John Rustad’s political rise has been as dramatic as it has been unexpected.
In August 2022, Rustad joined the BC Conservative Party after being ejected from the BC Liberal Party for taking a controversial stance on climate change. Two years later, Rustad was leading a surging BC Conservative Party while the BC Liberals — formerly, the province’s dominant centre-right party — suspended their election campaign.
The BC Conservatives have gone from being a party that won no seats in the 2020 election to one with a real shot at power. Less than a week before the Oct. 19 election, polling aggregator 338 Canada gives the incumbent BC NDP an edge over the BC Conservatives in seat projections — but that edge falls within the margin of error.
Rustad sat down with Canadian Affairs reporter Samuel Forster on Oct. 11 to discuss the BC Conservatives’ rapid rise, his priorities as leader and how he differs from Premier David Eby.
SF: Since last March, you have gone from leading a party with a relatively minimal profile to leading a party that has candidates in every riding and a good shot of winning. Were you expecting the party to grow as quickly as it did?
JR: When I took over the leadership of the party about 18 months ago, I think the party was polling at three or four per cent. My goal was to try to be in the mid-30s by the time we got to the election, [as] that would give us an opportunity to be within reach of forming a government during the election.
I was asked by a reporter at the beginning of March, “How would you define success?” And I said, “Winning.” He said, “What, winning your riding?” And I said, “No, winning the election.”
We advanced faster than I thought we would. But it’s really been, across the province, this desire for change. This desire for getting back to common sense that I think we have tapped into; that has really helped [us] to grow who we are as a party.
SF: Many British Columbians are struggling to keep up with increased housing costs. How does your platform’s efforts to achieve affordability differ from the NDP’s policies?
JR: Affordability needs to be several prongs. It’s not just about a single policy. You need three basics to live: you need a house, you need food and you need energy. And so we’re trying to reduce the cost of those three basics.
So, for example, getting rid of the carbon tax would put $1,200 back into the families in this province, when they take their average fuel and heating bills. That $1,200 combined with the Rustad Rebate — which gives the tax credit associated with rent and mortgages — that’ll add up to about $3,000 a year for people in British Columbia.
But the next step is we need to see wage growth in British Columbia, which means we need to get our economy going.
And that’s the only way to be able to get, you know, good solid wage growth. To be able to take care of the problem of being able to afford a home in British Columbia.
SF: Critics may argue that your plan for the Rustad Rebate, starting at $1,500, scaling up to $3,000 per month in 2029, provides relief to upper income people. What are your thoughts on that?
JR: So it’s capped at $250,000 [annual income]. Any family earning over $250,000 is not eligible. So this is designed specifically for the middle class in British Columbia.
SF: Your platform emphasizes public safety, especially in terms of crime and drug policy. What are some aspects of your plans to increase law enforcement?
JR: The challenge we have in B.C. when it comes to crime is that about 20 per cent of [offenders] are committing about 80 per cent of the crimes.
It’s these prolific offenders that are back out on the street rotating through that are causing a tremendous amount of grief … We’re going to push the federal government on bail reform as well as guaranteed minimum sentencing, so that there are consequences for people that are committing these crimes over and over again.
But if we can’t get things pushed through on the federal side — or even if we do get it pushed through on the federal side — we need to be able to get these people into our court system much faster. So we’re going to be investing in more judges, more sheriffs, and creating a whole new stream of courts to be able to make sure that these people can get into the court system within a week or two.
When it comes to the addictions and mental-health side, there’s a lot that needs to be done. We’ve got to get rid of [drug] decriminalization. It is a disaster in this province.
You know, for example, walk through a park like this. I’m not allowed to drink a beer, but I’m allowed to sit there and smoke a crack pipe. That’s crazy.
[And] we’re taking tools away from police to be able to actually crack down on these street drugs. So decriminalization will go. Safe supply is not safe. It’s actually very dangerous.
So we’re going to roll back these things, but part of that is we have to build out significant recovery. Everything from doctor-prescribed treatment, to short-term treatment recovery, to longer term recovery.
SF: Your BC Recovers plan includes the introduction of Christian’s Law, which is named after a young man who lost his life to drugs after his family repeatedly pleaded for involuntary treatment. What is involuntary treatment and why do you think it’s a necessary feature of dealing with a drug crisis?
JR: Christian was addicted when he was 13, and his teachers knew about it, and they didn’t tell the parents. But more importantly, when the parents found out, there was nothing they could do for Christian, because Christian didn’t want to go into treatment.
In British Columbia, there’s nothing you can do unless the child agrees to [treatment]. And I think that’s wrong. Any parent would want to do anything they can for their child.
Long-term treatment is a big piece of it as well, because you have a situation where there’s been many people who receive significant brain injury from these drugs, who will never be able to recover, who will never be able to function in society.
SF: One point of distinction between you and your opponent is nuclear energy. Premier Eby does not see nuclear as an option for powering British Columbia, while you’ve committed to amending the Clean Energy Act to allow for nuclear power in the province’s energy mix. What advantages do you see nuclear offering in the province’s decarbonization strategy?
JR: So in British Columbia last year we imported 17 per cent of the electricity we consumed. David Eby got rid of the need for our province to be energy self-sufficient. I think that’s wrong.
I think our province needs to be self-sufficient when it comes to electricity. So, if we all wanted to use, say, a heat pump for our homes and our businesses, the need for power in the province would be the equivalent of six or seven more Site C dams.
And we’re likely not going to build another major dam in British Columbia. So where is this power going to come from? Wind and solar can be part of the mix, but there’s only so much capacity we can put in because we only have so much “battery storage” with our dams … Plus, wind and solar are intermittent. They’re unreliable.
So part of this means … if we want to have more demand for electricity, we have to have a plan to generate it.
And since wind and solar are not baseload, what could be baseload? I mean, obviously we’re not going to use coal. Should we use natural gas? We’ve got tons of it, but that means, you know, more emissions. Or are we going to use nuclear?
And so we need to have that conversation. And what we’re saying is that we’re opening the door to having the conversation to including nuclear as part of the mix in British Columbia. But it won’t be until after we have that significant conversation with people.
SF: How do you propose achieving economic reconciliation with Indigenous communities, especially in natural resource sectors?
JR: We want to look at a wide range of what each First Nation could potentially achieve so that they can move beyond poverty and start managing success for the people and providing hope for the future.
A number of First Nations are dead set against resource development — and that’s fine. We’ll work with them in terms of what opportunities are there for them.
But we’ve got to get away from it being a government cheque. Because a government cheque has obviously been the approach that has been taken for 150 years and has been unsuccessful in helping to work with First Nations.
Where I’ve seen First Nations succeed is where they have engaged economically. You know, for example, Haisla First Nation was blessed with having the opportunity for LNG. They also worked with Alcan, or the aluminum smelter, which is now owned by Rio Tinto, and between those projects and the agreements we set with government, they went from 65 per cent unemployment to 15 per cent unemployment, even less.
SF: Public health care remains under pressure across Canada. British Columbia is no exception. What is your plan to improve B.C.’s health-care system?
JR: The reality is the model that we use for health care is broken.
I don’t want to try to reinvent the wheel. I want to look at models that are far more successful in achieving the results for patients. [Models used in] Australia, Switzerland, some of the Scandinavian countries, other countries in Europe
The model is that government will be the sole payer for the health-care services, but it will be delivered by both government and non-government agencies. What that means is that the funding actually follows the patient, not the system.
Currently, if you’re funding a hospital and give them a billion-dollar budget, if they are struggling to make their budget work, what do they do? They reduce beds. And what they should be doing is figuring out how they can expand services. And so this model will have that focus on the funding following the patient.
It allows for more innovation. It allows for more entrepreneurial opportunity to be efficient at providing services. It’s been very successful in Europe.
SF: Lastly, what do you think is the most significant political difference between you and Premier Eby?
JR: Well, there’s lots I can say about that. David Eby believes in Marxism, socialism, whichever you want to call it. He believes in big government and big government should be controlling life and should be interfering in everyday life.
Whether that is overruling local governments or whether that’s making decisions about what you can and can’t do with your own home or with your own businesses. I fundamentally disagree with that.
I believe that we need to make sure we have the services we need that are the best services we can provide, that we should be trying to do the lightest touch we can for the average, everyday, hard-working person to allow them to get on with their life.
It’s a difference in approach. David Eby believes that government has the solution. And I think, quite frankly, government has created problems.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Leave a comment