We'd have to review again more carefully, but my understanding is that it would be their role as attorney general, which of course we also fulfill in advising all the time consistently as to what the likelihood of an adverse outcome would be. But it's not a statutory obligation on the attorney general, the minister in B.C., to report in the same way that we have here.
If you would indulge me, the international examples are interesting. If you look at New Zealand, you see that they have a similar statutory obligation, but it's phrased quite differently and talks about the minister reporting when something “appears to be inconsistent”. Elsewhere, in the United Kingdom and Australia, there are different types of standards whereby ministers or attorneys general are reporting on “compatibility”, as opposed to reporting on something being inconsistent.
It's just important to remain mindful of the way in which section 4.1 is framed, and that has, of course, influenced the way it's been interpreted. The issue is before the courts, though, and we will see, of course, how the Federal Court rules.