Welcome to Need to Know, The Hub’s twice-weekly roundup of expert insights into the biggest economic stories, political news, and policy developments that Hub readers need to be keeping their eyes on.
We can protect against fires without infringing so far on our hard-won rights
By Kelden Formosa, a political commentator and elementary school teacher
Canadians love their forests, especially in the summer. We are a nation of hikers, birdwatchers, fishers, hunters, and amateur botanists. It’s part of what makes us, us. But as wildfire risks have increased, we’ve learned that our forests can also pose a threat, especially during droughts and in areas where people live deep in the woods.
It makes sense to take precautions to avoid sparking wildfires. Across Canada, provincial governments regularly ban campfires, ATV use, smoking, and barbecues in wooded areas when there’s high fire risk. Canadians are responsible and reasonable people as a rule, so almost nobody opposes these restrictions, even when they’re enforced with stiff fines.
But recently, the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have gone further, banning almost everyone from accessing all public wooded land across the province—and including private land in Nova Scotia. With some seemingly race-based exceptions, even walking through the woods is prohibited.
This is an overreach. New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt herself admitted that the idea of walking starting a fire was “ridiculous.” My running shoes don’t throw sparks, and neither do yours. Nobody is safer today because conscientious people are banned from walking in the woods. Indeed, risks may increase as police are distracted by hundreds of calls to go after responsible forest users—whose very presence in the woods would have acted as a deterrent to arsonists and other irresponsible actors.
Her second argument, that you might break your leg in the forest and distract EMS staff, is also troubling. By this logic, anything could be banned if the government was too busy to protect it—citizens would have no right to assess their own risks.
Hub AI
It’s understandable that people want the most drastic, sweeping restrictions put in place when they’re frightened. We feel so little control over the danger that we want to control at least something, even if it won’t really make us any safer. This is a natural human instinct, but one we should treat cautiously. In the short term, blanket bans can cause more harm than good. In the long term, they erode trust—especially when leaders push measures the public can see don’t match the facts. In emergencies, we need our leaders to be especially measured in their decision-making, relying on evidence and balancing risks and restrictions proportionately. On social media, defenders of this overreach—including many in the consultant class—often mischaracterize those who oppose it, calling them selfish and pretending they aren’t willing to accept any limits on their behaviour, even as those opponents endorse effective, targeted restrictions like fire bans. Some have even argued, falsely, that everyone in the Maritimes supports the restrictions and that people from points west should butt out. They forget that we still share a country and that it’s quite reasonable for people in one province to be concerned for their friends, family, and fellow citizens in others—not to mention that precedents set in the east may matter further west soon enough. But these points betray the weakness of their defence. The bans on walking in the woods are so disproportionate and so hard to justify on their merits that defenders lash out at people asking fair questions about whether they’re effective or proportional. Some of this lashing out is justified by fear and frustration, but there does seem to be a bit of political grandstanding to it, too. Wildfires continue to pose a risk in many parts of the country—and they likely will for many summers to come. Our leaders will need to make thoughtful, proportionate, evidence-based decisions to manage those risks. But locking everyone out of the woods is not management. It’s overreach. We can keep people safe without taking away our freedom to enjoy the very forests we’re trying to protect. Let’s not draw hasty conclusions about the B.C. Indigenous land decision By Kirk LaPointe, The Hub’s B.C. correspondent When I woke up this morning in beautiful British Columbia, the sky had not fallen. The sheriff had not pounded the door to evict me, nor was my inbox serving notice to vacate my property. Social media, on the other hand, had hair on fire. B.C. politics are so easily flammable. The B.C. Supreme Court has recognized Aboriginal title for the Cowichan alliance to a defined footprint on SE Lulu Island in Richmond, the municipality to the south of Vancouver, and affirmed a constitutionally protected right to fish in the Fraser River’s south arm. The judgment declares title in an urban/industrial setting (including some mansions) and submerged lands—pushing the law beyond the remote uninhabited contexts most people associate with Aboriginal title. Two immediate implications flow. First, parts of the order are suspended for 18 months to allow an orderly transition. That signals process, not shock therapy: governments are expected to organize negotiations and interim protocols rather than trigger abrupt changes on the ground. Second, the province has said it will appeal and seek a stay, particularly to define protections on private property, so the legal questions are far from settled, and timelines could be extended. This is not the time to draw conclusions. For private property, the court did not issue declarations against third-party fee-simple titles in this round. The ruling invalidates certain Crown- and city-held fee simple interests within the footprint and says Cowichan consent would be required for any uses or improvements. For privately held land inside the area, the court placed a duty on the Crown to reconcile conflicts created by past Crown grants through compensation, easements, or other arrangements. Practically, that means owners aren’t being hauled into court tomorrow; the onus sits with government to lead reconciliation. This is a beast for the BC NDP government to handle, to be sure. At the same time, the decision’s legal reasoning matters: the Court stated that a registered fee-simple title is not conclusive against proven Aboriginal title. That principle, if upheld on appeal, narrows the protective halo many assume so-called “indefeasibility” provides when Aboriginal title is later established. It’s why legal analysts say the judgment raises real questions for lenders, insurers, and due diligence, especially within the footprint. Expect more process rather than immediate upheaval: enhanced diligence for transactions and permitting in the footprint; potential interim consent/consultation steps for new works; and formal negotiation tables among Cowichan, B.C., Canada, and local authorities. Outside the footprint, there is no direct legal change. The broader effects will come (if at all) from appellate rulings and any negotiated frameworks governments publish. And the precedent is not national in one stroke. Regions covered by historic or modern treaties are situated differently. But non-treaty areas, or places where treaty coverage is disputed, will study this ruling closely because it clarifies how courts may weigh constitutional Aboriginal title against later Crown-derived interests, including fee simple. But expropriation is unlikely by government or a court order. In short: a mapped, bounded change today and a larger constitutional conversation tomorrow. ChatGPT-5 is a new model with similar dilemmas By Chase Tribble, senior consultant at Counsel Public Affairs As the AI race continues, OpenAI has released its newest AI chatbot, GPT-5. OpenAI promised “PhD-level” comprehension in areas such as writing or coding, and promised that the new model would be less prone to “AI hallucinations,” which occur when an AI model outputs false or misleading information in response to a query. Many users were expecting to see a new and improved model that built on the successes of GPT-4o, but the launch has received mixed reviews. Users’ experience of the new model has suggested that it is less accurate and produces content more slowly than its previous version. Additionally, several users have said that the new model’s output is very robotic and less personable than the older version. With the incoming consumer feedback, Sam Altman announced on August 8 that it would allow Plus (paid) users to revert to GPT-4o while the issues with the current model persist, with the promise that “GPT-5 will seem smarter starting today.” With any new technological rollout, there will always be updates and modifications to make sure that programs are working correctly after they are launched. Grok 3, the second-most recent AI model from Elon Musk’s xAI, also received similar backlash due to its inaccurate outputs and slow response times. Apple Intelligence, an AI program used in Apple devices, received criticism from the BBC that the AI had created a misleading headline when it grouped multiple notifications. AI developers will continue to innovate and push the limits with their models, potentially introducing new services to help companies succeed. In any corporate industry, it will always be essential to fact-check and review what is being put out by these models or AI. While these models are getting better day by day, supported by new inputs and expert engineers, they should still be viewed as tools in the workplace and not be given the final word. Models may change, but people’s full scope of understanding and nuances will always be needed in the workplace.
The Hub’s mission is to create and curate news, analysis, and insights about a dynamic and better future for Canada in a single online information source.
