Nuanced. - 218. John Rustad: Unfiltered Details on the BC Conservatives’ Civil War

Episode Date: December 22, 2025

John Rustad joins to unpack the BC Conservatives leadership blowup, caucus factions, vetting failures, leaks, and an early David Eby election scenario. We cover the “professionally incapacitated” claim, the Dallas Brody and Lindsay Shepherd controversies, membership-signup irregularities, Trevor Halford’s interim leadership, Aaron Gunn’s leadership talk, affordability and wage growth, and Rustad’s view of “economic reconciliation” after the Cowichan ruling.Send us a textSupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

You were called professionally incapacitated by your party. Was that funny at the time? Was that offensive? Like, it's all just part for the course? I apologize. That was just all bullshit. When you think back on that vetting process, would you've done something differently? One of the things that we should have vetted was the vetters. The two people who were in charge of vetting ultimately went and formed 1B.C. I'm a firm believer in free speech and democracy.

If you don't have free speech, you don't have democracy. In March 2025, you expelled Dallas Brody after the residential school mockery controversy. What line did you believe was crossed? What's the real story from your perspective? Our database was breached. There was an active campaign signing people up to try to take me out. By September 2025, you set a bar for yourself, and then you surpassed it with a leadership review of 70.66%. Well, heirs and dirty laundry here is part of your show.

I mean, there was groups even as part of the man. management committee of the Conservative Party who are working against me in the leadership review. And I managed to still get 71%. Do you believe Trevor Halford can stabilize the caucus? Trevor Halford was right-hand man of Kevin Falkin. He is a BC liberal true and through. And so he is pretending to be a conservative and I think he is more conservative than it is anything else. But that seems to be what caucus is looking for. So my hope is that caucus will unite. What are your thoughts on Aaron Gunn and his potential run for party leader?

are really going to step aside and create a by-election in British Columbia, one that could very easily be won by the federal liberals. Would you ever consider running for the party leader role again? Mr. Rustad, what an honor it is to have you back on the program. Thank you so much for joining us today. I'm hoping we might be able to start with just talking about. you've been under sustained pressure for a very long period of time. Obviously, the election was going on, and I don't think it's let up much since. And so I just wanted to start by asking how you're doing personally and health-wise. You've just, you've been through a lot.

Nobody can cut it any other way. How are you doing? Aaron, first of all, thanks for having me back on. And thank you for the question, actually. You know, you're going through the emotional roller coaster of, you know, frustration and anger and happiness. But, I mean, at the end of the day, I'm at peace with the decision, and I'm looking forward to whatever may come next, carrying on with doing the work as an MLA, but doing what I can to be able to support the party. But in many ways, actually, it's a little liberating as well because I had a lot of ideas that I wanted to put into our election platform, which I had prepped for this fall, because I had thought the NDP were going to drop the writ earlier this fall. And so I'm looking forward to actually rolling those out here in early January in terms of ideas for the leadership race or potentially a election, of course, if the NDP happened to drop the writ.

I am so excited to get into all of that with you. I guess I want to dwell a little bit longer on just the pressure. And for some, they may go, that's what you sign up for. But I think what you've gone through over this year is just incredible, just in terms of the pressure, being pulled from all sides. how does that impact you as a leader? As a chief, there's a lot of weight on me. I think about the impact it has on my community members. I notice when we start to deviate towards the politics of the day

and less on the kind of keystone issues. And there was just a lot going on. How do you as a leader process that? How do you kind of keep sharp and make sure you're in a good place? Yeah, you know, it was difficult, to say the least, going through this past year, you know, leading into the election was fine. It was all about building the party, trying to get through an election. Coming out of the election, right from the beginning, there were individuals who just, their own composition

just didn't allow them to be part of a party. And that's, you know, from a staffing perspective of people that were in there. And so there's problems that cropped up, you know, right after the election. And that really never did go away. It kind of carried on all the way through this continual fighting. and I kind of get it from one perspective. You know, it's the Conservative Party because we're so new, there were three different factions that were all looking to take over the party and had it off in the direction that they wanted to go in. And so they were continually fighting and there was all kinds of issues that were going on.

And ultimately, when it came to this fall, all three factions, which don't agree with each other, which don't like each other, all coalesced together to get rid of me because they saw me as being their one impediment taking over. well, now that's happened. Well, now they've got back to square one. They've got these issues that are internal fighting. And so my hope is that they're going to be able to set these things aside.

And as a party, we are going to be able to come together. Because I do think there's a very good chance that the NDP dropped the writ in January. I agree. So just briefly, I'd love to just go through kind of the chronology. In the summer of 2024, when we first spoke, you had taken the caucus from a very small number to 44 seats after that election. An incredible feat. Nobody going into the election, I think, thought the Conservative Party was going to be revived the way that it was.

And you brought it to that place. But one of the challenges that you already alluded to is that you had fielded candidates from everywhere. And I imagine there was a big rush to bring in candidates and to select people. And so maybe that vetting process wasn't what you imagined or what you would have had, had you had all the time in the world to plan this out the way you would have liked. And so you're rushing, you're kind of meeting people, trying to connect, okay, this sounds kind of aligned, let's move, let's move. There's pressure from BC United.

And so you get this incredibly large tent of, as you described, three different factions, but people who've never thought about politics, like I spoke to Alia Warbuss, and she talked about how, like, it just kind of popped into her head maybe six months before the election. Like, maybe I could be involved in this. To people who were senior levels, like you were a minister previously, you had a lot of experience. So you're just dealing with people all across the political spectrum, but also across the experience spectrum. How did that play into all of this? Was that a factor? And when you think back on that vetting process, would you've done something differently?

Now, there's a, there's a number of things I would have done differently. But I think that the biggest challenge that I had was I was convinced that, excuse me, I was convinced that the NDP would drop the writ at the end of February of 20 or in certain in March of 2020. So go into an election six months early. That particular point, we were in the high 20s. The BC United Party was in the mid to low 20s. And so it would have been a completely divided group. They could have caught it by surprise, won the supermajority, and moved on.

