Check Podcasts.

Hey everyone, and welcome to Political Capital, your source for all the latest and BC politics.

I'm your host, Rob Shaw from the palatial check News World headquarters here in Victoria.

We're gonna cut right to it.

And we've got a lot to talk about this week, bringing in the pod squad to get through it.

Reunited after a federal election campaign, separated, we have Jeff Ferrier, Ali Blades, Jillian Oliver here back together to break everything down.

Hey everybody, thanks for being here.

Good to be back.

We should start, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but we should start with Mark Carney visiting Donald Trump.

We were all glued.

To the TV screens watching this.

I think David Ebe had a pretty good description when he was asked how he thought it went where he said, well, that could have gone a lot a lot worse.

And I think that's probably true.

But what did you guys think, Ali, what did you think when you watched how that played out?

Well?

I think the whole goal was to not embarrass yourself.

I mean, the whole goal of any meeting with Donald Trump is to not turn into a meme that then turns into international news.

And Mark Kearney, our Prime minister, certainly did that.

There are a lot of dynamics of, you know, whether or not he accomplished.

What he set out to.

But I think overall, the media on Monday before the Tuesday meeting was setting expectations low of this is going to be a long haul.

Ahead of us.

So it's not a surprise that nothing big came out of the meeting.

Right before they went into the meeting, I think the day before or that day, there was discussion of film tax credit, Jillian that film tariff, film tax tariff anyways, I don't even think Trump is clear on how it would work, but he would go after the film sector, potentially hitting BC's film sector quite a bit.

So you had that dynamic plus the actual meeting.

How do you think all that played out?

Yeah, well, I mean I think, you know, obviously they didn't talk about anything major of substance.

That news is scary for BC.

That's a really important industry for US, and I think, you know, it's we've seen a lot of backtracking as the rubbers hit the road.

Trump even said after those initial comments that he was going to consult the film industry.

There's so many productions, big ones underway and BC that that could impact.

So I think, you know, we just kind of have to see what happens.

I think the meeting itself came at a time when the impact of a lot of these trade decisions from the US are is starting to be felt, and that's why you're starting to see some softening, and I think that played well into how the meeting went for Carne.

I heard a really interesting anecdote after that when they had lunch, President was asking Carne about all kinds of things about international affairs.

I think it's obvious that he has some respect for Carne's already on those issues, and I think that's good news.

And you know, we'll see what comes next with trade negotiations and what actually comes out of that.

He did seem very respectful to Carney.

Jeff, did it almost go too well?

Is there any risk, you know, when we do when someone looks like they handled the president properly, that eventually the narrative comes back to the President that he was handled and then we look too good.

Is that a possibility?

Yeah, when I'm on a first date and it goes well, I don't beat myself up afterwards for it going badly.

It was a good first entry into the relationship with the United States for Prime Minister Carney.

The election, he promised voters that who were afraid of Trump, that he would bring they could have the comfort of knowing that they had a leader who would stand up to him and represent Canada well in the world stage.

First meeting went well, Carney quitted himself well, made a couple of points where it was an iron fist and alvet glove around Canada not being for sale like the White House and Buckingham Palace.

So yeah, a good first meetum.

But you know, actions speak louder than words, and we'll see if Canada can assert itself on the international stage and protect our industry, protect our communities, protect our jobs.

All right, let's move on to provincial affairs here.

We had a lot of debate this past week about Bill fifteen, the new legislation of fast tracked Projects, would let Cabinet designate certain projects from mines to mills, to schools to hospitals as provincially significant, and then give ministers new powers to automatically issue permits, or write new environmental assessments, or even override municipalities to get things done faster.

The premier says it's necessary, wants to get stuff done in the face of Donald Trump.

Indigenous leaders say they weren't consulted.

The Union to BC municipalities calls it an overreach, and all political parties, including the b Greens, opposing this.

So let's start there, Jeff, I'm going to go to you've first done this.

One strikes me that Bill fifteen as a modest proposal and empowers government to consider all projects submitted to government public ones like hospitals and schools, private ones like minds, and decide which ones should be reviewed first.

So a new hospital, a new school, critical minerals mine project currently number one hundred in the queue four review, could jump to the top of the list, while projects at the top of the list of less importance, for example building docks on Pender Island, but go to the back of the line.

So the goal here is to advance projects that will help BC fight back against Trump and his economic attacks on Canada.

It strikes me that by opposing the legislation, the opposition is giving the government a gift here with this gives government the opportunity to say to voters while government took action to back against Donald Trump.

The opposition parties did what Donald Trump wanted, which is to tie ourselves and knots work against ourselves and hold that development that would strengthen our hand in the fight against the US.

I have a rant on this.

Is it a rant where you agree with everything I've said?

Rob No, no, no.

It may surprise you on that.

I don't.

I was gonna throw some stuff out here and then we can talk about it here.

I think there's a problem for government in a few ways here.

Not consulting co developing this bureau with indigenous leaders a foolish mistake for a government that set that out in Undrip.

I don't understand why they sloppily overtook that issue.

The second, I think it takes our current system of one set of rules for everybody, creates a new set of rules for certain projects chosen by politicians, and in the process make that political whether government intends for that or not.

Why does one mind get chosen to be fast tracked but another doesn't.

What if that mind has a well connected lobbyist or NDP inside are attached to it.

Do you have to be on government's good side to get special treatment.

You have to donate money, do you have to agree to the province's terms, You have to stand beside the premiere and smile.

I think government set itself up for political favoritism allegations here in the name of expediency.

Jeff's taking notes now.

Third, to write down all your charges.

I need to respond to them.

Third, it's a massive consolidation of power, just like Bill seven, into cabinet ministers.

Instead of civil servants administering the environmental process, you have politicians who create new ones with their own timelines and their own people and their own They can even just issue it themselves the permits, And I'm not sure that is the solution to delays in our system.

It uses Donald Trump as cover again for steamrolling processes, which is an insulting and lazy communications narrative that creates this false binary choice of well, if you don't support giving cabinet unfettered power to steamroll everything, you somehow don't support building schools in the face of Donald Trump, when that's I don't That doesn't make any sense to me.

And then, just finally, I asked Premier David eb on Thursday, would you be comfortable giving this type of power and system to say, John Rustad or Christy Clark, let them have these tools.

And he said, well, you know what, next government can pass its own laws, don't I don't.

I'm not worried about that.

But I would say, with all due respect, I think the point is not to pass legislation for your own partisan gain in the short term when you're in power.

It's to improve the province for everyone into the future, regardless of the leader of the stripe.

If you can't see giving your worst enemy on their worst days the law that you are passing to use you probably have the wrong law.

And I cannot imagine that new Democrats feel comfortable with John Rustad using the same cabinet powers they're giving themselves here to pick and choose projects.

That is my rant concluded.

Discuss amongst yourselves while I go have a smoke and a shot of whiskey on that, Jeff, you will come back to you.

I don't know, Ali, what do you What do you think of the debate on this bill?

I mean, keep going, Rob because I know everything.

The whole time, I was like, snap, good.

All right, okay, but.

This is a problem for the NDP, Like this isn't a good look, especially after Bill seven, which would have also given the NDP more control and more power.

I mean, I get it though the DP like, you barely got your electoral mandate, so now you're just tampering with the rules so that you can get some policy mandate and more power this way.

But that's not how this works.

And then the fact that they're even in more hot water because organizations like the First Nations Leadership Council said that this would be backsliding on reconciliation efforts also not great.

Not a good look.

But you know, to to what we're hearing from Jeff, and it's like they're they're building this narrative.

The NDP are building this narrative of becoming the heroes of regulatory red tape.

But in reality, given that this would be the ability to override rules and regulations, like they just become like the supreme overlords of picking these winners and losers.

As we've said on the opposition side of things, John Russtad has even gone to say that this is mafia's style cash for access power grab, which I.

Just one strap too far, one step too far, but yeah.

And so and then let me on a bit of a side note, indulge me for just a moment.

I also just don't think that this is good politics for bowen Ma, who's our Minister of Infrastructure.

I think David AB's doing her completely dirty on this one because in one way for her electoral success, because she's responsible for this file we've seen this week, she's been put out on media quite consistently, she's going to become the base of this.

On one side, she can say I built hospitals and schools at record pace.

But on the other side, if this doesn't go well, she's also the one holding the pen if a hospital is built with deficiencies or any backlash from additional First Nations groups.

And so if I'm bowen Ma, I'm taking a look at David Ab to be like, Okay, I need to make sure that I come out of this in a place where I can get re elected, because right now we're on a trajectory of this is going to be really bad.

For the minister.

Jillian, what goes through your mind on this?

Yeah, I think the politicization opportunity for we've been more politicization that there already is in choosing projects is the one that is troubling for me.

And you know, I think asking the other parties or criticizing the other parties for not supporting this when they're being asked to give a blank check to just allow Cabinet to.

Pick and choose winners and losers.

As Aali put it is pretty extreme, and you know, I think it's It's also the way that it's been communicated is a little bit dishonest.

When you hear the premier talk.

He says, we need to get schools, we need to get roads built.

Those are public infrastructure, but the bill goes so much farther than that to cover extractative, private for profit projects.

And I think that that is also, to Aally's point, a huge liability for the for voters that care about environment, for communities that care about the impact on their water and other natural assets that could be impacted by those kinds of projects.

And you know, it's really, I think going to depend on how those projects are chosen and gets ends up getting implemented.

I think everybody supports getting.

Schools and roads built quicker, but it's those private for profit projects that I think have the greatest opportunity for controversy.

Those are the ones that tend to be the most controversial with both First Nations and environmental groups.

And it looks like this legislation is going to go ahead with just the barest of majorities, with the Speaker breaking the tie.

And I think, you know, we'll see in three years what the Cabinet chooses to sort of use this for and I think that'll determine, you know, whether or not it's successful for them politically.

Well, we'll come back to the Greens opposing this on a confidence matter in a second and maybe chat a bit about that.

Jeff, back to you.

Thoughts on a lot to unpack there.

Wow, I had to take notes about all the things on the issue of this is political liability for the government.

To remind folks that eighty two percent of the voters of British Columbia voted for parties in the federal election that promised tolerate the review of economic development projects and Mark Carney promised to create a process for programs of national significance.

Corporations will not donate money to the government.

That thing that Rushdad said is silly because it's illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians.

On First Nations the bill specifically says that nothing in the legislation takes away from First nations constitutional legal rights, and the Implementation Act said says that explicitly, even if that weren't the case, in this bill, there will be clear criteria and regulation that will be set in consultation with First Nations on which projects apply.

We're fast tracking reviews, not approvals.

This is about getting projects to the front of the line for review.

It's not tampering with any rules.

It's moving projects.

I just repeated the negative I'm going to get skewered on media media.

Training for that never acknowledged the question.

On the environmental front, oil and gas and LNG are specifically excluded from.

This government says there's no strategyislation that says that.

But attractive for profit projects like minds create an awful lot of jobs and economic investment that we used to spend on schools and hospitals and programs.

And it's interesting to hear the Conservatives talk about how this is a huge power grab, and they've promised to eliminate all but the most basic of environmental assessment rules and criteria as part of their Teriff Response Act.

So all that said, I still think it's this is good this is good policy, and it's good politics for the government to establish itself as the Trump fighters.

And I will point out that if folks think that Trump is covered, Trump coming after us and using ourselves and not is like Connor McDavid coming down on a breakaway and pulling the goalie.

It's silly.

You got to fight back, and that's what BC's doing.

And I think it's good politics and good policy.

I just don't understand how overriding a ditch permit for a school is fighting Donald Trump, Like I don't.

I don't I'm in a government because it's silly stuff like that, and we saw it in housing that prevents building and investment and job creation and construction to start.

And for folks who are worried about this overriding environmental and First Nations laws, if you talk to proponents of private sector investment, they want legally defensible permits.

And any decision that government makes that seeks to override First Nation constitutional rights or environmental laws in the province, they'll get hauled before the courts and they'll get struck down.

So this is very much just about let's prioritize which projects get reviewed first, and they may get a proved, they may not get approved, but they'll get looked at faster and decisions made faster.

That's what the government's trying to do here.

I am assuming like everything no matter what, gets challenged in the courts these days.

But if Cabinet does right, because this bill allows it to write entirely new environmental assessment processes for the project, it deems significant that's going.

To get challenged.

I think it's going to be like there's gonna be a rough ride here for anyways.

But it's an interesting topic, Jeff.

I appreciate you pushing back on it.

I want my job, that's my job.

Tried some contrast and insight.

I want to circle away from the bill to the sort of the politics of it a little bit.

The Greens saying that they're not going to vote for this.

It is a matter of confidence technically, and I just want to go around on this Green deal with the NDP because this is I think the second third time the Greens have sort of on a confidence matter said no, and when you talk to them they say, well, we don't agree.

It's a confidence matter.

But I think technically the government decides what does a confidence matter.

It's a fascinating sort of dynamic, Jillian, and I want to go back to you first on this because it's sort of I'm not quite sure what the point of the deal was between the two parties for stability if on confidence issues they're not always aligned, or maybe that's a value to do the deal that it's flexible like that, I don't know, what do you think?

Well, yeah, I mean so I think that there are some bills that have to be confidence measures, like the budget and tax measures basically things that have to do with finance and spending.

And I think that that's what the Greens envisioned.

The rules of the legislature are such that because that's what actually provides, you know, stability.

The agreement was supposed to go bill by bill on legislation, and unlike the previous twenty seventeen agreement, didn't didn't obligate the Greens to support all government legislation.

The rules of the legislature.

Allow the government to designate anything a confidence matter, and that's what they're doing, sort of arbitrarily, to bully the Greens to get political cover and also to prevent the Greens from using any negative blowback from this bill, like I probably previously described as a political contrast in the future, So I think it's pretty And also, like with Bill seven, this asks the Greens to sign away their power and their legislative oversight, which I think you know is unfair and also is not what people voted for.

They voted for like a very very bare majority.

So I think, you know, the Greens are totally within their rights.

The NDP is trying to bully them with designating these bills as confidence measures, and they shouldn't.

Yeah, the Greens mentioned they tried to propose a change this bill.

The DYP said no dice on that.

So but so much for that, Allie, what do you think of as this dynamic?

Technically, you know, even without the Greens, if we're assuming that the three independent Conservatives vote with the opposition, NDIP could still pass it, as Julian pointed out, with the speaker breaking the time, which is not the way our system is supposed to work, but it works.

But just the larger idea of the Greens the NDP together and then continuing to split apart, I don't know what you think about that.

You're right, I mean it's going to pass whether we like it or not.

They have the votes, barely, but they have the votes.

This is the start I think of the Greens pulling away from the NDP at all costs though, because it's that reputational risk that they would have in aligning themselves with the NDP for future measures, and so this is definitely the start of it.

I think for their electoral success, they would be smart the Greens to stay away from this, stays far far away from this, because it's a huge electoral base, including First Nations that they would potentially lose.

And this is where it could be potentially very exciting for the Greens because without those shackles of the NDP, they could then you know, push back a little bit and really like see their stride and what they stand for.

And I said this over and over and over again, but I do think that the Greens really do need to shift in what their strategy is going to be on like a single issue.

And it wasn't on my.

Bengo card because I thought it was always going to be an environmental thing, but this could very well be it.

Yeah, it is interesting, Jeff, what do you think of this emerging dynamic, Does it have any implications or it just is what it is.

I think the government will pass the legislation because it has forty seven seats in an eighty three seat legislature.

It's a bare majority, but it is a majority.

I think the calculus that they're playing here has nothing to do with bullying anyone.

You know.

The opposition parties and that Freedom group free to vote however they want on their conscience on this.

I think what the government is looking at is we want to get our economic legislation and measures, our Trump response passed in a timely way.

Eighty two percent of the voters in the federal election approved of this general direction.

And despite what the thought leaders and the stakeholders and first nations are saying, they're loud.

The undercurrent is that the public is afraid of Donald Trump and they want to see leadership to defend British Columbia by the premier and the government.

And that's what they see themselves doing here.

All right, let's throw another topic in the here.

Some interesting comments around pipeline politics this week in two different ways.

Are going to merge them together to discuss.

First, you had Alberta Premier Danielle Smith addressed the province with a series of demands for Ottawa, one of which was guaranteed access to tidewater in British Columbia to the north, somehow out through the east, calling on the federal government to help get Alberta's oil to the coast in increasing ways, or else Alberta might separate in some way in the future.

The second part, Energy Minister Adrian Dix, questioned in the legislature by Conservative critic Gavin Doue, reveals BC has thrown at support behind a proposal to dredge the Barrard Inlet to allow the oil tankers to be completely filled with more oil from the Trans Mountain Pipeline terminal in Burnaby.

Right now, they aren't totally filled because they can't fit under the second Narrow's Bridge.

So that proposal, which appears to be coming from the federal government is something that BC is supporting.

Notable because they have long this government opposed TMX, including.

Going to court.

But as Energy Minister Dix put it, things done now let's use it to its full capacity.

So that Jillian will start with you.

The evolution of pipeline politics dynamics in BC as it this government seems to transition a little bit to more to move from its initial environmental positions, and then also the federal pressure that might be on it, potentially depending on what Mark Carney decides to create more corridors, that might put the current government in a bit of a predicament as it tries to wrestle with what a pipeline or from Ottawa might mean.

How do you start to explain that to folks?

Do you think, well, this isn't I would say that it is evident.

You know, the discussion of the used to be Kinder Morgan now Trans Mountain Pipeline has spanned quite a long time in political terms, and we've seen the NDP more or less chase the politics of it rather than having a consistent position.

And I would say that is kind of how they kind of approach environmental issues.

It's more of like a political issue to be managed in a group of stakeholders to either like pand or to or ignore, depending on where the political winds are, rather than like an actual value of the party.

I would say, like, that's not true of all of the MLAs.

There are some that I think, you know, this is generally important issue to them.

But Horgan when he was the energy critic, before they assumed government was in favor vocally in favor of it.

We Drean Dick's when he was leader famously flip flopped on it or infamously flip flopped on it and cost them the election.

And you know, then in twenty seventeen they ran on a pretty wishy, washy vague promise to use every tool in the toolbox, which I think, you know, whether or not they did that is kind of up for debate.

I think they put on a good show and it got built anyway.

And now they're just kind of going all in because that's where the political headwinds are at the moment.

That being said, because these projects take so long to come to fruition, there's a risk in that, right because right now it seems like most people are kind of operating out of a place of fear, really wanting to make sure that we don't incurb extra economic damage other than what is going to happen because of Trump and his.

Decisions.

But you know, in three and a half years, if this has the environmental impacts that First Nations and environmental groups are worried about, like negative impacts of the southern resident killer whales, which people also really care about.

You know, the politics might be in a different place, so we will see what happens.

When they dredged Leberard Inlet.

That wasn't not my Bengal card things to hear dredge baby Dress dis government support, although Dix made the argument that if you fill the current tankers up more, you have less number of tankers overall, which.

I guess a bigger, bigger spill.

Would have been the old NDP argument on that it's just more oil.

Ali, what do you think and what to advance?

It?

A bit like what happens if BC's put in a position of having to accept some national pipe line proposal from the new government.

How does it How does this version of the government match up with that?

Do you think?

First, I love when savage Jillian comes out because.

We had a fever.

This week's very little.

I feel like this whole shows a fager dream.

So anyways, that was that was absolutely brilliant, mostly because like you know, we we say that politicians shouldn't politicize certain things, but everything is political.

And this is not immune to it.

And you know, I want to give a little bit of grace to the Energy minister where you know, we call this evolving, we call this growth, and because he's in a position where the financial economic dynamics across this country are very different from where they were ten years ago, and we have to do things that are necessary to make sure that we expand and keep our country in a very good fiscal state, and this is one of those things.

Is TMX was an economic success story and kept us from really falling apart at one point when it was you know, building a lot lots in the expansion and then all of our resource projects up north, like it kept BC.

Above the line for quite some time.

Maybe because it was four times over budget and there was a lot of money to spend, but yeah, you're right, it was one of the big projects that generated jobs.

But no, absolutely, And so you asked about the provincial federal dynamic.

And right now we're in a really good position with the relationship with David eb and Mark Carney, and I think that this could either helps solidify this emerging bromance or it could be something that will we'll see them on a differing side.

My vote is though that I think that this only strengthens the relationship between the two and also gives davidb a little bit of bargaining power too, if you wanted to, like K, we'll do this.

But this also means that this is a better argument for the fair equalization payments that David Eb's fighting for as well, and I.

Think he does the Premier.

You know, Premier Eb does share some of the equalization concerns that Premier Smith raised too, about why is Ontario getting equalization payments and weird things like that that we've heard our premier talk about too, Jeff, Like, if let's if Ottawa and Alberta come to this idea of a new pipeline that goes through BC.

There's lots of ways you could see the current government supporting it.

You know, gets our resource products to the coast, it increases our trade divers vacation, it generates jobs.

There's a whole bunch of things that kind of align with where the government is now, but then a whole bunch of things that in the past it would have been against and maybe still ideologically feels against.

How do you think it would navigate that kind of thing?

Well, that's a good question.

You have seven seconds.

I have seven seconds.

Let me check, let me check my sticky out in your sids.

Places where a thing originates or is located, often an organ.

I think that would be a challenge for the government here.

I think that for premieer EB and urban MLAs and members of this caucus, especially expanded shipping or development of oil and gas or natural gas, would be a tough sell internally.

So if looking outside in I could see them saying, Okay, Ottawa, this is what you want to do.

You take the lead on this and you navigate it BC, because it's going to be a tough one.

I think.

On the TMX piece and the dredging one, I think it's an interesting strategic choice for Danielle Smith to say, if you don't give us a pipeline to water, our landlocked province will separate.

I'm not sure how that gets you closer to your end goal.

But I'm not going to tell her how to run a province.

She doesn't like it when people do that.

I'm not fussed now about TMX and Barrard Inlet dredging, provided it's done responsibly and it meets it goes through an environmental assessment process and First Nations consultation and all that important work is done.

The whole premise of TMX was we sell too much Canadian oil to the Americans because it's the only market that we can get to, and so we had to sell it at a deep discount.

TMX is how we get some of our oil and gas that were producing to markets overseas where we can actually get a good return on it, and the day and age it will diversify trade is interesting.

When the pipeline was first built, I remember remember this.

It was when there was an NDP government in Alberta and the grand deal at the time was the NDP brought in and Alberta brought in a Climate Action plan which put a cap on oil and gas production, and that secured the support of the federal government, didn't get the support of the BC provincial government.

We've talked all about the various machinations that went on there.

So this was not supposed to be about expanded production of oil.

It was about getting oil to markets.

But then the beauty folks, Abby Lewis and his leap manifesto type showed up and said yeah, well, don't get me started showed up in Alberta.

Six months after Rachel Notley became the premiere in Alberta made the whole convention about that and basically pushed the province away from the NDP and into the hands of the Conservatives.

So you have to be careful about how you manage these things because there are unintended consequences when you're not very pragmatic and thoughtful about these issues.

As everyone on this panel is.

Everyone on this panel.

Is very I liked them.

I liked them.

Feel bad for beating you up?

Yeah, no, it never feel bad for beating Jeff.

Now, that's fine keeping.

I can deal with it.

I liked your comment though, Jeff, like the idea that it would be tough for the urban New Democrat MLAs.

But we've talked in the show in the past about like the future growth of the party has to come from the non urban areas where you were a project like this might go over a little bit more.

And also, it's so fascinating to watch this government talk about economic growth, job generation, the natural resource sector in theory, but then in reality, you know, the TMX expansion completed, I think in twenty twenty four, no politicians went to it.

The LNG Canada is flaring and coming online.

No politicians go to it site see is done.

Nobody will go stand with it.

And it's so fascinating to hear the.

Premier talk in theory about jobs in an area that the government can't bring itself to actually physically support because they don't like it, but they want it sort of in theory but not in reality.

And so when we extrapolate from that the idea of another national pipeline push through, it's so fascinating to think, like, initially you could make a whole bunch of arguments that the NDP would get behind about a whole bunch of economic growth and trade diversification.

But in reality, I don't think they like pipe lines, and I don't think they want to go stand beside them, and I don't think they really like it because their MLAs don't.

They like the idea of economic growth but not the dirt that's involved.

I think, yeah, I think there's a bit of a split in the caucus.

I think folks who've been around government for an awful long time are accustomed to making the trade offs.

You need to have a pragmatic government, and I think that with every election you bring in some new folks and they haven't been through that experience and so they will come at issues in a different way.

And I think you've you've described it well, Rob, But I will say that if folks go to the Government of British Columbia Flicker account, and yes, I was surprised that Flicker still exists, I had no idea.

I go there all the time to photoshop cats into things.

That's true, but you will find pictures of Adrian Dix at sitsee and David eb at mind sights.

I think it's there being careful about which resource projects they're seen to be at and hydro and critical minerals are two that they've they seem okay with.

Yeah.

No, they are doing a lot more since the election on that in that area.

But pipeline oil pipelines are just one of those rails and politics not right now that it's hard to imagine the government navigating Okay.

It's almost it's almost as unpopular as human composting, which was brought up and it wasn't.

The Greens didn't take a position on this.

They were just as in MLA was taking doing the dutiful job of an MLA bringing a petition from his constituents of the Legislature, but there was a petition this week to allow for the human composting.

Almost as popular as assured loading cards on BC ferries for MLAs, which was also a topic of discussion at the Legislature next week.

Rob all right, thank you to the panel for walking us through a lot of fascinating issues this week.

Thank you for listening.

Make sure you subscribe and we'll be back with all the latest in BC politics next week.

Here on Political Capital,