we would like to acknowledge the traditional territories of the people of the treaty seven region in southern alberta which includes the blackfoot confederacy comprising the sixika pagani and kainai first nations as well as the tsutsuna first nation and the stoney nakota including the chinooky bears pot and wesley first nations the city of calgary is also home to metis nation of alberta region three good afternoon and and perhaps good evening to some of you thank you for joining the school of public policy's extractive resource governance program today for another webinar in our series on canada's indigenous indigenous peoples and resource development the ergp's mandate is to share canada's expertise in responsible and sustainable resource extractions with jurisdictions domestically and around the world natural resources bring opportunities for people to enjoy economic growth and prosperity but to achieve this economic benefit in a manner that protects social environmental values it is important that organizations have the tools to build systems of legislation regulation and policies with the perspective of its peoples particularly those affected by development clearly understood and considered in that context it is my honor and privilege to chair this webinar and what i hope is that we are contributing to the work that reimagines resource development within the within the framework of reconciliation it is my pleasure to introduce to you today the moderator of this webinar dr heather axner perot dr exner pearl has over 15 years of experience in indigenous and northern economic development governance health and post-secondary education she has published and are presented on indigenous economic and resource development urban reserves telehealth and numerous other issues thank you dr extra perrault for moderating this panel choke panel discussion uh mazie cho over to you heather all right thanks so much deborah good afternoon everybody it's my pleasure to be here with you today to talk about blueberry river urban skin and grassy mountain cases and their implications for indigenous rights and resource development uh so these are we know we chose these cases these some decisions have been made uh in the last couple months that i believe could have sweeping implications for resource development indigenous rights and and certainly i don't i don't know christine if we if mice might i'm not appearing on the slide i don't think if you can make me the presenter i'll let them figure that out i'll keep talking uh but these have you know sweeping implications for how resources may uh proceed and of course many indigenous rights cases have had those kinds of implications in the past and have had those sweeping implications but this comes in a context where now commodities are booming indigenous nations and businesses are becoming more involved in resource development and we're facing an energy crisis and the climate crisis either of which both of which will require more canadian resources so it is very important that we get resource development right in canada so to help us understand what these different uh cases mean all the implications we have a fabulous panel of experts i have sandy carpenter who is the co-founder of canadian regulatory and indigenous law ryan robb who is the ceo of stoney tribal administration carol wildcat who is the consultation director of urban skin creation and professor dwight newman who is a canada research chair in indigenous rights in constitutional and international law at the university of saskatchewan i do regret for some of you who are looking for a counselor robin newescu from the uh from the blueberry river first nation unfortunately she's ill today so could not join us i'm very grateful for sandy's for stepping in at the last minute providing his expertise as we discuss these things so just before we begin and move on to our panelists i'm going to just start with a very high level overview of what these three cases are for those of you who aren't terribly familiar in the case of blue bay river uh this bc supreme court agreed in a decision in june that the cumulative impacts of development had violated the blueberry river first nations treaty rights of course they're in treaty 8. they found the judgment found that the province's regulatory system for assessing cumulative effects was lacking and that the province cannot take up so much land that the blueberry river people can no longer meaningfully exercise their rights to hunt trap and fish in a manner consistent with their way of life the bc government did not appeal i know there were many concerns in industry what this meant a lot of uh permits were frozen but in fact there was another advan uh movement kind of agreement announced last week between bc and blueberry river allowed for 195 of those term permitted works to continue and provided 65 million dollars to fund work to heal the land and create jobs with land and water reclamation so uh one more big i guess movement in the case last week in the case of the urban skin and of course we'll get to carol shortly uh the urban skin career one of the four nations of massachusetts in western alberta they contested a designation order that the federal minister of for the environment jonathan wilkinson had placed on the phase two expansion of vista coal mine in two in july 2020. and the urban skin uh you know appealed this decision and the judge agreed with them saying that the federal government had inexplicably froze out their own skin from a very one-sided process and ordered them to review their order um the judge or you know the the minister quickly reviewed the order i guess because last week for milan he said that uh the order will stand and i'm sure we'll get to carol's opinion on that uh in the case of grassy mountain venga mining is proposing to construct an operating open pit metallurgical coal mine near the crow's nest past it was subject to an assessment by a joint or federal provincial review panel and determined not to be in the public interest despite all treaty seven first nations and metis region three having signed agreements with manga and providing letters that they had no objection to the project and so in this case stoning the coordinations and i think pikani are also involved in appeal have made the decision to appeal this decision finding that the decision was flawed and we'll hear more from ryan on that so why are these all important for me there are some implications uh there may be enormous implications first that governments have to take into account better take into account cumulative impacts uh because the right to hunting trap and fish is endangered in many places this may have many ripple effects and in the case of the ermine skin the grassy mountain that government must take into consideration indigenous people's economic rights and maybe we're moving into an era where indigenous rights does not just prevent government from saying yes to resource projects but may also prevent them from saying no so we're going to hear from our four panelists as they provide some open remarks on their understanding of the cases their impression of the cases and the implications and then i'm going to have a few questions for them uh but i will hope to reserve at least 20 25 minutes uh for audience questions we have a very informed and knowledgeable audience and we hope to hear from you and get your maybe you can get some free legal advice from sandy and dwight and ask your questions in the q a so to get us started i'm going to first turn it over to sandy carpenter and let's see if we can get your face onto the big screen here am i there on the big screen heather you are yes perfect and apologies to anybody who uh said they heard me shuffling papers in the background i've got my earphones in so if i was shoveling papers i didn't hear it but i didn't realize it um thank you very much for having me uh really appreciate it and the opportunity to share some thoughts i'm not going to share any thoughts on ryan and carol's cases at this point in time more than happy to jump in later but you guys are close to these issues and i think the first dibs on them should certainly come from you i will share some thoughts on the blueberry case uh and as heather pointed out and i i won't cover uh everything that she said um the blueberry case is significant in blueberry the blueberry first nation had been complaining about cumulative effects uh in its traditional territory for years and as long as i can remember and i've been doing this for a long long time and the province of british columbia got the letters it got the memos it got the phone calls and it was constantly we're doing something about this or you should speak to so and so about this and ultimately the blueberry were not happy with the province's response and the development within their traditional territory continued and ultimately in 2016 they sued the province because they said they were no longer able to exercise their treaty rights and as heather said ultimately they were successful and i think that the big difference in blueberry from you know what a lot of you who follow developments in this area of the law is this wasn't your normal sort of duty to consult case somebody said you know my hunting rights will be affected in this particular case and so therefore you need to consult with me and you didn't do a good enough job and i'm trying to take that to court this case was about blueberry actually saying i'm not just going to assert my rights i'm going to go to court and i'm going to prove what rights that i have under treaty 8 and that's what they did they did it from the perspective of somebody who has worked in this area for a long time in an amazingly short period of time so you know the traditional thought has always been well it takes 20 years to prove rights and so some first nations just go well i'm not going to bother um and uh the reciprocal of that if you will um sometimes is and i want to suggest all the time is well we don't really need to worry about that right now because it's going to be a long time before they prove their rights so we just need to deal with them as assertions if you will at this point in time but blueberries set out to prove its rights even though it paused for a couple of times to negotiate during the course of the proceedings ultimately from start to finish including almost a 2000 paragraph decision from the bc supreme court it took roughly a period of five years which is an amazingly quick timeline on something of this nature the case is clearly significant from blueberry's perspective they would not have brought it otherwise and we often hear about first nations and indigenous people [Music] attempting to protect their rights and then and i've been caught in this position more than once suddenly it turns out that oh well we've reached a deal and this wasn't this case this was a case a boat putting a line in the sand and saying we're going to defend what's left of our traditional territory so the cases of obvious significance to the blueberry and obviously to the provinces we'll get into later but it's also has broader significance and and i expect that dwight will probably expand um on this but if you read the case and don't be daunted by the fact that it's 2 000 paragraphs it comes in bite sized pieces and it's a fascinating deep dive into what went on when treaty 8 was negotiated and it's a fascinating deep dive into what's gone on in blueberry territory over the years and into the provincial regulatory regimes and how they try or not to cope with these issues and the different perspectives of blueberry and the province of british columbia in this pla case but beyond that the conclusions that the judge makes with respect to treaty 8 there's no distinction in those between blueberry and all of the rest of the first nations if you will in treaty eight in fact there is a relatively deep dive to the extent that the oral and historical records show what was promised to those treaty eight first nations who initially signed treaty back in 1899 at lower slave lake very little discussion of what took place when blueberry adhered to the treaty in 1900 it wasn't a big deal apparently at the time so hard from a practitioner's perspective to distinguish what was told all first nations in 1899 from treaty 8 first nations as a whole so somebody who wants to say oh well this is just about blueberry this may not just be uh about blueberry i'm heather mentioned a hunting fishing trapping we all resort to those sort of little boxes you know when people are out there consulting with first nations but what the judge found here was it's not just about hunting fishing trapping it's about a way of life and how those activities fit within blueberries way of life and how they fit within blueberry seasonal round and how important it is to the maintenance of who they are that those um activities in the way that blueberry has practiced them for thousands of years are able to uh continue the case also has significance both within treaty 8 and perhaps in other numbered treaties for its interpretation of the taking up clause and some people suggested that the taking up clause could go all the way to well if there's no right ability to exercise the rights left at the end of the day then finally you get into the point where maybe the crown has done too much under its ability to exercise it's taking up clause and the judge said no i disagree with that there's gotta be a middle line between you can't take up any land and you can take up all of the land so her conclusion was you can only take up so much land to the point where it has a meaningful impact on the exercise of blueberry's way of life as they understand it it goes on and on and on the conclusions with respect to the oil and gas regime the forest regime the wildlife regime the cumulative effects regime in bc all were found wanting all were found to basically not take into account anything with respect to cumulative effects in the big scheme of things and very little with respect to treaty rights even though we've all been living in this world with respect to the duty to consult for years and years and years and the last point i'll make and this goes even beyond the indigenous issue is there may be other cases out there on cumulative effects that uh make this point but most of the cases that deal with cumulative effects deal with it as this hypothetical thing you should have considered cumulative effects cumulative effects are something that is required to be taken into account as part of a decision-making process blueberries shows that cumulative effects are real blueberry highlights that cumulative effects aren't just real but cumulative effects can be devastating not just in this case to indigenous people's way of life but to the various resources and habitats and other systems that are relied on out there and so for people who are out there saying i want to make an argument around cumulative effects this is a case that um they are going to be able to point to and say here's the evidence this isn't just a hypothetical exercise this is a real thing and so to go back to heather's comment about living in a world where we're in transition on a whole bunch of issues um and including uh the cumulative effects of all of what we've done before and all of what we're proposing to do now i see this as being a touchstone uh going forward so i'll just leave it at that heather fabulous thank you so much sandy so while that case highlighted we say that you know we typically go back to hunting gathering and fishing the next two cases also really talk about how that's not you can't reduce indigenous rates just to hunting fishing and gathering self-determination economic rates are also part of it so ryan why don't you tell us a little bit about the grassy mountain cakes and the involvement of this stoney nakota sure thanks heather um an ambawa stitch it's a wonderful day from from here in in morley um this is a bit of background as the stoney nations as mentioned in the the opening uh is comprised of the bears podchenikin wesley first nations we also have three reserves three landmasses uh morley which i'm sitting in today which is sir halfway between calgary and banff uh we have another one called bighorn which is up sort of close to nordig a rocky mountain house area we have a southern reserve called eaton valley which is mostly straight a little bit west of longview so grassy mountain for those people that don't know is is uh down in prosness pass in the very southern part of uh of alberta it's probably less than 80 kilometers uh from our southern reserve in eden valley to get to and for uh perspective it's also a metallurgical coal mine um is the proposal from bengal um important for me to describe at the beginning stoney um we are agnostic to coal and the production of that our appeal actually doesn't have to do with coal per se we actually have three three main issues on it just before i tell you those issues it's important for us to also recognize that this mine and part of our appeal is actually on what's called category four mine lands now that's already disturbed lands i would like to use the term brownfield however i've personally toured it with our chief and councils i think a better term is black um field nothing grows there it was abandoned uh i'd have to ask them 50 years ago um and there was no remediation done or the remediation was done to 19 standards 15 50 years ago so that led us to take a look and really there's two things we're now appealing and one is the the joint review panel that came out from the aer um the other is the federal decision which then came subsequently but but has now been in front of this discussion so the joint review panel um and it's very similar that we're going to argue on the federal although there's a little bit extra there's three main issues um that we were concerned with uh the first of which is and heather mentioned at the beginning is ibas or income benefit agreements we call them different things in industry um but income benefit agreements were in place with all of the nations of treaty seven uh by riversdale banga at the beginning of this this process the grp came back and and some of the language around it was um provocative at best and it said regardless of the nations having agreements we effectively know better and we are going to therefore disallow this this application now that's concerning to us obviously um and there's a bigger question on on ibas and and how do those work we tend to treat ibas as the culmination of consultation um right we need to work on in a nutshell you need to work on our traditional use our traditional knowledge um you work all of those and then is there a commercial deal quite often there is in ibas um i can tell you i can't disclose what's in the iba but i can tell you the actual financial contribution is quite nominal um it's not even that wouldn't be a rounding error or material in an audit for us what it did for us though that is exceptionally important is it also guaranteed us um seats on remediation and mediation mitigation um the replanting the remediation of the lands that are obviously quite disrupted it had our knowledge keepers involved so that was a concern for us and i think there's a bigger question that we'll talk about later about what does that mean for ibas this is an agreement that heather talked about earlier that we're in um support of what happens now if we're not in support of something is the government able to walk in and say no it's now in your best interest as they've done in this case i think it's important to also recognize we and i know carol is following me so i have to be a little bit careful um we actually have a statement of concern in on on the cole spur mine um and then so we had our like i said we have our iba involved that was effectively dismissed and i know to carol's point that's going to be an issue in a second the second point we had was we actually have a a large land claim called the title case and it shows usage um of stonies and it really runs from the 49th parallel up to about the hinton area on the eastern slopes of the reserve and really jrp started to say well you know the stones we don't think necessarily use it as much as they should or won't necessarily be impacted that's of concern the third point um which i think is important and i've touched on a little bit is the environmental uh remediation of the site as i mentioned i would call this a blackfield site because it is so disturbed um then we start to have concerns with coal and i'm certainly not a geologist or a chemist but you have the concept of selenium now potentially getting into waters once it's exposed to oxygen again this is not a green field category to virgin side of a mountain that's going to be ripped up this is one that was disturbed and again 50 years ago it was abandoned we are unable to use this land and have been unable to use this land for the last 50 years so i know that if a company now in this case rivers dale banga is to produce out of that mine they would have to remediate back to today's standards so the concern that the stoney nakota have is we would certainly like to use that land again but if industry partner isn't going to remediate it does that mean that the federal provincial government is going to come in and remedy it for us because it stands right now it's an awfully large scar that we can't utilize our lands at all so those are the three reasons why we appealed what's very interesting to us and what's happened um and to clarify we're seeking leave to appeal on the provincial jrp that's the first step and then presupposing we get that we'll have an appeal the federal government also came down just before the writ dropped um and just and to sandy's comment on on duty to consult it was interesting and i'm sure cara will speak about this in a moment um while all the nations in treaty 7 had an iba with benga the courts then ruled that cole spur um the fed that the federal government couldn't um arbitrarily walk in without recognizing consulting with nations that had ibas um which is urban skin they applied the same rationale uh to stoney and well actually all the treaty seven nations so we've now appealed on the federal side that the courts had just told the federal government that they had to consult with the nations that had ibas prior to making a decision and that was never done for those in the those in the audience that that may know we also would take a little bit of concern on how the federal government even did consultation um in carroll's case on cole spur we are also a consultation nation and we had less than three weeks to respond to consultation after the courts had forced them in cole spur which anybody that's played in in this field knows three weeks is way too short for us to have ever had a turnaround um but somehow the federal government didn't seem to think that that court ruling applied to the grassy mountain case so that's sort of uh where the stones are uh right now um i think it'll be interesting over the next month or two to see how this develops out uh i'll try to leave it there heather because i know i know i'm gonna be squished on time at the other end well that's fascinating and thank you ryan and i think for a lot of people who don't follow closely you might just think cold bad environment good you know and that's where it ends and thank you for articulating why it's so much you know it's much deeper than that and so i'll turn it over to you carol then you know ryan's ryan's uh fed you a few lines that you can follow up on but tell us about the urban skin case and and uh the coal mine there well good afternoon um i was really surprised when uh we got a letter in july 2020 that the minister had reconsidered his position uh just following requests by two first nations and a group of environmental non-governmental agencies we were not notified of this reconsideration the minister subsequently chose to designate phase two in the vistas coal mine project under the designation or act and in fact for us the designation order stopped development until uh impact assessment could have been done so in august 2020 we decided that we would um seek a judicial review on the designation order on the basis that the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair and the minister failed to fully fulfill the duty to consult ourselves and so we went into court that way sorry i'm just a little bit nervous i don't know why i'm usually not um you know when it was a non-designation decision he sought consultation with 31 first nations when he redesignated it tioni went off the request of two other first nations and non-governmental agencies and i thought that was really unfair because we are now at a time and an age whereby canada is not a good trustee i don't believe they ever were for first nations anyway throughout canada because historically we can look back and see those type of bad decisions being made so if canada has the right to do these without consulting first nations who have impact benefit agreements that are an extension of our treaty and aboriginal rights that are protected under section 35 of the canada's constitution then where's the consultation why did you leave us out that area yes it is very disturbed lands am i supposed to keep protecting land how am i supposed to keep protecting water and how am i supposed to keep protecting those rights that are protected under canada and those treaty obligations that should have been sitting there we live in a world where i wasn't even allowed to even though my hunting fishing trapping rights are are under canada's constitution i wasn't even allowed to create an economy from that so at what point do i quit being on the periphery looking in at what point do we as first nations stand up and act sovereignly and start making decisions that protect our long-term interests i work for the children that aren't born yet and i'm trying to retain at least some legacy in a piece of land and at what point do i quit being the steward so that i can sit and know that well not sit but participate in being part of a framework that looks after water keeps an eye on it that looks after the soil keeps an eye on it looks after cumulative effects and keeps an eye on it canada is still so colonial the way they treat us the way they talk to us the way they make decisions on our behalf at what point are my economic rights supposed to be protected i think this was an incredible win for urban skincare and also brother treaty nations within canada and indigenous groups it's recognizing that yes we are sovereign we've been here a very long time and we've been complaining for a very long time i think it's right when [Music] elders parents especially my parents told me to go get educated and go learn that english language because this english language one word has seven terms and definitions to it depending on how you use it and that's how canada continues to legislate and policy as a way i know i get quite passionate when i talk about this because it's my history it's my my stories my connection to these areas and if i'm not participating to help maintaining reclaiming and rebuilding and looking after the waters so that future the children that aren't born have a legacy then i don't think i've done my job as a human i have been in consultation for 20 years i was even a consultation manager for alberta so that was a good learning experience but i've always thought canada and alberta and the provinces need to work better in doing proper consultation and if an impact benefit agreement or a mutual agreement or a working agreement can support my future existence then i think that's good i can't talk about what was in those agreements but i can tell you this they were important for the rebuilding of some infrastructure for my people learning about reclamation and that business and actually that being a real participant in it and to continue to do what i'm supposed to do to guard and protect the water and the land and the animals that i need to speak for my elder agnes small boy who is no longer with us she hasn't been on this earth for many years but she always said we need to stand up and talk for the four-legged for the at for the ones who fly for the plants we we use for our medicines and where does that come into water and soil and land if canada is so stuck in their ways where they think i can't think for myself or i can't act for myself or i can't go and get a future well then they're very wrong i'm tired of being held down by colonial policies that continually legislate me and my rights away canada doesn't like to hear we live in apartheid but we do albeit silent it's very silent because we're legislated so many policies so for me this review was incredible i was i was surprised because you know sometimes these things don't work out in court right but this one did blueberries did grassy grassy coal mines did all of these were really important decisions that affect the future of my people and all the indigenous peoples in canada and maybe who knows maybe we've set a format for other indigenous peoples throughout the world because free prior and informed consent that's what all of this is about it's about my indigenous rights my human rights because i was the peoples before i signed treaty treaty didn't make me trillion is an agreement it's an international agreement between two nations that allowed canada to grow and prosper off my back and my people's backs natural resources are taken away from us and now because the world finally wants to be clean almost like i'm being punished and how can that be when i'm finally standing up for what i should be able to do for my future i'm not going anywhere the indigenous people aren't going anywhere we're here in fact canada and the provinces are in my backyard so i have a right to to protect what i think is there to be protected my history is in those eastern slopes my history is in all those category lands that have been categorized and even i dare say grandfathered to industry but certainly not to me so i walk a fine line when i do this work i walk a fine line and trying to maintain who i am still i walk a fine line and trying to create economic opportunities so that my people can grow so that i have families that are able to live at a standard that is above poverty because that's still a reality and i know all of this stuff it's all holistic and at some point we all got to work together we all need water we all need clean air we all need land to connect to because as human beings that's what we need and for me this decision was incredible because for the first time in my life i heard that my economic opportunities are connected to section 35 rights protected under canada's constitution but yet a minister and some courts have decided that they don't need to consult with us yet consultation is a very important part of my development and my people's developments mitigation accommodation compensation i'm a big fan of those always happen because i had a oil oil production at pigeon lake within my my traditional territory my ancestral never mind traditional it's my ancestral territory right in my backyard for 50 years we had oil being taken out of the land did we prosper maybe by passive royalty receivership but did we really prosper where's the jobs where's the small businesses that get to grow from industries that surround communities it never happened resource developers got all that money and yep i got a small for a small portion of that right just a very small portion when there's industries in the eastern slopes that are going to affect how my my future is going to live i will be there i will participate but i will participate in reclamation in making sure that the water studies are done and making sure that the animals that i'm supposed to also be talking for are being looked after when you talk about consultation i know people only try and think about what we always hear right fishing trapping hunting and gathering well i'm more than that my people are more than that so those impact benefit agreements that we pursue are for the socio-economic growth of urban skincare nation therefore the education legacies within my nation so that our people can continue going to university or whatever trade they want to go to and to pursue a life that's how important all this stuff is to me it's about life even water when you talk about water nippy there's a story to that too water is life we all know that so again i walk a fine line when i start doing impact benefit agreements but they're for socio-economic growth therefore keeping an eye on the land and making sure we have a true partnership with industry canada's ministers and courts need to start thinking a little bit more generously on how they define my life i'm i'm not i have a mind my grandmother used to say nista maicino and that in english means me too i'm human i'm a person and up until about 1965 i think i don't believe we were treated like people i still don't believe we're treated like people until i have that sovereign right and that recognition between governments and agencies and resource developers then i've entered this this right to be considered a human like goodness every time we go to court we're protecting our rights as peoples we need to be participating in these arenas because for far too long we were on the outside looking in indian affairs or ics as they're known now we're the negotiators indian oil and gas within negotiators and where was my place where's my presence when i was a young counselor for urban skin creation we brought in industry and we interviewed them and we chose who we're going to work with how hard is that you know am i a child am i uneducated no we have very very astute and smart and well-spoken people i'm proud to be from urban skincare because we've always acted sovereign i grew up being sovereign i think those are really important things that industry and canada researchers need to hear because that's really the reality yep we can go into court every decision that falls in our favor makes us grow and become stronger and i guess that's why i chose to be um work in this field i certainly can't run away from it because i've tried i'm just gonna end with this my name's um my queen name is means you're left in charge of or to look after a skill is kikawi no mother earth so when you translate my korean name into english i am a keeper of mother earth's laws and i don't i don't carry that title lightly because it carries a lot of weight but again who do i work for the children that aren't born so all these legislations all these court decisions they're not falling on make-believe people these are these are us these are our people and there are issues so i'm really proud of what we've done i think this gives teeth to first nations across canada to know that our economic rights are spin-offs about those rights that are protected because yes our people still hunt trap fish and gather we still do ceremony because that's who we are the experiment of residential schools failed we survived maybe a little war-torn but we survived and there's many of us who've gone to universities and learned the language and learned all this stuff that go through or sometimes you're just thrown in cold and you learn real fast but these are this is about life and these are about my interests my my ways of living my ways of celebrating life because the way to live is it's all part and parcel of that i'm not sectioned up into little pieces like the world likes to put us in we're all part and parcel of everything so i need to continue standing and working for my great-grandchildren because the grandkids are here now but for my great-grandchildren and make sure that there's legacies left for them they have land they have clean water they have clean soil so the medicines we continue to pick and use are kept clean and that's i guess that's why i do this so um i hope i've educated you a little bit um i try and speak from the heart because i always think that's the best place to talk from and um i thank you for listening everything thank you thank you so much carol and for reminding us it's not about clauses and paragraphs it's like you say it's about your lives uh so i really appreciate that i'm going to turn over to dwight now and uh i know that sandy does have to leave early so as soon as we finish with dwight i'm going to turn it over to sandy to talk a little bit also about kind of how he sees all this unfolding before we go on to the other questions but first let's hear from you dwight okay well good afternoon and thank you for having me on the panel um it's good to be here with uh with sandy while he can be here uh he has many many years of experience working in this space and uh it's great to hear his perspectives i think we agree on a lot of things about the judgment he was speaking about it's also wonderful to be here with first nations that are fighting against government paternalism and ongoing government paternalism and that that has led to some successful decisions against that ongoing paternalism and i'm going to talk about the two decisions the blueberry decision um briefly because as i say i agree with sandy on a lot of points on it and then the urban skin decision on each of them i have five points that i just want to highlight as key takeaways from the decisions on the blueberry decision the first three of those line up exactly with things that sandy said but i'm going to repeat them anyway because i think they're really important and so one is the decision um that treaty 8 in particular although i think one could probably reach a similar conclusion about other treaties on an appropriate record and so forth but the the decision of the trial judge uh that the treaty protects not just a set of discrete activities on some stereotypical list of traditional activities which are important but protects a way of life and i think that's something where the blueberry nation has stood up against government paternalism and the paternalism of others that would confine them to specific categories and has had a judge recognize that they're in a treaty relationship that protects their way of life the second takeaway i would mention from the blueberry decision and again it's it's repeating but on the legal standard for an infringement of treaty rights isn't at the point when there's nothing meaningful left but it's at a point before the judge talks at certain points about the idea of a tipping point um from cumulative impacts um there's a point well before the end of treaty rights where there's an infringement even in the context of taking up clauses in treaty eight or presumably other numbered treaties and that third point is as sandy said that the the decision um surely has implications beyond treaty eight for the taking up clause and other numbered treaties um and i think governments across western canada and well into northwestern ontario as well but governments across the west really need to be thinking about the implications of this decision and thinking about situations where indigenous ways of life have been limited by taking up of land for agriculture and other purposes and i'm in a province where there's a lot of land that's been taken over for agriculture um how how have indigenous ways of life um assured under treaties survived that and what are the implications today there are big questions for for governments um to be engaged with there and governments and first nations to be talking about um the fourth point i'd make just briefly on the blueberry decision is that on the one hand there's been a significant move by the province of british columbia towards working with the nation after the decision towards trying to develop solutions and the the recent compensation payment and investment in rebuilding the land is significant the other hand of that is my 0.5 which is although it's it's a good win for the blueberry nation there's an aspect where one almost wishes this had gone up the court chain and been reaffirmed at a higher level because this case involved a massive investment by the nation um uh although they managed to do it really quickly it's with 160 trial days that's a lot of money spent on lawyers and other experts that's gone into this case to have that kind of record to inform appellate decisions would have been really helpful in some respects in terms of getting an appellate level statement on cumulative impacts in cases like chippewas of the thames on the duty consult we have a few lines about cumulative impacts in the context of the due to consult and here's a case that has a lot to say on it and i just hope it will continue to inform scholarship and other cases in a way that it's not lost to a trial level decision in terms of the impact on the law and so i think we need to keep talking about the decision and significance and make sure that other courts do pay attention to it in other situations where this arises in terms of the airman skin decision again i have five points and i'll i'll try to raise them quite quickly because i know that we're hitting on sandy's deadline in a moment here but i'll just say first of all it's a very contemporary case involving very contemporary issues about a way of life that continues yes in traditional ways but also in modern ways that reflect a community's ongoing life a nation's ongoing life and uh there's too much paternalism that doesn't recognize those aspects of indigenous rights claims all too often not just by governments frankly by courts too that have written too many legal standards that are about economic rights that are uh to subsistence levels of this or subsistence levels of that and what if a nation actually wants to get above the subsistence level and build for the future um i mean there are big issues there academic paternalism frankly as well there are too many academics running indigenous rights classes where the term iba is never mentioned um and uh i mean it's an adaptation i mean people are uh are learning but uh but there there's been some slow progress on that at times the second point i'll mention about the case is just its significance in terms of shaping the legal significance and status of iba's impact benefit agreements indigenous in indigenous industry agreements more broadly there are big issues there big implications there potentially for other cases the third point i'll mention is that we're seeing some interesting extensions in the context of the duty to consult this being one of them but there have been several others in recent years and this is when where maybe the duty to consult is now helping to protect the kind of thing it helped to foster which maybe wasn't what the supreme court of canada foresaw in haida when they thought they were talking about the honor of the crown and the crown in a relationship with communities and actually we're seeing communities take up an engagement and indigenous nations take up an engagement with industry in building uh for the future and now the duty consults is catching up to protecting that um which is something that sort of was encouraged by the duty to consult but the dude consult in 2004 wasn't really constructed around um the fourth point though is there are challenges ahead and the government of canada on my understanding is looking to appeal the urban skin decision and is putting challenges against it and i guess around clarifying the status of ibas or something um they are insisting on that appeal now it has value if a higher court affirms this and so on but it's it's it's putting um a challenge against the nation that uh that didn't need to be there uh when there was this win uh the fifth point i'll just say briefly is that we need to be talking a lot more about economic reconciliation as part of the overall reconciliation discussion because it's fine to have a lot of fancy phrases and so on but in terms of indigenous nations really reclaiming their historic strengths and um recovering um from the legacies that have gone on um uh there needs to be an economic stake at the table and um we're here in the presence of nations that have been fighting for that and it's just a wonderful day to be talking about these decisions but they are ones that that we need to talk about a lot more and that are going to have a lot of implications here so i'll stop there and we can have some more discussion later on amazing dwight and we'll definitely get back to the economic rights discussion but sandy i know you've stepped into the last minute i appreciate it you have another meeting at 3 30 so if you just want to finish off some of your broad thoughts that you want to make sure you shared before you left us well i'm not sure uh they'll be particularly broad but first of all thank you again for having me and thank you for everybody who's listening uh i think this is a great session and i hope that uh that people take it away and and spend some time um with the decisions you know i post uh most of the new ones that come out and you know people say oh yeah i read the first paragraph of it but there's a lot to learn from these and there's a lot to think about um secondly i'll say that for um dwight's uh three points that he agreed with me on of his 10 total i agree with him on the other seven and uh absolutely um you know we're we're in a world where you know and carol touched on this is it paternalism is it ignorance is it politics whatever it is we need to get past this i mean we're used to now although governments still mess up on a regular basis consulting on the um if an indigenous nation is going to experiencing negative effects from something we think that maybe we should talk to them do we just go through the process or are we really sitting back and listening and paying attention and trying to understand and trying to make the problem go away but we're nowhere close on the an indigenous group thinks that something might be a good thing for them and should we be talking to them but i mean that's self-determination that's hermanskin saying we're making a different decision on this that's coastal gaslink where you know you have 20 band councils who have signed on to something and and i worry that politics interferes with this we get to make a designation decision against a proposed cold development because that looks good on our political record and we won't talk to first nations who might be in favor of something so unfortunately for all of you people from industry who are listening to this your world just got more complicated again that's nothing new to you your world has gotten more complicated many times over the last few years i i know that people will adapt but um ultimately it's about doing the right thing it's about listening it's about trying to find a place where you can agree uh rather than if you don't think that you'll like what you're going to say not even talking uh to somebody um and you know as dwight highlights you know if the federal government appeals airmen skin case why are they doing that and you know for the provincial government in blueberry to have fought so hard and said no we think the blueberry's simply wrong on everything that it says here and when you read the decision they took that position effectively and then a trial judge agrees with blueberry on it and the province goes oh well okay well we won't appeal it so take a step back and what are people doing spending their dollars in court on the stuff when you can be spending your dollars and your time and your effort at the table and trying to work things out so i'll leave you with that um and thank you very much again for having me thank you so much sandy everyone else stay put we got lots more to discuss but samuel let you gracefully exit and you left so thank you to all of you this has been tremendous so far i've learned a lot you've given us a lot to think about and very sophisticated kind of points the first question i want to go and and feel free for all the all the participants to start putting in your questions in the q a i see some of those and we're going to start to get to those i can try to group some together uh what you said carol is that for the first time in your life you saw a judge recognize your economic rights under section 35 and i and that's what i thought was the most powerful part of that decision too so for all of you do you think that case these cases are going to move the dial in terms of how the courts and governments weigh indigenous economic rights i think we've seen that they've weighed again kind of the environmental side much more heavily in the past and that goes to there's a question here from joseph quinnell uh you know highlighting that the federal court uh criticized the minister for only consulting voices supporting the designation order and then again inexp inexplicably freezing or urban skin and that also gets to a point uh from uh some an anonymous attendee the last one thinking of how does this reflect how does this support for economics economic rights tweet dwight that's probably a question for you is this reflected in the new impact assessment agency in in the new um c69 i guess is this does it allow for that does it contradict it or is there some space for it there so i don't know who wants to start maybe ryan will go to you we haven't heard from you in a bit do you think this is going to change how the courts how governments how everyone views economic rights well i would say i'm hopeful that the answer is yes on the court side uh i'm less um bullish on the government at any level understanding that based on on what we're seeing or what we've seen in the very near past um i think it's important to recognize for many nations i'll speak on behalf of stony but i think most nations and and following my friend carol's comments i think are important for many nations we're understanding um the treaty and these agreements well as uh sandy talked about hunting fishing gathering those were the economies at the time we also are cognizant that there's new economies at the time and these are new opportunities for nations to be um having some self determination some self-sufficiency some some uh even self-wealth and it's really important to understand that there's really many nations uh us included that aren't um interested in the status quo of being on government handouts and and trying to survive that way now the federal government's never going to let us starve but we're never going to excel with the federal government so we have to be able to have the opportunity to rise up and and really learn and participate in the economy that exists in our areas um again i mean it's a little bit different for the reason of why we are appealing the grassy mountain argument but on a larger scale i have a lot of concern with the government's not wanting or apparently not wanting to recognize these opportunities in what we call them ibas or whatever else because it's important to understand not only not necessarily about government dollars but it's also important to understand that the consultation that has to happen on this applies to just about any land use it's not just oil and gas and coal and fossil fuels i've got several renewable plays on the go right now i mean it could be a unicorn farm it could be a housing development it could be just about anything else and if we're not even allowed to participate or have those rights um sort of at least recognized or reviewed that's a great concern now the bigger concern i have is this is with ibas is if ibas and we have to understand really what they are they are the duty to consult and i have this explained to me in the very beginning of my career by our wonderful lady that was an adm at the time of the province and she said listen you have really three groups that are involved in in these programs you have the proponent is a big group and you have the first nations or the indigenous groups that are big groups and we're all funneled up through a little tiny thing that's the government here that are going to make determinations without really understanding um the industry side and not really understanding the first nation side so that's really where the first nation and industry the proponent have to come together to really understand what each other are talking about what our needs are what our our no-go zones are and it's it's concerning to me when i would have a government um saying that we know better we're there to look out for your for you and your rights that hasn't worked very well over the last 150 170 years that we're from the government we're here to take care of you and and do well for you um i think history is certainly awakening to the fact that perhaps that's not always best option and and to carol's point earlier many people from our nations um whether they're in the nations whether the consultants whether they're what have you are educated and are experienced outside of just the nation and that is part of self-determination from a nation is we do know better um than somebody sitting in the bowels of 10 wellington street in in hull making determinations for the nations that have never been um to these areas that they're talking about so thanks heather thanks ryan yeah many of us have suffered through the bowels of wellington and yet yeah you make you make and there's a few questions talking about that you know about um some of the questions of our where the company's acting good faith but just to sandy's point before he left that this will make life more complicated for industry and that's obviously true but also in all three cases this wasn't a case of nations being against development or being against industry in all cases uh you know i think they were trying to work more productively um with industry so i i think you're you know doing droid tests on me he'll touch on more of you know what is the status of ibas and how does that play into all this because like you said that's a very high standard of consultation for a lot of these things carol before we get to dwight maybe i'll just get back to you do you think this will hold do you think recognizing your economic rights is going to find itself into higher courts and going to find itself accepted or do you have concerns that it's just you know kind of one appeal judgment and it might get swept under the rug again i have to be careful how i answer this one um i would like to believe that this decision will be the pioneering world whereby we can build economically i've been on the outside looking in for far too long i've been kept from growing i've been kept from um developing myself so that we can employ people i want economic growth to continue because i'm sick and tired of living on welfare i have 4 500 people on my reserve we've grown from 367 in 1968. a lot of people i can only employ 250 people and that's not all my people because i have people from the outside who have expertise coming to work with us too but wouldn't it be a wonderful world for a first nation to finally be able to say that i have two percent of my population living on essay because that's what they choose and the other 98 are able to live well live and eat well have homes that can be heated because that's what all this stuff trickles down to it's about life you guys it's about life but canada still forgets i know industry feels like they're they're left holding the money tag but industry also needs to step up and be part of this can we i hope it does there that's just the plain answer i hope it does thank you i hope it does carol too so let's go to dwight maybe dwight how does this become more of a standard what would that process look like and if you can comment i've lost lots of questions coming in for you on the impact assessment the new impact assessment act if that reflects this at all for a cat and then someone else also asked about the oil tanker ban which to me is related does the airman skin case allow for someone to challenge the oil tanker ban or the cancellation northern gateway how retroactive can this be okay um so there's lots of questions that arise obviously um in terms of how how broadly impactful this is and i would just say first of all in terms of uh industry taking up its part i don't think industry needs to be frightened by these kinds of decisions i think these are decisions that are recognizing the economic relationships between indigenous nations and industry and industry that's ready to engage in real dialogue and meaningful dialogue with indigenous nations about how to build wealth together there there's actually a protection there against government interference that arises from a decision like the urban skin decision um and uh that's uh that's something to to be thinking about because too often governments are making decisions that just don't don't have any awareness of implications for resource development in western canada and these kinds of decisions offer a protection for the kinds of resource developments to which indigenous nations are open while an iba can also carve out as was described earlier the no-go zones can develop a process for ongoing relationships between the indigenous nation and industry the question about the impact assessment agency's new guidelines and whether they take account of these decisions no they don't because they were done a little while ago and i guess they're in the very bureaucratic language of uh of governments and uh they're crafted very carefully um to not uh develop any kind of um really creative new approach um and i mean that's that's not exactly a criticism of them in a way it is but it's sort of uh there's nothing that exciting that's going to come out necessarily of that kind of process in terms of this new kind of area that's that's under discussion finally in terms of economic rights of indigenous nations that this discussion needs to move further along before it starts filtering into those kinds of guidelines but there are other questions out there where where these issues are at stake similar issues and something like the oil tanker ban or a challenge to the northern gateway pipeline cancellation by indigenous nations that we're going to be equity partners in it i mean this kind of jurisprudence would contribute to those causes it doesn't exactly operate retroactively and it may be too late for some of those cases there are very detailed questions that go into that something like the the oil tanker ban their complications of to what extent when's talking about government policy slash legislation and does that raise some different issues as compared to an administrative decision that has a negative impact on an indigenous nation that has an iba but the idea that indigenous economic interests would receive legal protection and that broad idea is one that's been meaningfully advanced in a case like the urban skin decision and that has implications for all kinds of other decisions if it's upheld um in other discussions and i think it needs to be and everyone needs to be talking about these issues because these are about these issues are about the future of indigenous nations that they would have economic opportunities and not continue to face the same kinds of restrictions they faced too often from government policies that have held them back in the past and so um there are indirect implications for some of these other contexts that are that are being asked about in the questions but they're they're each of them raises some additional issues and would would require sort of a a webinar of its own to get fully into you're i hear you inviting or agreeing to come to some more talks on this so fantastic so my next question is going to be for ryan and for carol i'm going to combine two questions from the from the q a here uh richard dawn asked that the his understanding so ryan this is really for you but grassy mountain panel had significance with the efficacy of the technology the proponent was proposing to mitigate potential environmental effects that was the basis of their judgment was that they didn't believe the company could do what the company said it was going to do and another participant uh asked you both do you have concerns regarding the promised economic benefits um versus realized benefits when it comes to you know companies like benga and coles for vista do you trust or how do you trust how do your nations trust that they'll do what they say in the iba ryan let's start there we go sure um uh so i guess to answer uh richard's question on it um that's really uh the technology side of it and and the geologists are chemist side of it on selenium yeah that that's an issue that was raised on it that's not what we've appealed on our concern was more around the language and it's interesting when i when i said the remediation and it might actually roll into a little bit of the next question some of the languages one of the paragraphs is overall we find the project will result in the loss of lands used for traditional activities and this would affect indigenous groups and their members who use a project area um the mitigations are not proposing not sufficient to fully mitigate these efforts interestingly one of the biggest issues we're having is we'd like it returned back not to what it is now we wanted to return back to what it was at the beginning um so again our appeal i would defer to benga rivers dale on on that part for richard's question um i do think um that we uh we probably want to watch on on the dev argument ours really isn't an ek dev on the dollar driver either on this it's really the opportunity for our people to have better opportunities that are transferable skills right i mean we're dealing with nations that still have incredibly high unemployment rates um i think it's worth us recognizing that uh indigenous communities tend to be exceptionally over represented in the resource extraction era areas and that really comes from we don't build these things in cities we don't build mines we don't have forestry we don't have oil and gas in cities we have them so for us not to have these opportunities to to either work or have dollars from an agreement which which again are minimal in our particular case it's the work opportunities the mitigation opportunities the environmental opportunities that are interesting for us and when we don't have these projects we are and there's there's studies uh kelly lindsey's group and i'm gonna screw up his quote so this falls on me not on him um indigenous group people are two and a half to three times as likely to be in the extraction sector than canadians average every everyday canadians are across the board so when these things these projects are impacted like that that has huge overlying uh concerns for us um now as far as the cleanup goes because i did see one of the other questions i'm gonna segue a little bit heather if you're okay with that um do we trust the industry groups to do it there's all sorts of ways to do it i can tell you we just opened a gravel pit in stoney we have to post a reclamation bond in advance there's no reason there's all sorts of ways we can do that i can tell you i don't have a lot of faith in the government doing it considering it sat there for the last 50 years with with nothing being um done on it either so you know is industry the the full answer no the other option i would say to you i'm not really that interested in the government uh being the overseers and doing this if i can have a private industry pay for this rather than us pay for it in taxes then i'd be interested in looking at that too i think we all pay enough taxes i know they're going nowhere but up that's the concern that we would have i would make them post we do it in construction we do it in big projects there's no reason they can't post a performance bond irrevocable line of credit etc but i don't have a great belief that's going to be the government that's going to do it either nor do i particularly want them to do it um based on our taxes i mean we have to remember the riba agreements it's having the nations lead these reclamations and these mitigations so thanks heather awesome carol how about yourself do you have faith that your you know your iba will be upheld and you'll get the economic benefits that they committed to yes i do why because i've already had a benefit agreement with them in the past and they upheld those if i'll be so careful how i work some things um i have faith they will be followed through because they're a little bit of everything for us too it's about work it's about reclaiming the land it's about putting water trying to be a good steward so that i have clean water for the future um i don't trust canada to hold it for me that's for sure because again my experience here in muskogees was canada good at that nope you know we've we've had many arguments with canada and we've won that i'm always really happy when we when our discussion so obviously we're explaining things in a in a proper way that that protects me and my future um you know canada has not been a good trustee because that's what they have told us for many years right they're my trusty they hold things and trust for me i think it's time i hold trust i hold things in trust for my future and my people that's our responsibility as a nation well canada i don't know it's you know happy really careful what i say about this and um because god knows what canada is going to do anyway they're they've already making their decisions and moving forward but i you know if things move forward and things work out really well yes i believe these these these agreements come forward i have a lot of past experience with other companies where those impact benefit agreements did did grow and what they said we were going to do happened might have to wait a little while but that's okay because i've also lost iba impact agreements because pipelines have been shut down and that's okay too would have been nice to have some of those dollars so that i can keep growing our people and our infrastructures and looking after stuff canada doesn't give me enough to grow in fact i've always said this from the time when i was a young woman urban skin cream nation has subsidized canada we've never gotten what we should in order for our people to move forward those little pieces of prum sometimes i feel like a pigeon and i don't like being a pigeon because everybody fights over those crumbs how come i can't make my own living how come i can't create my own destiny how come i have to get stay stuck because i always have to prove what's out there right that this was our ancestral lands that we were actually here before treaty when do i get to decide my future and when do i get to really say that i look after my future because i better leave something when i leave this earth to those little people that aren't born yet that's all i don't know that's just my own personal opinion i get really passionate about this stuff but that's how i was taught that's how i what i was told carol you work for the future the children that aren't born here that aren't here today that's who you work for and how do i create a world for them that's better than the one that we have here right now it was pretty dismal i know um there is a myth that muskrates is really rich we probably are we're probably well off way better than a lot of other first nations but those were i think really fought for especially in the 90s the 80s and 90s where canada was not a good um was not a good uh i better say a nice word who is not a good trustee for me canada took my dollars and built houses excuse me built roads hospitals and schools and never paid us back they took our money and did they give me interest on that nope we never received a cent of interest so how come i can't be my own person how come i can't develop that path so that i have economic growth and something for the future so that i have proper housing so i have proper water you know a lot of us live still under water advisories i know that's not the discussion of today but that's what this is all about it's about what's at end of day in my backyard and my backyard consists of alberta saskatchewan manitoba crossing over into the united states all the way back to washington on the other side of vancouver bc that's my territory you know not just what's now known as alberta my territory is huge my ancestral lands are huge i used to have economic benefits because i truly believe this we were we were the traders not traitors there's a difference we were the traders t-r-a-d-e-r-s we had economic growth we knew we had economic um maps that extend from what's now known as quebec all the way down to the mississippi those are trade routes i had an economy how come i can't have an economy again signing treaty didn't take away my economy but but the foreigners thought that took my economy so i guess it's a good it's a good question what you ask me do you think it's real yeah i do because i like to believe what we put together there's there's there's light at the end of this tunnel too and it'll be economic growth and economic opportunities thank you thank you carol i'm gonna throw one more question to dwight before i had to start closing things up there were a few questions about shredit and blueberry river at the beginning um and the way i have heard a lot of them dwight is people are wondering how does impact other treaty eight first nations how does this impact other treaty territories and does it have an impact on non-treaty nations as well how do you see this trickling through oh well that's a big question i guess i'd say i agree with sandy's comment that a lot of what the the trial judge does in this case is engaged with the process around treaty 8 generally and the historical evidence that's that's referenced there isn't about the specific adhesion of the blueberry nation blueberry river first nation um but is about um treaty eight generally and to that extent it is an important ruling on treaty eight more generally now as i said before um in one way it's really good that bc has gone along with this decision um and is working with the the nation and getting things done rather than continuing to fight it in court um there would be something that would be nice about a higher appellate affirmation of the decision um that would be helpful for other treaty eight situations but this decision itself speaks to treaty eight and uh i think has broader implications for treaty a in terms of the questions about the applications to other uh uh numbered treaties in particular i guess um there was a question about the uh the wording around the usual vocations clause um and i was just comparing quickly the the treaty text to 3d6 and i haven't compared every treaty but the wording is actually pretty similar on that um and so i don't think that there's a differentiation based on that wording i think the argument that other treaties were also to protect ways of life rather than lists of specific activities has a lot of potential to be carried over to other contexts but it does depend on the uh the record that would be put in a particular other treaty case um and that's unfortunately the situation we're in uh unless governments will work a little more reasonably than they have at times if there needs to be litigation in other contexts it would need to involve some of the same kind of record being put forth in terms of non-treaty contexts i guess i'd just say in one way jurisprudence about the treaty context doesn't translate over easily in other ways it does because at some point something like the idea that there's a protection for indigenous ways of life um rather than just discrete activities um needs to be the way that we start thinking about things more fully and that's that's something that's uh that's present in the un declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples in meaningful ways uh we've got new legislation on that uh that uh we've got a whole set of questions on what what does that mean and what's the process under that and the future discussions to be had but something like those core principles uh that uh indigenous ways of life and contemporary current modern ways of life continuing from past ways of life and building upon tradition but carrying forward into the future that that's what things are about rather than a list of this activity or that activity um in these limited ways well well we need to get to that level and i would hope that that this kind of discussion informs um uh discussions and case law and non-treaty context as well but there's there's a long road ahead there are a lot of a lot of discussions to be had unfortunately a lot of cases to be fought in future but i i guess these cases have huge promise the blueberry decision on treaties has a lot to say the urban skin decision on on ibas and and economic dimensions really important decisions and um we're just in a very fortunate position to be here today talking about these wins rather than what could have been if the decisions had come out otherwise great point dwight before we wrap up ryan and carol you guys have about 30 seconds if you had any final thoughts that you aren't to offer the audience before we close up ryan do you have anything anything you want to share before we go uh you know i'd just like to thank everybody for hearing a uh a different hopefully a different perspective um from a first nation and how we'd like to participate why we'd like to participate and why we've appealed um a cold case and again it doesn't fall to coal at all it really uh it really falls to self-determination and are wanting to participate and and not sort of be on the government role you know as i've had many discussions with my government i have lots of friends in government governments aren't in the business to be in government and when we want to pick our dance partners we're much more interested in looking to industry to help us as a as carol has said and as i've said we have a long history of why we wouldn't necessarily uh um trust that the government's going to be uh the best keeper for us and i'd also have people probably draw attention to the fact that and i came from from a industry partner before i came to stoney directly the indigenous spend on by industry is multiple multiple multiple times exponentially higher than what the government canada spends so proof is in the pudding that when we're looking for economic partnerships it's with industry not with the government thanks thank you ryan carol you have about 30 seconds if you can thank you um i agree with what ryan says throughout this whole session we've had it was it was good to hear that perspective i'm really thankful i had this opportunity and i was really nervous but i i think industry canadians albertans and people globally need to start understanding us we are more than feathers and deeds we are a people who want to leave a legacy for a future and i think it's time we started getting recognized that that treaty relationship created canada helped create canada but i never became a full participant that i'd really like to be a participant in canada's situation because it affects my life i also want to be to acknowledge that i'm really happy that i come from people who are strong and really believe in themselves and didn't allow themselves to die we've been pretty vocal all the time i was raised to be vocal and i appreciate the work i do for my people because it's really long-term stuff it's not just it's not just about money it's about leaving legacies so that our kids can live thank you thank you carol thank you to all of our participants for your attention today it's a fantastic discussion i agree with everyone this is the beginning of a discussion that we'll be having i think for years to come thank you to the school of public policy and to the extractive resource governance program for hosting this have a great afternoon everyone thank you