The Candice Malcolm Show - PRIVATE property now INDIGENOUS land？ B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad responds

00:00:00.000 Hi, I'm Candace Malcolm, and this is the Candace Malcolm Show.

00:00:04.000 We have a great episode for you today, folks.

00:00:06.040 We are joined by John Rodsett, leader of the B.C. Conservatives, in just a minute.

00:00:10.300 And also, this episode is sponsored by Unsmoke, but more on them a little later.

00:00:14.420 I want to start by talking about an issue in the news, and I'm going to bring this up with John in a moment.

00:00:19.200 And that is a bombshell judgment that was released by B.C.'s Supreme Court.

00:00:23.860 So you might have seen Carolyn Elliott on X posting on Friday,

00:00:26.540 bombshell judgment released by B.C.'s Supreme Court declaring aboriginal title over land in Richmond,

00:00:31.620 including private property.

00:00:32.980 If it stands, it has massive implications for private property across B.C.

00:00:37.280 She says, read for it for yourself.

00:00:39.320 I'm going to read a little bit from a Globe and Mail report.

00:00:42.600 The headline says, major land claims ruling, says B.C. Indigenous groups,

00:00:46.360 has claimed to a portion of the city's port land.

00:00:49.620 So Vancouver First Nations has won a major court victory,

00:00:51.900 with the judge declaring it has title to a portion of land in the Vancouver area

00:00:56.160 that includes currently active industrial operations on the Fraser River.

00:01:00.260 Justice Barbara Young of the B.C. Supreme Court declared that the Cowichan tribes

00:01:04.540 have established aboriginal title to roughly 800 acres in the city of Richmond,

00:01:10.020 as well as aboriginal right to fish and food.

00:01:13.280 Her 863-page ruling from a trial that stretched 513 days over five years,

00:01:20.340 from 2021 to 2023, was issued Thursday and published online Friday.

00:01:24.520 The court ruling in what was billed as the longest trial in Canada's history,

00:01:29.180 no kidding, represents a milestone in the country's continual societal

00:01:32.760 and legal reckoning of Indigenous reconciliation.

00:01:35.800 The decision follows a line of similarly important rulings,

00:01:39.220 and there will almost certainly be legal arguments and appellate cases.

00:01:43.340 I hope so.

00:01:43.860 I hope that there are challenges to this case,

00:01:46.380 because it is truly disturbing and unsettling, folks.

00:01:49.880 You see the land-back activists, people demanding land-back,

00:01:53.820 saying that this is unceded land.

00:01:55.520 You know, those land acknowledgements that we're forced to hear

00:01:58.200 any time there's a public press conference now from politicians,

00:02:01.880 all saying that Canada is basically an illegitimate country

00:02:04.960 and that the land actually belongs to the First Nations.

00:02:07.820 Well, this court ruling is legalizing that,

00:02:11.140 is putting precedent into that,

00:02:13.420 saying that, yes, First Nations have title to the land

00:02:16.580 and they can take it back if they prove their case really interesting.

00:02:21.140 Not only that, I'm going to read a little bit more from this Globe and Mail report.

00:02:25.220 There are three different First Nations groups or bands

00:02:28.740 that all have claims over the same part of land in Richmond,

00:02:33.220 and they're pitted against each other.

00:02:35.580 So I'm going to read a little here.

00:02:36.780 It says,

00:02:36.940 The Cowichan tribes case, like many before it, is particularly complicated.

00:02:41.300 It says that the case pitted regional indigenous groups against each other.

00:02:43.920 The Cowichan are based on Vancouver Island,

00:02:45.640 but in centuries past had an annual summer village on the Fraser River,

00:02:50.320 or so they claim, and that is where they fish for salmon.

00:02:53.180 The Musqueam and Tawassan tribes have long lived around Fraser River

00:02:57.380 in the B.C.'s lower mainland.

00:02:58.940 The Musqueam upset over the court ruling on Friday morning.

00:03:01.840 They called it devastating and said it impacts their own title and fishing rights.

00:03:05.520 The land in question is within Musqueam's traditional

00:03:08.560 and unceded territory, writes the Globe and Mail.

