David Eby preaches national unity, but BC faces economic decline, stalled projects, and investor uncertainty, leaving local challenges unaddressed.
Premier David Eby has made himself a loud voice on matters of national interest, particularly when it comes to dismissing Alberta secession rhetoric and warning against what he characterizes as political “extortion.” He presents himself as a sober defender of Canadian unity and democratic norms. But this outward focus masks an uncomfortable reality closer to home: British Columbia’s economic position is weakening, and the province is ill-placed to lecture others while its own fundamentals deteriorate.
British Columbia has suffered repeated credit rating downgrades, a clear signal from financial markets that fiscal confidence is eroding. These downgrades are not partisan attacks; they are assessments by independent agencies reacting to persistent deficits, rising debt, and limited plans for long-term balance. The consequence is simple and serious: higher borrowing costs and reduced investor confidence at a time when the economy can least afford it.
Yet instead of concentrating public attention on restoring fiscal credibility, Premier Eby has chosen to elevate debates about Alberta’s separatist fringe—an issue with little practical traction but plenty of political theatre. Talking down secession may play well nationally, but it does nothing to address the economic anxiety being felt by British Columbians facing job insecurity, stalled investment, and rising costs of living.
Compounding the problem is the lack of truly shovel-ready projects capable of sustaining jobs during economic slowdown. The government frequently announces accelerated or fast-tracked initiatives, particularly in the resource sector, but many remain stalled by regulatory complexity, financing uncertainty, or unresolved legal frameworks. In economic terms, projects that are not yet under construction are not creating jobs, regardless of how often they are announced.
This disconnect between rhetoric and reality has real consequences. When governments promise growth without delivering execution, workers lose trust, businesses delay decisions, and capital flows elsewhere. British Columbia’s economy cannot run on press releases alone.
Perhaps the most significant factor undermining investment confidence is growing uncertainty around property rights, particularly under the province’s implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). While reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is both necessary and long overdue, the manner in which DRIPA has been interpreted and applied has created ambiguity around land tenure, mineral claims, and development approvals.
Recent court decisions have intensified concerns that long-established property and resource rights can be suspended or reshaped by evolving consultation requirements. The government insists that property rights remain intact, yet investors, developers, and lenders are increasingly behaving as though the rules are unstable. In economic terms, perception matters almost as much as law. When risk becomes difficult to quantify, capital retreats.
This uncertainty raises a broader political question. Critics argue that Premier Eby is advancing controversial regulatory and legal changes during a period of conservative leadership fragmentation, using moral framing and national-unity language to blunt opposition. Alberta secession rhetoric becomes a convenient foil—allowing the Premier to appear statesmanlike while deflecting scrutiny from domestic economic management.
The danger of this approach is strategic complacency. British Columbia cannot assume its economic attractiveness is permanent. Capital is mobile. Skilled workers are mobile. Provinces compete not just on values, but on clarity, predictability, and competence. When fiscal discipline weakens, projects stall, and property rights appear negotiable, investment does not wait patiently—it leaves.
National unity is not sustained by speeches or scolding. It is sustained by strong provincial economies that provide opportunity, stability, and confidence. British Columbia should be leading by example, not relying on rhetorical contrast with Alberta’s political fringe to paper over its own challenges.
Premier Eby faces a choice. He can continue to focus outward, positioning himself as a national moral voice, or he can refocus inward—restoring fiscal credibility, delivering real shovel-ready projects, and providing unequivocal clarity on property rights while advancing reconciliation in a way that supports economic certainty.
British Columbians do not need grandstanding. They need results. And until those results materialize, lectures on national unity will ring hollow.
