The leaders of the BC NDP, Conservatives and the Green Party squared off in a radio debate on CKNW today, moderated by Mike Smyth.
Here are four takeaways from the first debate for David Eby, John Rustad and Sonia Furstenau, who will meet again in a televised debate Tuesday, Oct. 8.
Eby’s negative campaigning
The NDP have been releasing videos of past comments made by Rustad, including clips where Rustad said he regretted being vaccinated for COVID-19 and suggested attempts to mitigate climate change could result in children eating bugs or are part of a plan to depopulate the world.
During the portion of the debate that dealt with health care, Eby asked Rustad about the northwestern BC Conservative candidate Chris Sankey’s post on X that suggests vaccines cause AIDS. Sankey tweeted that the injections cause a “vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome” he called “VAIDS,” an unproven theory that has been debunked by health experts. The NDP were ready with a social media post and a press release sent out as soon as Eby made his remarks. Eby continued to press Rustad on the comment, asking whether Sankey would be health minister in a BC Conservative government.
Later in the debate, Smyth challenged Eby to explain why the NDP campaign has focused so much on candidates’ social media posts and comments about conspiracy theories.
“You’ve portrayed your opponent John Rustad as extreme and dangerous for his comments on vaccines and climate change,” Smyth said. “Why should voters care about those comments when there are many other pressing issues here in this campaign?”
Eby responded that if candidates like Sankey were put in charge of important files like health care, safety could be compromised.
“I wouldn't trust John Rustad to run my Thanksgiving dinner conversation with the family, let alone a hospital where my kids have to be safe, where parents and grandparents have to be safe,” Eby said.
Rustad said Eby’s negative campaigning was the sign of a weak leader.
“David [Eby] only wants to go negative, and I get that — because he can't defend his record,” Rustad said.
Furstenau said there is a problem with some Conservative candidates, but urged Eby to acknowledge why voters are frustrated, looking for answers, and sometimes arriving at conspiracy theories or believing inaccurate information.
“Don't give all the power to either of them,” Furstenau said of her opponents. “Make the legislature a place where people have to sit down and work together and focus on the people of British Columbia.”
Rustad’s DRIPA flip
Rustad backed away from previous statements that he would repeal B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, ground-breaking legislation passed unanimously in the legislature five years ago. His comments have attracted criticism from First Nations leaders.
Smyth asked Rustad “If it’s so bad for B.C., why did you vote for it?”
Rustad returned to his common speaking point that British Columbia needs “economic reconciliation” and said the current government’s approach is causing friction “by taking from one group to give to another.”
Instead, he said the Conservatives would “continue to use UNDRIP as it was intended,” referring to the United Nations declaration that the B.C. legislation is based on, that being a “guiding principle” for working with First Nations.
Eby accused Rustad of “finding wedges between communities” and using Monday’s National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to announce the party would “repeal a law that just recognizes the rights that Indigenous people have.”
In fact, Monday’s statement outlining the Conservatives’ plan for economic reconciliation contained similar wording to Rustad’s debate comments that appeared to soften his stance on DRIPA.
It was earlier this year, in a statement criticizing proposed amendments to B.C.’s Lands Act that Rustad explicitly said he would repeal the Indigenous rights legislation. The NDP government later backed off the proposed changes.
Rustad also raised his concerns about the proposed Lands Act amendments in the debate, accusing Eby of pushing the legislative changes — meant to bring the act in line with DRIPA — until after the election.
“This is classic. I never know which John Rustad I’m dealing with,” said Eby, who shifted the conversation to Rustad’s flip-flop earlier this year over the Haida title agreement. When the Conservative leader objected, the premier accused him of not wanting to hear the story “because you know it’s embarrassing.”
A day after supporting the Haida agreement in the legislature, Rustad changed course, saying Aboriginal title was a threat to private property.
Eby drew comparisons between Rustad’s reversal on the Haida agreement and fearmongering over the proposed Lands Act changes.
“It's exactly the same approach that caused fear and confusion about the Land Act,” he said. “We pulled it because it wasn't working. We're not going to bring it back. We're going to make sure that we're addressing concerns and working together, Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, to solve problems.”
Furstenau said the Conservatives were spreading “fear and misinformation.”
“The courts have been incredibly clear” that Aboriginal rights and title exist, and governments need to negotiate with First Nations, she said.
“There is no greater uncertainty that can be wrought than what happens in this province when these two parties switch back and forth,” the Green Party leader said. “Business and people of B.C. have nothing but uncertainty, election after election, because we've got this swing back and forth.”
Safe consumption sites and crime fears
Two of Rustad’s strongest issues are how Eby’s government has handled the overdose crisis and public safety fears. The Conservatives have focused on the NDP’s decriminalization pilot program, which Eby cancelled after complaints about open drug use in hospitals and restaurants, and have promised to close overdose prevention sites, repeatedly calling the sites “drug dens” and saying the sites are a threat to public safety.
But Eby went on the attack on both of those issues, accusing Rustad of telling different groups different things on whether or not safe drug consumption sites would be closed under a Conservative government.
“When you're in Richmond, talking to the Chinese community, you say ‘we're going to close all of the safe consumption sites.’ But then when you're talking to someone in recovery who says, ‘My life was saved five times by a safe consumption site, and I was able to get into recovery as a result,’ you say to him, ‘Well, we're not actually going to close them. We're just going to change the name.’”
In response, Rustad said that safe supply and decriminalization “have failed people in this province.”
“We’re going to turn anything like safe consumption sites into recovery intake sites,” he said.
As the discussion moved onto repeat criminal offenders, Eby pushed Rustad to defend comments he’s made about federal gun control laws, accusing Rustad of pandering to a small interest group.
“When a journalist asked, ‘Are you going to make sure British Columbia enforces federal gun rules restricting handguns and semi-automatic rifles?’ And John said, ‘No, I'm going to direct police not to put any resources into enforcing federal gun control rules.’ Well, that doesn't make our community safe.”
Rustad fired back that Eby would do nothing to stop illegal guns from coming in through British Columbia’s ports.
Rustad made the comments during a campaign event in response to questions about Bill C-21, a federal gun control law that passed in 2023 that includes a freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns.
Rustad said he was concerned the legislation would affect law-abiding gun owners and was the wrong approach to combat gun crime, so he would “not have any provincial resources spent on that initiative.”
Furstenau’s plea for evidence-based drug policy
Rustad has pushed involuntary care as a solution for families who are struggling with teenage kids using drugs. In response to concerns about crime and safety, Eby has also moved to promise a more limited model of involuntary care, saying that type of care is needed for a small number of people with severe addictions, mental health issues and sometimes brain damage.
During the debate, Eby said involuntary care for young people who use drugs is complicated, and warned that imposing involuntary care could lead to young people being reluctant to call for help if a friend overdoses. Following the debate, the Conservatives noted this point in a social media post, highlighting Eby’s comment that “it’s not straightforward” and blaming B.C.’s high number of overdose deaths on the BC NDP government’s policies.
Furstenau said her party remains committed to safe supply, the practice of prescribing pharmaceutical alternatives to drug users as an alternative to the deadly unregulated drug supply.
“Let's be clear right now, there is a multibillion-dollar, illegal industry. Organized crime is operating in our streets, and is distributing to people drugs that kill them,” Furstenau said. “That is causing the brain injuries that David Eby talks about.”
Furstenau said there are solutions that are working right now, giving as an example a tiny home village in Duncan “which I’ve had to fight over and over again to make sure that BC Housing continues their funding.” Furstenau said that project is working because formerly homeless residents are getting housed, getting services to help with their substance use, as well as employment and other programs.
“The challenge with involuntary care is, the evidence tells us is we've got about a three-and-a-half per cent success rate,” she said. “So government is spending a lot of money on approaches that evidence shows us are going to fail.”
Read more: BC Election 2024, BC Politics
Tyee Commenting Guidelines
Comments that violate guidelines risk being deleted, and violations may result in a temporary or permanent user ban. Maintain the spirit of good conversation to stay in the discussion and be patient with moderators. Comments are reviewed regularly but not in real time.
Do:
Do not: