Juno News - August 13, 2025


PRIVATE property now INDIGENOUS land？ B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad responds


Episode Stats

Length

28 minutes

Words per Minute

186.72574

Word Count

5,366

Sentence Count

279

Misogynist Sentences

2

Hate Speech Sentences

6


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Hi, I'm Candace Malcolm, and this is the Candace Malcolm Show. We have a great episode for you
00:00:05.140 today, folks. We are joined by John Rudsett, leader of the BC Conservatives, in just a minute.
00:00:10.180 And also, this episode is sponsored by Unsmoke, but more on them a little later. I want to start
00:00:14.860 by talking about an issue in the news, and I'm going to bring this up with John in a moment,
00:00:19.100 and that is a bombshell judgment that was released by BC's Supreme Court. So you might
00:00:23.980 have seen Carolyn Elliott on X posting on Friday, bombshell judgment released by BC's Supreme Court
00:00:28.880 declaring Aboriginal title over land enrichment, including private property. If it stands,
00:00:33.420 it has massive implications for private property across BC. She says, read for it for yourself.
00:00:39.220 I'm going to read a little bit from a Globe and Mail report. The headline says,
00:00:43.400 major land claims ruling, says BC Indigenous groups, has claimed to a portion of the city's
00:00:48.460 port land. So Vancouver First Nations has won a major court victory, with the judge declaring it
00:00:53.440 has title to a portion of land in the Vancouver area that includes currently active industrial
00:00:58.360 operations on the Fraser River. Justice Barbara Young of the BC Supreme Court declared that the
00:01:03.600 Cowichan tribes have established Aboriginal title to roughly 800 acres in the city of Richmond,
00:01:09.920 as well as Aboriginal right to fish and food. Her 863-page ruling from a trial that stretched
00:01:17.580 513 days over five years from 2021 to 2023 was issued Thursday and published online Friday.
00:01:24.400 The court ruling in what was billed as the longest trial in Canada's history, no kidding,
00:01:29.960 represents a milestone in the country's continual societal and legal reckoning of Indigenous
00:01:34.440 reconciliation. The decision follows a line of similarly important rulings, and there will
00:01:40.160 almost certainly be legal arguments and appellate cases. I hope so. I hope that there are challenges
00:01:45.080 to this case because it is truly disturbing and unsettling, folks.
00:01:49.640 You see the land back activists, people demanding land back, saying that this is unseated land,
00:01:55.420 you know, those land acknowledgements that we're forced to hear any time there's a public
00:01:59.860 press conference now from politicians, all saying that Canada is basically an illegitimate country
00:02:04.880 and that the land actually belongs to the First Nations. Well, this court ruling is legalizing that,
00:02:11.040 is putting precedent into that, saying that yes, First Nations have title to the land and they can take it
00:02:17.260 back if they prove their case really interesting. Not only that, I'm going to read a little bit more
00:02:23.320 from this Globe and Mail report. There are three different First Nations groups or bands that all
00:02:29.380 have claims over the same part of land in Richmond, and they're pitted against each other. So I'm going
00:02:35.980 to read a little here. It says the Cowichan tribes case, like many before it, is particularly complicated.
00:02:41.160 It says that the case pitted regional Indigenous groups against each other. The Cowichan are based on
00:02:44.760 Vancouver Island, but in centuries past had an annual summer village on the Fraser River, or so they
00:02:50.640 claim, and that is where they fish for salmon. The Musqueam and Tawasin tribes have long lived around
00:02:56.680 Fraser River in the BC's Lower Mainland. The Musqueam upset over the court ruling on Friday morning.
00:03:01.760 They called it devastating and said it impacts their own title and fishing rights. The land in question
00:03:06.100 is within Musqueam's traditional and unseated territory, writes the Globe and Mail. Chief Wayne Sparrow said in a
00:03:12.500 statement that Musqueam are extremely disappointed that the Cowichan would go against our shared
00:03:17.460 Salish Coast protocols. It was emotional. I want to read just a little bit more. It says the Cowichan
00:03:23.100 claim involved 1,800 acres, and the court declared title on roughly 40% of that. There are some privately
00:03:29.780 held properties. This is important, but lawyers involved in the case say that if the ruling stands,
00:03:34.720 that land would not be affected until the properties are sold. So you can keep your land for now,
00:03:39.120 but you lose all value and all equity because when you sell it, it's not going to be yours.
00:03:44.120 Justice Young declared that the land titles held by Canada and Richmond to be defective and invalid.
00:03:50.200 Defective and invalid. So the property to your home and to your land, well, a judge may declare that
00:03:55.040 that that is defective and invalid, and therefore you don't actually have title to your land.
00:03:59.860 Again, from the Globe and Mail piece, it says if the Cowichan's win is upheld in future appeals,
00:04:03.780 they could eventually take control of the land in question and use it as they see fit. Justice
00:04:09.820 Young, a decade-long veteran of the court, suspended the declaration on land titles for 18 months so the
00:04:15.860 Cowichan federal government and city of Richmond will have the opportunity to make necessary
00:04:19.400 arrangements. Much more remains, she writes. And then she continued to say that a period to allow
00:04:25.720 for an orderly transition of lands is in keeping with the principle of reconciliation. Did you get
00:04:31.800 that? The principle of reconciliation means an orderly transition of the lands. So for all those
00:04:39.300 people calling for reconciliation, all of the focus on that, at least for the land-backed people and
00:04:44.460 the, what I consider extreme radicals in this position, reconciliation means an orderly transition
00:04:51.640 of the lands. This is unbelievable, the direction that we're heading. I want to read a little bit from
00:04:57.780 a legal blog. This is written by University of Saskatchewan's law professor Dwight Newman. He
00:05:04.140 writes the less certain future of private lands in British Columbia and basically just says that
00:05:10.980 the judgment has a much broader implication that any privately owned lands in BC may be subject to
00:05:19.460 being overridden by aboriginal titles. So yes, that is exactly what this means. Now I'm going to bring
00:05:25.580 John Rudd said on in just a second because as reported by Juno News, he wants an urgent appeal
00:05:31.780 of the aboriginal title ruling which threatens public policy. But first, I want to thank our sponsor of
00:05:37.840 today's show, which is Unsmoke. Look, folks, it's time to modernize Canada's rules on nicotine. Alternatives
00:05:43.340 to cigarettes like heated tobacco vaping products and oral smokeless products don't burn tobacco or
00:05:47.860 produce smoke. They aren't risk-free, but the growing body of scientific evidence shows that they have the
00:05:52.800 potential to be substantially less harmful than smoking. Despite this, Canadians are banned access
00:05:57.460 to critical information or even some of these products. Nicotine pouches remain banned in
00:06:01.880 convenience stores. Current laws ban communication about the risk of these products compared to
00:06:07.580 cigarettes. The evidence is there. The tools exist. Canadians should have the freedom to know about
00:06:11.480 them. Learn more at unsmoke.ca. Okay, I'm very pleased now to be joined by John Rudd said he is the
00:06:18.800 leader of the B.C. Conservatives. Rudd said served as leader of the official opposition since 2024
00:06:23.420 when the B.C. Conservatives narrowly lost that election, winning 44 seats, losing by just one
00:06:28.680 seat. It was an incredibly close election under Rudd's leadership of the Conservative Party's had
00:06:33.340 its best showing in over 70 years. So welcome, John. Thank you so much for joining us.
00:06:39.020 Thank you for having me on.
00:06:40.340 Okay, well, first of all, I want you to comment on this bombshell landmark ruling and what it means
00:06:46.440 for the people of British Columbia and more specifically, property owners in British
00:06:50.980 Columbia? Yeah, this is a huge decision. When you look at a court case that finds title underneath
00:06:57.440 private land, the reality for all of us as Canadians, as British Columbians is they are too
00:07:04.060 are incompatible. Indigenous rights, Indigenous title cannot coexist with private property rights.
00:07:10.280 In your private property rights, for example, you have the right to put up a fence and say
00:07:14.680 no trespassing, right? It's your private property. You can use it for the things that you want
00:07:19.500 to do. But when it comes to Indigenous rights and Indigenous title, Indigenous population have
00:07:25.480 the right to use property, to use land, to carry on with traditional ways, and there's nothing
00:07:32.760 you can do to stop it because of those rights. So the two are in direct conflict and really
00:07:38.980 cannot coexist and should not coexist on the land. And so this has created a huge problem. And I
00:07:45.560 talked to some of the homeowners that are impacted by this particular case, and they're concerned
00:07:51.540 about their future. They ask, like this one lady I talked to, single mom, this is her life savings she
00:07:57.000 put into buying this piece. And she's wondering now, have I lost my life savings? What does this mean?
00:08:02.480 Do I have rights anymore? They're worried about how will this impact the value of their property?
00:08:08.820 So there's a huge number of questions that are outstanding on this issue. But I think it's more
00:08:15.780 than that as well. It's the precedent that is being set here for the whole province, quite frankly,
00:08:20.260 the country. But it follows on the heels of some legislation that the NDP put forward in British
00:08:27.180 Columbia on the Haida, on the Haida Islands, where they actually define title on the entire
00:08:32.940 islands, including underneath private property and infrastructure. And so they set the precedent,
00:08:38.740 and now the court case here has now confirmed that this could exist anywhere in the province.
00:08:45.280 And in British Columbia, 120% of British Columbia is claimed by First Nations. So you better believe
00:08:50.280 all private land across this province could now potentially be subject to having an indigenous title
00:08:55.860 underneath their private property. Well, from the Globe and Mail report that I read from,
00:09:00.180 you could tell that the individual bands don't even agree with each other, right? This was given
00:09:04.140 to the Cowichan Band, which is a Vancouver Island band. Of course, Richmond's not in Vancouver Island,
00:09:08.940 and it's got competing claims from the Musqueam and the Tawassan. And so, I mean, it's even,
00:09:14.260 it's hard to kind of comprehend. I want to bring it back to the private property comment that you made,
00:09:18.580 because in this Globe and Mail article, it says that there are some privately held properties,
00:09:23.800 but lawyers involved in the case said that if the ruling stands, that land would not be affected
00:09:27.940 until it was sold, until it was sold. So meaning that the value that you would have the equity in
00:09:34.400 your home or in your land that you were planning to use as your retirement nest egg or pass on to
00:09:39.400 your children when you pass away, that's basically gone. Because when you try to sell it, no one's going to want
00:09:43.860 to buy land that is held, that a court is ruled, is going to be held by the First Nations. I mean,
00:09:49.820 how would you assure any private property owners or anyone considering buying a home in British
00:09:55.120 Columbia that this couldn't happen to them next? Well, that's why this should never happen.
00:09:59.500 Private property and infrastructure should never, ever be on the table for a title declaration,
00:10:05.840 whether that's by court or whether that's by negotiation. But really, when you wind this case
00:10:09.860 back, this started in 2019. David Eby was the Attorney General. At that particular point,
00:10:15.480 they should have recognized the risk that this would have had for private property owners and sat
00:10:20.260 down and negotiated a settlement and dealt with this as opposed to allowing this to get to this stage.
00:10:26.480 And really, this government has completely thrown private property rights, private property ownership
00:10:32.060 onto the bus. Think about the chill that this will put on British Columbia and from an investment
00:10:37.600 perspective. If you want to build housing, or if you want to put in a warehouse and put in some
00:10:43.000 manufacturing, or if you want to build a mine, or any type of activity that's now in the land base,
00:10:48.420 you no longer have any certainty that the private property you're trying to build on could be,
00:10:55.440 state could remain private property. It may not down the road. And so the other interesting piece of
00:11:01.140 this is, of course, in the Haida legislation, what it says is that with Indigenous title,
00:11:08.100 Indigenous law can apply. And so what does that mean? How does Indigenous law potentially impact or even
00:11:15.860 override your private property rights? Could they put taxation in place? Could they say what you can
00:11:21.940 and can't do with the property? And of course, you have no ability to vote for that government because
00:11:27.100 that's an Indigenous government. And so if it was taxation, for example, that would be, you know, taxation
00:11:31.980 without representation. So there's a whole lot of question marks. And this, like I say, this case should
00:11:37.660 never, ever have gotten to court. It should have been resolved outside in terms of negotiation. But now that
00:11:43.480 it's there, the government of the day, the NDP government needs to clearly define what they are going to be
00:11:48.880 fighting for in terms of defending private property rights.
00:11:52.100 Well, 100%. I think a lot of people will say that this is all sort of downstream from the United
00:11:57.860 Nations declaration on the rights of the Indigenous people known as UNDRIP. There was another case
00:12:02.300 in British Columbia that came out earlier this month in August, August 9th. This is from the CBC.
00:12:07.340 Okanagan Falls may need to change its name in order to become BC's newest municipality. So basically,
00:12:14.040 according to UNDRIP, one of the things that it requires is that First Nations have the right to
00:12:21.560 designate and name their own communities, places and people. And so because of this,
00:12:26.060 Okanagan Falls may have to rename. I mean, we've seen a lot of this, John, in British Columbia where
00:12:31.420 places have had to rename. Look, I grew up in BC. Back when I grew up, we used to call it the Queen
00:12:36.220 Charlotte Islands. I know it's Haida Gwaii now, technically. But we see these kinds of stories
00:12:40.800 all the time, including recently Trutch Street in Vancouver was given a new name that I wouldn't even
00:12:45.480 try to pronounce because I think it's unpronounceable. What do you make of these changes?
00:12:51.060 And what do you make of UNDRIP more broadly?
00:12:54.520 Well, as the Conservative Party of British Columbia, we are committed to repealing the DRIPA legislation,
00:12:58.800 the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People Act. It doesn't make sense. Any legislation
00:13:03.800 that gives rights to one group of people over another will never end well because ultimately
00:13:10.940 it creates friction, it creates resentment. It is the opposite of reconciliation. And reconciliation
00:13:16.700 should be the goal of what we're trying to do. So DRIPA is something that we would repeal
00:13:21.320 and remove in British Columbia to get away from this case, for example, that could happen
00:13:27.180 in the Okanagan Falls area. The other piece, though, is there are values in UNDRIP that are
00:13:33.380 worth using when we work with First Nations as a guiding principle, but that's what it should
00:13:37.080 be. It shouldn't be legislation and using it as this hammer. So I think, you know, I don't
00:13:44.980 have a problem with renaming, you know, for example, the Sadish Sea or Haida Gwaii, these
00:13:50.260 types of things. But when it comes to, you know, many other things, look, we need to make,
00:13:56.080 we need to understand that in British Columbia, Indigenous people are somewhere between four
00:14:00.040 and 5% of the population. And we need to be able to respect rights, but we also need to
00:14:04.960 be able to respect the rights of all British Columbians. And we're all Canadians. So we
00:14:09.680 need to make sure that what we are doing is reflecting all of us in terms of our true history
00:14:16.500 and quite frankly, what is our what our future needs to be.
00:14:19.340 Look, I want to push back just a little bit about the renaming. Like I understand that obviously
00:14:24.340 British Columbia was inhabited before the Europeans came and that some of the names come from Indigenous
00:14:29.780 words. I mean, even Okanagan, it's not an English word, right? It's clearly derived from a different
00:14:36.040 language. But what I see often now, John, it almost feels like it's deliberately confusing
00:14:42.720 to people that you cannot pronounce the words. It's not written in an alphabet that's recognizable.
00:14:48.080 And so with the case of Trutch Street getting renamed and then the signs that were unveiled,
00:14:52.220 you can imagine in an emergency situation, someone's trying to call for help and they can't pronounce
00:14:56.660 the words. And it seems to me that that is done intentionally to confuse or to alienate people.
00:15:02.880 And I just don't understand why they have to introduce a new alphabet. English and French
00:15:07.760 are the official languages of Canada. So why would you rename streets and cities and places into words
00:15:14.060 with an alphabet that we don't we don't recognize?
00:15:16.720 Yeah, you know, the interesting thing is when it comes to Indigenous languages in British Columbia,
00:15:21.660 we've got, I think, it's 64 different dialects, 32 different languages with Indigenous people.
00:15:28.720 They didn't have a written language. And so when they're trying to translate how to pronounce words
00:15:36.340 that cannot be easily spelt in the English language or the English dialect,
00:15:42.540 they're trying to figure out how do you actually spell that. So they've tried to come up with an alphabet
00:15:47.740 that is English, it is what we use. But it also is supplemented to reflect the sounds
00:15:56.840 that they use as part of their naming. So you're right, there needs to be clear cases where something
00:16:05.660 like that can work and something that makes sense and some places where it doesn't.
00:16:09.400 A street name, you know, for example, if the street name is on a reserve, in that type of thing,
00:16:19.300 in many places around the province, it has a First Nations name. If you're talking about,
00:16:24.620 you know, Main Street down the middle of a city, really, is that kind of what you would need to be
00:16:29.420 doing with the names? But, you know, in terms of a street that might be directly attached with
00:16:34.220 First Nations territory within a First Nations reserve, I don't have a problem with that kind
00:16:39.620 of a sort of name changing. Now, there is some issues. Yeah, there's no question there's going
00:16:44.320 to be issues in terms of it. But that's part of what we need to be thinking about also in terms
00:16:49.080 of reconciliation. And I'll just give you an example from my home community, Prince George.
00:16:53.500 I was born and raised in Prince George. There was a park that was there, it was called Fort George
00:16:58.220 Park. Well, that used to be a Claytonay community. And they were forced out of that community and
00:17:07.000 relocated to a community further upriver. And so when it came to looking at reconciliation,
00:17:14.400 they made a decision, the city made a decision to rename that park Claytonay Park. And there was
00:17:19.360 a whole bunch of people that were opposed to it and concerned about it. So why would we do this
00:17:24.880 until they learned the history? And then they went, Oh, okay, wait a second here. Maybe this
00:17:29.280 makes sense. And so, you know, reconciliation is not an easy path to be walked. But once again,
00:17:36.780 when you look at it, you got to think, how does this impact people on a day to day life? In
00:17:40.700 particular, this is why the private property infrastructure, why that all sort of issues
00:17:45.020 are such a big issue, because now you're talking about seriously impacting people's day to day lives
00:17:51.080 and building their future. Yeah, well, you certainly raise a good point about reconciliation
00:17:56.180 and the idea is, you know, creating a future where we can live and coexist in peace. But sometimes
00:18:02.340 you see things in the news and online, John, make you concerned about whether we're actually heading
00:18:07.280 in that direction. This was something that I posted on social media, the Adams Lake Indian Band put up a
00:18:14.660 sign recently that said no trespassing, no illegal activities, and no settlers. And I see that as very
00:18:22.100 inflammatory language and saying that certain people based on their skin color or their heritage
00:18:27.600 are not allowed in other parts of the province or of their community. I mean, that's, that's
00:18:34.140 concerning. Look, I spent some time in high school in Campbell River, and sometimes would go on to the
00:18:38.980 native reserves to visit friends or meet up with people or, you know, just just to drop by and say
00:18:43.880 hi to someone. And the fact that they would erect a sign like this in Adams Lake saying no settlers,
00:18:48.300 I don't know how strictly that's enforced. But it's a sign that when I saw it made me feel really
00:18:52.780 uncomfortable. I wonder if you can comment on that. Yeah, I agree. It makes me really feel really
00:18:56.820 uncomfortable. It's the opposite of what reconciliation should be. It just is. You know, we need to
00:19:02.900 recognize that this is Canada. And even though, you know, Indigenous people might have been here for 10,000
00:19:07.960 years, they still have came here from somewhere else, just like everybody in this country.
00:19:13.260 They came here from somewhere else. And we need to recognize what we've built as a country. And I
00:19:18.000 think the other thing is we need to understand Canada's history. I mean, if Canada wasn't here
00:19:23.040 as a country, what would have happened? The Americans probably would have come up here and done the same
00:19:27.800 thing that they did in their country, which is declare them a sovereign nation, bring in the army,
00:19:33.560 attack them, wipe them out and conquer the area. And so Canada, in a way, is the whole reason why
00:19:40.500 many First Nations rights have even been protected and exist today. And so this is why we need to
00:19:46.400 think about this as Canada and British Columbia. And we need to understand that this is part of
00:19:52.500 reconciliation, how we bring this together and have that understanding, because there's resentment,
00:19:57.740 there's issues on both sides of the border, or both sides of the issue. I looked at, for example,
00:20:02.620 in the Okanagan, there's a beach in the Okanagan that is beside a First Nations reserve. And there's
00:20:09.680 a sign on the beach saying, Indians only. And I looked at that, I'd like that hugely offensive to
00:20:17.380 me, that that's a public beach, you know, that the foreshore is crown land, it's not owned by an
00:20:25.360 indigenous band. And to put up a sign like that, first of all, I mean, it's racist. But second of
00:20:30.520 all, it has that potential, that connotation about, you know, one group versus another, I thought the
00:20:37.520 whole idea is that we're Canadians, we're trying to find a way to reconcile, and to become one.
00:20:43.180 But this is also a huge problem with our Constitution, like our Constitution has created many of these
00:20:48.640 problems and issues we have today. When the Constitution came in 1982, and we had Section 35, which is what
00:20:54.160 has enshrined, indigenous rights, which includes title, it was defined at the time as being this
00:21:01.060 empty vessel of law that the courts would fill. Well, I think what we're seeing now, particularly
00:21:05.740 with this case now of the Okanagan, and what we've seen through this is, maybe that has gone a little
00:21:12.000 too far. Maybe we need to be rethinking how to address this, to be able to make sure that we
00:21:17.760 recognize and respect and reconcile the indigenous people, the people that were here before us,
00:21:24.160 but also the rights of all Canadians, and how those things come together.
00:21:29.060 Well, I think that would be a much better path forward to focus on the positive things that
00:21:33.960 the friendships, the treaties, the partnerships that were formed between the early Canadians and
00:21:38.660 the First Nations, instead of dwelling so much on the things that we've focused on. Okay, John,
00:21:44.900 I want to move on a little bit to talk about your opponent, David Eby, and his record in government.
00:21:49.960 So BC's debt has been skyrocketing in the first two years, this is in the Vancouver Sun, basically
00:21:55.840 saying that they have increased provincial debt by almost 50% in almost two years, just two years in
00:22:01.040 office, Eby inherited provincial debt of $89 billion a year. And at the end of his first year,
00:22:06.940 it had soared to $133 billion, up $44 billion. What would you do differently?
00:22:11.280 Well, this has been absolute insane spending by this government, especially when it comes to the
00:22:18.200 operating from the actual budget, as opposed to the capital side. And so they've gone from what
00:22:27.060 was about a $5 or $6 billion surplus to what a lot of people were estimating saying would be an $18
00:22:33.160 billion deficit in just over two years. How do you destroy the finances of this province so quickly
00:22:41.600 and have nothing to show for it? Nobody can point to anything in this province that is better
00:22:47.180 under the NDP. Anything, whether it's crime, whether it's drugs, whether it's housing,
00:22:51.860 whether it's affordability, whether it's our economy, nothing is improving. And so it really
00:22:56.360 makes you wonder how and where they're spending this money. And you look at our capital, yes, we need
00:23:01.040 to invest in roads and we had to invest in hospitals and schools. The budget, the amount of capital that
00:23:08.420 is allocated this year for capital projects is the equivalent of all the cost overruns on the
00:23:15.880 projects that they're running. So this has been just incompetence in terms of how they're actually
00:23:21.880 getting projects done and the way they spend money. And there isn't a single thing. They've been in power
00:23:27.980 for eight years now, not going on the ninth year. There isn't a single project that's actually
00:23:32.860 completed in terms of highways or bridges or anything like that. Everything is still a work
00:23:36.900 in progress. And you look at it and think, how could this be that nothing could have gotten done
00:23:41.860 over that period of time? Well, you mentioned crime and we have some statistics here. Violent offenders in
00:23:47.620 BC, why Canada's catch and release bails are failing. So Vancouver recorded 6,256 violent
00:23:53.040 crimes in 2023, including 4,900 assaults, a rise of 451 incidents compared to 2019. The data shows that
00:24:01.000 basically these policies where they can't keep bad guys behind bars is obviously failing all Canadians
00:24:08.980 and particularly in British Columbia. So I'm wondering if you can comment on, again, the crime rules and
00:24:13.320 what you would do differently. So in this province, for whatever reason, the judges and our crown
00:24:20.420 prosecution has decided they don't want to put people in jail. We've got, for example, this youth
00:24:24.600 correction center that I've heard from. They have a capacity of 46 people. They have typically between
00:24:31.700 four and six people in there with that capacity. So you kind of look at it and you think, well, we're not
00:24:37.620 committing less crime. How is it that we're not utilizing these facilities for what they need to be used for?
00:24:43.320 We need some significant change in British Columbia, and I think quite frankly, likely in Canada, but
00:24:48.620 certainly in British Columbia when it comes to dealing with crime. And the approach that we're