00:03:11.420 Chief Wayne Sparrow said in a statement that Musqueam are extremely disappointed

00:03:15.000 that the Cowichan would go against our shared Salish Coast protocols.

00:03:20.080 It was emotional.

00:03:21.340 I want to read just a little bit more.

00:03:22.640 It says the Cowichan claim involved 1,800 acres,

00:03:25.720 and the court declared title on roughly 40% of that.

00:03:28.920 There are some privately held properties.

00:03:31.160 This is important.

00:03:31.640 But lawyers involved in the case say that if the ruling stands,

00:03:34.860 that land would not be affected until the properties are sold.

00:03:38.000 So you can keep your land for now, but you lose all value and all equity

00:03:40.980 because when you sell it, it's not going to be yours.

00:03:44.220 Justice Young declared that the land titles held by Canada and Richmond

00:03:46.860 to be defective and invalid.

00:03:50.300 Defective and invalid.

00:03:51.180 So the property to your home and to your land,

00:03:53.680 well, a judge may declare that that is defective and invalid,

00:03:56.820 and therefore you don't actually have title to your land.

00:03:59.020 Again, from the Globe and Mail piece, it says if the Cowichan's win

00:04:02.620 is upheld in future appeals, they could eventually take control

00:04:05.520 of the land in question and use it as they see fit.

00:04:09.480 Justice Young, a decade-long veteran of the court,

00:04:12.440 suspended the declaration on land titles for 18 months

00:04:15.740 so the Cowichan federal government and city of Richmond

00:04:17.620 will have the opportunity to make necessary arrangements.

00:04:20.160 Much more remains.

00:04:21.180 She writes, and then she continued to say that a period to allow

00:04:25.840 for an orderly transition of lands is in keeping with the principle of reconciliation.

00:04:31.480 Did you get that?

00:04:32.300 The principle of reconciliation means an orderly transition of the lands.

00:04:38.300 So for all those people calling for reconciliation,

00:04:41.220 all of the focus on that, at least for the land-backed people

00:04:44.180 and what I consider extreme radicals in this position,

00:04:48.320 reconciliation means an orderly transition of the lands.

00:04:53.620 This is unbelievable, the direction that we're heading.

00:04:56.700 I want to read a little bit from a legal blog.

00:04:59.440 This is written by University of Saskatchewan's law professor, Dwight Newman.

00:05:03.980 He writes, the less certain future of private lands in British Columbia

00:05:08.340 and basically just says that the judgment has a much broader implication

00:05:14.640 that any privately owned lands in B.C. may be subject to being overridden by aboriginal title.

00:05:21.920 So yes, that is exactly what this means.

00:05:25.160 Now I'm going to bring John Rudstad on in just a second

00:05:27.360 because as reported by Juno News,

00:05:29.840 he wants an urgent appeal of the aboriginal title ruling which threatens public policy.

00:05:35.400 But first, I want to thank our sponsor of today's show, which is Unsmoke.

00:05:39.360 Look, folks, it's time to modernize Canada's rules on nicotine.

00:05:43.060 Alternatives to cigarettes like heated tobacco vaping products and oral smokeless products

00:05:46.560 don't burn tobacco or produce smoke.

00:05:49.140 They aren't risk-free, but the growing body of scientific evidence

00:05:51.440 shows that they have the potential to be substantially less harmful than smoking.

00:05:55.420 Despite this, Canadians are banned access to critical information or even some of these products.

00:06:00.620 Nicotine pouches remain banned in convenience stores.

00:06:02.680 Current laws ban communication about the risk of these products compared to cigarettes.

00:06:08.500 The evidence is there.

00:06:09.220 The tools exist.

00:06:09.940 Canadians should have the freedom to know about them.

00:06:12.160 Learn more at unsmoke.ca.

00:06:15.100 Okay, I'm very pleased now to be joined by John Rudstad.

00:06:18.420 He is the leader of the B.C. Conservatives.

