British Columbians will head to the polls twice this October. First with local government elections on October 17 and a week later with a provincial election on October 24. For credit unions, both elections are opportunities to bring what credit unions are doing to support community needs into policy discussions. 

Credit union members across B.C. are making decisions about housing, business investment and their financial futures. Credit unions see their retail and commercial members up close and work to support the decisions they make. That experience, of serving people and businesses in communities of all sizes, including those where access to financial services can be limited gives the sector a valuable perspective to share with candidates from all parties. 

October’s elections are opportunities to ask candidates how they plan to support community priorities, and whether they understand the complementary role of credit unions in these priorities. Can a small business get the financing it needs to expand? Can a family find an affordable place to live? Can a rural community retain essential services and attract investment?  

As candidates discuss affordability and growth, our sector can show how locally rooted financial institutions contribute to both. 

Credit unions should approach local candidates with a nonpartisan message: thriving communities need access to trusted financial services that are physically rooted in the communities they serve, enabling those communities to shape their futures. Meeting candidates, sharing local success stories and asking questions can help turn broad election promises into a more focused understanding of what communities need.  

In B.C., we see a strong focus on major projects and fast-tracking, but not much policy discussion about how communities and small businesses benefit from them. That is one area that credit unions could shine more light on: how can local SME’s benefit from major projects? 

Election campaigns can be an opportunity for awareness; they don’t always have to be about competing policy positions.