Debates of Dec. 11th, 2023

Justice and Human Rights

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about whether to keep the Taliban on the list of terrorist organizations. I think it is important to do so, but are there other things we can do?

How can we at least best protect ourselves against democratic backsliding toward extremism, which we deplore and which is so upsetting? I am thinking in particular of certain events that have taken place across Canada in recent years, events that we would never have thought possible and never wanted to see.

Besides keeping the Taliban on the list of terrorist organizations, what does my colleague think we can do to protect ourselves against a shift toward extremism like the one proposed by the Taliban?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, as I said, we have to get those who helped us and those leaders, the former Afghan women MPs I talked about, to safety. They are the ones who will eventually go back to Afghanistan, not all of them but some of them, someday, or maybe even their kids, depending on how long this takes, to actually lead that change. That is number one: We have to get out the people who are those leaders of change within Afghanistan.

Second, which was talked about in certain speeches, is supporting those opposition groups. This is where it gets tricky for the west. We like to believe that our standards and our rigid code around human rights and everything, the way we expect people in this country to behave, would apply uniformly across the globe. They do not. Some of the groups that we may want to help are not necessarily going to play by that rule book all the time. It sometimes becomes a tricky situation of trying to pick and support those groups that are less bad. That is where it gets tricky.

That is what we need to do. I am a big believer that in certain things, with the Taliban in particular, where we in the west kind of messed up when I look at it over 20 years, maybe we should have drawn more lines in the sand with respect to the Taliban, or not the Taliban but the Afghan government at the time, telling them not to cross the line, that there are certain expectations and that if they cross a certain line, that is when NATO and the international community will step in and make a difference.

I think that whatever opposition groups we could provide support to, to try to get that change, we need to do that in order to get the Taliban out.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was here when we voted for Operation Enduring Freedom. The understanding was that we were going to put our young people in harm's way to build a democracy. Many really fine people from my region went and put their lives on the line.

There was an understanding that that commitment was going to be followed through, to our soldiers, to the NGOs and to the people of Afghanistan. We can look at what ended up happening. The Americans pulled out. The Brits are deporting people who kept them alive in the field. Canada left so many people who were on the front lines, left them there.

I want to ask my hon. colleague, because of his military experience, what does that say to the next country to which we say, “We will be there for you”, when we left so many people behind? I know we worked, in my office, for midwives to get out. We worked to get interpreters out. They were failed, right across the board, by NATO and the west. How do we then go to the next country and say, “We have your back”?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I have brought this up in the chamber before during debate on this specific issue.

That is the risk we are putting out there. It does not matter if we end up in a country in Africa, or we end up in a country somewhere in the Middle East again in the future. Whether it is our military, our diplomats or Canadian NGOs that depend upon getting the necessary quality cultural advisers, interpreters and people to help us to even buy the local groceries and sustenance needed to actually function in those countries, they are going to look at us and say, “We are not going with Canada. We are not going to help them out.” We are now putting our reputation at risk, that when things go sideways, we will leave them behind and not help them out. It is so important, not only to our Canadian reputation but just to do the right thing.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we are all well aware, the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is catastrophic. Millions of people face major challenges due to decades of conflict, political instability and, in the past few years, the resurgence of the Taliban.

Canada took part in an international coalition to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, a campaign that saw more than 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces serve in that country. As such, 158 lost their lives and more than 2,000 were injured. For the families of those men and women still dealing with the after-effects of the long period of conflict, the seizing of the country once more by the Taliban in 2021 was saddening. It seems like their sacrifices had been in vain.

The Taliban was, for good reason, listed by Canada as a terrorist group in 2013. Its rule is marked by limited rights for women and minorities, and a history of human rights abuses. The Taliban's return to power triggered a mass exodus of Afghans inside and outside the country, sparking a refugee crisis. Many had to flee for fear of reprisals, persecution and restrictions on individual freedoms. The Liberal government made a lot of promises, especially to aid those Afghans who had worked with Canadian troops during our combat mission there, but, sadly, many of those promises turned out to be words and not actions.

It is not only those who worked with Canada’s military who have suffered as a result of Canada’s response to the latest takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. Internally displaced persons are also in urgent need of help. They lack access to basic needs such as food, clean water, health care and education. I am pleased that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has seen fit to firmly denounce the Taliban and reject any recognition or legitimization of its control over Afghan territory. A terrorist organization that achieves by force what it cannot achieve at the ballot box is not a legitimate government.

It makes sense for the committee to denounce the Taliban system of gender discrimination, systemic violence targeting minority communities, reprisals against former members of the Afghan National Security and Defence Forces, attacks on freedom of the press and other violations of fundamental human rights. The more than two years since the Taliban seized power have been two years of broken promises. In 2021 a Taliban spokesman promised that his government was going to allow women to work and study, and that women would be very active in society. The reality is that not only were women banned from attending university, education for girls is banned beyond the sixth grade. The Taliban has also banned women from working in all non-governmental organizations. According to the International Labour Organization, women's participation in the labour force dropped by 25 per cent between August 2021 and March 2023.

Conservatives have long been calling for action to hold those in power in Afghanistan accountable for their actions against the Afghan populace, the international community and, most importantly, Afghan women and children.

The Taliban have neglected the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, leaving the population suffering from a malnutrition crisis and a rapid increase in acute hunger. The number of people suffering has increased exponentially, from 14 million in 2021 to approximately 20 million this year.

From 2001 to 2014, our Canadian troops heard first-hand the stories from Afghan citizens of repression under the Taliban. Our troops fought, not only for Canada but also for the good, innocent people they grew to love in their time there. Canadian troops put their lives on the line, not only for their country but to help Afghan women and children have hope of a better life. Years of conflict and violence led to a humanitarian crisis that shattered the innocence of these people. Life under the Taliban is so much worse than before.

We owe it to our veterans and our fallen soldiers to continue the effort towards a better humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. That means not even considering that Taliban rule, by force and fear, is somehow legitimate. To consider recognizing the Taliban government, as some have suggested, would be wrong. It would be rewarding an organization that knows nothing but force and fear and rejects the values Canadians hold in common. To recognize what the Taliban calls a government would be to reward the actions of a terrorist group. Conservatives believe Canada must continue to stand with the Afghan people, oppose the Taliban and engage with civil society and pro-democracy groups who want to restore Afghan freedom and democracy.

I have at times wondered if the Liberal commitment to freedom and human rights is as strong as the Conservative one. As Kabul was falling to the Taliban, the Liberal Prime Minister responded immediately by calling an election. While the Americans were airlifting more than 100,000 desperate people out of Kabul, the Canadian Prime Minister decided to call an unnecessary election instead of providing the leadership Canadians expected and Afghans hoped for.

The Prime Minister promised to provide a safe haven for 40,000 refugees from Afghanistan. When Canadians heard that promise, they did not dream that it would take more than two years for him to keep that promise. One would think that, faced with a humanitarian crisis, the resettlement process would have been a priority for the government. One would think that, but the Liberals did not. At least Canadians hope they can fulfill the promise by the end of this year.

No wonder so many Afghans felt let down by Canada as the Taliban seized power and began persecuting those they saw as opponents. In Afghanistan’s time of need, the Liberals decided to have an election. It seems like ever since, they have fallen further and further behind in their promise to the humanitarian crisis, both in Afghanistan and in the surrounding countries from which refugees have fled. It is a sorry track record, one they hope Canadians will not notice.

Having failed the people of Afghanistan in so many ways, it is important that, at the very least, Canada continues to stand up for the values that we share. Those include religious freedom and gender equality, two things the Taliban denies to those under its rule. More than just denying rights, the Taliban looks to export its agenda as it continues to coordinate and facilitate attacks with other terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, the IRGC and ISIS.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights believes that the Taliban must remain a listed terrorist organization. I think all hon. members will agree.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, without the fanfare to which we have normally become accustomed, at this point I would simply request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, December 12, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the third time and passed.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 23, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #606

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, December 7, the House shall now resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider Motion No. 32 under Government Business.

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 32, Mr. Chris d'Entremont in the chair)

Indigenous Services

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members how the proceedings will unfold.

Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments.

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, December 7, members may divide their time with another member. The time provided for the debate may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each. The Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.

We will now begin the take-note debate.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That this committee take note of Indigenous services.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I would also like to preface my comments this evening by reminding colleagues in the House that we are not just talking about numbers or policies here. We are talking about people, communities, families and children, and what we do in this House really matters.

It was my great honour to be here today as the Minister of Indigenous Services introduced Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

We do not always have good days in this House, but today was a good day. First nations have long called for legislation that affirms their inherent rights, recognizes their stewardship in keeping water clean and meets first nations' needs. Today, we collectively leapt closer to making access and security to safe and clean drinking water a reality.

Before I came to the House, and I have spoken many times about my role in education, I was a teacher. I think about my time at Fredericton High School in particular. I used to teach my students about the ongoing water crisis here in Canada and what our nation was and was not doing to address it. I often pointed to the example of Shoal Lake 40 First Nation in Winnipeg. At the time, it was under 18 years of a long-term boil water advisory. Community members had to bring in large jugs. They could not brush their teeth, cook or bathe in the water. Then we built the human rights museum, and they could see this museum from their community. I always thought, “Whose human rights are we fighting for in this country?” I am so proud to say that Shoal Lake 40 First Nation has come off the long-term boil water advisory list.

Everyone in Canada should have access to safe and clean drinking water. This simple and seemingly uncontroversial reality has been denied to first nations communities for centuries. It was only through the tireless advocacy of first nations partners and allies that this reality can come to be. This day belongs to them.

Clean, safe and reliable drinking water, as well as an environment that helps sustain this reality, as first nations have enjoyed and protected from time immemorial, requires effective legislative tools. It is critical that we have effective legislation, a national regulatory regime and first nations-led institutions, so we can support sustainable access to clean, safe and reliable drinking water in first nations communities in perpetuity. That is why we introduced Bill C-61 today, which is a key commitment to establishing new proposed safe drinking water and waste water legislation in consultation with first nations. I really want to highlight that last piece; consultation is critical.

The proposed legislation is aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was developed through engagement that put first nations' voices at the forefront. Our government worked directly with first nations rights holders, including modern treaty and self-governing first nations, through their own representative institutions, and first nations organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations and the first nations advisory committee on safe drinking water, to help ensure that the bill is responsive to first nations' needs and priorities.

I want to thank everyone who has been a part of this process and helped strengthen this bill. Engagement leading to this bill began in 2018. Consultation drafts were posted online in the spirit of partnership, and we have encouraged feedback from as many first nations as possible. This consultation process is ongoing, and I think that is important. We want to hear from all voices across this country, and we hope that everyone will have the chance to be heard. This is what partnership looks like. Hand in hand, we will continue to grow and learn from each other, and we can certainly improve and do better at every turn.

The days of paternalistic, one-sided and ineffective policy that ignores indigenous voices are gone, and we must ensure that they stay gone. The result is new proposed legislation that would affirm the inherent right of first nations to self-government. Bill C-61 would ensure that first nations have the tools necessary to protect source water and maintain drinking water and waste water infrastructure in a self-determined way.

It is important to understand that this proposed legislation would hold the federal government accountable for investing in water infrastructure. It would also lead to the application of minimum standards for clean drinking water in every first nation across the country. It would lay the groundwork for the creation of a first nation-led water institution to support communities.

Specifically, the bill would achieve a few things. It would require the Minister of Indigenous Services to make best efforts, in consultation and co-operation with first nations, to provide access to safe drinking water on first nations lands. It would strengthen funding commitments through best efforts to provide adequate and sustainable funding for water services on first nation lands, equitable to the services received in non-first nation communities. It would require that funding, at a minimum, meets the commitment of expenditures set out in the 2021 safe drinking water for first nations class action settlement agreement and establish minimum national standards for drinking water and waste water on first nations lands based on first nations' choice.

It would facilitate water agreements, including transboundary source water protection agreements, which should involve first nations, Canada and provincial and territorial governments, as well as bilateral financial agreements between first nations and Canada to support the exercise of first nations jurisdiction.

It would commit to supporting the establishment of a first nations water commission to assist first nations in exercising greater control over their drinking water and waste-water services, as well as the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including through consultation and co-operation on federal regulatory and funding allocation decisions.

To those listening at home, this is huge. It is incredibly transformative, and I really cannot underscore that enough.

I want to be clear: The government's commitment to sustainable access to safe and clean drinking water on first nations communities does not end with the introduction of this bill. We will continue to work with first nations rights holders and organizations to ensure access to safe drinking water, now and for future generations, so that no one else has to grow up without being able to brush their teeth, bathe at home or cook their food in the water that surrounds their community.

I would also like to acknowledge the Auditor General's third report, titled “Access to Safe Drinking Water in First Nations Communities”. This report provided important recommendations for us to consider, and I want to thank the Auditor General once again for her work.

We are working hard to do better for first nations communities. Previous governments of all stripes could not say this. It is the reason I ran to be involved in federal politics: I needed to see a change. The government has made historic investments to help first nations communities meet their needs. I am proud of this work, of this team and of our commitment to keep going. Recognizing that it is not a perfect path forward, we are committed to doing it in partnership with indigenous communities and leadership.

When it comes to water and waste water, as of September 30, more than $3.6 billion of targeted funding has been invested to support 1,244 water and waste-water projects. Of these, 547 are now complete, while 697 are ongoing. These projects will serve 471,000 people in 591 first nations communities.

We know these investments must continue. The fall economic statement announced in November included a renewal of $1.55 billion from 2024-25 to 2025-26 to support clean drinking water for first nations. This funding will ensure that water and waste-water projects continue without interruption.

We heard from first nations leaders. They need strong, ambitious, sustainable and predictable investments. That is what is required, and that is what is being delivered. These investments are directly improving the everyday lives of first nations communities. We are making progress every day, and it is important to acknowledge these efforts while also acknowledging the need to go farther.

Since 2015, first nations, with support from Indigenous Services Canada, have lifted 143 long-term drinking water advisories; 267 short-term drinking water advisories have been prevented from becoming long term. Comprehensive action plans are in place in 26 communities to resolve the 28 active long-term advisories. One long-term boil water advisory is one too many. We have a team on each project working at pace and in partnership with communities. This country will no longer dictate terms to first nations on how to achieve their goals; instead, we are extending a hand and letting the leadership shine and carry these remaining communities forward.

We understand that many of these projects come with complex challenges, such as procuring resources, especially in remote communities, and extreme weather conditions that continue to affect infrastructure projects across the country. The solutions to address the lack of access to safe drinking water are unique to each first nation community. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Plans have been developed for each community, and we are currently working with them at different stages of these plans to improve infrastructure and operations.

Ultimately, we understand and acknowledge that there is no one solution to this complex issue, but despite the complexity, there are many examples of positive results and innovation being led by first nations. I think we need a bit of hope at this time. Through my visits to communities, I have been fortunate to see some of these results and to meet with many leaders about the important work they are doing and the ways we can support them.

For example, this June, Northwest Angle No. 33 in Ontario lifted three long-term drinking water advisories by leading the construction of a new centralized water treatment plant, replacing the outdated pump houses.

Another example is the Okanagan Indian Band, where community leaders used an integrated project delivery approach to harness the talents of all participants and ensure accountability in environmental stewardship. The result was improved access to clean water and faster project delivery.

One of the most critical areas of our work is to define a new approach to how the department funds on-reserve infrastructure and to return decision-making to where it belongs: with first nations communities. Over the next year, Indigenous Services Canada will continue to work on this important issue with first nations communities and organizations, other government departments and financial institutions.

Above all, we are focused on service transfer in partnership with indigenous peoples. Service transfer is the basis of our work on access to safe drinking water, and it is critical to supporting indigenous self-determination.

We share the goal of supporting sustainable first nations-led approaches to ensure that on-reserve water systems are safe. It is critical that first nations communities have the tools to decide for themselves, and I am honoured to work alongside them as we do this work for the next generations.

Woliwon.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary and I work together on the INAN committee and have had a good history of working together.

The parliamentary secretary spent much of her time tonight talking about the water legislation, and I get that it is an exciting announcement for the government, but with the introduction of this legislation there has been a lot of talk about co-development, the idea of engaging with first nations across the country. To be honest, in my engagement with people last week who were in Ottawa for the Assembly of First Nations, all of the people I talked to say they are not sure who this co-development was with because it was not with their communities.

Today, the FSIN, which represents 74 first nations in Saskatchewan, said the bill completely misses the mark. Chief Bobby Cameron said in a release, “As it stands, the federal water act announced today is not true reconciliation, it is an attempt to legalize the status quo.”

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to explain to us who exactly the co-development was with, who they talked to, which first nations across the country they communicated and engaged with on the development of this legislation, because nobody I have talked to was part of that process. If she could answer that, I would appreciate it.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned, consultation is critical. We are really trying to redesign this approach and make sure we are moving forward hand in hand in partnership.

I know that it is five years since the consultation process began in 2018. Draft legislation was shared with every first nations community in this country at least twice. We heard from indigenous partners. At the announcement this morning, they were able to share some of that process and the idea of getting as close to co-development as we can get. It is a process we need to ensure moves forward in other departments as well. I would like to see it improved.

It is also important that any voices who have concerns know that the process is still continuing. We still have the committee process and debate in this House. We want to make sure everyone has the opportunity to be part of this and be proud of what we are moving forward with. I would challenge the idea that it is the status quo. I really think this is transformative. It is changing lives and we will see this, hopefully, in perpetuity because this legislation really enshrines it to ensure that it continues regardless of what government is in power.

Consultation is key, and I appreciate the member highlighting that.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Chair, specific to the member's statement about the water legislation, it is clear from speaking with members of Treaty Nos. 6, 7 and 8 across the Prairies and, in particular, in my home province of Alberta, that they are concerned about the consultation process. The government has a very important principle that it must honour, which is the honour of the Crown. It is to do things to better the relationship with the nations with which they have signed treaties. Those same nations are today saying that they have not been spoken to. Four times Treaty Nos. 6, 7 and 8 reached out to the Minister of Indigenous Services and failed to get a response.

When will the minister take the rights of treaty people seriously and consult, with the true honour of the Crown? It must be acknowledged by these nations. The continued failure to do so is a failure on the part of Canada and on the part of the minister. What does the government have to say to treaty nations that feel right now that the government is taking steps to stomp on the rights of treaty people across our country? What will it do to ensure that the consultation process is more robust and clear, but, more importantly, respects their rights? To date, they are telling us it does not.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Chair, I thoroughly respect my colleague. It is an important question for all of us to discuss in this House. What does true consultation look like? What does true partnership look like?

We know that every indigenous community in the country was given this draft legislation on two different occasions. I know it was first released in May. There was also the online consultation period. It is disheartening to hear that they had an issue communicating with the minister. I will certainly bring that back to the department and make sure we have open lines of communication. I am also happy, as the parliamentary secretary, to sit down with these communities and have these discussions. Ideally, this is supposed to be done before we introduce legislation, so we really need to look at this process moving forward.

It is absolutely about respecting the treaties. This is one of the reasons I came to this House: to ensure the treaties are recognized and upheld. I come from a peace and friendship territory on the east coast, which is unceded, unsurrendered territory, and this is what we talk about all the time. The number one thing we can do in this country to walk in reconciliation is uphold the treaties.

We did hear from Treaty No. 5 territory partners, who are happy with this. There are some issues as well about ensuring that all voices are heard. The Assembly of First Nations is largely supportive of this as well. The Atlantic First Nations Water Authority, which is first nations-led, from my neck of the woods is also very supportive and spoke at the press conference today.

It is important and we will receive the criticisms, but I am going to look forward in a really positive way because this is transformative and speaks to challenging the status quo. Every department can look into what they can do to better that consultation process.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, I want to ask the government a bit of a broader question. The member spoke about including the voices of indigenous peoples, consultation, self-government, etc. However, I note that in many cases there is a tension between the government's stated goals with respect to climate policy and what individual indigenous nations may be asking for. There is a case now that has over 130 indigenous nations taking the government to court over its carbon tax policy. I have heard from indigenous communities, for instance in the north, that there was a complete lack of consultation before the government imposed development bans. We heard on a foreign affairs committee trip a number of years ago to the Northwest Territories that the consultation before imposing the development moratorium was a phone call 45 minutes before an announcement was made.

Therefore, it seems that the government has a bit of a problem in cases where indigenous peoples are calling for policies that contradict the government's stated goals when it comes to its so-called climate policy. In instances where there is a conflict, what should win out? Should it be the government's intentions with regard to a carbon tax or blocking development; or should it be the wishes of indigenous people?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Chair, it is important that all members of this House try not to use indigenous people as a pawn in their political games or their partisan ideology. What we are seeing playing out with this conversation right now is a misrepresentation of what is happening. Indigenous peoples are on the front line of what is happening with the climate crisis and they really want us to act. I know that, in most cases among the leadership I have spoken to, there is a consensus that pricing mechanisms can get us further on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and indigenous peoples want to be partners with that.

The conversation that is happening around Ontario chiefs is important. It is really about their wanting a more equitable stake in what is happening around our approach to the environment, so we are going to have that conversation. I really look forward to the judicial review and what comes out of that, but, again, it is important to deal in facts and it is really important to acknowledge that indigenous peoples are there with us, wanting to confront this climate crisis head-on.