racist country.” Findlay launched a similar accusation on the “abhorrent” comments in her own line of attack.
Video from 2020 shows Elliott did use the word “abhorrent” on live television while attacking then-BC Liberal MLA Laurie Throness for his opposition to SOGI-123 and the federal conversion-therapy ban.
She has since tried to walk it back on stage, but the clip — which Fulmer’s team promptly posted online — proves the remark happened.
On the second charge, the evidence is thinner: Elliott has acknowledged Canada’s “racist past” in columns and speeches, but she has also publicly pushed back against claims that modern Canada is a systemically or inherently racist country, arguing instead that it should be celebrated for its progress on tolerance and opportunity.
Caroline Elliott’s claim (directed at Yuri Fulmer): “(Fulmer) scrubbed his website of land acknowledgments.”
Verdict: True 🟢
Elliott landed a direct and verifiable hit in the opening statements and later rebuttals. Archived versions of Fulmer’s business and university-related websites show clear land acknowledgments and references to “settlers on stolen land,” along with endorsements of DEI and decolonization initiatives during his time as chancellor of Capilano University.
Fulmer did not deny the past statements in the debate — instead, he acknowledged having done land acknowledgments and framed them as a practical reality of doing business and participating in institutions under the previous “regime” created, in his view, by the BC Liberal environment Elliott was part of.
The scrubbing of the land acknowledgments once he entered the Conservative leadership race is also documented via web archives.
Yuri Fulmer’s claim (directed at Caroline Elliott): “David Eby has both endorsed you and commended you for backing out of the last debate. How do you feel about being David Eby’s choice?”
Verdict: Partially true 🟡
Fulmer used this line in the conservatism section to suggest that Premier David Eby was effectively supporting Elliott or was pleased she had skipped a previous debate. The claim has a kernel of truth: Eby did publicly criticize the organizers of that earlier debate and Elliott’s decision to skip it was noted favourably in some NDP circles.
Fulmer framed it as evidence that Elliott was becoming the NDP’s preferred opponent in the leadership race. The jab was sharp and drew a reaction from the audience. However, there is no public evidence Eby literally “endorsed” Elliott in the Conservative leadership contest itself, making the statement only partly true and slightly misleading, with Fulmer's choice of language likely used for rhetorical effect at the expense of accuracy.
Caroline Elliott's claim: “Either you're selling out youth to make a buck or you're treating workers so poorly they don't want to work there” (Directed at Yuri Fulmer)
Verdict: Half-true, half unproven 🟡
This is a tricky claim to either prove or disprove entirely due to its lack of narrowness or specificity. There is no public record of Fulmer actively mistreating workers. Deep-dive searches of Glassdoor, Indeed, Reddit, X, and news archives turned up zero credible employee complaints, grievances, or reports of toxic culture, underpayment, or unusually harsh conditions at his Western Restaurant Franchises Inc. A&W locations.
Even if we take Fulmer’s newest number of 93.5% Canadians at his word — a jump from the 91.6% (46 TFWs out of 549 employees) he disclosed in January — his A&W franchises still use Temporary Foreign Workers at roughly 6.5% of their workforce. That’s more than double the 3% TFW share that Restaurants Canada reports across the entire Canadian foodservice industry. The “selling out youth” half therefore has a modicum of empirical support.
Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s claim (directed at Caroline Elliott): “You say people should hire BC… I guess that doesn’t apply to your campaign team.”
Verdict: Largely true. 🟢
Findlay delivered one of the debate’s most effective applause lines with this pointed authenticity attack. Elliott’s platform repeatedly hammers the “Hire BC” message, stressing the need to prioritize British Columbians for jobs and economic opportunities. Yet her campaign has relied heavily on high-profile out-of-province strategists, most notably Ontario-based Kory Teneycke, a veteran of federal Conservative campaigns and Doug Ford’s team, along with other national operatives.
The room erupted in thunderous applause. Findlay followed up with her signature line — “I refuse to let boys from back east dictate to us in BC how to run BC” — driving home the point that grassroots control matters more than imported expertise.
The claim ranks as “largely true” as opposed to completely true solely on account of Elliott’s team consisting of some BC figures, including David Denhoff and the fairly recent addition of Katy Merrifield, who only recently moved back to BC from Ottawa after resigning as Pierre Poilievre's communications manager.
Caroline Elliott’s claim (directed at Kerry-Lynne Findlay): “You not only voted for this, but whipped your party to vote for the lie, that Canada is a genocidal state” (in the wake of the 215 Kamloops announcement).
Verdict: Largely untrue and inaccurate. 🔴
Elliott’s accusation was one of the sharper personal attacks in the debate. In the immediate aftermath of the May 2021 announcement regarding 215 unmarked graves at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School, the House of Commons passed motions recognizing the residential school system as “genocide.”
The Conservative caucus, like all parties, did not object, but Elliott framed this as Findlay actively “whipping” the party to endorse “the lie that Canada is a genocidal state.” The claim does not hold up on a key factual detail. Kerry-Lynne Findlay was not the Conservative caucus whip at the time of those 2021 votes. A later October 2022 unanimous consent motion, meanwhile, did not require recorded votes — making the claim objectively false.
Official parliamentary records show Findlay assumed the role of Chief Opposition Whip only in September 2022 under Pierre Poilievre. While Findlay did support the motion as a sitting MP by not objecting — a decision she has since defended by noting the limited information available immediately after the Kamloops announcement and her ongoing calls for truth-seeking on unmarked graves — there is no evidence she was responsible for whipping the party line.
Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s claim (directed at Caroline Elliott): “You were on a public channel, on video, in public, saying that Laurie Throness’s beliefs, Christian values, and him not believing in gender ideology were personally abhorrent.”
Verdict: True. 🟢
Elliott’s 2020 televised comments show her using the word “abhorrent” to describe then-BC Liberal MLA Laurie Throness’s opposition to SOGI-123 and the federal conversion-therapy ban. Elliott responded by insisting the clip was misleadingly edited, that she had been raised Catholic, and that Christian values have “an absolute place” in the party. She has since tried to walk back the remark and emphasize her openness to social conservatives. However, the original wording and context remain on record.
Elliott’s repeated denials — including suggestions that the clips were doctored and that opponents were relying on NDP talking points — drew audible groans from portions of the live audience. The exchange became one of the debate’s most memorable moments, largely on account of Peter Milobar's decision to not engage in the back-and-forth between Elliott and Findlay.
Peter Milobar’s claim (directed at Iain Black): “You quit as a minister and forced a by-election…”
Verdict: True. 🟢
Milobar landed a clean, factual hit when he reminded the audience that Iain Black resigned his seat as MLA for Port Moody-Coquitlam in October 2011 to become president and CEO of the Vancouver Board of Trade.
Black had previously served in cabinet as Minister of Labour under Premier Gordon Campbell, and his departure did require a by-election. The point was a sharp reminder of Black’s decision to leave elected office mid-term for the private sector.
Iain Black’s response (to Peter Milobar): “I’ve never left a job undone.”
Verdict: Largely untrue. 🔴
Black is most certainly a success story, both in the private and public sector, but if resigning mid-term and forcing a by-election qualifies as leaving a job undone on account of him not fulfilling his term, then the rebuttal can be struck down as untrue.
While Black wrapped up some constituency work before formally stepping down, the core fact remains: he chose to leave his elected position before the end of his mandate to take a high-profile private-sector role. In the heat of a leadership debate, the line played as a strong defence of his record, but the historical record shows otherwise.
Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s claim (directed at Peter Milobar): “You voted for DRIPA.”
Verdict: True. 🟢
Findlay directly challenged Milobar on his legislative record, noting that he had voted in favour of the NDP’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act as a BC Liberal MLA in 2019. The claim is accurate.
In his initial response Milobar briefly misspoke, saying he had voted against DRIPA. He quickly corrected himself on the spot, admitting “yes, I did vote for DRIPA” and explaining that the government of the day had assured the legislature the bill would not have the far-reaching consequences now evident. He went on to state clearly that DRIPA must now be repealed.
Yuri Fulmer’s claim (directed at Caroline Elliott): “David Eby has supported your views on safe-supply, I believe he called them ‘enlightened.’”
Verdict: Partially true. 🟡
Fulmer was trying to tie Elliott’s past record to the NDP’s harm-reduction policies. Caroline Elliott did publicly support a role for supervised safe supply in a March 2024 CBC interview, stating: “There is a role for safe supply. It can stabilize folks… help them transition to treatment, and help them ultimately get well. That’s a wonderful thing.”
Premier David Eby and the NDP government have long championed safe supply and harm reduction as core policy, but no public record exists of Eby specifically calling Elliott’s views (or safe supply itself) “enlightened.”
The claim lands as a fair rhetorical link between Elliott’s earlier statements and NDP orthodoxy, but remains only “partially true,” as the precise “enlightened” attribution to Eby appears to be an overstatement or paraphrase.
Caroline Elliott’s response: “You got your talking point from an NDP press release.”
Verdict: Misleading, classic deflection. 🔴
Elliott’s rebuttal tried to dismiss Fulmer’s attack as recycled NDP spin. In reality, the criticism is rooted directly in Elliott’s own on-the-record comments, including the 2024 CBC clip above, and other public statements from her time aligned with the BC United/Liberal orbit.
The response was entirely misleading and drew another audible groan from the live viewing audience. Opponents like Fulmer have been circulating those clips independently for months — they are not sourced from any NDP press release. The line played as a quick way to paint Fulmer as doing the NDP’s dirty work, but it doesn’t hold up when the primary evidence is Elliott’s own words.
Iain Black’s claim (repeated throughout the debate): “I alone have served in BC’s cabinet, and I have defeated an NDP government twice.”
Verdict: True. 🟢
Black frequently positioned himself as the candidate with the most relevant high-level experience, emphasizing his time as a cabinet minister in Gordon Campbell’s government, including as Minister of Labour, and his role in the BC Liberal victories that defeated the NDP in both 2001 and 2005. The claim is accurate.
He did serve in cabinet and was part of the team that won two consecutive majority governments against the NDP. This became a central part of his pitch: that he is the only candidate on stage with proven experience both in government and in defeating the NDP, making him best positioned to do it again. It is worth noting that Kerry-Lynne Findlay has also served in a cabinet position, albeit at the federal rather than the provincial level.
Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s claim (closing statement): “Mr. Milobar and Ms. Elliott defended DRIPA, SOGI, safe supply, decriminalization of hard drugs, COVID handling, and condemned the Freedom Convoy. Mr. Fulmer and Mr. Black stated that I did unseated land acknowledgements as an MP. I never did.”
Verdict: Largely true in first half, true in second half. 🟢
In her closing statement, Kerry-Lynne Findlay delivered a sweeping indictment of her main rivals’ past records, stating that Peter Milobar and Caroline Elliott had defended or supported DRIPA, SOGI, safe supply/decriminalization, certain COVID measures, and the condemnation of the Freedom Convoy while in BC Liberal and United circles.
This is largely accurate: Milobar voted for DRIPA in 2019 as a BC Liberal MLA, even if he has since called for repeal; Elliott has a documented 2024 record supporting a role for safe/supervised supply and alignment with BC United positions on SOGI elements and the convoy. The broader BC United Falcon-era party did condemn the 2022 Freedom Convoy and maintained harm-reduction approaches.
On the land acknowledgments charge, Findlay is correct — no public record exists of her making “unceded territory” or similar statements as a federal MP. Fulmer and Black appear to have misattributed the practice to her. Searches of her speeches, Hansard, and campaign materials show she has consistently opposed or avoided such language.
When tone, delivery and crowd reaction are set aside, the debate ultimately came down to a simple test: how closely did each candidate stick to verifiable facts?
Kerry-Lynne Findlay ranked first for truthfulness and accuracy. Her attacks on the past records of Milobar and Elliott regarding DRIPA, SOGI, safe supply, decriminalization and the Freedom Convoy were largely accurate and grounded in the public record of the BC United era. Her denial that she had ever used unceded territory language as a federal MP also checked out. Findlay’s statements held up under scrutiny extremely well.
Peter Milobar came in a close second. His pointed reminder that Iain Black resigned mid-term as MLA and forced a by-election was factually precise and uncontested. Milobar was also notably honest when challenged on his own 2019 vote for DRIPA, openly admitting the mistake while explaining why he now supports full repeal after misspeaking.
Yuri Fulmer placed third. Most of his claims — including Elliott’s past use of the word “abhorrent” to describe certain social-conservative views and her support for a role for safe supply — were partially or mostly accurate. However, he overstated some phrasing, such as attributing the exact word “enlightened” to Premier David Eby.
Caroline Elliott ranked fourth. She scored clean, documented hits on Fulmer’s past land acknowledgments, website scrubbing and “settlers on stolen land” language. However, her accusation that Fulmer mistreats workers was unproven, her deflection that Fulmer’s safe-supply criticism came from an NDP press release was misleading, and her claim that Findlay had “whipped” the Conservative caucus to vote for the “genocidal state” motion in 2021 was inaccurate — Findlay was not the caucus whip at the time of those votes.
Iain Black finished last on factual accuracy among the candidates who faced direct challenges. Notably, he received the fewest direct attacks and launched the fewest himself during the debate, meaning he had the smallest sample of statements tested under fire. His one major defensive claim — that he has “never left a job undone” — was largely untrue in light of his 2011 mid-term resignation from the legislature. With fewer opportunities to be tested compared to the more combative exchanges involving Elliott, Fulmer and Findlay, Black was largely a victim of sample size.