Emily Lowan, the 24-year-old climate organizer and policy researcher, put her experience, vision and left wing policies front and center and emerged as the clear winner of the only official debate of the BC Green Party leadership race held in Victoria on Saturday. Over the course of nearly two hours, Lowan showed confidence, conviction, and a progressive communication style that contrasted sharply with her rivals, Jonathan Kerr and Adam Bremner-Aikens. From the beginning, Lowan stood out as the candidate best able to capture and connect with the audience. Her policies were clearly left wing and her message was direct. The stakes of this leadership race were on full display; more of the same with the other candidates or big progressive changes and rejuvenation under her leadership.
“We need to acknowledge that that extreme wealth isn’t created out of nowhere. It has to be extracted or stolen from workers and communities. And we know that the BC Greens can be a force to intervene.”
This was the only official debate of the race but the candidates have participated in many interviews, podcasts and local events organized in individual ridings. The debate comes as voting opens. Emily Lowan has also mandated a lawyer to represent her in a potential litigation with the party’s election officials over concerns that over a thousand people who signed up to vote for, some even paying the fee to do so, may not be given a ballot if they did not complete a cumbersome voter ID process; a step in addition to signing up and voting that must be completed on a particular time frame. Members who signed up before the leadership race are not being asked for ID verification; a move that has created a two tier membership base and that will likely favour the more status quo candidate Jonathan Kerr. Kerr has establishment support but did not sign up a whole lot of new members since he is campaigning only part time and his online presence pales in comparison to the near viral reach that Lowan has on her social media accounts.
Emily Lowan Quickly Established A Commanding Presence
Emily Lowan spoke forcefully in her opening statement and revealed that her team had brought in thousands of new members, including 1,500 youth under 30. This statement clearly positioned her as the candidate for the others to beat. She spoke directly to members about her plan and ability to have the party membership and vote share rise to new heights if she is given the chance to lead.
“We brought in thousands of members in just five weeks. Imagine what we can accomplish in a year.”
Lowan’s performance stood out not just because of what she said, but because of how she said it. She spoke clearly and directly, without drifting into jargon or anecdotes that felt out of place as her main rival Jonathan Kerr did in response to multiple questions throughout the debate. She has also overtaken both of her rivals with a flood of high profile endorsements including David Suzuki and Gabor Maté, Indigenous leaders and these endorsements continue to accumulate with new announcements being rolled out almost every day.
By addressing long-time Greens as well as new members, she positioned herself as a bridge between the party’s elders and its next wave of leadership. Her rival Jonathan Kerr had previously warned older folks from supporting Emily “extreme left views”
“To the elders in this party, thousands of young people are here now, ready to learn from your wisdom and lead the charge for our planet. Our party is at a crossroads said Lowan. We can either choose the status quo, a moderate approach, as Dr. Kerr suggested, or with my leadership we can build the strong united progressive party that I know British Columbians deserve. We face escalating climate catastrophes while genocide rages on and billionaires are making record profits while regular families in BC struggle to make ends meet. But this campaign has cracked open new hope for thousands of BC Green members, old and new, for the first time in a long time to imagine a thriving future in our province.”
By calling out Kerr directly, Lowan defined him as the candidate of caution and moderation, while positioning herself as the bold, progressive choice. Kerr did not respond, allowing her framing to dominate the end of the debate. In the past Kerr has attacked Emily’s “extreme left views” and likely agrees with her assessment of his moderate approach.
By proactively using the word genocide in the debate even though the middle east, foreign policy or how to win over the anti war movement were not included in the formal questioning. Lowan further contrasted herself with her rivals who have been silent on the matter while she has attended multiple Free Palestine protests and put out a detailed policy that includes strong sanctions on Israel.
Lowan may be only 24 years old but had accumulated an impressive track record of results and mobilization within the B.C. youth lead climate movement; a background which is highly relevant to party leadership and which has propelled an impressive volunteer lead grass roots movement to elect her as leader.
Clear Contrast On Policing and Public Safety
Emily Lowan drew one of the clearest lines of the night when the debate turned to public safety. Rejecting calls for more police presence, she argued that safety comes from services, not surveillance. She pledged to remove police liaison officers from schools and replace them with full-time counselors, while also condemning the BCNDP government for firing the Victoria school board after it voted to end police programs in schools. Lowan framed this as both a question of policy and democracy — insisting that school boards should be able to vote against police in schools. She went even further by pledging to replace all school police officers with counselors.
