Is David Eby’s Government Failing?

British Columbia is entering a difficult political period. The provincial government faces record financial pressure, public frustration across major policy files, and the point where it can no longer blame its predecessors for the problems it faces.

That does not mean David Eby’s government is finished. But the central question is becoming harder to avoid: is this a temporary decline, or has the government begun to lose the confidence of British Columbians?

I wanted to examine that question with Rob Shaw, a journalist who has covered the B.C. legislature for more than two decades. Shaw has watched governments rise, become comfortable, lose focus and confront voters who are ready for something different. His answer was not that the NDP has already failed. It was that the government may be approaching the edge.

Is the government losing its purpose?

When I asked whether Eby’s government was failing, Shaw did not offer a comfortable answer.

“It’s close. It’s close. I think it’s on the edge.”

His assessment was not based on a single controversy. He pointed to a combination of political age, fiscal pressure and uncertainty about what the government is now trying to accomplish.

“It’s a government in challenge, enormous fiscal challenge. It’s a drift on policy. No one really understands what its agenda is anymore.”

That distinction matters. A government can survive an unpopular policy if voters still understand its larger purpose. The more serious problem emerges when the public no longer knows what the government stands for.

The NDP entered office with clear commitments: eliminate bridge tolls, expand child care and use government more actively to improve affordability and public services. Shaw argued that its current message is increasingly defensive. Instead of offering a renewed vision, the party often warns voters that the alternative is worse.

He described that as a sign a government may be “running out of oxygen.” Fear can be an effective electoral strategy, but it is different from persuading people that another term would produce meaningful progress.

When does responsiveness become drift?

One tension in Eby’s leadership is that he has shown a willingness to reverse course. Shaw credited both Eby and former premier John Horgan for responding when public opinion turned against major initiatives.

The government retreated from its original approach to drug decriminalization. It changed direction on the consumer carbon tax, electric vehicle mandates and other climate policies. It also reconsidered its approach to amendments connected to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Political leaders should listen when policies are not working. Refusing to change can become arrogance. But constant reversal creates a different problem.

“You can only do it so many times before then people question what you stand for as well.”

What I was trying to clarify was whether these reversals demonstrate pragmatism or reveal that major policies were introduced without sufficient evidence, consultation or public support. Shaw’s answer was that both can be true. Reversing a mistake may be responsible, but it does not erase the original decision.

The drug policy debate illustrates the problem. Shaw said the government introduced significant changes without the measurements and studies needed to explain their effects. Even as toxic drug deaths began to decline, he said the province could not adequately explain why.

The absence of evidence makes accountability more difficult. Supporters and critics can attribute the same outcome to competing causes, while the public is left without a reliable way to judge either claim.

Has reconciliation become a trust problem?

The sharpest portion of our discussion concerned the government’s approach to Indigenous reconciliation and DRIPA.

The legal and moral obligations facing British Columbia do not disappear because a policy becomes unpopular. Aboriginal rights and title are constitutionally protected, court decisions continue to shape provincial responsibilities, and repealing one statute would not remove those realities.

At the same time, Shaw argued that the NDP repeatedly failed to bring the broader public into the discussion. He pointed to controversies involving proposed Land Act amendments, the Heritage Conservation Act, the Haida Gwaii agreement and other decisions that many British Columbians felt were presented too late for meaningful input.

“There’s a series of things that the government did that failed to bring the public along and contributed to the sense of public distrust that now has reached a critical mass on DRIPA.”

This raised a more difficult question for me as an Indigenous leader. When governments fail to explain reconciliation policies, Indigenous people can become the target of anger created by the government’s own process. The public may come to believe Indigenous organizations are controlling decisions behind closed doors, even when the province designed the process and retained the authority to act.

Shaw placed responsibility for that distrust directly on the government. His argument was not that reconciliation should stop. It was that durable change requires public understanding, credible consultation and a framework capable of earning both Indigenous and non-Indigenous support.

The opposition faces the same challenge. It may promise to repeal DRIPA, but Shaw argued that repeal alone is not a governing plan. The underlying legal obligations would remain. The harder question is what replaces it.

“No one has presented anything that is credible that I’ve seen.”

Can Eby recover?

Shaw believes the premier still has time, but not much.

He argued that Eby must stabilize his approval, resolve the uncertainty surrounding DRIPA, develop a clearer agenda and make a persuasive case against the Conservatives. If he cannot, pressure inside the NDP may grow for a leadership change before the next election.

“His window is shrinking to fix things, I guess is how I would put it.”

Yet Shaw was careful not to treat political decline as inevitable. Elections are comparisons, not referendums on perfection. An unpopular government can survive when voters do not trust the alternative. Unexpected events can also transform the political landscape.

That is why the answer to the title question remains unsettled. Eby’s government is struggling. It appears less certain of its purpose, more burdened by its record and increasingly dependent on warnings about its opponents. But struggling is not the same as finished.

The test is whether the government can explain what it wants to accomplish next—and whether British Columbians still believe it deserves the opportunity.

Shaw ended our conversation with a broader reminder:

“Don’t give up hope.”

Watch or listen to the full interview, and consider the central question for yourself: is David Eby’s government failing, or does it still have time to recover?