00:06:20.300 Rudstad served as leader of the official opposition since 2024

00:06:23.520 when the B.C. Conservatives narrowly lost that election,

00:06:26.760 winning 44 seats, losing by just one seat.

00:06:29.020 It was an incredibly close election under Rudstad's leadership of the Conservative Party.

00:06:33.160 He's had its best showing in over 70 years.

00:06:36.780 So welcome, John.

00:06:37.640 Thank you so much for joining us.

00:06:39.140 Thank you for having me on.

00:06:40.440 Okay.

00:06:40.820 Well, first of all, I want you to comment on this bombshell landmark ruling

00:06:45.340 and what it means for the people of British Columbia

00:06:48.440 and more specifically, property owners in British Columbia.

00:06:52.040 Yeah, this is a huge decision.

00:06:53.600 When you look at a court case that finds title underneath private land,

00:06:59.100 the reality for all of us as Canadians, as British Columbians,

00:07:03.120 is they are too are incompatible.

00:07:05.800 Indigenous rights, Indigenous title cannot coexist with private property rights.

00:07:10.380 In your private property rights, for example,

00:07:12.060 you have the right to put up a fence and say no trespassing, right?

00:07:16.700 It's your private property.

00:07:17.700 You can use it for the things that you want to do.

00:07:19.920 But when it comes to Indigenous rights and Indigenous title,

00:07:23.480 Indigenous population have the right to use property,

00:07:29.020 to use land, to carry on with traditional ways.

00:07:32.140 And there's nothing you can do to stop it because that's right.

00:07:35.880 So the two are in direct conflict and really cannot coexist

00:07:40.160 and should not coexist on the land.

00:07:43.300 And so this has created a huge problem.

00:07:45.420 And I talked to some of the homeowners that are impacted by this particular case

00:07:49.980 and they're concerned about their future.

00:07:52.580 They ask, like this one lady I talked to, single mom, 0.99

00:07:55.720 this is her life savings she put into buying this piece.

00:07:58.540 And she's wondering now, have I lost my life savings?

00:08:01.820 What does this mean?

00:08:02.640 Do I have rights anymore?

00:08:04.940 They're worried about how this impacts the value of their property.

00:08:08.840 So there's a huge number of questions that are outstanding on this issue.

00:08:13.360 But I think it's more than that as well.

00:08:16.640 It's the precedent that is being set here for the whole province,

00:08:19.840 quite frankly, the country.

00:08:21.320 But it follows on the heels of some legislation that the NDP put forward

00:08:26.580 in British Columbia on the Haida, on the Haida Islands,

00:08:30.380 where they actually define title on the entire islands,

00:08:33.480 including underneath private property and infrastructure.

00:08:37.400 And so they set the precedent.

00:08:38.660 And now the court case here has now confirmed that this could exist anywhere in the province.

00:08:45.400 And in British Columbia, 120% of British Columbia is claimed by First Nations.

00:08:49.660 So you better believe all private land across this province could now potentially be subject

00:08:53.720 to having an Indigenous title underneath their private property.

00:08:57.560 Well, from the Globe and Mail report that I read from,

00:09:00.280 you could tell that the individual bands don't even agree with each other, right?

00:09:03.700 This was given to the Cowichan Band, which is a Vancouver Island band.

00:09:07.000 Of course, Richmond's not in Vancouver Island.

00:09:09.060 And it's got competing claims from the Musqueam and the Tawassan.

00:09:12.920 And so, I mean, it's hard to kind of comprehend.

00:09:16.200 I want to bring it back to the private property comment that you made,

00:09:18.680 because in this Globe and Mail article, it says that there are some privately held properties,

00:09:23.900 but lawyers involved in the case said that if the ruling stands, that land would not be affected

00:09:28.020 until it was sold, until it was sold.

00:09:31.260 So meaning that the value that you would have the equity in your home or in your land

00:09:35.840 that you were planning to use as your retirement nest egg or pass on to your children when you pass away,

00:09:41.140 that's basically gone.

00:09:42.340 Because when you try to sell it, no one's going to want to buy land that is held,

00:09:46.280 that a court has ruled is going to be held by the First Nations.

00:09:49.200 I mean, how would you assure any private property owners or anyone considering buying a home in British Columbia

00:09:55.460 that this couldn't happen to them next?

00:09:57.800 Well, that's why this should never happen.

00:09:59.680 Private property and infrastructure should never, ever be on the table for a title declaration,

00:10:05.760 whether that's by court or whether that's by negotiation.

00:10:08.180 But really, when you wind this case back, this started in 2019.

00:10:12.820 David Eby was the Attorney General.

00:10:14.480 At that particular point, they should have recognized the risk that this would have had for private property owners

00:10:19.500 and sat down and negotiated a settlement and dealt with this as opposed to allowing this to get to this stage.

00:10:26.580 And really, this government has completely thrown private property rights, private property ownership, you know, under the bus.

00:10:34.200 Think about the chill that this will put on British Columbia from an investment perspective.

00:10:38.260 If you want to build housing or if you want to put in a warehouse and put in some manufacturing

00:10:43.660 or if you want to build a mine or any type of activity that's now in the land base,

00:10:48.520 you no longer have any certainty that the private property you're trying to build on could remain private property.

00:10:57.000 It may not down the road.

00:10:58.400 And so the other interesting piece of this is, of course, in the HIDA legislation,

00:11:04.520 what it says is that with Indigenous title, Indigenous law can apply.

00:11:10.500 And so what does that mean?

00:11:12.340 How does Indigenous law potentially impact or even override your private property rights?

00:11:18.700 Could they put taxation in place?

00:11:20.820 Could they say what you can and can't do with the property?

00:11:23.380 And, of course, you have no ability to vote for that government because that's an Indigenous government. 1.00

00:11:28.820 And so if it was taxation, for example, that would be, you know, taxation without representation.

00:11:33.740 So there's a whole lot of question marks.

00:11:36.340 And this, like I say, this case should never, ever have gotten to court.

00:11:40.200 It should have been resolved outside in terms of negotiation.

00:11:42.940 But now that it's there, the government of the day, the NDP government,

00:11:46.520 needs to clearly define what they are going to be fighting for in terms of defending private property rights.

00:11:52.660 Well, 100%.

00:11:53.340 I think a lot of people will say that this is all sort of downstream from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous People, known as UNDRIP.

00:12:01.460 There was another case in British Columbia that came out earlier this month in August, August 9th.

00:12:06.120 This is from the CBC.

00:12:06.900 The Okanagan Falls may need to change its name in order to become BC's newest municipality.

00:12:13.200 So basically, according to UNDRIP, one of the things that it requires is that First Nations have the right to designate and name their own communities, places and people.

00:12:24.140 And so because of this, Okanagan Falls may have to rename.

00:12:28.940 I mean, we've seen a lot of this, John, in British Columbia where places have had to rename.

00:12:33.060 Look, I grew up in BC.

00:12:34.260 Back when I grew up, we used to call it the Queen Charlotte Islands.

00:12:37.040 I know it's Haida Gwaii now, technically.

00:12:39.160 But we see these kinds of stories all the time, including recently Trutch Street in Vancouver was given a new name that I wouldn't even try to pronounce because I think it's unpronounceable.

00:12:47.820 What do you make of these changes and what do you make of UNDRIP more broadly?

00:12:54.500 Well, as the Conservative Party of British Columbia, we are committed to repealing the DRIPA legislation, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People Act.

00:13:01.680 It doesn't make sense.

00:13:03.080 Any legislation that gives rights to one group of people over another will never end well because ultimately it creates friction.

00:13:12.400 It creates resentment.

00:13:13.180 It is the opposite of reconciliation, and reconciliation should be the goal of what we're trying to do.

00:13:19.540 So DRIPA is something that we would repeal and remove in British Columbia to get away from this case, for example.

00:13:26.400 That could happen in the Okanagan Falls area.

00:13:29.580 The other piece, though, is there are values in UNDRIP that are worth using when we work with First Nations as a guiding principle, but that's what it should be.

00:13:37.960 It shouldn't be legislation and using it as this hammer.

