Check podcasts.

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

I'm your host, Robshaw, recording.

On Halloween but airing wherever you consume this.

I'm, of course dressed as someone on the verge of a nervous breakdown for the hideously debilitating caffeine and stress addiction, as is covering BC politics these days.

Stressful time, spooky times, mostly for the BC government, which scared the but Jesus out of the rest of us this week with the threat of a snap.

Election just one of the topics we're.

Going to get into along with a new deal for the bcgu continued to followed from the Couch and Nation Title Court ruling.

To break it all down, we bring in the full pod squad this week.

Jeff Ferrier, Ali Blades and Jillian Oliver, thank you for being here to start.

Let's take a look at what Premier David eb had to say about early election this week.

Our government is committed to the ten thousand jobs that this bill represents.

We're going to deliver those for British Columbians and I would stake our government on that.

We have to be ready.

Last thing I want is an election.

And with that said, you know this bill is non negotiable for me.

Okay, so the Premier saying his high voltage transmission line from Prince George to Terrace non negotiable.

Take it to the voters.

Bring it on, Jeff.

What's he really saying here or is that really what he's saying?

I do know.

I think British Columbians can feel the electricity of a snap election.

We all want that.

I don't think that this is about for the Premier calling an election.

I think what he's trying to do is two things.

One, he's trying to signal a seriousness and a commitment to an economic initiative that's going to bring electricity to the Northwest power leg and minds.

This is central to his economic vision for the province and how he's going to dig himself out from the deficit and pay for things like labor deals.

We'll talk about that later.

And the second thing I think he's doing here is using this legislation, which is opposed by the BC Conservatives and opposed by one PC, as a hammer, a political hammer, something that he can use in northern and rural British Columbia to show that to convey in his view that the NDP's on the side of voters and communities up there, the first Nations, communities and business and industry there who all support this transmission line, something that he doesn't usually have the opportunity to do.

The NDP has struggles in the north and rural British Columbia, and this is the Premier's opportunity to push back.

Which which makes sense to me, Jillian.

But at the same time, he's got a majority, right, he's got the same one seat majority he had last October when the premier merged from the provincial election, declaring a mandate the lead for four years.

He can pass this bill.

In fact, shortly after he made those comments he passed it through second reading.

He'd defended off an amendment and committee stage.

I mean, it's like he's got the votes.

It's not like the government could fall here, unless I'm misreading it somehow.

Yeah, I mean, I think it is a little bit of grand standing for the reasons Jeff said, maybe kind of daring the Greens a little bit.

They're going into negotiation renegotiations for their agreement.

But yeah, you're right, technically it would be very hard to orchestrate a lost vote.

They've already demonstrated that they're willing to use the speaker to break ties if all of the other opposition members are against legislation.

And you know, there is some precedent that the government can't fall by accident, you know they have such as the majority.

Someone could be absent, but in those cases probably the government still wouldn't fall.

That being said, Premier kind of has the ability to go ask for an election anytime.

Doug Ford did it two years early, even though he already had a much bigger majority.

So I think, well, I don't think we're going to have an election tomorrow.

I think it's not off the table.

And you know Eb's trying to show some strength and that if there is an election that it wouldn't be his.

Fault, maybe reminding everyone that there could be one.

Ali We all sort of talk about it behind the scenes, because the idea would be you capitalize on the chaos and the division inside the BC Conservatives and maybe a little bit with the Greens.

As you only mentioned, they just elected a new leader and then you vault into a super majority, maybe depending on how the campaign goes.

Do you think that plays any role in all this.

That was in percent does like this is all the posturing that Gillian and Jeff were talking about like fool me once here with by David b' standards, where he was criticized for not calling an early election last governing cycle, and so now there's the additional pressure that if he misses this window, and for whatever reason, the opposition decides that they're going to be a more effective opposition and they see this path for them to govern, then he's missed this critical window where he could very well have a supermajority.

That on top of there's an NDP convention coming up very soon where his leadership review is happening, where he has to signal that he is in a leader position and that he could be the only one that would take them into the next election.

There's already political gossip and rumors about some others that may be in more effective premiere right now in comparison to David dB.

So there's a lot of selfish reasons as to why he would want to go into an early election, but the political writing on the wall is that this would be a good time to take an advantage of the turmoil on the other side.

The other aspect that I think about a lot here is there's also a lot of rumors about a federal election, and how does that impact if the BC.

If we go into a both provincial and federal election year, it could be very interesting for us, But it also means that a lot of things don't get done.

Usually usually in the past, when we talk about a federal election, it's like, well, BC, you know how I would have to send staff to party staff to the federal parties because they they need it.

But the federal government is in a minority, so we don't know if it'll even pass its budget or what's going to happen there.

It's a big open question, Jeff.

The convention issue, is there any role in that the premier is saying this to bolster himself in a convention where we are all hearing, you know, he may not get the strong leadership vote that he's hoping for.

I think the BC Conservatives are talking that a little bit because they're projecting they're having some problems with their own leader and leadership and wishing that on the NDP.

I think it's anytime you're a new Democrat leader and a premier and you've been through tough negotiations with the public sector union.

When you're a little bit out of the comfort zone of traditional ENDP and pushing major projects, when you're dealing with the fallout of the BC ferries, there's always going to be some conjecture and some questions about how that will affect a leadership review number.

I think the Premier will get a strong support from the party membership at the convention.

I think there may be some grumbling, as there usually is at MDP conventions, but I think the Premier will come out in a strong position, and this talk on North Coast Transmission line is a good signal to and I think an intentional signal to party members of the strength of his leadership.

Jillian like, this is not the first time eb has threatened on election.

Remember I'm Bill seven, the cabinet power grab, fast track Bill Bill fourteen.

He's both times there said you know what you know, like what I'm doing, Let's go to an election.

I'll take it to the voters.

I'm sort of reconciling that continued reference with the guy who barely won by twenty two votes a one seat majority and promised right after to slow things down and bring voters along with him.

Is it just like times have changed or why does he keep saying this?

Do you think?

I think a couple of things.

I think one, right now, he probably is rightly assuming that there's a lot of appetite for decisive leaders with strong conviction, and I think he's kind of using this as a way to portray that.

And it's also just a way to keep the opposition in line.

And I think that's why you're also hearing it at the federal level.

I would be shocked if we go into another federal election given the state of the various parties right now.

But it's kind of, you know, it's sort of just some a way to kind of keep the opposition in line and sort of dare them and kind of tell them to pipe down and show voters that you're the one that's focused on kind of moving forward with the issues at hand.

So yeah, I think it kind of comes down to all of that.

All Right, we're gonna take a quick break here, Ali, I'm going to come to you next them the next topic.

But we have the BCGEU strike ending.

Is it labor piece time for the province.

We'll get into that topic coming up right after this.

Absolutely, we believe it's a fair deal.

We would never have entered into a tentative agreement or recommend it to our members if we didn't believe that.

You know, we believe this hits all the all or most of the key priorities our members identified four as in this round of bargaining.

BCGU President Paul Finch celebrating after basically getting government to offer a far better deal following his eight week strike, double the contract lengths to four years in some cases, double the value, and wage shikes depending on the year as well.

ALI good deal for tax payers, labor piece, what do you think of.

This good deal for tax payers?

Is it we're going.

In what was a question mark?

It's definitely not.

I mean, what this is adding to is what I've been reading is a deal that it's going to cost one point five billion dollars in its first year.

And so as I continue to research this, we saw in the ministry mandate letters, mind efficiencies, mind cuts, do whatever we can to reduce the deficit, and now this is going to just plug into that.

So anything that we cut is now going to be paid or we're going to use up this money.

And so it doesn't mean that it's a good deal for a lot of things in BC, because you're still getting those reduced services on the tax payer cuts that we've taken to various ministries.