00:24:52.640 going to take on it is, first of all, we're going to push for guaranteed minimum sentencing. And this is
00:24:57.520 especially targeted at these prolific offenders. The police tell me that 70% of the crime is being
00:25:04.100 committed by 30% of the criminals. And so when you look at that, there are so many of these people
00:25:09.420 people that should be behind bars. And we just, we seem to be treating them all like they're the
00:25:15.960 same. Like they might be 30, 50, a hundred different infractions, interactions with the
00:25:21.800 police, and yet they're still out on the streets. And so what we'll do, we'll push for guaranteed
00:25:25.600 minimum sentencing. We've got to push for bail reform. Those are federal. And so we need to be
00:25:31.040 pushing for those. But what we can do in provincially is we can actually use the Mental Health Act if we had to.
00:25:36.500 And so we want to change the court system so that there's a streamlined process for these
00:25:41.920 prolific offenders. They get into the courts immediately instead of having to wait a year
00:25:46.260 or two years or sometimes getting thrown out because they don't have the ability to get to court.
00:25:50.480 We've got to do that. But where we have these prolific offenders, particularly these prolific
00:25:53.980 violent offenders, if the courts will not put them behind bars where they need to be,
00:25:59.000 then we're going to have to look at using things like the Mental Health Act because that's the only tool
00:26:02.520 we have as a province. So if somebody's at risk of harming themselves or others, they can be held
00:26:08.640 and treated and not released until they're no longer a risk. And we might have to start looking
00:26:14.500 at that. And here's, he'll become the rub. Of course, there'll be a Section 7 challenge from the
00:26:18.800 Charter because you're taking away their rights. And we may have to use the notwithstanding clause
00:26:23.260 if need be, because we need to get these people off our streets enough of protecting the criminals'
00:26:30.540 rights. We need to start protecting the citizens' rights so that they can be safe once again in our
00:26:35.440 streets.
00:26:36.280 A hundred percent. And honestly, I think it's a compassionate thing to do because so many of
00:26:39.900 the people that you see on the streets suffering out in the open using drugs, they also have mental
00:26:45.400 health issues. And that's something that's sort of often ignored by the progressive side of things.
00:26:51.060 John, I know you are undergoing a leadership review for your party, which wraps up in September,
00:26:55.400 and then you have an AGM that is coming up in the fall. So I'm wondering if you could tell us a
00:27:00.480 little bit about that process.
00:27:02.240 Sure. Well, actually, the AGM is not out for a little while here yet. But yes, the leadership
00:27:06.960 process is going on throughout the province. And this is standard for any political party in terms
00:27:12.880 of a leadership review that needs to be done. Our old constitution said that every year there had to
00:27:17.880 be a leadership review, regardless of whatever the circumstance was, and it was to be done
00:27:21.560 online where people got a chance to vote by email or whatever the case may be. We looked at it and
00:27:26.540 went, that's not really a very, first of all, it's not stability, but it's not a right way to do it.
00:27:33.880 And so we decided we would give people an in-person opportunity to vote as to whether or not they
00:27:40.120 like the leadership of the party. They like the pledge that I've put forward in terms of our
00:27:45.280 priorities as a party and as a leader. And we'll see how that process goes. But I've been touring
00:27:52.480 throughout the province and meeting with members right across British Columbia, and people are
00:27:58.060 quite happy with what we're doing. They like the direction that we're going. Most people are like,
00:28:02.940 they certainly wish we had won the last election. We're 257 votes away from us being government as
00:28:10.360 opposed to them being government. It was that tight an election. But yeah, so the process is
00:28:15.260 ongoing. We'll know by the end of September what the will of the members of the party is.
00:28:21.040 Great. Well, we look forward to having you back and hopefully you can tell us more about the update
00:28:26.540 from the AGM and continue. I mean, it's wild how close that election was in BC. Reminds you folks how
00:28:33.020 important it is to get out there and vote. That's John Rudd said, leader of the BC Conservative Party.
00:28:38.080 Thank you for your time. All right, folks, thanks so much for tuning in. We'll be back
00:28:41.120 again tomorrow. I'm Candace Malcolm. This is the Candace Malcolm Show. Thank you and God bless.