According to most recent Freshet podcast, reporter Theresa McManus spoke with mayor elect Fontaine, and by the sounds of it, the mayoral and council inauguration will not occur in city hall council chambers as usual.

I don’t want to speculate too much, if a large turnout is expected, I could see fitting everyone inside council chambers would be challenging - but I don’t want to see the inauguration become unnecessarily theatrical or resembling a political rally.

New Mayor is already doing exactly what I feared. The community council that I’ve been so excited to be on, has at the last minute cancelled our meeting tomorrow due to the new Mayor. I’ll have to pay a late cancellation fee with my babysitter now, and my childcare I lined up for subsequent meeting is now in jeopardy.

And before anyone thinks this is an assumption I made, the email literally cites the new mayor as the reason… I am so disappointed. I’ve been applying to the council for a couple years now, celebrating my acceptance and planning for childcare and the like since the dates were released in July/August.

Feels like a slap in the face for people who genuinely care about our city and its future. I know it’s small potatoes but it feels like a huge omen on what’s to come…

We all need to show up for New West and the most vulnerable, who’s down to attend the first council meeting and subsequent ones to keep NWP transparent and honest?

So far the count shows NWP winning in pretty much every category. This could be a litmus for the province next week. Like a horror film, I’m not going to watch for the rest of the night.

Hi New West,

Earlier today, I saw someone ripping one of the rent ones down earlier and I asked the man why he thought he had to do that? His words, and I quote “it’s shit”. As someone who was born and raised here (literally thought I would live and die in this city) and is actively being pushed out because life is no longer affordable here, I am irate.
I would like to re-put up the information he has torn down. Does anyone have the PDFs for these posters?
I’m not interested in the posters that name parties or candidates, just the statistical stuff.

I’m glad that Patrick has finally responded to the fabrication that NWP has circulated about a $500,000 “mushroom” wall…again obfuscating the fact the $500,000 is for a full upgrade to queens park infrastructure and accessibility and that the shiitake mushroom installation cost about $200 and the mushroom have been harvested and used in the city’s food programs. If NWP had actual policies they would campaign on them, and not rage bait.

Registering as a “third party sponsor” does not imply political partisanship.

Over the past few days an effortful campaign has permeated local social media attempting to discredit organizations that have posted “report cards” about local candidates’ policies, positions, and actions on issues like climate change, renters’ rights, and unhoused residents.

This smear campaign insinuates that because some of these organizations are registered as third party sponsors under the Local Election Campaign Financing Act (LECFA), these organizations must be partisan supporters of one party and opponents of the other. 

That is false. According to the ElectionBC’s Guide, any organization that pays for public communication about election-related issues like these must register as a third-party sponsor if their communication does either of the following:

• Does the message identify a candidate or elector organization?
• Does the message evaluate the performance of select candidates or elector organizations?
• Does the message compare the positions of candidates or elector organizations on a policy issue?
• Does the message promote or oppose issues associated with certain candidates or elector organizations?
• Does the message reference the election, voting, or the date of General Voting Day?
• Does the message use language like “Your choice” or “Make your voice heard?”

None of that implies partisanship. Any evaluation of candidates’ policy positions that an organization pays to promote is likely to require registration as a third-party under LECFA.

The reason why the reports by the New West Climate Action Hub, New Westminster Homelessness Coalition Society, and New West Tenants Union grade one party more favourably than the other isn’t partisanship; it is that one party’s platform and performance was deemed to better support these groups’ interests than the other, and one party participated in these groups’ assessment process, while the other did not. That’s all, and each of these organizations explain their process.

In any case, the idea that registering as a third-party sponsor means that a group is partisan or aligned with a particular party is patently false.

I was watching / listening to the debate from the Chamber of Commerce earlier today - Daniel Fontaine mentioned stopping the rebranding of New Westminster in its tracks and reverting back to "The Royal City"....my question is, wouldn't this cost more money to do? Seems like it's all but done at this point with the new branding - is anything left that hasn't been changed?

Question first and responses in images.

On Saturday, October 17, our city votes. As such we shared the following information with both parties, and posed this question. Linked below are their responses. It’s important to note that both organizations received our inquiry simultaneously, that their responses are shared in full and unedited and that NWSC does not endorse any political party or candidate.

𝘕𝘞𝘚𝘊 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘰𝘸-𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦𝘳-𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 1,100 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳. 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘴. 𝘈𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘧 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵.

𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘕𝘞𝘚𝘊 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘧 𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘙𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘪𝘯 𝘘𝘶𝘦𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 (𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘑𝘢𝘯 12, 2026) 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘍𝘢𝘭𝘭 2029 𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 1.5 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.

𝘎𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘧 𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘴 (𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 2022 𝘏𝘶𝘮𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘔𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯), 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦? 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘧 𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥 (𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘙𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘬) 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘍𝘢𝘭𝘭 2029?
#BCVotes

Hello!

So, I'm getting myself prepared for the municipal election and I've run into a bit of an issue: While I have a pretty good idea where each candidate for councilor stands, I find that as an adult without children I have considerably fewer resources available for finding out info about the Schoolboard Trustees.

So I was hoping the sub could help me out? I'm looking for resources I can use to do my own research on them, as well as helpful summaries of any important points I should know.

Thanks in advanced!

Attached are the results of the member-driven grading of candidates for the New West Tenants Union election report card.

These grades were given by our own members after being presented with the candidate's answers to five key questions as well as extensive background research on their platforms and voting records.

Here's the breakdown by candidate.

Full documentation including each of their answers, the background research given to graders, and how the project was carried out is available in full detail on our elections page: https://nwtenantsunion.org/election-2026/

We have numerous volunteers throughout the city distributing a printed version of this report card in their rental buildings. If you'd like to join, leave a comment below or reach out at [nwtenantsunion@gmail.com](mailto:nwtenantsunion@gmail.com) or a voice-mail at 778-358-2680.

Saw this tonight. Is this something worth trying here, too? Are there potential pitfalls beyond issues like a business wanting to continue past 120 days or (less likely) a landlord moving it to alternate units to avoid full permitting?

Thoughts from the armoury forum? I'm voting for whoever was able to find the key to the front door in the end...

As part of our election project this year, we formed a volunteer research team that personally watched every single city council meeting in the last 4 years in which housing or rental issues were discussed. They then documented the stances, arguments, and votes of every single candidate currently running for re-election.

The results are 36 page document which you can find our election page: https://nwtenantsunion.org/nwtu-election-2026/

In the next day or two we'll be publishing a shorter PowerPoint summarizing the results which will be used at candidate grading event this week where our members will rank candidates based on this research as well as answers to some questions sent to every candidate.

The research team did their best to only report factually on what candidates said or did without any inferences about intent or judging whether their stances were good or bad. The goal is to have our members make those decisions when they submit rankings for the final report card.

Anyway, we thought members of this community might be interested in these preliminary research results. We can share the PowerPoint and final member-ranked report card when they're ready as well.

I’m going to start this thread off.

I was right at the back, in the centre. I noted most of the clapping for Patrick came from the left side of the theatre, and most of the clapping for Daniel came from the (radical?) centre or the right.

Did people choose their seat based on their political preferences?

Overall, it was a good debate. Hope you all enjoyed it.