Now we're paying the union and so or the employees rather and I don't doubt that you know, people are suffering with affordability and that this is one hundred percent what people need in order to pay the bills.

But in the grand scheme of things, it was a failure on the BCNDP government in that it's going to mean tough decisions even more down the road.

Jeff, we spent several weeks hearing the premiere and the Finance Minister say that their offer two years around three and a half four percent general wage increase was all BC could afford, all that was fair for taxpayers.

Like, how do we square that with a four year twelve percent deal?

Do you think.

This is the time of sports and the time of Blue Jays go, Jay's go.

So let me use a bit of a let me use a bit of a sports analogy.

Okay you no, no, no, I'm not.

Distracted sports analogy.

If if you were getting a four year deal locking in a four year deal at just above the rate of inflation, with the major cost driver of government.

I call that a tidy piece of work, and I think that's what the government has done here.

It's welcome news.

It's good to have those frontline workers back on the job and to have this settled.

And I think that when you have a situation where both sides are claiming victory.

You have the government claiming victory because the numbers are far below the last deals wage increases, which were substantial.

You have the union claiming victory because they've bargained for more than was initially offered.

I think that shows that there's a balance in the agreement and in terms of the upwards trajectory of government spending that will need to be managed.

Three percent a year in line with inflation is not a bad place to be if you're government.

I guess so, although we don't have any plan on how to manage that.

Jillian like, the cumulative cost of this thing by year three overwhelms the entire four billion dollar contingency fund that presumably we're funding this out of during a deficit of twelve billion every year.

Does anyone care about that?

Or are we so far deep in the deficit that was like you know, like labor peace whatever, deficits fifteen twenty, Like, you.

Know, I think it's it's cause for concern for a lot of people.

But at the same time, I don't think there's any appetite for cuts.

And the reality is there's a cost to not having these services provided effectively.

And I think that's why the government, you know, was ready to make a deal.

You get projects held up because there's professional engineers as part of this deal.

You have you know, social workers not getting trained.

And we've seen time and time again, you know, pick any issue in BC politics.

You don't deal with issues in a proactive way.

It costs way more down the road.

So I think, well, yes, it's a big it's a big dollar figure.

You kind of have to balance it against the cost of not having those things done effectively and not being able to fill those positions.

And so I don't know if there's another way to resolve it.

And it's not over yet, because this becomes the floor for or the BC nurses, the BC teachers, the remaining unions presumably that will want at least this plus extra pots of money on the side.

So we'll see about the costs of that.

I want to carve up some time.

We're going to go to break here and carve up some time talking about the Couch and Nation title decision leading to fiery town halls and surprising statements from the NDP government.

We will dive into that after the break.

One hundred and twenty percent of British Columbia is claimed by First Nations.

This is going to be a case that's going to come to every community.

That's going to come to everybody's private property.

Whether it is you know, in the next year, or whether it's in the next decade or two, this will come.

It needs to be resolved and we need to be able to protect private property right now.

As Opposition leader John Restad saying, the fallout from the Couch and Nation title decision will hit every community in BC in the coming year.

As Ali as he seeks.

To take advantage of that issue, following a fiery Richmond town hall where there were some nervous residents about their property ownership, some angry residents about not hearing anything about this from the eleven years it took to get to this court decision this summer, how do you think that real world kind of like town Hall influenced the discussion of what has so far been a kind of legal case to this point.

At the core of what happened at the town hall in Richmond was the uncertainty of it all.

So for the first time did private property owners and residents of Richmond realized that this was even an issue because of the lack of transparency across the board.

So there is no one blame on the couch and tribes, or the Richmond City Council, or even the NDP government for that matter, but it's the uncertainty that's starting to scare people.

What we even saw this week was someone put out a fake letter out of North Vancouver saying that this was going to happen here as well on city letterhead, and it was completely fake.

