NDP MLA Niki Sharma says the BC Conservatives must clarify how their constitution applies if Lorne Doerkson wins Oct. 24 and the party forms government, raising a potential challenge in B.C. Supreme Court.
The Story
BC NDP MLA for Vancouver-Hastings Niki Sharma is calling on the BC Conservative Party to provide greater clarity about how it would handle constitutional provisions tied to its interim leader, Lorne Doerkson, if the Conservatives win the Oct. 24 general election and form government.
Sharma said the Conservatives should address how leadership will be decided after the election, noting that the party’s constitution requires that the leadership still be decided by BC Conservative members regardless of election outcome. She also suggested the premiership itself could become a matter for the courts, stating the constitutional rules are legally binding and cannot be rewritten without following proper processes.
Her remarks were made during a digital media conference Friday, as Sharma described a legal question connected to the Conservatives’ decision to call a snap election on Sept. 22. She said Doerkson’s interim leadership was appointed by the party’s board a day earlier, following the Sept. 20 resignation of Conservative leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay.
Sharma’s argument focuses on the Conservatives’ internal leadership rules. She pointed to the party constitution’s requirement that if a leader resigns, the board must call a special leadership election within 12 months. She also highlighted that an interim leader is not eligible to be a leadership candidate in a leadership election, referencing what previous interim leader Trevor Halford said after Findlay resigned.
The NDP is also drawing attention to what it sees as a gap in the party’s constitution. Sharma said the party has provisions for a leadership review if it loses an election, but no similar provisions for a situation where an interim leader carries the party to victory in a general election and remains in office as premier-designate.
In Sharma’s view, the constitutional process cannot be bypassed. She said any constitutional amendment would need to be put to a vote and require support from two-thirds of party members, describing it as a requirement that would prevent the Conservatives from simply asserting that Doerkson would remain premier without following the rules.
Sharma’s position is informed by a statement reportedly issued by the Conservatives’ board on X on Wednesday afternoon. The statement, which Sharma said was unsigned and unnamed, indicated that when Doerkson leads the party to victory on Oct. 24, he will remain leader, and that the board would pursue steps under the party’s constitution, bylaws and the Societies Act to give effect to that intention. Sharma said what remains unclear is how the board would effect those changes and whether it could do so without a vote from members.
The controversy is tied to how the Societies Act interacts with registered organizations’ governing documents. Sharma said the Conservatives’ constitution is bound by the Societies Act, which requires constitutional amendments to be approved by a special resolution passed by two-thirds of members. She also noted that under the act, members can apply to court for an order if they believe they have been oppressed, and that a court could potentially vary or set aside a resolution.
Sharma also cited the possibility that leadership-related decisions could be reviewed in B.C. Supreme Court. She argued that if disputes reach a court challenge, it could result in remedies that compel the party to undertake certain corrective actions, including steps that could affect who leads the party and potentially the question of who holds the premiership.
Asked for context on the broader legal landscape, the report includes commentary from UBC political scientist Stewart Prest. Prest said the situation would be difficult for the party but added an important distinction: courts would need to separate questions about party leadership from questions about the premiership as a constitutional office of government. He said that if Doerkson had support from the caucus in the legislature, that would likely become the primary factor for determining who is premier, making the internal party leadership issue secondary.
Prest also suggested that imposing a settlement through the courts on the legislative caucus could be problematic because the caucus is treated as a distinct part of the state. In that framing, a majority in the legislature supporting Doerkson would indicate he is premier, even if the question of party leadership became disputed.
Sharma’s concerns also contrasted the NDP’s constitutional framework with that of the Conservatives. The report states that the NDP constitution is not bound by the Societies Act and appears to give the executive broad powers over regulations governing nomination of candidates for provincial leadership. It references the 2022 situation in which the NDP disqualified Anjali Appadurai, allowing Premier David Eby to become leader and premier-designate through an acclamation process after his party board decision, a move that drew political pushback but was not challenged in court by Appadurai.
Whether the Conservatives can resolve the issue internally without a vote remains central to the dispute. Sharma said the party has not responded to clarify its specific plan to ensure Doerkson has a clear path to a four-year term, while pointing to constitutional and legislative constraints that could shape what is legally possible.
For voters and political observers in B.C., the practical significance is that uncertainty over leadership mechanics could translate into legal and procedural questions at the moment when a new government is expected to take office after the election. Sharma’s comments place the focus on how party governance rules would apply if an interim leader wins a general election and seeks to secure both continued party leadership and continued premiership.
The dispute arrives at a time when election results could quickly convert internal party questions into matters with potential court involvement, depending on how the Conservatives interpret their constitutional provisions after Oct. 24.
← More stories