Front Burner - Rights and reconciliation collide in B.C.

Episode Date: April 22, 2026

A conflict playing out in British Columbia is testing the limits of reconciliation in the province. It’s a fight that involves resource extraction, democracy, political flip-flops, and a test of values. It has set off fears that people may not own their homes and raised the legal prospect that Indigenous groups could veto laws around resource extraction. Others have called this fearmongering, and it has many Indigenous people and leaders asking if the province takes reconciliation seriously. Rob Shaw, who covers politics for CHEK News and Glacier Media, walks us through how we got here.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

You know that feeling when you reach the end of a really good true crime series? You want to know more, more about the people involved, where the case is now, and what it's like behind the scenes. I get that. I'm Kathleen Goldhar and on my podcast Crime Story, I speak with the leading storytellers of true crime to dig deeper into the cases we all just can't stop thinking about. Find crime story wherever you get your podcasts. This is a CBC podcast. Hey everyone, I'm Jamie Poisson. Today on the show, I want to explore this conflict that's been playing out in British Columbia that is really testing the limits of reconciliation in the province.

It's a fight that involves resource extraction, democracy, political flip-flops, and a test of values. It has set off fears that people may not own their homes and the land that they sit on. It's raised the legal prospect that indigenous groups could veto laws around resource extraction. And this fight has many indigenous people and leaders asking if the province takes reconciliation seriously, if they're willing to go beyond land acknowledgments. It all relates back to two court decisions from last year. One about land claims, the other involving a history-making law called the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People's Act, or DRIPA. Rob Shaw covers BC politics for Czech news and Glacier Media, and he's here to walk me through exactly how we got here,

and what could happen next. Rob, hey, it's great to have you on the show. Thanks for having me on. I want you to take me all the way back to 2019 when BC passed a new law called DRIPA. What is DRIPA? Well, it actually goes back a couple years before that. So there's an election in BC in 2017,

and the BCNEP's running. They're trying to defeat the BC liberal government after more than 16 years. And they throw in their campaign platform that they want to align the province with UNDRIP, which is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And it's a framework globally that preserves culture and land rights and human rights of indigenous peoples. And the NDP don't win the 2017 election, but they do partner with the Greens here,

and they bring the liberals down after the election. The BC Greens will give the BCNDP support to form government, and the terms of the agreement, as I've mentioned, will be for four years. The agreement that's been reached between the Green Caucus and the BCNDP Caucus demonstrates that we have the majority support of members in the legislature. John Hogan becomes Premier. We needed to ensure that we were meeting all of the calls to action within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. And we needed to respect Silco teen and other decisions that have come from our courts that recognize without any question the existence of rights and title for indigenous people in British Columbia. And he takes that undrip promise.

and he turns it into DRIPA. DRIPA is basically this law that creates a kind of plan over time to bring all of B.C.'s laws into compliance with Undripp. This is not an event. It's not a moment. This is the start of a process to build the relationships that we all want to see. This is a welcoming for us settlers to the lands of the indigenous peoples of British Columbia. And working together, we will all be able to benefit from the bounty.

and the ingenuity of the people who have the fortune of living here. It's not a long law, and it's pretty vague in a lot of sections. And a lot of it is a giant IOU promise to develop action plans and other things in the future. But that's basically where DRIPA starts. When Horgan and the NDP brought this law to fruition in 2019, like, why did they say they wanted to do it at the time? What was the raison d'etra? Well, they got behind the idea that the BC liberal government wasn't treating for

nations with the respect that they deserve. They weren't consulting with them on big projects. They had a tenuous relationship. And in some cases, you know, there's a C-DAM in British Columbia that the liberals brought in that many First Nations were opposed to. There was protests. There was other things like that. And so the NDP made this a kind of, you know, outreach to First Nations in their campaign. To be totally honest with you, I don't think the NDP really fully understood what this was. And to be fair, no one really fully understood what this was and no one understood really where it was going because it was a plan to go somewhere in the future. It was a plan to eventually over time align all of BC's laws with undrip, which is about consent-based decision-making

with First Nations. And there was no timeline on it. There was just let's, in the future, in many years, it could take decades, begin this process. And that was, kind of this vague sort of promise on how it began. But then something happens in 2021, right? David Eby, the current NDP Premier, but then Attorney General, he introduces changes to something called the Interpretation Act to require that old legislation be consistent with DRIPA. How significant was that move by E. Yeah, well, he's the Attorney General at the time.

And how it's sort of been described to me is this law, the Interpretation Act, is kind of like the dictionary for BC's other laws. It helps define terms that are used in court and timelines and things. And he opens it up to make a bunch of amendments. And one of them is a line that basically says all BC laws must. And the key word is must be interpreted consistently with undrip and uphold treaty rights and under the constitution. To be honest, again, no one really paid much attention to it at the time, but the phrase must is now before the courts here and has become a big part of sort of the subsequent discussions and debates. Were there any concerns around this time from anybody and any party?

Like I know DRIPA passed unanimously, right, in the legislature? Mm-hmm. It did pass unanimously, but there were a ton of concerns. And I covered the debate here. And there were sort of three main questions. They were, is this DRIPA thing? this undrip thing, is it a veto for First Nations to basically say no to any project they don't want and the project can't go forward, a mine or forestry or anything? Will it impact people's

private property rights? And a key one that was brought up during the debate, will the fact that none of BC's laws are compliant with undrip now lead them to be struck down once this is past? And the answers to all those questions from the NDP government at the time was no. A lot of people who We're asking questions about DRIPA were accused of being fear-mongering. They were accused of not being supportive of reconciliation. And there was an underpinning in some of the questioning that if you're not supportive of this, you fundamentally don't support First Nations rights and reconciliation. And there was a little bit of a shame movement going on at the time.

What Senate for British Columbians is certainty. What Senate for British Columbia is an understanding of who we are as a people and where we can go together. The legislature passes laws. We did so in this case unanimously, indigenous and non-indigenous members, BIPAC members. And I'm confident that as we go forward on this roadmap, it will be a brighter day for all of us.

That's the commitment we've made. And yes, it did pass unanimously. But I will say seven years later, all of those questions are still live in an active debate today and had more time been spent talking about them? perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation. I know I asked the Premier multiple times, is this a veto? And he got really frustrated, you know, saying absolutely not.

And this is ridiculous and this is fearmongering. But today in British Columbia, if you try to open a project on land without First Nations consent, you have a very, very slim chance of getting it going. So is that a veto? I don't know, but these are the questions we're still wrestling with. You know, I was thinking, too, around this time, reconciliation was really front and center in the country. Of course, hundreds of potential unmarked graves or burial sites were detected at former residential schools. As a developing story out of British Columbia, a First Nation says the remains of more than 200 children have been located.

The To Come Loops to Sequebemit First Nation isn't revealing the exact location, only that it was somewhere near the, this school. 751 unmarked graves discovered at the Cowusus First Nations residential school site east of Regina. Capoeino First Nations suspected the results would be tragic. In just one acre around the former Catholic-run residential school, they discovered 169 anomalies consistent with graves. And people might remember also in these years, Drippa was actually tested with the protests of that gas pipeline through what Soodan territory. We are here to conduct work on behalf of the Coastal Gaslink Project, and you're impeding us.

Another confrontation ignited on a familiar battleground. What Soden members put up barricades and hereditary chief woofs ordered pipeline workers off his territory. Total of 20 hours was given to CGL to vacate the camp. The barricades have come up. And just can you briefly tell me? more about that and how that fits into the conversation that you and I are having. So there was a sort of live debate in the country going on about residential schools and harms that had been done in colonialism and a need to sort of begin a process that addresses this in a way.

Canada has been awakened. The words of a residential school survivor today as the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was submitted. Cheers erupted as Sinclair read some of the 94 recommendations. A new royal proclamation of reconciliation, renewal of nation-to-nation and treaty relationships, full implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which affirms the right to the lands and resources which they have traditionally owned or occupied. And DRIPA and Undrip was brought up in that context. The NDP government faced a number of decisions very early on on natural resource projects that strained this. And that coastal gas link pipeline that you mentioned, the Wet Sootan peoples who opposed its expansion, the hereditary chiefs, the protests that existed there, the RCMP being called in the northeastern BC to remove the protesters.

There were also protests around logging in an area called Ferry Creek in BC. Preparing for a confrontation. I think they thought we were just going to go away. Anti-logging activists are vowing to make it as difficult as possible for the RCMP to move in and open up these roads which lead to one of the few remaining stands of old-growth forest in the area. We're here for the long haul until Ferry Creek is protected. The NDP government did in fact go ahead with that site sea dam that many first nations opposed. The NDP government did in fact go ahead with a liquefied natural gas that some first nations opposed.

So there was kind of a reckoning of reality on economic development for the province and Andrippa coming in at the same time. And that evolution has continued to this day where you have a government that is pushing ahead projects and trying to bring First Nations on board with them, that continual tension that exists as well. Hi, Steve Patterson here, host of The Debaters, part stand-up, part-quiz show, and part-comedy competition. We take on the most pressing questions on the minds of all Canadians,

like, is carpet superior to hardwood? Listen to the debaters, wherever you get your podcast. and prepare to be, well, floored. So let's fast forward to 2025. This issue is very much back in the spotlight. There are two court decisions that I want to talk about here, both of which are extremely significant, right? The first is the Cowichin decision.

The Cowichin tribes fought for 11 years to prove they had never relinquished their rights to an area of land by the Fraser River. In August, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled they had established Aberdeenianian. original title to roughly 800 acres, which also includes land owned by the city and the federal government. And for the first time in Canadian history, a court found that indigenous title can exist on land that is privately owned. And it found that in the 19th century, the government

essentially, I think, screwed up, right? Because the government hadn't dealt with the interests of the Cowichin Nation over some of their traditional lands near Richmond, BC. But importantly, the ruling also says that the interests of the indigenous people and the property owners must co-exist. And just tell me more about what that means and the impact of this ruling. It's a good summary of it. And it's super complicated. And there are, I will say, dozens of lawyers in British Columbia right now who have long careers and great credentials who have different conclusions about what this court ruling means. And they're all out there in the public debate right now arguing it. I think the most important part of it that has really sort of become the crux of it is that in this ruling, the BC Supreme Court

did grant Aboriginal title to the Cowichin Nation for over a kind of an 800-acre area in the city of Richmond that used to be its traditional fishing village. And that includes over top of private property, a warehouse that does Coca-Cola bottling and Wayfair shipping. There's farms, there's condos, there's a federal port. there's airport land, there's all sorts of things there. And in the decision, the justice wrestled with the question of how Aboriginal title and private property, which is called Feed Simple property, how they interact. And she said the question should be, what's left of private property after Aboriginal title is applied?

And that Aboriginal title is senior in BC law, a senior right to private property. And that's really the crux of the issue here because that had not been said. that way before. And you had the premier and a bunch of people come out immediately and say, listen, this undermines the private property system, which is supposed to be indefeasible title. When you get it, you can't, it can't be defeated on prior interests. You purchase this. You get title. It's guaranteed. It's the basis of land ownership in which you get a mortgage and your financial securities and the underpinning of the economy of the province. And that to suddenly place that as a something below another title creates immense uncertainty.

Who really owns what? Which title is first? Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brody. Many people are still in the dark and others are quite alarmed about the situation. Anna and Paul Wojtoich have lived in the Richmond BC home for nearly 40 years. But they just received a letter from the city saying it may be in dispute. The way it's worded in that letter, you know, we could be thrown up. And so that led to the premier saying this has to be appealed.

We are arguing to defend those private property rights of those homeowners. It has led to First Nations saying we're not asking for the private property. We're not trying to evict anyone. The Cowich and maintain they don't want to evict homeowners. Well, at this point, I don't think that they need to be in a position of fear. The nations have said that they're not interested in, you know, re-asserting. their occupation of those lands that are owned by private citizens. But others say, well, you could theoretically in the future depending on how this is litigated.

And another question is, would you or I or anyone else buy a condo or a home in a town that is subject to a massive Aboriginal title ruling in the courts that's going all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where the issue is whether you even own the way you think you do the property? So there's a bunch of people caught in this area who say they can't sell there. There's no value to what they have. And the government has had to step in and create a mortgage backstop program for them if they can't get their mortgages renewed. So this shadow has been created.

And no one really totally understands what it means because it still has to go through multiple court appeals and it could be changed again. That has led to other Aboriginal title declarations becoming more controversial. saw the Musquium Nation in Vancouver get a deal with Ottawa on Aboriginal title the other month for almost all of Metro Vancouver. Millions of people who live there. There are three different agreements covering three different areas. The first agreement lays out a framework for how those title rights will be gradually implemented. The second deal strengthens Muscoeum authority over the waters within that territory. And the third expands on Musquiam's control over fisheries. Premier David Eby says the

province had not yet been briefed on the agreement. And it caused a huge controversy because people said, well, we don't even know what the Cowichin Nation title means. And now you're, Ottawa, you're applying this to most of Metro Vancouver. That is the sort of core of the political debate there. And it's far, far from settled. I know, like you said, the government is appealing this. So we won't know for some time. But the Cowhatan Nation, as you said, have been clear that they're not trying to take anyone's home. I know that this ruling has just created uncertainty across the board and worries that this could be applied elsewhere. But what is it that the Cowhatanation would like to happen?

Have they articulated that? Yeah, well, they would like that the land is not privately held be either given to them or compensated to them in some way from government. and that their rights of this land are recognized going forward when something is done on the land. And the lead lawyer for the Cowich and Nation case on behalf of the nation came out a couple days after the ruling and said, this doesn't mean that if you owned a property there, you can't sell it. But it does mean if you do sell it, the nation might be entitled to some type of compensation from levels of government. And that doesn't involve the private property owner, but it could involve uncertainty for government. The valuation, if the government was to buy out all the properties in that area, it's only 800 acres, is something like $2 billion.

So if you start to get to the argument that Aboriginal title leads to compensation from governments for the land that it falls over, you end up in billions and billions, if not trillions of dollars in British Columbia. And that extrapolation has caused some concerns as well. So there's a ton of debates around this. There's, you know, federally, it's an issue because Ottawa is part of this. And it's a bit of a mess. I think it's one of the ones that's going to have to get to the Supreme Court of Canada, which is going to take years to get a ruling on this. And then even after that, applying whatever the ruling is to the real world is going to be a messy process as well.

Okay, let's do the second ruling. This came a few months after the Cowichin decision in the fall, right? We get this other landmark ruling. The BC Court of Appeals rules that BC's current mining laws are running a foul, essentially of DRIPA. And tell me more about that ruling and its impact. Yeah, so this was the Kit Kala Nation. It had challenged the Mineral Ten Years Act in BC because it said that people can just go out and strike a mineral claim anywhere on the line. land and they don't have to consult with First Nations. This goes back to, you know, panning for gold

back at the start of the province and being able to strike claims on the land. And the nation argued it's unconstitutional because folks aren't getting First Nations consent or consulting. And they won, in part because the judge looked at the Court of Appeal level at DRIPA and said, you know, actually the mineral title act doesn't comply with DRIPA or the principles of consultation, consent, and rights. And that had huge. implications because as we've discussed, when the legislature considered DRIPA and they passed it, one of the questions was, would this ever be used to strike down other BC laws? Because as of that moment, no laws were in compliance with DRIPA. It's a new law. The plan was many, many years of work,

not a point in time where suddenly you look at all the laws and say, well, actually, as of now, they're all struck down. And it had big implications. The premier said, holy, moly, this has created a massive liability for the province. We can't have that. We can't have all laws, basically not being in compliance. I think it just as likely or perhaps more likely that we would proceed with amendments to provide clarity around what was clearly intended when we introduced this legislation. And the court appears to have some confusion about that. And that has led to the discussion about DRIPA. How do you change DRIPA so that the courts are clear? It can't be used to strike down other laws right now, well, the legislature and the government, in the province, are in a

multi-year process of reconciliation. The counterpoint to that from First Nations has been, that's an indication from government that you haven't done the work and you haven't brought laws into compliance and these are our human rights. And our human rights can strike down other laws that violate our human rights. So it becomes a very, again, complex debate. But a mining law is the one that ends up, you know, bringing DRIPA from 2019 all the way into the real world all these years later and actually applying it and putting to, in reality, what was a very abstract discussion in the legislature way back in 2019. Right. And so Eby and his government are appealing this ruling as well. But just talk to me a bit more about Eby here, who is now confronted with this storm. This is a guy who. whose party ushered in DRIPA and who he himself, as Attorney General, ushered in the Implementation Act, how would you say he has been dealing with and responding to this?

He is trying really hard to work with First Nations, but he is stuck in an evolving public sentiment right now of concern over all of this. He's in the middle of, and polls have indicated, rising public worry that reconciliation has led to unintended consequences and gone too far. and First Nations who say actually DRIPA is our human rights and you can't change it. And he's stuck there in between the two. He has first come out and said, I'll amend DRIPA to give certainty to the province so that our laws can't be struck down. It's been a challenging conversation, but it is non-negotiable for the provincial government. BC's Premier acknowledging that the consultations over proposed amendments to DRIPA have been rushed and tense.

And the First Nations said, no, you can't do that. You can't change DRIPA. It's our human rights. Then he said, well, what if I suspend certain sections of it? And we take this to the Supreme Court of Canada. Then we'll figure it out from there. Temporary pause on a number of sections of the Declaration Act for a period of up to three years. And the nation said, no, you can't do that either. You can't suspend our human rights. And he's left without any options there. So he tried to make it a confidence matter to whip his kind of caucus into shape here, which means if he lost the vote on changing DRIPA, we'd have an early election,

and he discovered that at least one of his MLAs, Joan Phillip, who's married to Grand Chief Stuart Philip, and his indigenous would not support him. Two sources told CBC News that at least 10 NDP MLAs raised concerns about Eby's proposal to suspend sections of DRIPA. Eby cited opposition from Joan Phillip. She expressed to me that she could not bring herself to vote for this legislation.

And he only has a one-seat majority. So he suddenly he realized he didn't have the votes to pass it. So he backed down from that too. It is a really difficult conversation. It's difficult inside our caucus. It's difficult outside our caucus. So he's on his sixth iteration of what to do about DRIPA. And his current plan, which he just came up with on the weekend, is to do nothing.

You back down again. Well, this has been, if I can speak frankly, probably the most challenging issue I've worked on in government. it is absolutely possible as a leader to move off confidently in the wrong direction. He's going to take six more months to talk to First Nations to avoid a massive conflict because they have been ramping up their opposition to what he's doing. Obviously, litigation is a route that First Nations can take. And there's over 200 First Nations here in British Columbia. I'm telling you, the majority are very frustrated and angered what the leader,

of the NDP party, the Premier himself is doing. If we do get legislation on this in the fall, by the time it passes, it will have been almost a year since the Kit Kala court ruling. And that's a lot of uncertainty. The Premier's already saying that there are other First Nations court cases before the court right now that are getting amended on the fly to include the DRIPA ruling and to try and strike down other laws based on DRIPA. So between now and whenever he comes up with a plan, we could see more court rulings on other laws that might have implications too.

Just to stick with the response from the First Nations, you know, the First Nation Leadership Council called the government's position a unilateral betrayal and an abandonment of the province's commitment to principal. reconciliation. And I also want to read you some of what they wrote in an op-ed, quote, in a short time, we have seen the Premier abandon his party's commitments to address the toxic drug crisis, climate action, affordable housing, access to justice, and now the human rights of the indigenous peoples of what is known as British Columbia. And just this sort of accusation that the Premier is abandoning his party's commitments to central, you.

issues that have come to define him in his party. How big of an issue is this for Eby and his leadership right now? It is a big issue. And I would, I guess the best way I could sort of describe it is to think of him as kind of like Mark Carney. He inherited when he became Premier around three to four years ago, a government that had already been in power for quite some time. And so his changes, and Mark Carney's changes to the policies of his predecessor ruffle feathers. And they do look like reversals. But he is also a guy who has reversed a lot of things that he said were necessary. So he's changing and evolving with the times. And one of those evolutions is the public sentiment on DRIPA. And, you know, First Nations leaders have a hard line here that they're not willing to change the law.

But the public, the broader public in British Columbia, the polls would indicate want something done. The opposition conservatives in this province want to scrap DRIPA, the opposition greens, want to protect it. So he's walking the carney line of, you know, changing things, trying to stay in the center, you know, altering things on the fly. There's a dissatisfied public. And it's tough for him. But he is going to face very legitimate concerns and questions about getting rid of a bunch of things that he said he was going to do. And this may be one of them. That being said, is a government responding to a court ruling and altering its laws in response to that, that's a pretty common thing. It's the core of our system. The legislature creates laws.

The courts interpret them. You know, the public will is involved and things are changed and they go back and forth. You mentioned that the conservatives want to scrap DRIPA altogether. There is a conservative leadership race going on right now. I want to read you, part of a post from BC Conservative leadership candidate Carolyn Elliott, the Premier's plan to suspend DRIPA doesn't go far enough, she said. It must be repealed in full, but everyone should be alarmed that our democratically elected provincial government that's supposed to govern for all British Columbians appears to be entirely beholden to indigenous entities that represent a tiny fraction of the population.

Eby is unable to rescind elements of his own disastrous JIPA legislation that even he admits are an existential threat to BC. I mean, first, how much truth is there to those claims that the provincial government is now beholden to indigenous nations? And I mean, do you think there is some kind of bad faith fear mongering going on here as well? It is definitely a position of the opponents of the NDP that they have gone too far and that some of these policies need to be scrapped, including DRIPA and start over. And their argument is that reconciliation agreements with First Nations on projects existed before 2019 and they can exist without DRIPA. That's the argument of the conservatives.

It's not supported by First Nations, but it's picking up steam amongst voters and the entire conservative leadership race is united around. that idea of scrapping DRIPA. And they're feeding into a feeling there that exists beyond DRIPA that has existed for several years now, that it hits on certain parts of reconciliation. For example, there are provincial parks in British Columbia now that are closed certain times of the year to non-indigenous peoples so that the local nations can practice their traditional ceremonies and hunting and fishing there.

And that causes controversy every year. So that feeds into that as well. And that's a decision government made and it's a decision it is trying to explain. And though there are a bunch of decisions like that that accumulate over time that make DRIPA the lightning rod or the kind of, you know, the fire point, but the kind of kindling is beneath it. And the kindling is years of worry about what all of this means. And the conservators are picking up on that and they're running with it. And Eby, to his credit, is hearing it. He's trying to move a little bit, but he is not moving very much.

And I think it'll be a defining issue in the next BC provincial election, whenever that is. And that is not good for anyone, I don't think. No good policy is set during an election campaign, only fear. You know, Rob, and you kind of did some of this at the beginning of the conversation that when DRIPA was introduced and the Interpretation Act was introduced, you know, these were kind of vets. and we're talking about things that everyone thought was going to happen far down the line in the future. But I think what I am really ultimately trying to wrap my head around here is that even if it was vague and, you know, not immediate, wasn't the whole point of DRIPA that it would affect real life stuff in the province? Like I just, what did people expect what happened?

I just don't understand why no one saw this coming, I think. I agree with you. And I think it's a little bit like climate change policies that people support the idea of in general. And then when it gets down to the sort of, you know, nitty gritty of the carbon tax, paying more on your gasoline. People get upset or changing, you know, the way that you can buy cars and banning gas powered cars by a certain year. People get upset. There's a principle. and then there's kind of an action.

And I think reconciliation falls a little bit into that too. People, especially after the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, wanted to do something about reconciliation, wanted to act, wanted to take action. And this fit into that. But the action is uncomfortable. And there's a line that, you know, a Grand Chief Stuart Philip has used here in British Columbia for many years,

that reconciliation is not for wimps is the line. And John Horgan used that line as well, which is fine to say, But we're also sort of governed by consent as well, a larger consent of the population. And it is impossible politically to force the public to do something it doesn't want to do. And we sort of are reaching a point in British Columbia of that, I think, politically. And you can argue how we got here. You can argue whether that's the correct public position, but you also can't tell people

they're wrong and you can't shame them into being quiet on their concerns and folks are kind of talking about it now in an open way that they weren't talking about when DRIPA was brought in 2019 and that is an uncomfortable conversation and instead of sort of leaning into it we're kind of polarizing it and everyone's picking sides and off we go you're this is either a human rights issue that absolutely can't be touched or a massive mistake that is ruining the province and has to be completely repealed and nowhere in between can anyone find a path. And I don't think any other province in Canada is looking at what British Columbia has gone through since 2019 and going, well, that looks like a good idea. It's more of a cautionary tale and you can find the caution in it

wherever you want that the government didn't do the hard work after the great, grandiose passage of this or that it was the wrong thing to pass or that it hasn't gone far enough or whatever, whatever the lesson to takeaway is, we're in a bad spot now. And just charging forward, I'm not sure even the premier is willing to carry that forward. Okay. Rob, thank you. Well, thanks for having me. I know there's a lot of lawyers out there. If you want to Google this, you will find many, many different opinions on everything.

So good luck navigating that. Well, good thing we have you. All right. That is all for today. I'm Jamie Pawso, and thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca slash podcasts.