And so we were in a panic trying to get our candidates in place by the end of February. So there was a lot of candidates that we brought forward that really did not go through serious vetting. And just as an interesting side note, and I really have to chuckle of this because you kind of look back and you have to laugh at how things happen. One of the things that we should have vetted was the vetters.

That's not exactly. The two of the vettors, the two people who were in charge of vetting, ultimately went and formed one BC. One of the MLAs or one of the staff, right? And so you kind of look at it, go like, okay, and I understand how these things happen, right? You got vettors that weren't looking for

necessarily the same things that you would hope that they would be looking for. Right. The other piece, so we head into February. I think all of this is still, I imagine going on behind the scenes and you're dealing with all of this. You publicly described it as family issues and defended free votes, free speech, as part of the identity of the party. Did you genuinely want that model or did it become a necessity to start to manage some of the slipping that was taking place? How do you reflect on some of those pieces now? No, you see, I'm a firm believer in free speech and democracy. If you don't have free speech, you don't have democracy.

And that means you also need to be able to have free votes. You have to be able to have that. And so it became, but the challenge is it wasn't so much as a party having a problem with having free votes. It's individuals who didn't understand the circumstance or didn't understand the consequences they're voting. Like one of the individuals, in one of the earlier votes that we did back in I think in February, March of.

of 2024, or 2025, I should say, when the legislature was in there, there was a motion that the NDB moved forward and there were some people who wanted to vote in favor in this motion and some people wanted to vote against this motion. And so a group ended up voting against it. And I said, well, look, this is going to be a nothing issue for me. This is not for the party. It's not going to be a big deal. It's okay to have that vote. And so they voted against the motion and people in their writing were calling them traitors. They were calling them, you know, how dare you, you know, doing this and traitor. And then they came back to me and said, well, you said it was going to be a nothing burger.

Well, I said it's going to be nothing. It's not an issue for us as a party. I didn't say it was going to be an on issue for you individually. That's your choice that you have to make, right? And so I was just kind of hubris to watch how that played out. Could you describe to us the three factions that you kind of see? Well, sure. I mean, it's pretty straightforward, right? There's those on the right side of spectrum, those on the left side or center, the left side, and those in the middle in terms of it. And the two factions, one on the right side, you know, have this concept that we need to be a pure conservative party. And I wish somebody could define what that means, because I certainly don't know what that means. And then there's people on the center, on the left side of center who really were more comfortable with being, you know, closer to federal liberal. and maybe the right side of federal liberal.

And then the ones, the other group that was in the middle were the old BC liberal faction that had their own agenda at foot. So those are kind of the three that were at play. And like I say, my hope is now we can move beyond that. And because the damages being done in BC is remarkable. I mean, it's just, it's absolutely horrendous when you look at what British Columbia has become. And we desperately need a new government. And we can't do that if we've got to divide a house.

I definitely want to get into that piece and where we're heading. In March 2025, you expelled Dallas Brody after the residential school mockery controversy. What line did you believe was crossed? I'm just, that's as you might as you might know. It's a story I've been following pretty closely and trying to assist with making sure the conversations around the 215 claimed anomalies is discussed in a thoughtful, constructive way. What were your takeaways from that? So I had no problem with this issue being raised and people asking the questions. I mean, look, money was spent and there was an accusation that there was a crime or that there

was some sort of something that went on that shouldn't have happened. There should have been, you should have been, you know, a dig. There should have been evidence collected. If there were, if there's, if there was a crime or any evidence of that, it should have been discovered and there should have been, you know, people. should have been prosecuted or organizations, whatever the case may be. But just to leave it hanging, it was the issue that I have, and I still have today in terms of it. But when Dallas was speaking about it, I had the problem with her wanting to speak about it. It was how she was speaking

about it. You can have the conversation of the issue. You can have the conversation of what needs to be done, but it doesn't have to be dripping with inciting hate or racism. And I found that to be the case with the approach that was being taken. And ultimately, you know, everybody says I kicked her out. I didn't kick her out. She left caucus on her own. She walked out of caucus. She said, you should just kick me out and she stormed out a caucus. I tried to meet with her two hours later to sit down and have a conversation about it. She refused to meet with me. Okay. So, however, they like to spread that narrative that they were kicked out, which just like I say, you know, when your foundation of your party isn't based on truth. I'm not sure how

successful you'll be. Fair enough. The other piece that arose in the lane of free speech that I'm sure you also had to deal with was Lindsay Shepard being let go from the party. And I'll just reflect that I think, as you might know her story, that she was working at a university and then she was wrongfully kind of maligned for showing a Jordan Peterson clip. And she recorded that. And then she gets let go of the conservative party. So for some of these other comments about Indian residential schools, what are your reflections on what happened there? Because I think she felt that was a betrayal of your free speech principle. Yeah, you know, once again, you've got to, I don't have a problem with free speech, but when you're working as a staff person for a political party,

you sign a contract. And part of that contract is you don't go out and say things or you don't go out and take positions that are not what the party's position is. And she signed that contract. So she actually broke her contract. And so it was from that position, I thought, okay, maybe there's a, you know, was it a mistake? Is there a way we can try to deal with it? She reluctantly took down the post. And then two days later, she did another post reminding people of the post that she did. So that just showed me right there that she had an intent beyond just making a mistake. Because, you know, people make mistakes, you know, and that's just, that's normal. Once it became obvious that it wasn't a mistake, that's when it became, okay, this has to change in terms of it.

But it's, once again, the issue there conflating the issue of the 215 anomalies with essentially, you know, inciting once again, hate and racism, and I just, I won't stand for that. It's not who I am. You can talk about that issue, and it's important to talk about the issue. It doesn't have to be framed in a sense that creates those kind of issues. This is, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. I've looked at both political sides. And the NDP or the liberals or left-leaning individuals, they just always come across as very compassionate.

