Correct Answer: what legal weight a First Nation’s refusal should carry
Passage Reference: I believe Canada needs a clear law on what happens when a First Nation says no to a major energy project ... The courts have never settled what a refusal actually means.
Why this is correct: The columnist says Canada needs a clear law on what happens when a First Nation says no. The courts have never settled what a refusal actually means. Every person in the column gives a view on that question.
Tips: For a “mainly about” question, read the writer’s opening sentence and the end of the opening paragraph. Then check what every expert keeps arguing about.
Why the other options are wrong:
- whether Canada should build more oil pipelines: Pipelines come up as examples, but nobody argues for or against building more of them.
- how towns near power lines can raise taxes: Hanley talks about property values and public conditions, not raising taxes.
- why energy exports to Asia fell last year: Export terminals are mentioned only as projects Parliament wants built. Nobody says exports fell.
Correct Answer: Bastien Brassard
Passage Reference: He insists on a clear override path for projects vital to reliability, used only after the consultation record is complete.
Why this is correct: Bastien Brassard insists on a clear override path for projects vital to reliability. An override is a way for governments to go ahead even after a refusal.
Tips: The question uses different words from the passage. Read each speaker’s lines and ask who wants governments, not nations, to have the last word.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Iona Parenteau: Iona Parenteau wants nations to be able to withhold approval. She does not want governments to go ahead despite a refusal.
- Soraya Lim: Soraya Lim wants a statute that says what happens after consent is withheld. But she proposes mediators and court review, not an override.
- Gilbert Hanley: Gilbert Hanley wants conditions posted publicly before cabinet decides. He does not call for an override.
Correct Answer: a spill on land where early warnings were ignored
Passage Reference: pointing to a pipeline spill on land where community warnings had been brushed aside
Why this is correct: Parenteau argues that consultation means little without the power to say no. She points to a pipeline spill on land where community warnings had been brushed aside. A spill like that supports her position.
Tips: Find Parenteau’s reason why consent needs the power to say no. The right choice is an event that would make that reason stronger.
Why the other options are wrong:
- grid shortages caused by stalled power lines: Stalled power lines would support Brassard’s worry about projects Parliament wants built, not Parenteau’s case for a real right to refuse.
- mediators who settled disputes without a veto: Mediators settling disputes would support Lim’s structured process, which does not rely on a veto.
- export terminals delayed for years by hearings: Delayed terminals would support Brassard’s argument for an override, which works against Parenteau.
Correct Answer: a statute would set what happens after a refusal
Passage Reference: spells out what happens next when consent is withheld
Why this is correct: Lim wants a statute that sets timelines, pays for technical reviews and spells out what happens next when consent is withheld. So the outcome is a law that says what follows a refusal.
Tips: Lim wants a new law that does several things. Read each one and match it to the choices.
Why the other options are wrong:
- every refusal would become a final veto: Lim offers a structured process as a middle ground. She does not make every refusal a final veto.
- cabinet could override any refusal at once: Lim wants mediators, published offers and court review, not an instant cabinet override.
- towns would vote alongside First Nations: Towns come up in Hanley’s point about public conditions. Lim never gives towns a vote.
Correct Answer: opposed, while taking the concern behind it seriously
Passage Reference: That memory is why I cannot accept an easy override. But I also cannot accept a veto that no national plan could ever get past.
Why this is correct: The columnist says, “I also cannot accept a veto that no national plan could ever get past.” But the hearing story and the call for monitoring seats show the writer takes the concern behind a veto seriously.
Tips: Read the last paragraph closely. Look for what the writer “cannot accept”, and ask why the story about the elders is there.
Why the other options are wrong:
- firmly in favour of making it law: The writer says a blanket veto would leave someone without a real voice and cannot accept it.
- opposed, and in favour of an easy override: Notice that the writer also rejects an easy override: “That memory is why I cannot accept an easy override.”
- unsure, with no firm view of it: In the first paragraph, and again at the end, the writer states a clear view.
Correct Answer: seats on the panels that oversee projects
Passage Reference: She wants binding impact agreements that give nations seats on the panels that oversee projects.
Why this is correct: Parenteau wants binding impact agreements that give nations seats on the panels that oversee projects.
Tips: The comment names Parenteau and her binding agreements. Read the sentence that starts “She wants” in the second paragraph.
Why the other options are wrong:
- ownership of every new pipeline: Parenteau never asks for ownership of pipelines. She wants seats on monitoring boards.
- a share of federal tax revenue: Parenteau talks about fair revenue sharing from projects, not federal tax revenue, and the agreements give monitoring seats.
- the right to set power prices: Power prices are never mentioned in the column.
Correct Answer: earlier talks and deeper revenue sharing
Passage Reference: says he accepts earlier talks and deeper revenue sharing
Why this is correct: The minister’s aide says he accepts earlier talks and deeper revenue sharing, even though he wants an override path.
Tips: The comment calls him the minister’s aide. Look for the word “accepts” in his lines, before his warning.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a veto for every affected nation: Brassard warns against letting any single community’s refusal stand as final, so he does not accept a veto for every nation.
- a pause on all new pipelines: Brassard wants the projects Parliament wants built to go ahead, not a pause on pipelines.
- joint ownership of the national grid: Joint ownership of the grid is never mentioned in the column.
Correct Answer: nations to run their own technical reviews
Passage Reference: pays for nations to run their own technical reviews
Why this is correct: Lim wants a statute that pays for nations to run their own technical reviews.
Tips: The comment says Lim would “pay for” something. Find her statute and read what money it would provide.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a new federal energy court: Lim wants existing courts to review whether offers were adequate. She never proposes a new court.
- mediators chosen by the companies: Lim wants independent mediators, not mediators chosen by the companies.
- advertising for each new project: Advertising is never mentioned. Lim wants published offers of accommodation.
Correct Answer: the town next door worries about it
Passage Reference: A nation can welcome a line while the town next door worries about its property values
Why this is correct: Hanley notes that a nation can welcome a line while the town next door worries about its property values, or the reverse.
Tips: The comment names Hanley. Read his example about a line, and notice who might feel differently from the nation.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the province refuses to fund it: Hanley’s example is about a nearby town, not the province or funding.
- a neighbouring nation rejects it: Hanley compares towns and nations, not two nations.
- its own members vote against it: Hanley never mentions a vote inside the nation. His point is about the town next door.
Correct Answer: ten minutes
Passage Reference: the elders were given ten minutes
Why this is correct: In the last paragraph, the writer remembers a hearing. The company’s slides ran for two hours, and the elders were given ten minutes.
Tips: The comment is about the elders. Look for the hearing story in the last paragraph and do not mix up the two times given.
Why the other options are wrong:
- two hours: Two hours is how long the company’s slides ran, not the time the elders were given.
- half an hour: Half an hour never appears. The elders had ten minutes.
- one full day: The elders were given ten minutes, not a full day.