00:13:42.240 So I think, you know, I don't have a problem with renaming, you know, for example, the Seedish Sea or Haida Gwaii, these types of things.

00:13:51.500 But when it comes to, you know, many other things, look, we need to make, we need to understand that in British Columbia, Indigenous people are somewhere between four and five percent of the population.

00:14:01.480 And we need to be able to respect rights, but we also need to be able to respect the rights of all British Columbians.

00:14:07.980 And we're all Canadians.

00:14:09.260 So we need to make sure that what we are doing is reflecting all of us in terms of our true history and, quite frankly, what our future needs to be.

00:14:18.980 Look, I want to push back just a little bit about the renaming.

00:14:22.000 Like, I understand that, obviously, British Columbia was inhabited before the Europeans came and that some of the names come from Indigenous words.

00:14:30.360 I mean, even Okanagan, it's not an English word, right?

00:14:33.460 It's clearly derived from a different language.

00:14:36.500 But what I see often now, John, it almost feels like it's deliberately confusing to people that you cannot pronounce the words.

00:14:45.380 It's not written in an alphabet that's recognizable.

00:14:48.160 And so with the case of Trutch Street getting renamed and then the signs that were unveiled, you can imagine in an emergency situation someone's trying to call for help and they can't pronounce the words.

00:14:57.280 And it seems to me that that is done intentionally to confuse or to alienate people.

00:15:02.060 And I just don't understand why they have to introduce a new alphabet.

00:15:06.840 English and French are the official languages of Canada.

00:15:09.420 So why would you rename streets and cities and places into words with an alphabet that we don't recognize?

00:15:16.800 Yeah, you know, the interesting thing is when it comes to Indigenous languages in British Columbia, we've got, I think, it's 64 different dialects, 32 different languages with Indigenous people.

00:15:27.940 So they didn't have a written language.

00:15:31.900 And so when they're trying to translate how to pronounce words that cannot be easily spelt in the English language or the English dialect, they're trying to figure out how do you actually spell that.

00:15:45.460 So they've tried to come up with an alphabet that is English, is what we use, but it also is supplemented to reflect the sounds that they use as part of their naming.

00:16:00.760 So you're right.

00:16:02.500 There needs to be clear cases where something like that can work and something that makes sense and some cases where it doesn't.

00:16:09.500 A street name, you know, for example, if the street name is on a reserve, in that type of thing, in many places around the province, it has a First Nations name.

00:16:23.320 If you're talking about, you know, Main Street down the middle of a city, really is that kind of what you would need to be doing with the names?

00:16:30.220 But, you know, in terms of a street that might be directly attached with First Nations territory within a First Nations reserve, I don't have a problem with that kind of a sort of name changing.

00:16:41.800 Now, there is some issues.

00:16:43.400 Yeah, there's no question there's going to be issues in terms of it.

00:16:46.320 But that's part of what we need to be thinking about also in terms of reconciliation.

00:16:50.260 And I'll just give you an example from my home community, Prince George.

00:16:53.580 I was born and raised in Prince George.

00:16:55.880 There was a park that was there.

00:16:57.580 It was called Fort George Park.

00:16:58.600 Well, that used to be a Claytonay community.

00:17:04.520 And they were forced out of that community and relocated to a community further upriver.

00:17:10.300 And so when it came to looking at reconciliation, they made a decision, the city made a decision to rename that park Claytonay Park.

00:17:18.960 And there was a whole bunch of people that were opposed to it and concerned about it.

00:17:24.200 Why would we do this?

00:17:25.040 Until they learned the history.

00:17:26.520 And then they went, oh, okay, wait a second here.

00:17:28.600 Maybe this makes sense.

00:17:30.780 And so, you know, reconciliation is not an easy path to be walked.

00:17:36.000 But once again, when you look at it, you've got to think, how does this impact people on a day-to-day life?

00:17:40.720 In particular, this is why the private property infrastructure, why those sort of issues are such a big issue.

00:17:46.280 Because now you're talking about seriously impacting people's day-to-day lives and building their future.

00:17:53.000 Yeah, well, you certainly raise a good point about reconciliation and the idea is, you know, creating a future where we can live and coexist in peace.