And so you could see where there's like these fundamental issues where we could scare the entire province into thinking this is going to come to their backyard.

But what we want to do is make sure that we're talking about this case and this case alone right now before we start to scare the entire province and thinking this is going to happen, because that's not going to be helpful.

One for this issue, but the other four we have no idea where the end is going to happen, what when the end is going to happen on this Because it's going to appeals, there is always that possibility that it goes into the Supreme Court of Canada, which is not going to be a tomorrow decision, and so it's that transparency piece that I think we are upset about.

What's interesting about the Richmond town hall two was that it turned into a political battleground where we saw NDP cabinet ministers and MLAs as well as the opposition there.

We saw city council hopefuls for Richmond there as well, and so I think as we continue to monitor this, we also have to look at the lens of why are people saying this and am unscipal election year to boot?

M hm.

There is that all of the mayor of Richmond isn't running again, but you know that it is a live issue in Richmond.

Jeff, what did you think of the concern from the public, kind of the real world concern about mortgages and businesses hitting this issue.

Yeah, no, that's rocket fuel for the opposition.

You see the BC Conservatives and one BC both position in this as an issue of reconciliation gone too far, and we saw a vote in the legislature this week.

It was the first reading bill.

It was voted down but the Conservatives and one BC this was a one BC piece of legislation calling for ripping up DRIPPA, the Declaration, the Rights of Implementation Act and UNDRIP.

They called for it to be ripped up, which is a big change from what they voted on just eight years ago.

I think what you know, the government's doing the right things legally, that's you know, ask for its appee lane and it's asked for a stay which would prevent any changes happening until the appeals heard.

But they need a They need more than a legal strategy now, they need a political one because the fear is real, the incentsive uncertainty is real.

People are worried about mortgages, businesses are wondering about financing from banks and it's a big challenge for government to hoarn its nest.

They need to be strong on this or they risk losing an election on this issue.

In my view, Joane, what do you think of that?

Yeah, I think it really reminds me of the Land Act that we were talking about that last year where it was super quiet and then it suddenly blew up.

And it's such a shame because this is not where anybody wanted things to end up, including the Couchin tribes who did not want to come after private property right though is not part of their lawsuit.

And by being forced into litigation instead of negotiation, government has left themselves open to this ruling and now they're dealing with all the uncertainty because they didn't do any product proactive communication around it as well.

I think, you know, the reality is is that we don't have a lot of treaties in BC.

This was probably a long time coming, as court case was in the courts for ten years.

I actually think John Rustad was minister when this case started, and that should have been long enough to come to a negotiation, negotiated settlement that was reasonable that didn't infringe on private property like they've come up with over Hi to Guai that specifically has an agreement that protects private property rights.

It's not easy, but pretending that it's too hard to even try is why we ended up in this situation in.

The first place.

Oh that's a great point, all right, just to continue the couch and discussion here.

I observed through the week, and I'm interested to hear what you guys think of this government advancing a more aggressive or assertive position through its lawyers.

There's a media briefing this week saying, look, our argument has been private property rights suspend aboriginal title where the two overlap, that they are incompatible because they both grant someone the exclusive use and occupancy of a property, and that private property is an indefeasible right in British Columbia under the Land Act that is more legally superior to aboriginal title.

That was the argument the government kind of put out in this briefing, highlighted some of the notes from its court submission in twenty twenty three.

Attorney General sort of said it, and then they put out this god awful op ed written.

Like with a version of Chad GPT.

It's red light and some kids in short pants just sanitizing the thing down to we respect all parts of this and everyone can live in harmony and be happy.

And I was just struck by the difficulty the government is going to face, Jeff in arguing what you mentioned earlier, a clear defense of private property because it recognizes the political risk, but saying it in a way that doesn't seem to alienate the First Nations leaders and reconciliation efforts.

It's been putting together because I can't quite say what it's arguing without watering it down, and that difficult line that it has to seem to walk between the two, you know, and the result being that it seems to say one thing somewhere and another thing somewhere else, which sort of fascinates me.

Yeah, Well, this is the challenge is a government that you face when you have to go to the courts to resolve issues of title and property rights instead of negotiating a settlement.

The case law is really tough for the government to push against, push back against rather and so it's interesting to see their position there.

But it's going to be tough for them to carry the day, and then they're going to have to face what they don't face them, what they don't want to face now, is that they will have to make a tough decision with political consequences.

I think reconciliation and negotiation only works when you have three pillars, When you have social environmental agreement negotiated partnership with First Nations and economic benefit.

You take away one of those legs on the stool and it collapses, and here we're missing the First Nations partnership and that will be real dangerous for government efforts to walk that line that you talk about and keep First Nations reconciliation moving forward in a positive way.

And we did see ali a survey from angus Reid this week that found sixty seven percent responding are seriously concerned the couch and ruling could impact their private property rights, sixty one percent or supportive of the government's appeal, sixty percent are convinced that the court case harms the reconciliation efforts between the rest of the province and Indigenous groups, and forty four percent of people said Premier davi DB's government is focused too much on reconciliation at the expense of other priorities, which is sort of a fascinating kind of beginning of what we what I think people were worried about in some cases that this case on top of several other examples that we've mentioned earlier.

Jillian mentioned the Land Act, the Heritage Conservation Act.

During UBCM, some the high to Title agreement.

It's sort of created a kind of public opinion slowing or backlash or something on reconciliation.

In a larger sense, the government's picking up in some of these polling numbers, perhaps.

The NDP government because they have because they are the governing party that then has to go through this court case and bears the responsibility of informing British Columbians about what we could potentially expect in this next generation.

So as the description of watered down comes up, I think they technically have to be a little bit more balanced in how they talk about it.

The opportunity for anyone who's not the NDP government is really to mobilize and capture the attention of a lost generation of people who are thinking about this not in the way of like economic uncertainty or landowner ownership certainty, this language that like old Guard kind of talks about when we talk about like what the opposition is thinking here, but rather when I was taking a look at that Angus Reid rob I was thinking about, I wonder how many of these are under the age of thirty five that already can't afford homes that now see the skyrocketing housing pricing on top of the land ownership certainty component of all of this, and just how much I see young people talk about the couching case, not in the terms of economic certainty, but of just how they've been screwed over by politicians in such an aggressive way.

And so the severe sentiment of this generation isn't being quite matched with politicians, like they haven't found their party, their person yet that is speaking on behalf of them, and that's such an opportunity that who knows who's going to come up and take advantage of that.

But that's the conversation that's happening on the ground, and it's this feeling of just like dismal outlook on what life is going to look like in BC, which is why we continue to see that rhetoric of I don't know if I can raise a family here in BC, what if there are better opportunities in another province.

And so that's what's happening.

Interesting to see where this is going to potentially go.

I can tell you right now that the Conservative Party isn't matching that though they're not taking advantage of this in a way that demands the boldness and the severity because they're continuing to use very safe language about economic certainty.

We don't care about that.

We care about what the next generation is going to look forward to in BC.

So they should be leaning into generation screwed kind of thing.

Is that the sort of like which is kind of not even one bcson quite doing that.

They're doing more of a like corrupt reconciliation industry lying kind of thing.

They're not doing what you're saying alley of like putting it all together into a younger generation that doesn't see a path for them in the province based on a whole bunch of different factors together.

Yeah, what you're describing there, again is a very timid approach.

It's what we can see every politician at use.

And so that's why I think people who have the flexibility from the outside, from institutes and foundations are talking about this a little bit more aggressively than the politicians.

But again it's the severity of the issue isn't being matched up with the political rhetoric that we're hearing.

And it's perhaps because people are scared of what the pushback is going to be.

Is being called anti reconciliation, and it's not anti reconciliation.

You could have both.

It's a serious conversation as we're seeing, and it's going to be an election issue.

But it won't be an a election issue is who's going to be able to solve it better.

It's going to be an issue of who's going to be able to manage a differing of opinions because across every pocket of this province there is going to be a very wide spectrum of opinions on what we should be doing.

That sounds like a mess to me, Julian.

It sounds to me like a I mean, like, yeah, I don't know.

I don't know how you I mean, I can see how you capitalize on that as a politician, but I don't know what you do when you win with that knot that you've tied yourself in that is un is difficult to untie with all the different threads.

Yeah, I mean, I think like there's a lot of things going on here.

I think with respect to the government and their sort of dichotomists messaging, it's time they need to pick a lane and stick to it.

And I think just being crystal clear that you know we're going to put tech private property and you know it's it's wild to me, And I know, I keep repeating this, that that that the couch and tribes didn't even want to go after private property, and yet that's like all of the noise around this and that's not even like nobody is actually even trying to do that, and it's wild like most people don't aren't aware of that, And I just I don't understand how, you know, with that opportunity for like common ground, that that the government has failed to sort of make that known.

There's lots of examples of working collaboratively with First nations through negotiations to build lots of housing.

Like you drive down downtown Vancouver and there's massive towers up next to the Bird Street Bridge that are a result of those negotiations from from bands that have claimed to all of Vancouver and aren't trying to go after it and are are want, you know, really want the same things.

Other examples in Squamish where they success really built development.

So you know, I think that's something there.

I don't know if if having stronger, more politicized rhetoric on this issue is going to get us anywhere, because it just I just don't, you know.

The Court's the Court's rulings are the reality.

Jeff kind of talked about the sort of immovability of that.

Yeah, I mean, and then because there's the other yeah.

Well, like they've lost.

The government Jeff has lost pretty much every single court case it's ever had on indigenous title, you know, free and prior and formed consent.

If you're John.

Rustad, even who's been in cabinet, you will have known that you just lose, right, you lose badly again.

And the NDP's reconciliation agenda at the beginning seemed to be about we've lost, We're going to continue to lose.

Let's get out in front of it and try and get agreements.

But now seventy eight years later, Ali mentions that frustration that ties into people.

Who are are being left behind in.

A larger sense by the you know, cost of living in the other crises, that gets tied back into it.

So it's gets I.

Don't know, but like fighting, it doesn't seem like a political strategy either, because we just lose again and again.

Maybe it gets you into power, but then you just lose in court.

I think the approach you describe that the government has set set forward of negotiated settlement, getting ahead of situation where you lose all the court cases is the right one.

I think if they could have done something better, it would be would have been bringing people along every day folks.

I think a lot of the backlash that you're seeing now is the result of a lack of engagement with folks about what's happening on individual deals.

In this court case is an example of that.

I'll point out that John rustad and correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe he said to stop all negotiations and to put it all through the courts.

Through the courts, which would be a really bad move.

It would lead to the kind of things that he is fear mongering that would actually happen.

Taking it out of the hands of politicians who negotiate and who putting into the hands of courts who deal with absolutist decisions will create a great, big problem.

And just on the no risk to private property, that is absolutely one hundred percent true for right now, at this moment in time.

I think what the court ruling opens up though, is that if circumstances change and if people change, a nation's view on private property can change as well.

So in the immediate term, Jillian is one hundred percent right.

The risk is a go forward one and not in play now, but could be in the play in the future.

And that's why you see a lot of uncertainty from folks, particularly in Richmond right now.

Just strikes me.

I'll close it off with my one final thought on this, but it just strikes me like if the strategy of negotiated deals seems to have been undermined over seventy eight years of the secrecy around those negotiated deals, right, and that if the path is not to go to court but to negotiate, but the negotiation results in nation to nation conversation, confidential discussions that get sprung on people at the end.

Whether it's the Pender Harbor dock management issue, whether it's the Land Act co governance on Crown Land, whether it's the Guide Outfitters from the Chilcoton decision, whether it's the Heritage Conservation Act, whether it's the HIDA constitutional enshrinement of that Act, or whether it's the Richmond case.

It feels like the negotiation, the public willingness to follow negotiations sort of is declining with the fact that they don't feel like they're part of it.

To the point where it just gets sprung on them.

And we're all dealing with these things at the end, which is a real challenge for government, even if you're doing it in good faith.

It brings us to like couch and the couch and nation decision is just kind of the match that lights the public discontent on a bunch of other things.

So, boy, we're gonna be talking about that more, I'm sure, because the government is now applying for a stay and there'll be some other things.

But I just want to put one more topic on the table here for you.

Guys.

Kind of got lost a little bit at the start of the week, but we had the Ontario anti tariff ads prompting US President Donald Trump to suspend trade talks with Canada, levy another ten percent or threatened to on tariffs, and BC Premier David be coming out and said, well, we got softwood lumber ads that we're planning on doing in American markets and we're going to follow through with them.

We think they're the right approach.

We think this is the right way to do it.

Despite what happened with Trump, Jillian that you know, he faced a lot of questions, should we do that if the result in Ontario is that the President gets upset hits us harder, should be see keep doing those ads.

He thinks that's the right approach.

What did you think of that?

It's so, I mean, have we seen the ads?

I actually haven't seen them yet.

You haven't seen it.

They're supposed to launch.

They're supposed to be digital on softwood next month, so they're not TV ads.

We don't even know what's in them.

Yeah, yeah, what I've heard about what I've heard about what's in them, and then is very focused on the issue and the cost to Americans on building homes of the softwood tariffs.

So anyways, that's just what i've heard.

Is in them.

And an animatronic Yeah, there's no, there's nothing.

It's there's none of that aggressive in your face the tone that was in the Ontario once.

Yeah, that was going to be my point.

I think the tone really matters because like there are something I mean.

And again, I think every time we talked about this, like it's so hard to decipher Trump, he seems to respond differently to different strategies depending on who they're coming from.

I think that like what is on Canada's side is American public opinion which is turning against tariffs, which is now as they get closer to their midterms, causing politicians in swing writings to turn against them and to consider action.

So I think things that are more in line of public education that kind of play up Canada's positive image as a partner and a friend and of you know, having aligned interests, it could be effective.

And I think, you know, the proof will be in the putting, depending on what happens.

And like you know, there's the Senate Democrats are trying to bring votes to bring down the tariffs.

They were successful in overturning tariffs against Brazil, so you know, it's possible.

I think that, like every time that Mark Kearney has caved to appease Trump by dropping things, it's also resulted in nothing.

So we'll see.

I definitely think it seems like the aggressive, you know, trying to embarrass overtly embarrassed Trump might have not been the right approach from Ontario, but you know, could be we'll see over to decipher.

Yeah, well there's a big discussion in Ontario about did the Prime Minister know that these ads were from and the chief of staff know and whatever but Elliott raises the issue again.

Ebe's office has said it's not showing the ads to the Prime minister and it's not looking for approval from the Prime Minister before it runs them, which sort of leads to like, like we got what twelve governors in Canada randomly doing their own thing.

As Trump would say, like, well, then, well, the only real negotiator is the national government, but the premiers just kind of keep taking them ount at the knees.

I don't know if that approach makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, to tease out that that piece there of Carney not knowing about the ads or not seeing the ads.

The criticism here is that the Liberal government claimed that the ad backfired, but yet the prime minister's may or may not have seen the ad ahead of time, so that excuse doesn't necessarily hold as much weight.

But it's interesting you do an add because you're trying to target an audience, and in this case, to what Jillian was saying, like who's your audience here in that like this is better maybe closer to the mid terms if you're trying to persuade the public in the States, but rather David Eb's better off spending that money domestically, because this is what we can control here.

Put an education campaign behind what you're doing in standing up for softword lumber.

Domestically, you're not going to spend seventy four million dollars like Doug Ford did, and so to really have a great impact in the market in the United States, you're going to have to spend a lot of change, and so that it's it's better off just doing it here in our in our local province.

The other aspect of all of this is that if the audience is to persuade public sentiment, that's money lost, because really you're trying to persuade one person.

You're targeting ads for one person, and that's Donald Trump.

And so what is the point really in all of this, in all of these like independent campaigns of trying to show that you are the better person in negotiating with Donald Trump.

And that's exactly what Doug Ford is doing.

It's what Danielle Smith is kind of doing with her demands that she has for Alberta.

And it is now what David Ebe is trying to do, and look at me, I can be the one to stand up against Trump too.

Is to stand behind the pre by the Prime minister and let the Prime minister do the negotiating because it is a one on one negotiation, not the public sentiment of all of these digital audiences that you're trying to persuade.

Really at the base of this is like shut up and let them cook, right.

It doesn't let eb accomplish what is his seemingly political.

Goal right now, which is to sort of.

Portray BC is not getting listened to by Ottawa on softwood and on it's the economic impact and sort of continue to keep saying that the federal government spends too much time on auto sector and steal and aluminum and not enough time on BC.

What that like seems to be what he's trying to continually sort of push and I guess this is part of that, But that's that's.

The problem here.

What we're pushing is exposure versus the actual power to negotiate with this one person.

And that's the problem with politics right now is that everything is perceived power.

It's who has the most influence and who is spending more money and doing more things than the actual criticism of what those new policy and bills would actually do, and and it's making for a apologies, but a dumber conversation because we're talking about how much where we're spending on ads versus what the negotiation really means.

Line by line, Jeff, should you just shut up and let Papa Trudeau take it over?

The finish line?

Pop Trudeau?

That guy's Dayton Carrie, Katy Perry.

We're talking about Carney, Papa Carney, wrong guy.

Should he just let him go?

Let him do it and say I have confidence in the Prime Minister.

You know well, I think that the Premier signaled publicly that the ads are coming, so you can only assume that there's going to be some coordination between BC and AUTO on that.

Look, I agree with everything that Gillian said, and I think Ali makes good points on the need to communicate domestically at or.

I don't know that every British Columbian is aware of and understands the position the Premier is taking on Trump and tariffs.

And if you want any proof of that, there was a new LAJ poll out this week.

I'll point out that it had the horse race number of what party you support forty eight for the NDP and thirty eight for the Conservatives and sixty three percent of people think John Rustad should resign, But I'm not one of those people.

I think he should be there for the next three years.

But it asked what's your top you know, what's your your top issues, your top three issues, and Trump tariffs was like a combined total of eight eight percent out of three hundred, and it was housing, healthcare in the economy, which were the top three issues.

So there's I think there's a I think that the premiere with the right tone should have these ads in the United States.

I think he should, and I think he should communicate with British Columbians about what he's doing, and if that means advertising, that will set the oppositions here on fire.

But I think there's a rule for it in times like these, for government to get out and say this is what we're doing on at least on the economic front, which is important to folks, and if they want to raise awareness of the Trump stuff, this is big and it's real, and more people should be paying attention to it than four to eight percent as the poll suggested.

Well, we'll see if he follows through with those ads.

It felt like he also was using it as a sort of flare to get some federal ministers to come out here and have an emergency softwood lumber summit and on forestry which is occurring next week, and so he's accomplished that, and perhaps the ads.

Don't even appear after that.

I don't know.

We'll late and see what comes out of that softwood lumber summit with two or three three federal Cabinet ministers.

And the next week plus is FNLC the first Nation As Leadership Council gathering in Vancouver next week, so there'll be lots to talk about there.

Thank you to the panel for being here walking us through everything, and thank you for listening.

Make sure you subscribe for all the latest in BC politics.

We will be back next week here on Political Capital