“I would ensure that we get school police liaisons out of schools and instead have full-time counselors to provide the care that students need.”
By contrast, Jonathan Kerr offered a more cautious answer. While acknowledging the need for alternatives, he was careful to praise the police and framed his solution as adding a new “option” rather than replacing existing structures.
“We need a fourth option when we call 911… a rapidly deployed mental health team that isn’t police, fire, or ambulance.”
Adam Bremner-Aikens took a softer line, emphasizing social programs but avoiding direct criticism of policing. He said safety comes from housing, mental health, and addiction services, but he did not challenge the role of police in schools or communities as directly as Lowan did.
“Public safety starts with housing and with supports for people struggling with mental health and addiction. That’s where government should be putting resources.”
Kerr and Bremner-Aikens Falter
Jonathan Kerr emphasized his record as a physician and councillor, stressing credibility and results. Yet his communication was uneven. A childhood story about organizing children on a toboggan hill, intended to illustrate leadership, instead felt trivial and out of place in a debate focused on the climate crisis, the housing crisis and forming government.
“I talked to the bigger kids… I talked to the little kids and their parents… after about a half an hour, I looked up and it was beautiful… my dad turned to me and he said, ‘You having fun, son?’”
Kerr recounting one of many personal anecdotes during the debate
Rather than elevating his message, this anecdote and others like it reinforced the impression that Kerr is not a skilled communicator, too often cautious and technocratic when sharper, more decisive language was needed. His stories were often long and loosely tied to his points which became boring for the audience. It may work at city council meetings but it was clearly out of place on the leadership debate stage.
In one of the odder exchanges of the debate, Adam Bremner-Aikens asked Jonathan Kerr to address an unspecified online controversy surrounding his campaign. Instead of clarifying the issue directly, Kerr pivoted into a personal story about competing in biathlon and his history with sports. He spoke about discipline, focus, and teamwork in athletics as qualities he would bring to leadership. The answer came across as a deflection — more about his hobbies and personal character than about the controversy itself — and highlighted his tendency to fall back on anecdotes rather than tackling difficult questions head-on. Bremner-Aikens gained nothing from asking this question as he did not provide enough context for anyone to understand what the controversy actually was.
Is Dr Kerr Even Available For The Job?
Emily Lowan also pressed Jonathan Kerr on his ability to fully commit to the role of party leader. She pointed out that Kerr had signaled he would not be able to dedicate himself to the position full time, because he is a practicing doctor and member of city council. Lowan contrasted this with her own willingness to make leadership her full time job. Kerr’s answer to her pointed question drifted into a vague story about his background in basketball, once again using sports analogies to illustrate teamwork and discipline, but avoiding the central issue of his limited availability. Lowan framed the question of commitment as central to the party’s renewal, suggesting that a leader who treats the role as part time cannot credibly rebuild the Greens or expand their presence across the province. Already Kerr’s part time leadership campaign is already struggling to compete with Lowan’s full time energy and availability.
Adam Bremner-Aikens, meanwhile, emphasized his years in the party and his work with the Young Greens, but he struggled to break through. His delivery was flat and his policy answers were often vague. In a debate that rewarded clarity and conviction, he was overshadowed by the two frontrunners.
A Particular Style of Moderation
The debate’s structure highlighted these differences in communication. Questions were posed in the form of statements read aloud by moderator Jo-Ann Roberts, and candidates were asked to comment on them. This unusual format tested their ability to think on their feet rather than rely on rehearsed lines.
The event also featured quickfire rounds, where each candidate had 60 seconds to respond to the same policy question, and a segment where candidates posed questions directly to each other. Time limits were enforced strictly, with the moderator cutting off candidates who went long.
This format rewarded clarity and concision — qualities that came naturally to Lowan, but which Kerr and Bremner-Aikens often struggled to maintain.
Verdict: Lowan Wins the Night
The debate underscored the differences between the three candidates. Kerr leaned on his résumé, Bremner-Aikens delivered flat and forgettable answers, while Lowan spoke with conviction and clarity.
By presenting herself as polished, bold, left wing and forward-looking, Emily Lowan not only won the debate — she also reinforced her image as the candidate most capable of leading the BC Green Party into a new era of growth, success and relevance. Voting in the B.C. Green Party leadership race is now open.