They always come across with a sense of emotion towards the feelings and lived experiences of individuals. And I find that conservatives at times really lack that when, because they're pushing, like facts don't care about your feelings or those pieces. And I find that for many people in the middle, it's hard to hear the argument because it's not being done with a preface of, like the Indian residential schools piece, it's not done with what we do know children died there. When we put zero bodies found, it's like, okay, in this specific circumstance, correct,

but it's not done with the preamble or postamble that makes it digestible for individuals. Do you see that as a challenge particularly for conservatives? I don't see it as a challenge for conservatives because of how I see conservatives, but there are some who are, I guess you could say, tone deaf to that sort of thing. And I'll just give you the example. You know, so on Orange Shirt Day, right, it was the tweet that Lindsay Shepard did was around the unmarked anomalies. Well, that totally lost the story.

I mean, Orange Shirt Day was about a, a young child who had lived on, lived in on reserve, lived in poverty, finally got a brand new shirt. She was so proud to have this orange shirt. And then she was hauled off to residential school and the shirt was taken from her. And she later saw somebody wearing an orange shirt and she thought that could have been mine. Like it's a, it's a, it's a tragic story. And it reflects the reality of residential schools and what happened to families and individuals. But to take that and then make the accusation about the anomalies as part of that. That's really struck at me because it lost the narrative of what it was supposed to be.

But in many ways, and I'll just put it this way, it's actually the whole issue of the 215 anomalies has now been weaponized and is actually weaponized by the liberals and the NDP because they took it instead of dealing with the issue of reconciliation, the issue of truth and reconciliation and orange shirt day, they have combined it and used it as this weapon to make people feel guilty about this thing. And, you know, like I say, if something is going on, people should feel bad about this. It needs to be, it needs to be reconciled. However, weaponizing it, I think, is what really created a problem. And then there's people on the right that don't know how to handle that well. I guess I agree with you in substance, but I guess I also heard the lady who

helped start Orange Shirt Day talk about how they decided they were going to create a movement around a day, how they decided that this was going to be the cornerstone, that they saw a pink shirt day and they saw an opportunity to create it. And then the other piece of that was National Truth and Reconciliation Day started as a consequence of that story. You're absolutely right. That's why Orange Shirt Day is absolutely fine. I actually think it's a good. thing to, because it is about truth and reconciliation. It is about remembering, you know, what had happened. It is about finding that path for reconciliation forward. So I actually have no problem with that. It's when it now was combined with the anomalies and that whole issue and it

became about that. Well, wait a second. That's what, that to me is where it really lost the narrative. It went off track. Right. Was there any reflections or was there any challenges? Lindsay had made it kind of connected to her being a mother and being, I think, pregnant with another. Did that have any impact on that decision? Was that a heavy thing? I guess I'm just looking for the human element of a decision like that. Or do you think she knew what she was doing and dug her own grave? She knew what she was doing. I mean, she is somebody who used to teach as a teaching aide at the university level, teaching the value of every, single word that you choose in terms of English, every word, the meaning behind each word,

the carefully selecting words. She is an incredibly good communicator and she knows exactly the words that she used. There was intent behind what she did. And so, yes, I mean, she was pregnant. She was going to be going on leave. But the problem I faced at that point was if once she goes on leave, if she keeps posting, what do I do? How do I manage that? I couldn't. And because it became clear to me that this was an attempt and it wasn't a mistake, it had to be terminated. We couldn't carry on with that working relationship. You had mentioned that Dallas Brody saw maybe some value in saying that she was expelled. Lindsay Shepard, of course, went online and started talking about this immediately. This will be her second time leaving an organization or being

impacted by something and then kind of posting it outwards. Do you think that there's a currency that people might not be aware of in claiming that the establishment or somebody is removing them or they're being pushed out that leaders also need to be mindful of and navigate those, I guess, political minds? You know, hindsight's 2020. We'd love to be able to do all kinds of things differently. But at the same time, you can't be afraid to do the right thing. I ran the entire was creating the party, running the entire election, everything after that, was standing for what's right. And if that means that I've got to stand up against racism and against hate or against those that incite those issues, I've got to do that because it's just the right thing to do.

And come what may, I will always make those same decisions. After Dallas Brody left, two more MLAs left shortly thereafter. Was there a point where you started to see like this, like trying to hold this tent together was becoming? unmanageable? So when the three left with Dallas as well with Tara and Jordan, there was a big piece of that was, as you can see, what's unfolding with one B.C between Dallas and Tara. I could see that was going on.

And so when she left, I was like, okay, that it is what it is. Jordan leaving was a little different. And that was, there was a huge friction point between him and Eleanor Sterco. And so that kind of blew up and made Jordan decide he wanted to do what he wanted to do. But Jordan has always had a very independent streak in him. You know, that's just who he was and who he is. By September 2025, you set a bar for yourself and then you surpassed it with a leadership review of 70.66%. And it's just interesting to go back to that moment to see where we are right now.

Did you feel like that was a win? Did you feel like it was a clear mandate to move forward? It was interesting. There were groups, and particularly, you know, air some dirty laundry here as part of your show. I mean, there was groups even as part of the management committee of the Conservative Party who were working against me in the leadership review. And I managed to still get 71%. With that, if those groups had not been working against me, it would have been in the mid-80s

in terms of the leadership review. But it wasn't good enough for particular. the Magic Committee, they continued to try to work against me, ultimately asked me to resign. And so that was part of one of the factions that was going on within the Conservative Party. How did you process those types of things, John? You know, it's politics. What can I say?

If you're not prepared to face these sort of things, that's just what it is. There was then reporting about the membership sign-up, irregularities around that period. What's the real story from your perspective? I know you've had to give tidbits. I'd just be curious, how do you take in that whole, that whole issue? So there was a whole bunch of things that went on. Our database was breached. There was an active campaign signing people up to try to take me out.

There were some people who were signing people up to try to support me. And then there was a couple of individuals who broke the Elections Act and did something they shouldn't have, which was signed up people under a single credit card, which was not allowed. And so the party, as soon as I became aware of that, I called the executive director. He was in Germany at the time. It was like 3 o'clock in the morning, his time. And I said, this seems what's going on. These have to be removed.

We cannot have this. This could be way too damaging for the party. And so they just have to be removed. And so ultimately that's what that did happen, of course, is they were removed. The money was refunded. And there was the report that went to Elections, BC, as per Elections, B.C., as per the elections bc rules in in terms of it and so i was quite surprised because you know people that had told me that they were signing up the people that actually had done some of those signups

had were telling me they were they were doing it and i said you're doing it right you're following the rules right and they said oh yeah yeah everything's being done right well you know totally it wasn't being done right then came the leak about the search for mLA's phones who authorize that? Were you trying to stop it? And do you regret how that ended up looking? No, you know, and this is how things get taken out of context, unfortunately. We had had obviously a number of leaks that had been coming out of caucus. And everybody, not everybody, most people in caucus were quite concerned about the leaks and wanted it to come off. And then somebody had said, look, somebody has just leaked directly out of our meeting and had a quote

from something that was out on the internet. And everybody was up in arms like this. How How do we get the, how do we stop this? I said, well, there is one way we could. We could check it. We could check phones to see if anybody's, you know, sent something out here tonight from our caucus meeting. And everybody said, yeah, yeah, that's a great idea. Let's do that.

So we did. I didn't go and say, okay, everybody's going to have to have their phone search, right? I mean, this is a question mark I put on the table. And everybody, majority of people, not everybody, majority of people said, yeah, yeah, we should do that. This is the right thing to do. Okay. So we did.

Wow. When Amelia Bolteby left and publicly pointed to your conduct and your leadership, what did you take from that? Was it substance or do you think it was politics? Of course it was politics in terms of it. And, you know, it's unfortunate. And, you know, she was somebody who she worked hard in terms of files. She really delved into things. You know, she had a few struggles that she had been going through.

But, you know, I did everything I could to support her. So, and then when she left and said what she said, I just, I found that kind of a lot. little musing, but that's politics once again. When I had asked you, I think in 2024, I had asked you something along the lines of, do you feel like you're covered fairly in the media? And from everything I've seen since, personally, I feel the media has been very, very focused on you, your leadership, and these stories, of course, get a lot of traction and people get very interested.

Do you still feel that you've been covered fairly and that these topics have been covered fairly? Or do you think that there's just little fires that you end up having to put out as leader that's just normal. No, you know, the issue is this. Everybody is looking for the tabloid story. Okay? That's just nature. That's the nature of the business. Because if there's something that sensationalized, that is what people want to see. It's, for example, you know, a thousand planes land safely. No one reports on it. One plane has a problem and everybody's reporting on it. Now, that's understandable in terms of a potential tragedy and that side of things. But it is, it's

just the nature of how reporting is. And so, you know, there's the day-to-day stuff, but what climbs above the day-to-day grind of politics, well, is when there's some sort of internal story going on. And so, was there reporters out there intentionally trying to do things? There was a couple, I think, that were somewhat unethical in terms of how they report it, but the rest of them, I think, were just, you know, doing their job. On November 26th, you dared David Eby to call an election. And then a few weeks later, you're all obviously in a completely different position. 1B.C. just lost party status.

And this just seems like a prime opportunity right now for the NDP to call an election this January, February, March. How do you digest that? Do you think the party, like the caucus members who were pushing for you to be removed, realized that they really, I think they've made the party and the future of this election very vulnerable as a consequence of their decision? And how do you digest kind of that November 26th to where we are just a few weeks later? You know, we were back in November 26th, we'd just done some polling. We were somewhere between two and eight points up. It was pretty obvious at that particular point. If EVE dropped the writ, we would have formed government.

So, of course, there's going to challenge them to drop the writ. Despite the fact that we've got more money, money doesn't buy you an election. So I was not worried about that at any point. The challenge that has happened because of the internal struggles within the party is, it has left us vulnerable. Who's going to vote for a party with an intern leader? What does the party stand for? Where is it going in terms of policy? And so it creates a real vulnerability that David E.B. could very easily take advantage of. And to that extent, I've heard two ministers come out and talk about dropping the writ in early January. David E.B. himself has speculated that it's something he's looking at, even though he's in another article saying he's not going to do it. And then he's in another article saying, well, we're going to look at something in the spring of Poth. you know, maybe something in the spring. That's the way those sort of things go. But behind the scenes, we're seeing operatives of the NDP looking for office space,

sorry, for two months worth of office space from January and February. We're seeing campaigners from out in the prairies, taking two months worth of holidays in January, February, booking it on holidays or leave of absence, booking it and then saying, well, we've got it on hold. The decision will be coming after the Christmas holidays. So it's pretty clear they're looking at it. I think the only way they don't drop the writ and create an election is if the polls aren't there for. So they're doing weekly polling.

They're seeing how the polls change with everything that's going on. If they think they can win a majority, they're going to go. There's one other interesting issue, which is one of the NDPMLAs, from what I understand, is considering resigning, which then means they lose their majority. and what that could mean before they get a by-election and potentially win that by-election, they're going to have to face a confidence vote likely in February in the legislature. And so if they don't have the vote, that could force an election by bringing them down. So the premier is in a difficult spot looking at, does he drop the writ now and gamble

with a party, a conservative party that is leaderless at the moment? Or, you know, does he take the gamble that he may lose a competition? and it's built in February. You've stepped down, but when I look at the cards on the table, you come out of a leadership review very successfully. I don't care how you cut it. That was a successful leadership review. The polling was in your favor, and everything's lining up for an election.

Like, even the tea leaves in September, October, November were signaling potentially another election. Like, we were hearing that all throughout this. So I personally am stunned at the decision to push forward on this. It just doesn't align with the chronology of where I feel like we're heading. And so when they proceeded, I was just like, this, like, what are you doing? Like, you're taking a big risk and it doesn't seem like the reward is super clear. I see something similar right now with Pierre Pauliev in the challenges he's facing.

Like, there could be another election called any minute. And to suggest removing the leader right now when there isn't an obvious person, seems like a gigantic. risk. How do you just digest? It must feel very confusing to you to be where you are where it's like, okay, we're heading for disaster right now. We could be heading a new election. There isn't a plan. There isn't a process. There isn't a schedule for when that new leader is going to be selected. I know people are we'll talk about some of the names being put forward, but like this is kind of crazy. Yeah, that's probably the best way to describe it. I would agree. And it's, I mean, just it is what it is, right? There was such a group, and like I say, groups that don't even get along

together, but came together to decide they wanted a different leadership for the party, and that's politics, that's the way things go. But one of the excuses they used was, well, we were struggling, raising money. Well, that wasn't true. We were actually raising money. We were doing just fine. But one thing that kills fundraising for a political party is a leadership race. Because nobody donates to a party until you've got a new leader. Everybody's going to be donating to leadership campaigns. So the party now is going to do, going to have virtually zero fundraising at a time when it needs to be picking up fundraising because of a potential election. So it's put itself in a very vulnerable position. I mean, I'm not saying any secrets. This is, this is known to anybody that's

been involved in politics of any length of time. They know what the circumstances are around things like leadership racism and changing out leaders. So it just, it's curious. I find it curious too in terms of what people were thinking in terms of this because it has put them very vulnerable as a party, it had put us very vulnerable as a party, and also the province very vulnerable because we desperately need change in BC. I'm sorry to ask this, but would you be open to just walking me through like these 20 MLAs come forward? There was obviously some sustained pressure previous to that.

You're saying, no, there's nothing to see here. This is just distraction from the key issues we need to focus on. Could you just walk me through your decision to step down? I'm sure you started to feel like this is just not going away. We're not moving on. But could you just walk me through that so I understand how that came about? So, I mean, when the group came forward and the management committee did this, there was actually a clause in the party constitution,

which would have actually invalidated the membership of all the board of the management committee and stuff. and which would have meant legally I could have basically had them removed as being members of the party. And we could have put a board in place, a different board in place. So there was a legal avenue I could have gone and to validate, you know, the so-called claim that the magic kitty had made. But at that point, what was I trying to do? Is that going to help the party to have this civil war in this fight and competing boards and all the rest of those nonsense that would go on? and I just looked at it and went, now that's suddenly becoming all about me. And that is not where a leader should be.

A leader should be always putting the party and the province ahead of their own personal objectives. And so that's why I woke up in the morning and started thinking about and thought, no, you know what? For the good of the party, for the good of the province, I needed to step back. What was the weight of that decision? I mean, just tying this all back together. I just, you brought the party back. Like you're involved in this, your meteoric rise, you're, you had good polling numbers. You had a strong leadership review.

Like, it's, it's like you were given sort of a gift, like an opportunity. And then just through party politics and those concerns from those individuals, like that was, that opportunity to do something was taken away. And then it sounds like you stepped back to let it focus more on the policies of the day. What was that emotion like to be at the top? Like, I imagine in 2024, you're like, we're right there. And then it goes, it's here now. It's in a completely different place. See, the thing is what some people, you know, maybe struggled to understand or

struggle to think about is this was never about me becoming the premier of the province of British Columbia, right? This was about creating an alternative, creating a conservative party in British Columbia because the BC Liberal Party, you know, rebranded as the United Party had failed. They were not going to win. They needed, we needed something new. we needed a party that could bring hope and optimism to people in BC. And so that's what I wanted to do.

And why did I do it? Simple. I want to retire in BC. If the NDP carry on with this nonsense that they're doing right now, I'm sitting down with my wife and saying, do we stay in British Columbia? Like, is it worth staying here where we can move to another jurisdiction? And so I wanted to, I want British Columbia to be on the right track. I want to see a common sense.

I'd like to see a government in place that's actually going to do the right thing. as opposed to things based on politics. And so that's why I did what I did. It's wild that you say that because I remember our first interview where you said the whole reason you entered politics to begin with was because your family was considering you were considering moving your business to Alberta for the tax benefits and the less pressure there. And to hear that now where you're like, you're kind of back,

that must be a frustrating feeling. It's gone full circle and it is frustrating because, you know, we had started making some good progress over, over the years I was with the BC liberals and then the plot was lost and then in comes as it was described once by W.A.C. Bennett, the barbarians are no longer at the gate. The barbarians are in the garden wrecking things, which is what's been happening in British Columbia now. And it's very unfortunate to see what has happened. I saw an article, I think it was BC, BC Business Council that was talking about the people leaving this province and record numbers of people have left

this province, and the vast majority of those are under 45. And there are people that are leaving because they just don't see how to build a future in this province. And that, to me, is an enormous failure. I mean, you think about when the polling last year showed that 50% of the youth in this province are thinking about leaving British Columbia, what does that say? We have everything you could ever want to the province. We have all the resources you could ever want, we can have all the opportunities you ever want, but it is so hopelessly managed that people can't see how to stay here. I agree that I think one of the biggest challenges we face is that I'm starting to see hopelessness set in among young people. And that really concerns me because the way out is

to be able to work harder, to create more jobs, to create economic prosperity. And there is just this looming like, this is how it is. And I feel that's very concerning. And I think you always need a strong opposition to put pressure on the government, to perform and to follow through and to make sure things are moving in the right direction. You know, part of that interview with the BCBC thing put out was a young lady, and she's working multiple jobs.

It's not about working harder. It's about having the opportunity. British Columbia should be that land of opportunity. We should be the Norway of North America. We have trillions of dollars of natural gas. We've got dozens and dozens of mines that can be open up. We've got beautiful,

renewable natural forestry. We've got tourism, of course. We've got all the ability for high tech and for all kinds of things, but we have done everything we possibly can to block these successes from happening in British Columbia. And you'll see from some of the policy stuff I plan to put out here coming out early in the new year, you know, one of the big things that we need to focus on is wage growth. Like you look at the cost of food. Food has gone up 31%. Housing has gone up dramatically, but wages have not kept up. You can't bring food prices down. You can't bring housing prices down. But what you can do is you can stabilize housing prices.

You can drive out as much costs you can from food, but you really need to see wage growth. And you're never going to see wage growth if companies and individuals don't have the confidence to invest in this province. So we are in a, we're in a, and I wouldn't call it a death spiral, but we're in, you know, we're circling the drain, I guess you could say, in terms of how British Columbia is, and the path is down unless we change course. You were called professionally incapacitated by your party. Was that just, you're laughing now. Was that funny at the time?

Was that offensive? Like, is this all just part for the course? You know, I'm going to use some language. I apologize. That was just all bullshit. I mean, look, that could have easily been swatted away with any kind of legal challenge, professionally incapacitated. There is no such thing in the, in the, in the,

in the definition of law or in the courts. So it was just something that a board that had made up to try to create a narrative to have been replaced. Do you believe Trevor Halford can stabilize the caucus? Trevor Halford, Trevor Hallford was right-hand man of Kevin Falkin. He is a B.C. liberal true and through. And so he is pretending to be a conservative, and I think he is more conservative than it is anything else. But that seems to be what caucus is looking for. So my hope is that caucus will unite and not be

divided. And that's the path that the party goes. That's the path the party goes. Certainly not the path that I was wanting to see the conservative party go, but it is what it is. What do you think the difference is between a true, like a BC conservative and BC liberal? Like what do you think those differences were in substance? You know what? It's Gordon Campbell put it together. well back going into 2001, when he brought in the Reform Party and combined it together under one banner of the BC Liberals, then at that point, it was more conservative than it was liberal, but it had the right balance. And so when you look at policies, I look at where the conservatives should be is finding that right balance, finding policies that are on the center

right that, you know, are like I say, standing for what's right. It's respecting family values, small government, you know, opening up the economy, those types of things. And when I look at what the BC liberals had became, and I think it was, I think I can quote this from Kevin Falkin when he was running his leadership campaign, he actually said the NDP have some good ideas. They just don't know how to implement them. Well, I can tell you something. I look at what the NDP are coming forward with ideas. I don't see any of those ideas that are good. And I don't think there's anybody in this province that can say that we're better off today than we were 10 years ago before the NDP took power.

So that to me is the difference, is being bold enough to be able to come out and change direction of what we want to do or being incremental and trying to do minor adjustments. That's the duty of the difference in my opinion between being conservative and being liberal. The big player we're hearing is interested in entering that leadership race is Aaron Gunn. My understanding is you and Aaron Gunn may have had some interactions when the conservative party was coming to lunch. I don't think he felt the love, and now he's looking at coming in. What are your thoughts on Aaron Gunn and his potential run for party leader? Well, Aaron's an interesting individual, and I've first met Aaron back, I guess,

would have been about 2018, somewhere in there. It was the first time I kind of met him. And I've heard him speak in a number of things, and I certainly support him and Dorst him as he's running for the federal MP position. But he's kind of a very interesting situation. right now the conservative party or the i should say the federal liberal party is only one seat away from having a majority and so is erin really going to step aside and create a by election in british columbia one that could very easily be won by the bc or by the federal liberals giving them

a majority government to pursue you know the possibility of leading a the bc conservative party It's an interesting problem that Aaron Gunn will be facing. Now, he says he's interested, and he's certainly considering it, so more power to him. You know, he's got certainly a following, but I think there's lots of interesting names that are coming forward right now. You know, an interesting one I just heard just yesterday, of course, is the CEO of Savon Foods. you're right, Daryl was last thing now. Can't remember his name at the moment. But, you know, he's considering running for the leadership of the conservative party,

as is the current CEO of the ICBA looking at it. So there is, there's a lot of names that are coming forward. We'll see who ultimately enters the race. I think I know the answer to this question, but I have to ask anyways, would you ever consider running for the party? leader role again. And I ask that specifically because, like, the numbers, like, you were, you got pressure from caucus members, but it's not clear that the party members said that they didn't

think. It's not like you had a leadership review where you scored really badly and you were holding on those things were moving in the right direction. And so I'm just curious, would you ever consider running again? Well, I can tell you something. There's a lot of people around the province, a lot of my support base organizers and other people that want me to run. And I look at it and I say, you know, I've said when I resigned that I wouldn't be doing it. But I guess in politics, you never say never. So at this point is certainly

not something I'm planning to do, but you never know how things play out. I think I smell an answer there that is very interesting. And I guess I'll just say from a British Columbia and myself, all I want is a strong government that's focused on the key issues of the affordability, getting housing prices addressed, making sure people have the opportunity to go from the bottom rung to the very tip top of the elite and have the opportunity to make all the money they ever wanted to if they work hard and they reach their full potential. And I think the challenge for the Conservative Party, from my perspective, is keeping that big tent. And that's not an easy thing to do. And making sure that you don't get pulled too far right or too far left

and that you reflect the values of your party. And so I think those are the lines to walk, but very, very interesting answer. Can you just reflect for me on the journey that you've been on? As you're settling down this Christmas season, what are your takeaways? You've had a wild year. Yeah, it's been, well, you know,

you have the ups and downs of a pretty wild year over the past year. I look at things, really from perspective, is sort of reflecting back. What is the one thing that sort of stands out to me that I was unable to achieve. And I look at it from perspective of it's the hollowing out of the middle class. Those that are doing well or doing well, they're going to be fine.

Those that aren't doing well are struggling. But the middle class is really being hollowed out. They're being continually pushed down into the struggling category. Like I say, when you see food prices go up 31%. Housing prices, of course, gone up just astronomically. Food bank uses up dramatically, you know, 40% of the people or, what, between 40 and 45% of the people in this province are facing food and security, living check to check, you know, wondering about, you know, struggling to put food on the table.

There is big change that's needed, right? I mean, we need to see wage growth. We need to see big policy shifts. You know, I had about $4 billion planned in terms of tax relief, which I'm looking forward to talking about here in the very near future, just and trying to get the situation where people can see how to build a future in British Columbia, particularly those younger people and get back to a place where you have a good quality middle class that can live, you know, a quality life that they want to live in this province.

To me, that was the one thing that needed to be focused on. And we kept on getting pulled away from that by so many other issues that it's kind of left that as just hanging and it's unfortunate. On these policy discussions, as you might imagine, as a chief, I'm very interested in the Cowichin ruling. I've done a breakdown on what I think that ruling was in the history of it. What are your perspectives on how we move reconciliation to a place where everybody is excited about it? Again, everybody sees themselves reflected.

One of my critiques of the NDP has been they decided British Columbians didn't need to be a part of the conversation around reconciliation, that they decided it was their government to First Nations communities only. And British Columbians are now getting the memo about some of the. of the decisions being made. And I think rightly, some of them are like, well, we weren't consulted. We elected you. We would love to be involved in these conversations and have our voices known. And I think that's why we're seeing such a strong reaction to the Cowichin decision and

the unmarked Graves story and these pieces is because British Columbians are not sitting at the table alongside First Nations and the government. It is a big challenge. Majority people in British Columbia want to see some form of reconciliation. And, you know, I support that. That's what I call economic reconciliation. But it has to be, what is the answer? What is the end?

How does this get resolved? It can't just go on forever. And so what is it that's trying to be the objective? If land is the question mark, we're never going to get there. And it just, we can't get there because there is too much conflict that will happen. And that's starting to come out now because of the couch and decision. And I was talking with a couple of First Nation elders just actually about a week and a half ago about this. said, well, you know, of course, no one's going to lose

a house. We're not taking anybody's house away. But over time, that property will ultimately go into being part of a nation. And I thought about that, and I thought, wait a second here. If that is what the perspective is, then basically what is being said there is you will have no value left in your property.

Because if it's going to be owned by somebody else, how do you sell it to somebody in the future? You can't. No one will buy it. And so you destroy the value in land. And there's about $2.8 trillion in value in British Columbia in land. Our economy is based on land, is based on private property ownership. Much of our society is based on that. So if you're going to undermine that, if you're going to destroy that,

you are destroying the economy, you're destroying many of the values that we have in this province. And so who would invest in British Columbia? And so it can't be, you know, a fight over title. What it has to be is what is the objective? And I, you know, I think about Dr. Joseph Gossnell, who is who is not passed, but, you know, he was the architect of the Nishka Treaty. And he once said, you know, indigenous people are being held back for many, many decades, economically. And it's high time they have the opportunity to catch up and a possible surpass. but that wasn't by taking from one group to give to another.

That was by adding economic activity, economic potential, and making sure First Nations realize their full opportunity and potential. And that's to me is what economic reconciliation should be. How do we support the objectives that nations are trying to do to move away from managing poverty to managing prosperity? How do we see that engagement and adding to our economy so that both indigenous and non-indigenous alike are going to benefit from it and be proud and supporting it. How do we make sure that nations have that ability

by engaging in the economy so that they can support their culture and their language? They can support those values that are critical and important for them. That to me is what we should be trying to do. What is the objective that we're trying to find? So let's start mapping what the objective is and then let's start this process of actually unleashing that. And that does mean the return of land where it unleashes that economic potential, but it doesn't mean having to fight over, you know, some of the historical values or historical components, because if we try to go there, it's not going to get reconciliation. And my biggest fear in the path to reconciliation today is the fact that the public is now pushing back, and we're probably going backwards

in terms of actually trying to be able to address these things. And that, That ultimately is going to stagnate and leave us in a real problem going forward. I completely agree with you on that point. It feels like there's a vacuum right now. And obviously I'm not in charge of other communities and how they want to operate. But there is a gap in hearing First Nations sit down in front of a microphone and go, hey, we were mistreated for 150 years. We've had issues with the province. We've had issues with how our issues.

have been dealt with by the government. We have not been heard for a long time. But we are here, we are being listened to for one of the first times in the province's history, in Canada's history, where there are elected officials willing to hear us out. We don't need to bang on tables anymore. We need to constructively go, what is the cost benefit analysis? How do we work collaboratively? And there are a lot of voices that just want to pound tables. And I worry that that is going to set us back now. We have the ear of the premier. We have the ear of the official opposition. We have people willing to try and find a pathway forward. But if we just bang our hands on the table and go give it us it all back, we're not speaking to the room and we're not being

constructive about what the path forward is. I've regularly said online, we need to start setting benchmarks. What is the education rate today and how do we get it to where it needs to be? What's the housing, the homelessness rate? How do we address that? Like, let's start taking these issues piece by piece and going quantifiably, let's get indigenous people at par, or as you said, above the standard average, and that can be our reconciliation plan. If those issues are resolved, people have opportunities, people have homes that aren't dangerous to live in, and everybody can get behind all of us having a quality of life that we can be proud of. You know, and I look at it, look at it and think, okay, so is that utopia, because it's unachievable. And I say it is not.

I think it is achievable. So what we need to do is we need to look at where do we see success? What does that look like? What does success look like? You know, for example, and I often point to Heisla, but, you know, they had the good fortune of where they are. They had big projects, right? But they took advantage of it.

You know, everybody that wants a job is working, you know, they're raising their kids, they're going on holidays, they're buying homes, they're buying cars. They're very successful. and they've got, you know, a large amount of money that's now in a reserve. They're, you know, sending out checks to people and benefits. So, okay, that's maybe not the total success for everyone, but it certainly has dramatically reduced all of the social issues, right?

The kids are doing well in school. They're not, right, the drugs and addiction issues is reduced back to more normal levels. Suicide rates have dropped off dramatically, right? So you look at all these measures and they're like, okay, there's success. But are there other bands in the problems who are doing similar things? And you look at what Clarence Louis has done with, you know, the Soyuz fan. You look at some of these other things.

You think, okay, maybe there is a pattern here that we need to be looking at in terms of how we can create those opportunities. And so I, that's why I say, and to me, you look at, for example, a band on the southern tip of Vancouver Island, a hector, just a hector of land may be enough to create an unbelievable. believable economic opportunity for the nation. And then you go up to, up in my area, might be Tackle Lake. Maybe it's hundreds of thousands of hectares that ultimately is part of creating that same type of opportunity. But it is the land itself that is the foundation of our economy and our society. Therefore, it is also the land that's the foundation of being able to build what that reconciliation should look like for nations as well in terms of returning land. But it becomes, if it's just about land, it won't work. It has to be

be about what that economic opportunity and that vision really needs to look like. My last question, I really appreciate all the time you've been willing to share, John, is you were elected. You have 44 seats. Everybody saw, a lot of British Columbians saw your vision and were willing to support that direction. And that's why you received the support from your party, but also from everyday British Clemmings. Your exit as party leader was unceremonious. And so I'm wondering if you could spend a few minutes, just talking to the people who voted for you, the people who supported you, kind of like give us your, you didn't get to ceremoniously go goodbye, thank you, this has been a pleasure and where we've taken things. The response from reporters is, of course,

kind of trying to hammer you. I just, I want to hear that honest reflection of where you started to where you are today and that farewell address as party leader, potentially for the time being, but still curious. Well, you know, I guess I've never really good at goodbyes in terms of things. But I'll say this. I'm actually, I'm very proud of what was able to accomplish. You know, when you think about the Conservative Party has not been, has not formed a government since 1927.

It was almost 100 years. And we came within a thousand votes of having more than 50 seats, which would have been a solid majority government. And so, you know, I'm very proud of the fact that, that many people had tried to do something with the conservative party over the decades. Even W.A.C. Bennett tried to take over the leadership of the conservative party and they wouldn't have them. So he started the social credit party. Think about that, just in terms of where that whole movement went. You know, I've talked to other leaders that had always in the back of the

mind thought, you know, it'd be nice to be able to do something as a conservative party, but the window was never there. And so we now have a conservative party in British Columbia. and so like I say I'm very proud of what we've been able to build as part of that it's unfortunate we weren't able to do the policies that we wanted to because obviously we're in opposition but I think to me the one thing that is my ask and like I say it's never being about me in terms of all of this stuff and I don't want to make it about me now but that I have one ask which is do not allow this party to be taken over and corrupted and head off back down the roads that have failed in the past. Let's hope this party can continue to be a vehicle that can bring that hope for people in British Columbia. I was fortunate in, as in the beginning of the election campaign last year, a lady came up to me and she gave me a stone with the word believe carved in the stone. And I've carried that stone everywhere I've gone since then. And I want that to be what this party does. She gave me that stone because she said, you are bringing us hope. We believe in this

party and we want to believe in our future. And to me, that is what the conservative party needs to be, is to continue to give people that hope and have people believe that the world can be different and that there can be a prosperous future. So that is, that's what I'm going to continue to work on. And that's why I say, I'm not going anywhere. And that's the NDP carry on destroying this problems, because maybe I'll have to move out and retire somewhere else. But in the meantime, I'm going to do everything I can to keep pushing that agenda that I had, which is to give people that hope that things can improve in this province and you can build a future here. Well, thank you, John. I do want to take this back because I think it's important that people

understand first. The opportunity to interview you, David Evey, Sonia Fersonau, Kevin Falkin, during that period. That was the blow up of the show. I've rebranded from Bigger Than Me podcast. and nuanced, but that was my opportunity to start to get my feet wet in these types of conversations in you and the other party leaders provided that opportunity to me. So it was a huge privilege. I don't think I asked soft questions. I think I always try and ask tough questions in a respectful way. But then now you also agreed to, I think it's worth people knowing you agreed to do this when you were still party leader and you still were willing to come on after everything that's happened. And that means a great deal to young journalists like myself trying to carve my path

and ask good questions, people really appreciated the long form understanding of what your thoughts are and how you arrive at them rather than two minute bits here and there and having to watch 15 different videos to understand what you're thinking. And so I'm just, I'm very grateful for that. That's why I have a more thoughtful tone to this conversation, because I'm grateful for you willing to do this today. I'm amazed at how good spirits you're in, considering everything that you've just been through. I think I'd be just trying to lay low and just decompress from all the pressure and stress and everything that you must have faced. So I'm just very grateful for the respect you've shown to people willing to ask

questions and for you willing to share your time. This has been a very enlightening conversation. Aaron, thank you for having me on. And, you know, I was after I had resigned, my wife was down in Victoria. And we actually went out on a date and did some things that we hadn't done in many years, right? We went to see white Christmas and we went, you know, out to some other Christmas events and things around Victoria. But while we were talking while we're sitting there doing that, we actually

talked and came to the realization that over the last three years, you know, 11,200, 1,200 days. And we've only spent about 220 days together. And so I'm very much looking forward to a little bit more time at home. And I know for a fact that my bird is very happy to have me home as well. I'm glad to hear that. I'm glad that you're able to breathe a little bit. I think it's also worth remembering we're all human, right?

A lot of the time when you're in that position, people start to see you as just an error of politics. but you're a human being, you go home after some of these comments and after reading a harsh newsletter or comment or something, you have to carry that home. And family is where it belongs. I think I saw one of your MLA's Gavin Dew just comment. He's not running and he just wants to focus on his family and serve British Columbians. And I think that's the right tone to set as we move forward is we're all just people trying to do our best. We disagree on the policies and the politics. But it's important that we remember we're all people just trying to thrive in our great

province. I tell you how I get by, you know, with all that kind of turmoil and all those things were happening. I never read stories about myself. I never watch myself in the media. So it is what it is. So that makes it easier to get by because you don't have to worry about, you know, that kind of, that kind of nonsense that goes on. But, you know, like I say, there are lots of big issues and I'm not going to be shy about talking about them. And, you know, a big one that we should talk about in the future because it's a question that we are going to need to touch on to. And that is do we push for constitutional amendments and I think we're going to need to and so what does that look like and what should British company be pushing for in terms of those changes so but let's leave that perhaps

for another opportunity that sounds like a great cliffhanger for the next episode you're more than welcome anytime thank you again John Rustad for joining us today thanks for having me on Thank you.