00:18:01.520 But sometimes you see things in the news and online, John, make you concerned about whether we're actually heading in that direction.

00:18:08.200 And this was something that I posted on social media.

00:18:12.320 The Adams Lake Indian Band put up a sign recently that said, no trespassing, no illegal activities, and no settlers.

00:18:19.200 And I see that as very inflammatory language.

00:18:23.880 And saying that certain people, based on their skin color or their heritage, are not allowed in other parts of the province or of their community.

00:18:33.000 I mean, that's concerning.

00:18:34.800 Look, I spent some time in high school in Campbell River.

00:18:37.180 And sometimes we'd go on to the Native Reserves to visit friends or meet up with people or, you know, just to drop by and say hi to someone.

00:18:44.720 And the fact that they would erect a sign like this in Adams Lake saying, no settlers, I don't know how strictly that's enforced.

00:18:50.600 But it's a sign that, when I saw it, made me feel really uncomfortable.

00:18:53.440 I wonder if you can comment on that.

00:18:55.020 Yeah, I agree.

00:18:55.740 It makes me really feel really uncomfortable.

00:18:57.440 It's the opposite of what reconciliation should be.

00:19:00.240 It just is.

00:19:02.220 You know, we need to recognize that this is Canada.

00:19:04.340 And even though, you know, Indigenous people might have been here for 10,000 years, they still have came here from somewhere else. 0.99

00:19:11.840 Just like everybody in this country, they came here from somewhere else. 1.00

00:19:15.560 And we need to recognize what we've built as a country.

00:19:17.960 And I think the other thing is we need to understand Canada's history.

00:19:21.800 I mean, if Canada wasn't here as a country, what would have happened?

00:19:25.660 The Americans probably would have come up here and done the same thing that they did in their country, 0.78

00:19:30.240 which is declare them a sovereign nation, bring in the army, attack them, wipe them out, and conquer the area.

00:19:36.980 And so Canada, in a way, is the whole reason why many First Nations rights have even been protected and exist today.

00:19:45.060 And so this is why we need to think about this as Canada and British Columbia.

00:19:49.220 And we need to understand that this is part of reconciliation, how we bring this together and have that understanding.

00:19:56.280 Because there's resentment, there's issues on both sides of the border, or both sides of the issue.

00:20:01.400 I looked at, for example, in the Okanagan, there's a beach in the Okanagan that is beside a First Nations reserve.

00:20:08.560 And there's a sign on the beach saying, Indians only.

00:20:14.300 And I looked at that, and that's hugely offensive to me, that it's a public beach, that the foreshore is crown land.

00:20:23.140 It's not owned by an indigenous band.

00:20:26.820 And to put up a sign like that, first of all, I mean, it's racist.

00:20:29.920 But second of all, it has that potential, that connotation about, you know, one group versus another.

00:20:37.000 I thought the whole idea is that we're Canadians, and we're trying to find a way to reconcile and to become one.

00:20:43.320 But this is also a huge problem with our Constitution.

00:20:45.860 Like, our Constitution has created many of these problems and issues we have today.

00:20:50.220 When the Constitution came in 1982, and we had Section 35, which is what has enshrined indigenous rights, which includes title,

00:20:58.320 it was defined at the time as being this empty vessel of law that the courts would fill.

00:21:03.300 Well, I think what we're seeing now, particularly with this case now with the Cowichan,

00:21:07.800 and what we've seen through this is maybe that has gone a little too far.

00:21:12.860 Maybe we need to be rethinking how to address this to be able to make sure that we recognize and respect

00:21:19.760 and reconcile the indigenous people, the people that were here before us,

00:21:24.100 but also the rights of all Canadians and how those things come together.

00:21:29.040 Well, I think that would be a much better path forward to focus on the positive things,

00:21:34.000 the friendships, the treaties, the partnerships that were formed between the early Canadians

00:21:38.280 and the First Nations instead of dwelling so much on the things that we've focused on.

00:21:44.720 Okay, John, I want to move on a little bit to talk about your opponent, David Eby,

00:21:48.600 and his record in government, so B.C.'s debt has been skyrocketing in the first two years.

00:21:53.960 This is in the Vancouver Sun, basically saying that they have increased provincial debt by almost 50%

00:21:58.940 in almost two years, just two years in office.

00:22:02.000 Eby inherited provincial debt of $89 billion a year,

00:22:05.000 and at the end of its first year, it had soared to $133, up $44 billion.

00:22:10.180 What would you do differently?

00:22:11.380 Well, this has been absolute insane spending by this government,

00:22:16.700 especially when it comes to the operating from the actual budget as opposed to the capital side.

00:22:25.080 And so they've gone from what was about a $5 billion or $6 billion surplus

00:22:29.120 to what a lot of people are estimating saying it would be an $18 billion deficit in just over two years.

00:22:36.160 How do you destroy the finances of this province so quickly and have nothing to show for it?

00:22:44.560 Nobody can point to anything in this province that is better under the NDP.

00:22:48.820 Anything, whether it's crime, whether it's drugs, whether it's housing,

00:22:51.960 whether it's affordability, whether it's our economy, nothing is improving.

00:22:55.660 And so it really makes you wonder how and where they're spending this money.

00:22:59.680 And you look at our capital, yes, we need to invest in roads,

00:23:02.140 and we have to invest in hospitals and schools.

00:23:04.880 The budget, the amount of capital that is allocated this year for capital projects

00:23:12.160 is the equivalent of all the cost overruns on the projects that they're running.

00:23:18.060 So this has been just incompetence in terms of how they're actually getting projects done

00:23:23.520 and the way they spend money.

00:23:26.020 And there isn't a single thing.

00:23:27.500 They've been in power for eight years now, not going on the ninth year.

00:23:31.140 There isn't a single project that's actually completed in terms of highways or bridges or anything like that.

00:23:35.960 Everything is still a work in progress.

00:23:38.120 And you look at it and think, how could this be that nothing could have gotten done over that period of time?

00:23:43.060 Well, you mentioned crime, and we have some statistics here.

00:23:46.840 Violent offenders in BC, why can't it catch and release bails, are failing.

00:23:50.480 So Vancouver recorded 6,256 violent crimes in 2023, including 4,900 assaults,

00:23:56.240 a rise of 451 incidents compared to 2019.

00:23:59.780 The data shows that basically these policies where they can't keep bad guys behind bars

00:24:05.120 is obviously failing all Canadians, and particularly in British Columbia.

00:24:10.600 So I'm wondering if you can comment on, again, the crime rules and what you would do differently.

00:24:15.220 So in this province, for whatever reason, the judges and our Crown prosecution have decided

00:24:21.580 they don't want to put people in jail.

00:24:23.380 We've got, for example, this Youth Correction Centre that I've heard from.

00:24:28.300 They have a capacity of 46 people.

00:24:30.500 They have typically between four and six people in there with that capacity.

00:24:35.320 So you kind of look at it and you think, well, we're not committing less crime.

00:24:39.060 How is it that we're not utilizing these facilities for what they need to be used for?

00:24:43.800 We need some significant change in British Columbia, and I think quite frankly,

00:24:47.800 likely in Canada, but certainly in British Columbia, when it comes to dealing with crime.

00:24:51.900 And the approach that we're going to take on it is, first of all,

00:24:54.520 we're going to push for guaranteed minimum sentencing.

00:24:56.280 And this is especially targeted at these prolific offenders.

00:25:01.400 The police tell me that 70% of the crime is being committed by 30% of the criminals.

00:25:06.600 And so when you look at that, there are so many of these people that should be behind bars.

00:25:13.580 And we just, we seem to be treating them all like they're the same.

00:25:16.380 Like they might be 30, 50, 100 different infractions, interactions with the police,

00:25:22.260 and yet they're still out on the streets.

00:25:23.840 And so what we'll do, we'll push for guaranteed minimum sentencing.

00:25:26.420 We've got to push for bail reform.

00:25:28.580 Those are federal.

00:25:30.020 And so we need to be pushing for those.

00:25:31.740 But what we can do in provincially is we can actually use the Mental Health Act if we had to.

00:25:37.440 And so we want to change the court system so that there's a streamlined process for these

00:25:42.020 prolific offenders.

00:25:42.800 They get into the courts immediately instead of having to wait, you know, a year or two years

00:25:46.960 or sometimes getting thrown out because they don't have the ability to get to court.

00:25:50.220 We've got to do that.

00:25:51.260 But where we have these prolific offenders, particularly these prolific violent offenders,

00:25:55.220 if the courts will not put them behind bars where they need to be, then we're going to

00:25:59.620 have to look at using things like the Mental Health Act because that's the only tool we

00:26:03.120 have as a province.

00:26:04.360 So if somebody is at risk of harming themselves or others, they can be held and treated and

00:26:10.000 not released until they're no longer a risk.

00:26:13.060 And we might have to start looking at that.

00:26:15.060 And here's, he'll become the rub.

00:26:16.500 Of course, there'll be a Section 7 challenge from the Charter because you're taking away

00:26:20.420 their rights.

00:26:21.320 And we may have to use the Notwithstanding Clause if need be because we need to get these

00:26:25.600 people off our streets enough, enough of protecting the criminals' rights.

00:26:31.440 We need to start protecting the citizens' rights so that they can be safe once again in our streets.

00:26:36.400 A hundred percent.

00:26:37.300 And honestly, I think it's a compassionate thing to do because so many of the people that

00:26:40.320 you see on the streets suffering out in the open using drugs, they also have mental health

00:26:45.780 issues.

00:26:46.240 And that's something that's sort of often ignored by the progressive side of things.

00:26:51.160 John, I know you are undergoing a leadership review for your party, which wraps up in September.

00:26:55.500 And then you have an AGM that is coming up in the fall.

00:26:59.580 So I'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit about that process.

00:27:02.320 Sure.

00:27:02.500 Well, actually, the AGM is not out for a little while here yet.

00:27:06.380 But yes, the leadership process is going on throughout the province.

00:27:09.300 And this is standard for any political party in terms of a leadership review that needs

00:27:14.340 to be done.

00:27:15.220 Our old constitution said that every year there had to be a leadership review, regardless

00:27:19.520 of whatever the circumstance was, and it was to be done online where people got a chance

00:27:23.540 to vote by email or whatever the case may be.

00:27:25.980 We looked at it and went, that's not really a very, first of all, it's not stability, but

00:27:31.860 it's not a right way to do it.

00:27:33.640 And so we decided we would give people an in-person opportunity to vote as to whether

00:27:39.420 or not they like the leadership of the party and they like the pledge that I've put forward

00:27:44.700 in terms of our priorities as a party and as a leader.

00:27:49.700 And we'll see how that process goes.

00:27:51.820 But I've been touring throughout the province and been meeting with members right across

00:27:55.660 British Columbia and people are quite happy with what we're doing.

00:27:59.820 They like the direction that we're going.

00:28:01.720 Most people are likely, certainly, you know, wish we had won the last election.

00:28:06.640 It was 257 votes away from us being government as opposed to them being government.

00:28:11.640 It was that tight an election.

00:28:13.720 But yeah, so the process is ongoing.

00:28:15.780 We'll know by the end of September what the will of the members of the party is.

00:28:21.120 Great.

00:28:21.600 Well, we look forward to having you back and hopefully you can tell us more about the update

00:28:26.640 from the AGM and continue.

00:28:29.280 I mean, it's wild how close that election was in B.C.

00:28:32.260 Reminds you folks how important it is to get out there and vote.

00:28:35.840 That's John Rudd said, leader of the B.C. Conservative Party.

00:28:38.260 Thank you for your time.

00:28:39.800 All right, folks, thanks so much for tuning in.

00:28:40.920 We'll be back again tomorrow.

00:28:41.700 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:28:42.260 This is the Candace Malcolm Show.

00:28:43.220 Thank you and God bless.

00:28:44.320 We'll be back again tomorrow.

The Candice Malcolm Show - August 13, 2025

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

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript