BC Conservative Leader John Rustad is criticized from several sides amid review
"There were only four of us," Sharkey said. "Two of us were holding the banner, and the other two were handing out candy canes. But the reception was actually surprisingly positive, and it was a kind of experience that led me to believe that in terms of our political ambitions, we were on the right track."
Sharkey, a party member since 2017 and a former provincial candidate for the Libertarian Party, now sees Conservatives on the wrong track.
His conclusion comes despite the BC Conservatives coming within a whisker of forming government in October 2024 when 912,000 residents voted for the party that had just under 36,000 votes in the 2020 election.
Sharkey said he blames the same man others credit for reviving a party that once polled at two per cent: Official Opposition Leader John Rustad.
The party's direction and identity is at the heart of a dispute that set off the departure of three members of the legislature and arguments among riding associations. Should it be populist or moderate? Big tent or small?
It also comes as party members review Rustad's leadership in accordance with the party's constitution.
Rustad became the leader a month after joining the party in March 2023. He had been with the BC Liberals since 2005, but was kicked out in 2022 by then-leader Kevin Falcon.
Relations between the rivals then reversed in August 2024, when Falcon suspended the election campaign of his party, rebranded as BC United, following the defections of members to the Conservatives.
Now, Sharkey said, the Conservatives have become a rebranded version of Rustad's old party.
There was no appetite from the members to be that big-tent party, he said.
"There is an appetite from the members to remain a grassroots party, and if Mr. Rustad wants to be a big tent, start a big-tent party."
He believes Rustad's changes cost the Conservatives the election win, said Sharkey, who considers himself the riding association president in Abbotsford-Mission.
Domenic Cinalli describes himself as an early supporter and one-time close confidant of Rustad, but said he doesn't like the direction Rustad has taken the party.
"He has abandoned what we all stood for," Cinalli said. "He's abandoned the strong stances that we had and it wasn't just John who brought us there. It was all the volunteers and the people who were out there fighting tooth and nail."
Cinalli said he's disappointed about the party changed directions on reconciliation with First Nations and Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity programming.
"They have gone more mediocre, more to the middle," said Cinalli, who is no longer a party member.
But for others, the Conservative tent isn't big enough. Ryan Beedie, a prominent Vancouver businessman, said in a social media post last month that the Conservatives will need to "rebrand to something more inclusive" if they wish to appeal to "centrist voters" just as Social Credit or the BC Liberals did in the past.
A months-long leadership review is underway amid allegations from Rustad that three former Conservative MLAs — Tara Armstrong, Dallas Broadie and Jordan Keely — "blackmailed" Conservative staff.
Rustad first made the allegation in a letter to his caucus without naming the MLAs directly. All three have denied the claims, and have instead accused Rustad of using the allegations to distract from questions about his leadership.
While Rustad has since expressed regret for using the term blackmail, his critics have seized on it.
Beedie said Rustad's allegations raise questions about his leadership and the party should use the review to move toward the middle.
"Hopefully, this (review) is a positive step toward the BC Conservatives getting their house in order and shifting their political strategy to a more centrist approach. They will need to do so, or the BC NDP will be staying in power for the foreseeable future."
UBC political science lecturer Stewart Prest said the Conservatives consist of a "populist" wing and a moderate wing, and the current riding-by-riding leadership vote could make for a "messy summer" with Rustad facing pressure from both sides.
"We are already hearing rumblings of challenges from both camps, so I don't know if it is an either-or situation," Prest said, when asked which faction was more likely to challenge Rustad for leadership.
A central source of criticism concerns the handling of the party's last annual general meeting held in March.
The "Team Rustad" slate swept elections for the party's board of directors. Delegates also approved amendments to the party's constitution as proposed by Rustad.
But not everybody has accepted the results, including Armstrong, Brodie and Kealy.
Brodie was kicked out of caucus days after the general meeting for comments concerning residential school survivors and Armstrong and Kealy followed her in solidarity.
In May, they alleged Rustad and his team "rigged" the meeting that endorsed the board, claiming it was stacked with South Asian supporters paid "to vote the way Mr. Rustad wanted."
Brodie and Armstrong have since gone on to form their own party, One BC. Its chief of staff is Tim Thielmann, a former Conservative candidate in Victoria-Beacon Hill. After losing the election, Thielmann was fired from his party job as director of research.
Thielmann later ran for party president at the AGM, but delegates re-elected current president Aisha Estey.
The allegations surrounding the AGM received another airing last month when 50-plus signatories describing themselves as "executive members or former executive members" of riding associations called on Estey to launch an external audit of the AGM.
The letter repeats the allegation that Team Rustad stacked the meeting with paid supporters, but also alleges that delegates were selected and rejected on the "basis of their political leanings or allegiance to Rustad."
It alleges Rustad and the executive team increased the influence of party executive over the selection process by "improperly delaying, denying, or withdrawing certification of riding associations," and placing Rustad loyalists into ridings where they were not residents.
Sharkey said he signed the letter because he believed procedures were not correctly followed and he regarded the whole meeting "to be illegitimate."
Sharkey shared this view in March, when he stood outside the meeting in Nanaimo to protest it, where Aeriol Alderking, another signatory, had joined him.
Alderking, who ran federally for the People's Party of Canada in the last federal election, said the AGM was the site of a "coup" where a "handful of people" under Rustad's leadership stole the party from "grassroots" Conservatives.
"Under John Rustad, it has become a centralized BC Liberal Party top down," she said in an interview. "The only thing they have done is put a blue coat on a red party."
A statement from the party said the letter is "signed largely by those who are not even members of the party, let alone (directors)."
The "allegations are just as absurd as the notion of a letter written by non-members, signed mostly by non-members, made to artificially inflate a non-issue for the sake of attention and mudslinging," it said.
Rustad has denied any wrongdoing at the meeting.
"I have been advised by our legal counsel and experts, who were present to scrutinize the voting process that our AGM was 100 per cent in line with this party's 2024-2025 constitution," he said in the letter containing the blackmail allegations against the three former Conservative MLAs.
Rustad said in an interview last month that critics like Sharkey and others "want this party to be something that it is not."
"I have said this all way through the campaign, and I don't know why people haven't heard it — it's not about being Conservative or Liberal, or NDP, or Green. It's just standing for what's right and fighting for the average everyday people. That is the party that we have built," Rustad said.
Conservative member of the legislature Gavin Dew said the current party "has had incredible success in building a new voter coalition" that includes many more young voters and more voters from different cultural communities.
"We have made incredible strides with blue-collar voters," Dew added. "We do incredibly well with suburban voters. So, we have made all this progress, but it is clear that we still need to win over that incremental voters, which I would say is that middle-of-the-road voter."
If the party holds its current coalition together and adds more "economically oriented voters" from the middle of the spectrum to this coalition, Conservatives can hold government for "multiple terms," Dew said in an interview.
Prest is more skeptical. While strong poll numbers now and victory down the line might entice both wings of the Conservatives to put aside their differences, "there isn't really a stable policy compromise that would make both of those sides happy" in the long-term, he said.
"In some really important ways, the divides between populist and more middle-of-the-road Conservatives are deeper than the divides between middle-of-the-road Conservatives and NDP, " Prest said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Observer
33 minutes ago
- National Observer
Coastal First Nations call on Carney to uphold oil tanker ban
Indigenous leaders on British Columbia's north coast are calling on the federal government to hold out against pressure from Alberta and industry to reverse the west coast oil export ban. On Tuesday, the Coastal First Nations, a group of nine First Nations along the north and central coast of BC and Haida Gwaii, wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney. The group urged the government to uphold Bill C-48, known as the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. Since 2019, this law has prohibited tankers carrying over 12,500 metric tons of crude oil and other oil products from stopping or transferring cargo at any port between the northern tip of Vancouver Island and the Alaska border, which includes Haida Gwaii, the Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. The act formalizes protections that Indigenous communities and environmentalists have been seeking since the 1970s. It effectively bans crude oil supertankers from one of the world's most pristine cold-water marine ecosystems, home to whale habitats, wild salmon, seabirds and ancient rainforests. Exports through the Juan de Fuca Strait are allowed, meaning the ban has not interfered with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The controversy comes as Carney said in a recent statement that a new bitumen pipeline to BC's north coast is 'highly, highly likely.' His remark aligns with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and federal Conservative MPs push to lift the tanker ban. Smith has specifically called for faster federal approvals for pipeline projects and an exemption at the Port of Prince Rupert to allow oil exports to Asia. But Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations and chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, said oil tankers are a 'non-starter' for her community. 'An oil tanker project is not something we can ever provide consent to,' she said. 'Our communities rely on healthy oceans and ecosystems for our livelihood and culture. Reversing or weakening this legislation would put everything our communities depend on at risk.' Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations and chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, said oil tankers are a 'non-starter' for her community. The tanker ban was instituted after more than a decade marked by energetic opposition to pipelines to the West Coast. The Northern Gateway pipeline, first proposed by Enbridge in 2002, was ultimately halted in 2016 after more than 130 First Nations publicly opposed the project and courts ruled that consultations had been inadequate. Slett called the decision a major win for Indigenous rights and protection of coastal areas, and said any new talks should not repeat old mistakes. Marilyn Slett, president of Coastal First Nations and Heiltsuk chief councillor, signs an open letter urging Prime Minister Carney to uphold the north coast oil tanker ban. Indigenous leaders have come out against crude oil tankers but have been more accepting of other types of ships, especially those carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG). By 2030, as many as 600 LNG vessels are expected to pass through their waters — activities accommodated through lengthy engagement and approval processes with communities, said Danielle Shaw, chief councillor of the Wuikinuxv Nation and a board member of the Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance. 'We're open to discussing projects that will be sustainable and responsible and can strengthen the economy of Canada and British Columbia,' Shaw said. 'But there's strong opposition to oil tankers on this coast because of the impacts it would have for our communities directly.' Slett noted that with 175 LNG tankers already passing through coastal channels this year and more expected, the impact on the ecosystem is significant. 'This is substantial, and those have cumulative effects on the ecosystem. They are in place and serving as projects for British Columbia and other communities. This [oil tankers] is something we cannot add … it's not something we would support.' The risks from oil spills are considered too great. 'When it comes to allowing oil tankers on our coast, it wouldn't be if something were to happen, it would be when something happens,' Shaw said. Slett criticized the lack of formal consultation regarding renewed pipeline proposals. Bill C-5 was rushed through Parliament in just two weeks, and a meeting between Carney and First Nations leaders from across Canada last week was allotted just a few hours. 'There's been a lot of talk about us without talking to us,' she said. She said she learned about energy proposals through the news rather than direct government engagement. The open letter invites Carney to visit the north coast to see why the tanker moratorium remains vital and to consider how a path forward without an oil pipeline can benefit the region. Slett said her communities prefer discussion and collaboration but remain firm in their opposition. 'Court challenges and direct action would always be a last resort,' she said. 'We've built relationships with provincial and federal partners that we want to maintain, but we won't support new pipelines. The tanker ban must stand.'
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Sentencing hearing begins for ‘Freedom Convoy' leaders Lich, Barber
OTTAWA – The sentencing hearing for 'Freedom Convoy' leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber is set to begin Wednesday morning, months after the two were found guilty of mischief. Two days have been set aside for the parties to present their sentencing submissions. The Crown is seeking a prison sentence of seven years for Lich and eight years for Barber, who was also convicted of counselling others to disobey a court order. Lich and Barber were key figures behind the convoy protest that occupied downtown Ottawa for three weeks beginning in late January 2022 to protest vaccine mandates and other pandemic measures. The protest ended after the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time ever. The convoy was cleared out of Ottawa's downtown core in a three-day police operation that began on Feb. 18. Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey said she found Lich and Barber guilty of mischief because they routinely encouraged people to join or remain at the protest, despite knowing the adverse effects it was having on downtown residents and businesses. Barber also was found guilty of counselling others to disobey a court order for telling people to ignore a judge's injunction directing convoy participants to stop honking their truck horns. Lich was not charged with that offence. In a separate Ottawa-based trial for Pat King, another convoy leader, the Crown sought a sentence of 10 years in prison for mischief and disobeying a court order. King was sentenced in February to three months of house arrest, 100 hours of community service at a food bank or men's shelter and a year of probation. He received nine months credit for time served before his conviction. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre criticized the Crown's sentencing proposals for Lich and Barber. In a social media post Monday, Poilievre compared the sentencing range to sentences for other crimes and asked, 'How is this justice?' While it's quite rare for elected officials to comment directly on a sentencing hearing, Poilievre's message was echoed by several other Conservative MPs. Deputy Conservative leader Melissa Lantsman called the Crown's proposed sentence 'political vengeance not actual justice.' Some Conservatives, including Poilievre, were openly supportive of the 'Freedom Convoy' as trucks and other vehicles clogged roads around Parliament Hill. Both Lich and Barber thanked Poilievre for his support in separate social media posts. 'There is a fine line between politics and the judiciary, as there should be, and I have long understood the uncomfortable position elected officials find themselves in when it comes to commenting on cases that are before the court,' Lich said on X Tuesday. 'In our case, the double standard and the vindictive nature from the prosecution office has become too obvious to ignore and will set a precedent going forward that will affect all Canadians who choose to peacefully protest or deter them from exercising their Charter Right to peacefully assemble.' 'Thank you, Pierre, we've been waiting so long for elected officials to speak up,' Barber wrote in his own post. Poilievre lost his Ottawa-area seat in the April election and is running in an Alberta byelection. Weekly A weekly look at what's happening in Winnipeg's arts and entertainment scene. Both Lich and Barber were found not guilty on charges of intimidation, counselling to commit intimidation, obstructing police and counselling others to obstruct police. Justice Perkins-McVey said intimidation carries a sense of menace or violence. She said that both Lich and Barber repeatedly called for protesters to remain peaceful throughout the protest. As for obstructing police, Perkins-McVey said both were arrested without incident and were in custody before the main police operation began to clear downtown Ottawa. Charges for counselling others to commit mischief were stayed at the request of the Crown. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 23, 2025.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Nation-building projects and government rules
Opinion The Mark Carney-led liberals were elected for a change. We hoped that the new prime minister, intimate of the titans of finance, was ideally equipped to ride the wave of national outrage (and pride) to provide the leadership to counter the economic assault from our southern neighbours. One of the hallmarks of national leadership is to advance at least some initiatives that are clearly in the national interest but may draw fire from some segments of society. The prime minister would certainly say that Bill C-5, legislation to — among other things — speed up the approval process for 'nation-building' projects, and a companion initiative to identify 'unnecessary' regulation exemplify such leadership. The main criticisms of C-5 have come from First Nations and environmental groups. These concerns have been well articulated, and are now being acted out in court. Although it may change, the fact is that this bill is now the law of the land, and therefore should also be assessed in terms of whether it will in fact achieve its objective of speeding up the approvals process for 'nation-building' projects. Of course the bill begs the question of just what kind of a nation we want to build, or more fundamentally, what kind of a nation we already have. Adopting a national flag, repatriating the constitution, these were nation-building projects, neither of which were capital projects. Bill C-5 is more about capital development. Perhaps the rollout of these 'nation-builders' will revive serious public dialogue about what we are and what we aspire to be. Major undertakings in Canada have to navigate processes that are often five years or more in length. At a time when we will have to construct a coast to coast web of electrical transmission, substantially increase our renewable energy capacity and restructure our economy to counter the U.S. economic onslaught, this is not acceptable. One brake has been government — federal and provincial — that has often been unable produce timely and credible analyses of development proposals. This is partly as a result of a bipartisan failure to allocate sufficient resources to their own environmental institutions, and an institutional mindset that all development is good. Proponents regularly bellyache about 'red tape' but often produce incomplete or scientifically deficient assessments of their own projects, resulting in time consuming do-overs. Most major projects involve both federal and provincial governments. Duplication and overlap is inevitable. In addition, the federal environmental assessment process has been used as a lever to require, as part of federal sign-off, approval of factors that lie outside Ottawa's jurisdiction. And then there's consultation. Governments have not imposed discipline on this aspect of project approvals and this can result in a process lacking temporal and financial boundaries. This is not to say this is bad (or good), but simply that consultation is one of the factors contributing to the length of process that Ottawa wants to accelerate. So, does Bill C-5 address the previous process friction sufficiently to ensure major project reviews conclude in two years? That depends. Assuming that the objective is to still produce quality project assessments, just faster, then If Ottawa and the provinces are prepared to adequately fund their review infrastructure; if governments are able to harmonize their review processes; if proponents are given clear objectives their own project analysis must meet, and the consequences of failing to meet them; and if governments are prepared to define when consultation is considered complete — then perhaps speed up can be achieved. Nothing in the legislation, however, guarantees this result. Continuing his lurch to the right, the PM has initiated a search for 'unnecessary' regulations that prevent or hamper good things from happening. You may remember our late, lamented provincial government set about this quest with great fanfare. The result? Absolutely nothing. Regulations pass through a rigorous enough process to ensure that, at least at the time, their benefits exceeded their cost. Of course, some regulations no longer serve the public interest as the conditions that spawned them have changed. A periodic review to ensure that we weed out such anachronisms makes sense and in fact does routinely occur. Regulatory reviews — and there have been many over the years — tend to focus on possible negative effects on business. Let's hope the PM — an ultimate high finance insider — does not lighten the 'burden' of business regulation at the expense of the public welfare. 'Approving development projects takes way too long, red tape is hamstringing business and it's harming our economy.' Sound familiar? This was the refrain of the Harper government and Conservative governments across the country. Now, perhaps the PM's current initiatives are more pragmatic and not ideology driven, simply a necessity in the face of a dire threat. We rejected Pierre Polievre; let's hope we didn't get him anyway. Norman Brandson is the former deputy minister of the Manitoba departments of environment, conservation and water stewardship.
