Read the following article from a website.
A proposed power line in northern British Columbia has become the test case for a question Ottawa has never answered: what happens when a First Nation says no to a major energy project? The 280-kilometre line would carry electricity from a hydro dam to two new mines, crossing the traditional territory of the Kesik River First Nation. Federal officials are drafting a law on consent this winter, and a public hearing in the town of Pinecrest drew more than three hundred people last week.
Delia Waboose, a negotiator for the nation, says consent has to include the right to refuse. “A consultation that can only end in yes is not a consultation at all,” she said. “Our families hunt and fish along that route. We have watched companies promise great care and then leave the cleanup to us.” Waboose also wants the nation to sit on the panel that will monitor the line once it is built. “If we carry the risk for forty years, we should help watch it for forty years,” Waboose added.
Bertrand Vaillancourt, an adviser to the federal energy minister, accepts longer talks and a larger share of revenue for the nation, but he rejects a final veto for any single community. “A line like this one keeps whole regions working. If one refusal can stop it forever, nobody will put money into the grid again,” Vaillancourt said. He argues that Ottawa needs a narrow override for projects that a whole region depends on. “We would use it rarely, and only after every offer is on the public record,” he added.
Ines Zaragoza, a law professor in Winnipeg who studies treaty rights, says both camps skip the hardest part. “The real gap is what happens on the day after a nation says no,” she explained. “A good law would name an independent mediator and set a deadline. Then a court could judge whether the offers were fair.” Curtis Underhill, the mayor of Pinecrest, notes that his town and the nation do not always want the same things. “Some of our residents worry about the value of land near the towers,” Underhill said. “I want every condition from the town and from the nation printed side by side before anyone signs.”
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.
Delia Waboose would likely say that talks where the nation cannot refuse 2..
Paragraph three mainly sets out 3..
According to Zaragoza, a good law 4..
The author presents the issue as 5..
The following is a comment by a visitor to the website page. Complete the comment by choosing the best option to fill in each blank.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Correct Answer: a debate over whether a First Nation can refuse a project
Why this is correct: The article opens with the question of what happens when a First Nation says no. Every speaker then gives a view on that question.
Passage Reference: what happens when a First Nation says no to a major energy project?
Tips: This asks for the whole picture. Keep the option that every speaker in the article is responding to, and drop any that only one person mentions.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a court case about a mine that closed early: The two mines are new, and no court case is described.
- a plan to lower the price of electricity in small towns: Nobody in the article talks about the price of electricity.
- a contest between two companies to build a hydro dam: The dam is where the power comes from. No companies compete to build it.
Correct Answer: would leave her people without a real voice
Passage Reference: A consultation that can only end in yes is not a consultation at all
Why this is correct: Waboose says a consultation that can only end in yes is not a consultation at all. So without the right to refuse, the nation would have no real voice.
Tips: Focus on Waboose’s quoted sentences. Ask which option follows from them, and reject what the other speakers or no one says.
Why the other options are wrong:
- would keep whole regions working: Vaillancourt says the line keeps whole regions working. Waboose does not argue this.
- should end with a ruling by a court: Zaragoza wants a court to judge the talks after a refusal. Waboose does not say this.
- would be fair if the nation got more revenue: Vaillancourt accepts a larger share of revenue for the nation. Waboose says consent must include the right to refuse.
Correct Answer: an adviser’s case for a narrow override
Passage Reference: Bertrand Vaillancourt, an adviser to the federal energy minister, accepts longer talks and a larger share of revenue for the nation, but he rejects a final veto for any single community. ... He argues that Ottawa needs a narrow override for projects that a whole region depends on.
Why this is correct: “Paragraph three” quotes Vaillancourt, an adviser to the energy minister. He rejects a final veto and argues that Ottawa needs a narrow override.
Tips: Look again at “Paragraph three” and put its purpose in your own words. Then keep the option that names that purpose, not a detail from elsewhere.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a negotiator’s wish to help watch the line: Waboose wants a seat on the panel that monitors the line. She is quoted before “Paragraph three”.
- a mayor’s request to print every condition: Underhill wants every condition printed side by side. He is quoted after “Paragraph three”.
- a company’s promise to cover the cleanup: Waboose says companies left the cleanup to her people. No company promises to pay for it.
Correct Answer: would bring in an outside mediator with a time limit
Passage Reference: A good law would name an independent mediator and set a deadline.
Why this is correct: Zaragoza says the hard part is the day after a nation says no. A good law, she says, would name an independent mediator and set a deadline.
Tips: Find each sentence Zaragoza speaks. The answer restates one of them, and an option she never says is wrong.
Why the other options are wrong:
- would give every community a final veto: Waboose wants the right to refuse, and Vaillancourt rejects a final veto. Zaragoza asks what happens after a refusal.
- would pay residents for land near the towers: Underhill says some residents worry about land near the towers. Nobody proposes paying them.
- would print the town’s and the nation’s conditions: Underhill wants the conditions printed side by side. Zaragoza does not say this.
Correct Answer: a matter a new federal law aims to settle
Passage Reference: Federal officials are drafting a law on consent this winter
Why this is correct: The reporter writes that federal officials are drafting a law on consent this winter. So the issue is one that a new law is meant to settle.
Tips: Skip the quoted lines and look at what the reporter states. Test each choice against those statements alone.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a matter the courts settled long ago: Nothing says a court has settled it. Zaragoza only says a court could judge later.
- a fight the nation is sure to win: No winner is predicted. The law on consent is still being drafted.
- a question that should be settled against the nation: The reporter takes no side. Each view is only reported.
Correct Answer: more than three hundred
Passage Reference: drew more than three hundred people last week
Why this is correct: The article says the public hearing in Pinecrest drew more than three hundred people last week.
Tips: The commenter is talking about the size of the crowd. Find where the article reports that meeting.
Why the other options are wrong:
- about two hundred: The article gives a larger number than this.
- close to five hundred: The article gives a smaller number than this.
- over a thousand: The article gives a much smaller number than this.
Correct Answer: hunt and fish
Passage Reference: Our families hunt and fish along that route.
Why this is correct: Waboose says the families of her nation hunt and fish along the route of the line.
Tips: The commenter means the negotiator, so find what she says her families do on that land.
Why the other options are wrong:
- live and work: Waboose names two activities on the land, and these are not them.
- farm and ranch: Waboose does not mention farms or ranches.
- travel and trade: Waboose does not mention travel or trade.
Correct Answer: forty years
Passage Reference: If we carry the risk for forty years, we should help watch it for forty years
Why this is correct: Waboose says that if the nation carries the risk for forty years, it should help watch the line for forty years.
Tips: This blank asks for a length of time, so find the period the negotiator links to the risk her nation carries.
Why the other options are wrong:
- ten years: Waboose gives a much longer time than this.
- twenty years: Waboose gives a longer time than this.
- sixty years: Waboose gives a shorter time than this.
Correct Answer: the public record
Passage Reference: We would use it rarely, and only after every offer is on the public record
Why this is correct: Vaillancourt says Ottawa would use the override rarely, and only after every offer is on the public record.
Tips: The commenter is repeating a promise from the adviser. Find the condition he sets before the override is used.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the table: Vaillancourt says every offer would be on the public record, not on the table.
- paper: Vaillancourt asks for more than a written offer, because he names the public record.
- the agenda: Vaillancourt does not mention an agenda.
Correct Answer: offers
Passage Reference: Then a court could judge whether the offers were fair.
Why this is correct: Zaragoza says a court could judge whether the offers were fair.
Tips: The commenter is describing the professor’s plan. Find what she says a court would look at in that plan.
Why the other options are wrong:
- hearings: Zaragoza does not say a court would judge the hearings.
- deadlines: Zaragoza wants a deadline, but the court would judge the offers.
- payments: Zaragoza does not talk about payments.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation