Thank you for joining tonight's info session on the Columbia River Treaty to hear the latest news on Canada US negotiations and to learn about the process for modernizing the treaty in both countries. I'm going to wait just a moment as I see a lot of folks still joining us. So we'll give it a minute for folks to join in. It's wonderful to see so many of you here. The next session is on the Columbia River Treaty. We'll hear the latest updates on Canada US negotiations and learn about the process for modernizing the treaty in both countries. We also hope that you can join us for on June 15 for our next session exploring ecosystem improvements through the Columbia River Treaty. We'll be being recorded and will be available on the BC Columbia River Treaty website after the fact for you to rewatch or share with your friends. My name is Brooke McMirchi. I am part of the BC Columbia River Treaty team and I am pleased to be your host tonight. I'm joining you today from the territory of the Lagwungen speaking peoples, known today as the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations. Also known as Victoria BC. I also acknowledge with respect and gratitude the territories of the Tanaha, the Shkwepin, the Silks, Okanagan and the Sinaix peoples and neighboring tribes whose territories span the Columbia River Basin. It's great to see so many of you here right now there's about 150 of you listening in. I expect more will join throughout the evening. I invite you to take a moment to introduce yourself and share what location or territory you're joining from in the chat. So tonight we are very pleased to welcome a suite of esteemed speakers that I will introduce before each of them begins. Right now I'd like to take a minute and share how the evening will go. So we'll begin with some opening comments from leaders of the Shkwepin, Tanaha and Silks, Okanagan nations. And we'll also hear a message from the BC minister responsible for the treaty Katrina Conroy. We'll then move into an update on Canada US negotiations, followed by questions. After that we'll take a quick break and then move into presentations on the process for modernizing the treaty in both Canada and the United States. After that we'll have more time for questions. We will wrap up at eight o'clock Pacific time. And so a reminder how to ask a question in Zoom, please type your question into the Q&A box, or you can use the raise hand function at the time we start taking questions. Please do not type questions into the chat they're going to be missed. So please use the Q&A box. If there are folks who have phoned in, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine that's if you if you've used the 1-800 number or the toll free number. If you do choose to speak you'll receive a message saying that you can unmute yourself so press star nine and then wait for a further prompt. Many thank yous to those who sent us questions in advance will read those questions out as well during the question periods and will alternate between those questions and the ones that you raised during this session. A few reminders to please be respectful of the people you're asking questions to. In the interest of time try not to raise questions that have already been asked and if you are verbally asking your question please try and limit it to one to two minutes that would be great. I can answer as many questions as possible tonight, and those that aren't answered will be included in our summary report for this session after the fact. So without further ado, it is now my honor to welcome Cookby Barb Cote of the Shishwap Band from the Shequette McNation to say a few opening words. Go ahead. Good evening everyone. CRT negotiations are important to the Sequimic for many reasons. The CRT was negotiated without Sequimic representation or any indigenous representation and has been the largest cultural impact to the Columbia Basin indigenous peoples since contact. The indigenous peoples are the rights and title holders of the resources required to conduct hydro and flood control operations. These operations come at a considerable expense to the indigenous nations rights and titles and have not been addressed or compensated to date. The nation has never ceded those resources but suffer the impacts of their loss in profound ways daily. The CRT has enabled the indigenous people the opportunity to bring their values forward and to be at the negotiation table to ensure those values that were previously disregarded are held accountable in a new CRT. It is acknowledged that three nations are valuable contributors at every level and every topic in the ongoing negotiations. We indigenous people are proud of these contributions and thank the creator for blessing us with the strong hearts and minds to do so. Our participation is monumental and precedent setting. UNDRIP is recognized now by both Canada and BC. They have plans on how to implement. Lacking is a direct relation to the Columbia River and the reconciliation that needs to occur in the Basin. It seems like an easy button to addressing reconciliation brewing for over 80 years. In fact, 83 as of this year CRT and salmon restoration are inexplicably linked and must define themselves as such in a new CRT. In front of us is the opportunity of a lifetime. An opportunity to broaden an international treaty so it encompasses the concepts and ideas needed to be inclusive to more than flood and power generation. An opportunity to join two sciences, western and indigenous to achieve operations reflective of a healthy river. An opportunity to aid in the recovery of a river that was once the largest salmon run in the world. An opportunity to have the Basins people reconnect with the resources so vitally important to their cultural survival and key to their health. An opportunity to have all of the values of the Basin to be considered. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Cook P. Kote. I'd now like to welcome Councillor Sandra Luke from the Yakanuki to Naha Nishin. I'm a band counsellor for Yakanuki, also known as the Laura Kutney band. I'm also the lands and resource sector chair for the Denaka Nation. I've been a lands and resource sector chair since 2014 and going back even further to Naha leadership have been deeply interested in and committed to the renewal of the Columbia River Treaty. The Denaka Nation will result. Really hopes to reduce the impacts of the Columbia River Treaty operations on our cultural, our waters and our lands, and I come as garbage up since all living things and to achieve some benefits through the renewed CRT. We live in Yakanuki near Creston and very close to the Kutney River downstream of the Libby Dam and Bondisbury Libby Dam has collapsed of the white sturgeon population in the Kutney Lake and the Kutney River. We are. The language means sturgeon used to be very important to us and we hope a renewal treaty will result in improved river conditions for Ria and other species. Our community has been working to restore some of the wetlands on our, our reserve. I participate in the five governments negotiations advisory team and feel that we are making some progress towards achieving our shared goals for a renewal treaty. My perspective progress is far too slow. I am hopeful that the pace of the negotiation is accelerating. And again, thank you. I'm looking forward to the discussions this evening. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Luke. Now I'd like to welcome Chief Keith Crow from the Silk Soap and Aga Nation. My name is Keith Crow, I'm the Chief of the Lower Soap and Aga Band. I've been involved in the Columbia River Treaty negotiations for both six years now. I just want to thank the presenters that came before me. It's been an honor to work with the other nations on this and speaking with one voice. It's something that's been long overdue and I'm glad we're doing it. The Columbia River Treaty is one of the biggest infringements within our territories. The infringement of the treaty that we were never negotiated with us and we're never part of. And the benefits that Canada and BC have received from this treaty are tremendous. But yet again, here we are. We haven't, nothing has come out this way. I just want to say I am in Castlegard tonight. I am here. I'm here to do ceremony tomorrow, seven ceremony and I'm just honored to be back in my old stomping ground. I'm just down the road from where I'm staying right now and went to school for a few years. So it's nice being back in this area and I just want to reach out to everyone who's out there and say, thank you for attending tonight. Thank you for putting the time in to hear us and see what's happening. There is so much on the go. And I just, it's been an honor to be part of this and I just want to put a plug out there for the Columbia River Salmon Restoration Initiative as well. The history is another major piece to the CRT is bringing the salmon back up the Columbia, all the way into the upper arrow. That's another goal to seal nation and the other nations we've worked together on that as well. And I just want to say limb them, and I look forward to the discussions. Thank you so much, Chief, Chief Crow and to Cookby Cote and Councillor Sandra Luke. Thank you all for your words and starting us off in a good way here. Really appreciate your participation tonight as always. Great, great words and a great start to the evening. Now here from the BC Minister responsible for the treaty and she sends her regrets and Minister Katrina Conroy. She's unable to make it in person but we do have a video message from her that we will share now. Hi everyone and welcome to tonight's information session on the Columbia River Treaty. I'm grateful to have this chance to speak to you remotely from my home away from home here in Victoria on the traditional territory of the Quangun speaking peoples, the Sonhees and the Squimalt First Nations. As many of you know, I'm a long time resident of the Columbia base and having lived there for more than 50 years so I'm very aware of the effects of the Columbia River Treaty, what it has had and continues to have on our lives, livelihoods and culture. So now we have an unprecedented opportunity to work together to build an improved modernized treaty. A treaty that has been built on extensive and exclusive engagement with the people of the Columbia basin is in the process of being developed collaboratively in partnership with indigenous nations that will help us protect vulnerable and valuable ecosystems and combat and mitigate the relentless forces of climate change that bring social and economic benefits to people and communities on both sides of the border and enhances the close bilateral relationship between our two countries to make it even stronger. The potential of this opportunity for positive change is reflected in your participation in tonight's events and in our commitment to engage with the people of the basin so you can clearly understand and stay current on the work we are doing to modernize the treaty. We started this process in 2012, connecting with people through virtual and in-person meetings, social media, newsletters, emails, letters and one-on-one phone calls with interested citizens. We've been working closely with the Columbia River Treaty Local Governments Committee, the Columbia Basin Regional Advisory Committee, Basin Citizens and organizations to discuss the future of the treaty to find out what the issues are and explore ways to address them. The Tanahashweb and Okanagan nations are an integral part of the process and have been working as equal partners with the governments of BC and Canada since February 2018 to develop and refine negotiating positions and strategies that will benefit all of us. The full participation of Indigenous nations in the treaty modernization process, it's an important and unprecedented step in implementing Canada's and NBC's commitments to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to our journey towards reconciliation. And I want to thank everyone from the Canadian and BC delegations and from the Tanahashweb and Okanagan nations for their presentations tonight. And a special welcome to Barbara Cousins from the University of Idaho who will bring us her insights on the U.S. process for modernizing the treaty. Wish I could be there to see you, Barbara. I've always really welcomed your presentations. So thank you again to everyone who is calling in or joining us online for your interest in and contributions to our work on the Columbia River Treaty. Together we can build a better treaty that meets the needs of the people of the basin and respects Indigenous rights. Thanks so much. Wonderful words from all of our leaders to set us up for the rest of this session. I'll do a little number check. It now looks like there's close to 200 of us who have joined the conversation. And so thank you once again for everybody who's joined in tonight. Let's get started. I'm pleased to welcome Canada's Chief Negotiator for the Treaty and Consul General of Canada in Denver, Sylvain Fabbi, who will start our session on the Columbia River Treaty negotiations update Sylvain. Good evening, everybody. I was just trying to make sure that I was unmuted because after two years, we still forget sometimes and, and then it doesn't work well. Hello, everyone. It's great to meet you this evening again. Yeah, it's still unfortunately virtual, but it's better than then than not meeting. And I hope all of you and your loved ones are keeping safe and healthy. As we try to, you know, get over this pandemic and, and try to start working in the new normal, which is still to be defined. And the first thing I'd like to do, of course, it is acknowledge that I'm speaking to you from Denver, Colorado, which is the traditional territory of the youth, Cheyenne and the Arapaho people. And of course, I'd like to recognize the territories of Tunaqa, Sylvain Fabbi, and Saqwepim nations, and their people, because we have to remember that the work that we're doing together on this issue directly impacts this region and the people. Thank you, Chief Crow, Cook P. Cotay, and Councillor Luke for your words of welcome for us all. And thank you, Minister Conroy for, again, your consistent support for this long process to modernize the Columbia River Treaty. We're pleased that you continue to be the minister responsible for the CRT. So now about the negotiations. I know we have many speakers, so I'll, I'll try to talk briefly, and as, and then save time for the Q's and A's, which is often where the good exchanges happen. So I'm going to take a sip of water. I'm talking to you with my COVID voice. I unfortunately caught COVID. But since we're working at home, it doesn't seem to be changing much. So here we are. Canada hosted the last round of the CRT negotiations, round 12, with the U.S. on January 10 of this year. In this round, you may recall, occurred a year and a half after Canada had presented its first proposal on a renewed treaty to the U.S. So before that, it took a year and a half over the election, etc., for the U.S. to be ready to meet with us again. The formal rounds of the negotiations, 12 in total, have seen it is true, slow progress, and have shown us the multitude and the complexity of the issues we have to agree on and discuss. What we've done and will continue to do is insist on ensuring the benefits created by the treaty from the Canadian treaty dams and reservoirs are properly accounted for and shared equitably between our two countries. That's the premise of our positions with the, with the U.S. And as we mentioned before, and for those who are attending a public consultation for the first time, we remain open to provided flood protection downstream in the U.S. And continue, we continue also to see merit in cooperating on power. These are the elements of the current treaty. We've also said that for a modernized treaty, we want to ensure greater domestic flexibility in Canada to support ecosystems, indigenous cultural values, and socioeconomic objectives in the Canadian Columbia River Basin. And we have included this priority in our proposal and in all of our discussions with the United States. We, of course, continue to work closely and collaboratively as the Canadian team with British Columbia, the two nacha silk, Okanagan and second weapon representatives on our team to develop these positions and press ahead. It's important. It sounds like just motherhood and apple pie sentence. It's not everything we do, every position we put forward and defend with the United States is discussed, developed and agreed upon between Canada, British Columbia, the two nacha silk, Okanagan and second weapon representatives. There's nothing unilateral on this. And of course, BC, two nacha silk, Okanagan and second weapon, they also get the information from their own constituents on what they want to see in the treaty and also our group. And the negotiation group has met often as we do tonight, but in other formats too, to talk directly to other stakeholders in the basin to hear what they have to say. And I'm telling you, everything you say is considered and we try to make it as part of our negotiation positions. So in the last couple of months, however, and to look at options for making progress, Canada initiated the idea of small group sessions to sit down with the US more informally to discuss and ask questions and seek clarifications on issues in our respective proposals in 2020. And we do that because we want to help foster a better understanding of where each side is and to try to find areas to advance negotiations. The small group sessions are not negotiation sessions. But this is where we exchange in a more open and loosely defined format back and forth on ideas presented by each parties and to try to better understand and because some of these things are, as I'm sure you will appreciate, it's they're very complex and they sometimes take more than one shot at in order to, you know, really grasp what what is being presented. Our first small meeting group took place on March 30th in Washington, it was face to face Washington DC and we were seven people on each side including representatives from of course our indigenous nations, and we had some pretty frank discussions. And my conclusion after that is that this was one of the best meetings we'd ever had, even though it wasn't a negotiation, it was a really good meeting, which on which we can and will build upon in our negotiations. We have since continued with the small group format and met again on April 17, we will meet again tomorrow, May 17, and then towards the end of May. And each of these meetings is meant to elaborate, elaborate on some of the more contentious and complex issues of our respective respective proposals, and to find some common understanding. And these are half day smaller meetings as opposed to formal two day negotiation sessions. Nevertheless, by at the end of May, we will communicate the key elements of these recent discussions. And we're aiming to hold a formal round of negotiation at some point this summer, likely in early August, but more follow on this. I know I've said this before but I'll say it again, we all need some patience, starting with me to get through these negotiations, but there is commitment on both sides, and of this, I can assure you, I am convinced there's there's commitments, there's commitment to try to reach a negotiated agreement, a modernized instrument that will satisfy both sides as much as possible. I will end my formal remarks by thanking all of you for remaining committed to this process for staying patient and for keeping both myself and BC accountable and on track to obtain the best possible agreement for basin residents and for Canada. So with that, I'm happy to take at one point your questions at the appropriate time. Thank you again for being here tonight. Thank you so much so they Kathy over to you this is Kathy I can burger executive director of the BC Columbia River Treaty team and also the BC lead on the Canadian negotiation. Kathy go ahead. Thank you. So hello. Thank you for all of your spending a few hours of your time with us this evening. We're really stoked about the number of people who are tuning in. And of course, those who aren't able to will be able to view the whole session which will be on our website later on. So first I'd like to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you from Victoria, British Columbia on the territory of the Lekwungen speaking people, the songies and Esquimalt First Nations. And thanks today for giving the update on negotiations, I'm just going to add a few words, and not to repeat what others have said and to give time to my negotiating teammates and for Q&As. So on the pace of progress while while the progress might seems seems slow. Progress is being made. And, especially after reengaging in December of 2021. And I know that often people have said well we read your information bulletins after each session they always sound the same that it's a repeat of one another and there is no real information in them. So what I'm telling you is that, you know, there are nuances and there are shifts that are signaled in those information bulletins because the real just details of the negotiation sessions can't be made public I would disadvantage both countries if we did that at this point. But if you read the information bulletins in over time you will see that over the 12 sessions sessions there have been shifts and the nuances should be encouraging to you you'll see new things develop as you go along. And that's on our website. But at the same time people on both sides of the border are concerned about, you know, the progress and the prospects of reaching a positive and comprehensive agreement before September 2024. The current flood control provisions expire and it changes from a planned assured flood control regime to a more ad hoc called upon scenario that would affect operations and in both countries. We may reiterate they were open to collaborating on a renewed flood risk management regimes that that protects downstream areas. However, to provide this benefit. I think that it's valued appropriately, and that we're also able to achieve the increased flexibility in the other areas of the treaty that said I mentioned for our own domestic goals, including ecosystem benefits and indigenous cultural values and socio economic objectives, considerations that were not talked about in the original treaty. And so when people ask how likely is it that the two sides will reach an agreement in time. The survey said there's no deadline for negotiation to be complete, but we are rolling up our sleeves and to reach an agreement as soon as possible, but, and this is an important but we need to reach an agreement in which both, both countries will decide that the treaty will serve them well now and in the future. If that's not the case, if a treaty or an agreement isn't fair to both countries, the modernized treaty won't endure. It will fall apart, and not too long. So that means that for us at least in Canada, the shared benefits and flexibility to meet our domestic objectives will need to be sufficient to make ongoing treaty operations worthwhile. And the US has their own interest in objectives as well. However, being at the table, I would like you to know that there is tremendous goodwill on both sides of the negotiating table to develop a treaty that I hope we can be all proud of. Or at the very least, a treaty where everyone will acknowledge and recognize that it's better than where we are today with the current treaty. So it's complicated. It's very hard work, definitely worthwhile. And it is taking the time, hopefully not too much time, but taking the time to get it right. Thank you. Thank you very much, Kathy. Now I'd like to welcome Nathan Matthew, who is the Shquat-McNation representative on the Canadian Negotiation Delegation. Welcome, Nathan, go ahead. Speaking to you from the Sahwam territory, and thanks for the invitation to share some of the indigenous perspectives on the renegotiation of the Columbia River Treaty. And it's really important stuff, you know, to speak and participate in ways that we can transform our world and make it a better place for everybody by working together, sharing and coming to what we believe is a better place given the circumstances that we're facing as people today. And a number of the key ideas around the indigenous perspective have already been mentioned, so I'll try not to hit everything too hard. I know that many of the viewers are familiar with some of the issues, but I think it's worth retelling a little bit that the treaty and the construction of the dams are truly the biggest infringement on the lives of indigenous nations ever in our history. And some of the discussions that we have in terms of how to reconcile and how to bring things up to date in terms of the current commitments of government, it's not easy, so it's a really great challenge. And going from non-existence of rights to the really quite clear statements of government that they're going to reconcile with the current constitutional and legal frameworks that are out there is a really big task. We do have Canada and BC signing on to the United Nations Declaration on the Race of Indigenous People, and that's a lot. And it forms a big part of the challenge of transforming sort of our relationship. And it's made it a lot easier on our side because we now have something to talk about and that's respected. And one of the big things in terms of that declaration is Article 19, where governments are expected to obtain our free, prior and informed consent before they make decisions, either legislatively or administratively, that have to do with our interests. So the expectation is that we're going to agree to this treaty. And one of the biggest ideas is that through the UNDRIP is that the governments recognize Indigenous peoples have the rights to the lands, the territories and the resources that they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used, and Indigenous peoples have a right to redress by means that can include restitution or when that's not possible, just fair and equitable compensation. So that's Article 28. And Article 29, and they all sort of run together, is that Indigenous people have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and productivity of their lands. So we have some pretty big ideas of forming or providing a framework for the discussions that we're having in terms of how and what we're going to talk about in terms of Indigenous interests. And in terms of going through this reconciliation, and Sylvain and others have mentioned it, we as Indigenous nations have been included in all the negotiation activities, the planning, the strategies, the pre-meetings, the meetings themselves, and sort of the post-meetings. So we have a very good front row seat to the negotiations and we're included, and we can speak when we want in terms of the strategy and stuff. The main table discussions, it's very structured, but we do have participation. And the idea that the cultural and ecological values are key issues for negotiation are now part of the negotiation. And we're actually talking ideas about the benefits sharing and reintroduction of salmon, which these ideas will be further identified in further presentations here. And how Indigenous voices, how our representation can be made in future decision-making about how the system actually works. So how do we participate together with Canada and British Columbia and the United States in how the rising and the falling and the flowing of the water through the system impact Indigenous interests, and how those operations can be changed so as to provide greater benefits and greater health to Indigenous peoples and health to the ecological environment. And we really come from a pretty different perspective in terms of values with our long association with the land and our own selves for a very, very long time. We have a very clear responsibility to protect the health of the land and the resources. And in traditional way, we have words and phrases that sort of show us the way. In Sahuat-Masjid, we have as much like silks and atonaka words like quant-quant. We have an obligation to respect our natural world. We have to become a little more humble to them knowing that our health and well-being depends on the health and well-being of that natural world. And words like, very directly, tectameda. Respect the earth. And others like quant-quant, help one another do things. So when we talk about what are your laws, well, they're sort of like that. We're coming from that place. And we're pleased to participate in this really interesting and important negotiation. Thank you so much, Nathan. I'll pass it over now to Jay Johnson, who is the silks-okanagan lead on the Canadian Negotiation Delegation. Go ahead, Jay. Hi, my name is Jay Johnson. I'm actually coming to you from the Tuas and Nation Territory. I had to pull over to engage in this as I forgot in the post-COVID environment that there are more and more people traveling on ferries these days. I was delayed a ferry ride, so I'm not in a nice comfy office right now. But nonetheless, I'm honored to be here today and very appreciative of everyone's time and interest in something as important as the Columbia River Treaty. As you all know, many of you are along the Columbia River or involved in it or have keen interest in it. And you understand how important the renegotiation process is for all of us and for the environments we rely on. And we've been involved in the structure of the renegotiation process for many, many years. In fact, a couple of more decades. And in even longer, the nations and leadership and ancestors have been pursuing a voice within the treaty and demand for more involvement in the decisions that occur on their lands and on their territories to ensure that the interests of their communities and just as importantly the interests of the environment and those species that do not have a voice in these discussions are represented as best as they can be to ensure that the decisions that are made around the treaty and around the water system as one river are are the best ones for the environment, for the cultural values, for spiritual values, and for all of those of us that depend upon the treaty and the benefits of the river system and its ecosystems around us. So I've been involved as the chief negotiator and senior policy advisor to the Sioux Okanagan Nation for a little over 20 years now. I grew up in the basin and in appreciate what the Columbia River Treaty was and the kind of impacts that has had around the river system and around the basin, both north and south. I acknowledge that we have been living with the industrialization of a river that has sought and achieved the harnessing of the power of the river for the purposes of hydroelectric production and electricity that we all benefit from. And it has also resulted in holding back the fresh hits every year to provide security downstream in the United States in particular for floodplain developments and high water marks and in wet water years. So the treaty was really, as you all know, formed on those two bases, energy production and flood control. But it left out not only many voices in the basin and around the river, but also left out the environment and ecosystems and the cultural values that are so critically important to all of us. And we've been working really hard to ensure that the intentions of Indigenous nations that you've heard tonight are included in a renewed treaty. And we're very proud of where we've been able to go so far. You've heard tonight that we've had great success in becoming observers. I like to frame it as participant observers. And you've heard from the Chief Negotiator Silva Al-Fabih and from Cathy Eikenberger in British Columbia that we have been deeply involved in the iterations and the twists and turns of research and issues analysis and positions and issues and negotiation discussions. And so we're very pleased with that. This is something very, very new and very, very long overdue. The voice of Indigenous people in the decisions is critical and crucial and is finally coming about in a way that will affect the treaty in a positive and beneficial way. Some time ago we, through, as Nathan mentioned, the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, the adoption of that same declaration into provincial legislation in British Columbia and subsequently the adoption in the federal government of Canada. We now have UNDRIP and also known as DRIP and NBC enshrined in law to ensure that consent is required in these broad-based decisions that need to occur on areas that affect Indigenous communities. And to that effect, we've had to wrestle with what consent means and what does consent mean to First Nations of the Basin in Canada. And in broad-stroke ways, we seek to get a variety of interests addressed and our leadership has been very vocal in describing what those are and not necessarily a pathway to get there, but certainly the interests that we're pursuing with great interest and great intent and with lots of action. And broadly speaking, those are benefit sharing so that the benefits that are accrued to British Columbia primarily from the River Treaty are shared appropriately with Indigenous communities, which as Chief Crow had described has never occurred before. Indigenous communities and many of those living along the river system have had to live with the benefit with the burden and not the benefits. And so we have yet to see progress on that, but we remain very hopeful and we pursue our discussions with the federal and provincial governments on benefit sharing. Governance is another aspect. A new decision-making regime around the treaty and its implementation is something that we'd like to see and also redress. You've heard that several times tonight that redress is a fundamental component of the UN Declaration. It's something that we seek to obtain as well in terms of mitigation efforts and restitution efforts in a variety of ways along the river system. And lastly, you've heard about salmon. And salmon is crucially important to all the First Nations in Canada in the basin. So the salmon people, the salmon is not just about sustenance and nutrition. It's also about cultural values and ceremonies and bringing salmon back results in the reinviguration of social networks in terms of distribution of food. The ceremonies around the distribution of the food, the teachings from elders to youth, the connection of youth back to elders and to community members. All those networks that have not been active because of the lack of salmon are reintroduced and reinvigorated as a result of the salmon coming back and make stronger, deeper, healthier communities as a result. And that's something that we're very, very excited about. So to that effort, we're looking at benefiting from the experience of the Silks Nation and bringing salmon successfully back into the Okanagan River system. For the last 20, 25 years, the nation has worked incredibly hard and the leadership have worked very, very hard to ensure that salmon find their way back up through the Columbia River and into the Okanagan system. And the Sockeye salmon are now returning in numbers that started with around a thousand to hundreds of thousands of salmon now coming back into the system. And communities all through the basin and all along the river system are benefiting from that. So it's tremendous effort. It was informed by Indigenous knowledge along the way. It resulted in the establishment of Indigenous hatchery on Pentington Reserve for the nation and tremendous growth in technical and cultural expertise. But none of that could have happened without strong connections with U.S. tribal groups and power entities that have supported this work. So none of us can do it alone. We all have to work together. We have to ensure that we keep our eyes on the prize and build a healthier, sustainable future in years to come. And the last thing I'd like to talk about just quickly is that the Columbia River Salmon Recovery Initiative is something that probably many of you know about. It's an organization that is only three years old now and as a result of all the three Indigenous nations of the basin and the provincial and federal governments working together under Indigenous leadership, First Nations leadership to bring the salmon back up into the Columbia River. So, Lim Limp to everyone today and thank you very much and look forward to to our future together. Thank you so much Jay. And for those interested in learning more about the Bringing the Salmon Home Initiative, I've entered the website into the chat. I'd now like to welcome Bill Green, Tanaha Nation Representative on the Canadian Negotiation Delegation. Bill, go ahead. Thanks very much, Brooke. Hello, I'm Brooke Yuckit, who got quick Bill Green. And thanks, Sylvain, Kathy, Nathan and Jay, who are hard acts to follow. I'd like to start by thanking the Tanaha Nation Council for the really great honor of working for the nation, the Tanaha communities and citizens on the renewal of the Columbia River Treaty. Thank you for the opportunity to present a perspective on behalf of the KNC on Tanaha Nation Council on Negotiation to Progress. Sylvain spoke a bit about the 18 month hiatus, US election, etc., and the aftermath of that. The hiatus is over and as of December, fully back at the table. And there now appears to be strong interest on both sides and working hard towards renewed CRT and that is Sandra Luke-Poker. We're about frustration with a slow pace. We're happy to see much stronger progress now. What's also encouraging is that all five governments on the Canadian side continue to work together in a really collaborative way and we're dealing with difficult and complex issues and this collaboration is not always easy, but it is good. And I think indeed the collaboration is getting stronger as we get deeper into the negotiations. And that's the only way it should go. This is in the Tanaha Nation. On the CRT is guided by two negotiations mandate documents, one developed by the Nation Council itself, and one a collective indigenous nations mandate that was developed and adopted by leadership from all three nations. They spoke a bit about this. And now all five governments have been working together to make sure we're aligning our mandates. And so then spoke about the Canadian domestic flexibility concept, really important concept. And the nation is extremely pleased to see that this concept is now being actively and carefully explored by both the US and Canada to address ecological cultural and other values. So salmon restoration, but I want to put a particular to the nation context to that. It's an profoundly important cultural value for the Tennessee nation indeed for all of the indigenous nations. That's a goal that we've been working towards for more than 30 years. And I'm really happy to report that both sides are now starting to consider the important linkages between a renewed CRT and an address salmon restoration, there's fundamental linkages there that have to be developed. But this is both CRT work. And as Jay explained collaborative work between the five governments that we need to continue in its own right for many years to come even beyond signing a renewed treaty. The K and C, along with the Soquema can self token organization have been co-leading the CRT ecosystem restoration work. But with the really important participation and support of other governments and organizations, we've completed quite a few ecosystem function studies. And from those have developed a set of performance measures that we then build into what's called the CRT planning model. And that's computer model we use for analyzing different CRT scenarios. The short form is CRT PM for planning model. And using that we've begun the work to identify and evaluate alternate operating scenarios that would improve ecosystem conditions. All of this work is ongoing and much remains to be done, but even beyond that, it's a very important work to explore and evaluate scenarios will, which will achieve improvements across a wide range of values ecosystem, cultural, social economic recreational flood control power production and others to find shared benefit across as many values as possible. Now there is an opportunity to learn more about this. There's an online town hall meeting like this on June 15, just about a month from now. If you go to the same place where you registered for this, you will find the link to that online town hall meeting and will be delving in some depth into three key values, ecosystem values and function and performance measures. Thank you. Thanks very much, Bill. That's great. And we'll be sharing a link to where to register for that at the break as well. So, at this point, I want to open it up for questions for all of our panelists, as well as invite our panelists to turn their camera back on. There's been a lot of questions in the Q&A box that have some of them have had answers typed into them so feel free to browse those. And we'll pull some of those questions out to ask them with the group here in a little bit. But for now, I'd like to start with some of the questions we received in advance of this meeting. And that's when we'll go to Sylvain. And the question is, are the negotiations going to address future irrigation demands south of the border. The US south is running low on water from, and the US is known for building water pipelines to move it from existing sources to supplement demand. We're addressing that issue as well as governments continually saying they listen to citizen concerns but will not reveal their negotiating strategies as it would supposedly hinder them in achieving their goals. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, so the first part of your question is the treaty manages the flow and timing of water at the border for power and flood control so far. And under the treaty, each country is able to use water for their own domestic purposes as long as flow agreements at the border are met. So in BC, I've learned that there are no significant water supply challenges in withdrawing water from the Kootenai and the Columbia rivers for domestic agricultural and industrial use by and large. I mean, there could be some small issues. And given the at least the prognostic that can be made for the future on climate change, the climate change predictions, it looks like we're not going to be running out of water at least in that part of the basin. So this is not a topic we have discussed with the Americans. Remember, the CRT is not about everything, right? There's about certain issues and we're trying to reintroduce some issues, not reintroduced. Introduce some issues such as ecosystems now, but we haven't talked about what each country does with water on their side. The second part is, what was the second part of your question again? And just continue to say. So it was talking about how our governments continually say they listen to citizens but will reveal their strategies. The one thing I'll say a couple of things. It's not because governments don't divulge. I don't like to use the word government. It's not because negotiators don't divulge their strategies that they're not listening to constituents. That's not true. And I can tell you that if I compare to when I joined my department 30 years ago, the level of openness and the sharing of information happening today is unparalleled with what happened before. Remember that each of your respective governments, like the BC government, the three nations government, the federal government, they represent you. They're elected by you. So it's not like everything is done in the dark and people are not consulted. We're doing consultations now, but I think you will agree with me that if I were to come at a meeting like tonight and say, oh, by the way, these are my strategies for negotiation that I don't think we would just be talking about supposedly hinder us in achieving our goals. It would definitely hinder. I mean, this is a negotiation. So there's a certain amount of things that you can't say in the open in order to keep your positions whole and to make sure that you have the best negotiation stance and position when you negotiate with another party. So, but I'm very confident in the level of openness that we have and the amount of consultation we do at every level of constituents. So I'll end here. Thank you, Sylvie. So the next question that we had, Kathy, I'll ask for you to answer this one. How have the ongoing socioeconomic benefits in the US that are provided by flow regulation in Canada being calculated. And then how have these benefits been used in the negotiations to determine any payments or obligations by the US to Canada for providing flow regulation into the future. As Sylvie said, can't comment on the absolute specifics of the negotiations but you know we agree that treaty has provided significant benefits to the US, more than just power and flood control but also for irrigation, navigation, recreation, etc. And that's often been acknowledged by US stakeholders as well. So in 2012 we retained a large accounting firm, Ernst and Young, to analyze these benefits and assign a value to them. And then we also retained Willis-Ree, which is a worldwide reinsurance firm, to determine the range of potential avoided flood damages as a result of the treaty, or if the treaty would not be in place. Of course we're not going to divulge the numbers tonight to you but it is informing our positions. And so we do want to make sure that people are aware of all of the benefits of the Canadian operations, treaty operations, with you know salmon population recovery navigation and water supply and reliable power production, as well as keeping towns safe from flooding. So it's these additional benefits and including the fundamental and the core benefits from the treaty are being discussed with the United States. Thank you. Thanks so much Kathy. I'm going to invite Lynn Panaya who's part of the Global Affairs Canada team she's been monitoring the questions being typed in here, and I'll invite her to ask a question from the Q&A box go ahead Lynn. Sure. Good evening everyone and thanks Brooke. So one of our questions is how will terminating the agreement and using the called upon have negative effect to Canada. I can give this a try. And then Kathy can compliment. First of all, called upon is will have net is not good for anybody. Right. There's no doubt in my mind about this, certainly not good for the United States but, but also for Canada because there's no uncertainty and and with uncertainty in anything else whether it's managing a river or or or managing a college or managing a business. It's, it's very hard to operate when you have a higher level of uncertainty because under called upon. The US would call upon us when when they feel they they need under certain conditions. And it would not be as predictable as what we have now. It would certainly be bad for the US to, I am I am entirely convinced of that. That's why we're seeking to agree on a on a more predictable flood control regime that would be good for good for both countries and take into consideration and equitable sharing of benefits. Kathy you may want to expand on that. Yeah, I mean, they called upon operations are not well defined and so it's challenging to even know how it would all unfold. There is a uncertainty on how would it impact flood risk in US and how can BC would have to operate the dams differently. That uncertainty is what is challenging. And the called upon requires the US to use more of their flood storage space in their reservoirs but that includes cuckoo news for example so we don't know what the impacts might be there but also in other US reservoirs at the same time. So if we have to, if we're called upon to to provide more storage, how quickly we would have provided how soon, and what could the impacts be ours are all unknown so that's where it's, it's, which is not a clear answer to that because there is a lot of uncertainty on how it would all unfold. Thank you Kathy. I see one person has their hand raised so I will invite Brian to speak and then we'll go back to the questions we received in advance. Brian if you're able to unmute yourself. Let's try that one more time. All right, maybe we'll figure that out in just a moment. There is somebody else who has raised their hands so we will invite this person to speak. Yes. So, I'm Harman from Pentagon. So my concern is about the smilke mean and Okanagan Rivers. So I have read many places that they are part of the Columbia Water Treaty and many places it is mentioned that they are not part of the Columbia Water Treaty. Though the Okanagan River is managed so we can maintain flow in this one but the smilke mean river the flow is always natural and in August and September. The flow goes critically low and and there are having like issues like if there is a change in precipitation and we get less of water into the rivers and and there are changes in the water rights also. So we will be what will be the guidelines for maintaining that water level at the boundary so that what we are supposed to maintain those things are these negotiations going on. Yeah, I can I can answer that and jump in. So the Okanagan and Smilke mean rivers are a part of the physical Columbia basin. You are correct, but they are not influenced at all by the Columbia River Treaty dams per se. And so they they flow into the Columbia basin but below the border and and so they're not they're not part of the Columbia River Treaty agreement. They are operated through a totally different agreement. And if you want, we could follow up with you and provide you with more information on that. Yeah, thanks a lot because I am having some really technical issues in this area. So I will get to you. Yeah, thanks a lot. Yeah. Thank you very much for your question. Thank you. Alright, so let's go back to one of the advanced questions. This next one is again for Sylvain. So when the Columbia River Treaty was first signed one of the American negotiators remarked it was the sort of treaty you would impose on a defeated enemy, but they were willing to sign. Now we are told that the price the Americans pay was too high, and that power and flood control and downstream benefits really aren't worth what the US paid, and that we should be prepared to accept a lot less. Well as taxpayers we continue to shoulder the burden of paying for the dams. The great deal they got isn't really great. So we have to make more concessions question mark. So the question they're asking is will the government stand up for British Columbians and demand that American customers pay a fair price for power. The answer is yes. Negotiator said, I don't care right I mean your question and your question you're already answering it. If it was so bad for us why are they coming back and wanting to reduce it. This is not about qualifiers with that's not how we engage in our negotiation. We are there to stand up and and negotiate for for Canada for British Columbia for the indigenous nations in order to have an equitable sharing of the benefits. And that's that's what we intend on doing. Now, there are things that we're asking for more right like more flexibility on our on our side, which, which will have to be included in the equation and will have an impact. And the electricity that the treaty allow you know, allows for production in the US, not to the detriment of flood of flood risk management of course but that's what we're there for we what else would we be there. We don't engage in the negotiation by saying, oh let's go let's go cave in and give everything. We're out there and and we're not caving in and we want to make sure that what we get is equitable for us. Thank you so much, Sylvie. Lynn, I'll ask you to read one more question, and then I'll go back to another question that we received in advance, and just a reminder folks if you're able to check the q amp a box some of the questions have been answered to via text. We're not going to be able to get to every single one tonight we're trying our best and of course everything not answered in this meeting will be responded to afterwards. Lynn, go ahead. What, what question do you have for us. Sure thing. Thanks, Brooke. So this question comes from the US excuse the ignorance, but for those of us from the US who are new to this. Who are the seven members of the US team involved in the small group meeting, who selected them and whose interests do they represent. We would like to take that one. I remember by heart do they are but the chief negotiator is there to representative. PPA is there of the Army Corps of Engineer. There was there was an indigenous represent a tribal representative to what it is it's just a smaller group compared to the bigger group and and maybe less lawyers and more technical people because what we do in these small groups is we really dig down on the technical issues if in order to be able to dissect it better understand it so that when we sit down at the negotiation table, we're able to to be in a better position to negotiate on the Canadian it's the same organizations that are represented but less people in order to facilitate the dialogue because when there's 25 people and sometimes more on each side. It's very hard to have a fluid back and forth on on some very technical issues, even though at the end of the day. I could choose as a chief negotiator to be the only one speaking but I don't like to do that because I don't think it's conducive we orchestrate our interventions of course. In a nutshell, it's the same organizations represented the same same groups, but a smaller, a smaller number of them. And, you know, we wouldn't even think of speaking on how what the US process is on the composition of the delegation and so I think I think that the people you us dispense should should be contacting frankly their their own representatives and they have a website the State Department has a website so maybe you can Google it and it has good information and you have the ability to ask questions as well. Thank you to. So, I'll go one more question that we received in advance. So this one Kathy is for you. I'm born Canadian. I am Canadian born in Calgary and consider myself on equal terms with all Canadians and ask our negotiators if you're going to stand strong and protect the vast areas in Canada that have access to water for the Americans, and is likewise managed by the Americans. Seasonally, areas of the coconut and arrow lakes become nothing more than a wasteland and the Americans complain they are giving Canada overpayment. Canada is being shortchanged and I plead with you to the negotiators to stop being nice and take on an offensive strategy. I can not understand the impacts of Libby down operations and change the management of the dams on the Columbia River. We should build a we're on cuckoo news app we own the water and should demonstrate our ownership. Okay, thanks. And thanks for the people around cuckoo news app who sent this question. We know and we acknowledge the big impacts in certain years about the reservoir fluctuations have on on the people, the land the plants and the animals all around cuckoo news app. And the concerns of some of the residents. You know, on the water fluctuations prompted BC commission that's independent report on feasibility of building a we're in this feasibility study was done in 2020 for a we're or or really would be a dam on cuckoo news app. And a detailed review of this preliminary study and we had also a town hall on it. The feedback that we received. Generally, and including emotion from the regional district of East Kootenays in 2021 supported the negotiating team that to have as a first priority to most efficiently address. The purpose of cuckoo news of reservoir levels is to negotiate an increased coordination of Libby dam operations, you know, at the negotiating table, and we will continue to do that as for fluctuations and other reservoirs to reduce. We are looking at that as part of the domestic flexibility that we are seeking a lot of work has going into that. And that's a must for us to reach an agreement for it to be durable. So you'll hear a lot about the flexibility for domestic objectives and it's something that is new to the treaty for sure. And something that is, I think, an absolute must for for a modernized treaty, but I'm Brooke I would like to go to some of the questions regarding the youth involvement. I'm wondering if you can go to Sydney's question. Of course, thank you very much Kathy. So I'll, I'll read out Sydney submission. Hello, my name is Sydney McLean and I am from Golden BC, and now live in Kelowna. In 2019 I was a student in wild sites Columbia River Field School. I'm now a student at UBC Okanagan studying nursing. I'm passionate about health and equity. For both Canada and the US the Columbia River impact social and environmental health for many. I'd like to know how the Canadian and American negotiating teams are listening to the needs of indigenous populations, younger populations and underrepresented groups to implement those findings in the modernization of the treaty. Great. So thanks in me for your question and we need more questions from people like you and of your generation so I can't speak for for the US but first off I want to say that I can't say enough about how special wild sites Columbia River field school is. I mean, talk about learning about the river from the river, paddling it, speaking to indigenous knowledge holders, politicians, ecologists, and much more. And so we're quite proud to be one of the sponsors for the field school and we're hoping that it can, that it will continue and where there was a hold during COVID but it is a tremendous opportunity. We're also very impressed, so impressed with what we don't want to spend the night making plugs for wild site but the wild site teach the Columbia series so a shout out to the grandly Rollins and his team. It's not the curriculum. A whole package meant to help educators engage your students in many dimensions of the Columbia watershed past present and future. And in a way that would be a lot more engaging than if bureaucrats like me would put together a PowerPoint or a paper. I would really encourage people to check it out that the wild site, not see programs teach the Columbia. It's, it's a very informative package for everyone, but they also have an interesting mock negotiations set up that maybe survey and I can learn something from it. We also have, you know, in all our engagement meetings virtual in person, where we've had entire classes from colleges and high school who've joined and participated over the years, and I would also give a shout out to the instructors.  We've also been going in person and virtually into the classrooms for an overview of what the CRT is, but even more interestingly to have a back and forth discussion about what the students think is important that we need to consider in our negotiations and our virtual classroom meeting with Selkert College with Ken's chief negotiator myself led to a really lively discussion and we'd be happy to do a lot more of that and get them teachers instructors we're waiting for your call. So we also invite youth and including the Columbia River Field School alumni to participate in the Columbia Basin Regional Advisory Committee events, and we're always looking for youth members. We have we use social media tools YouTube newsletters Facebook Twitter. We haven't quite got into tick tock yet, but never say never. And people can always reach us by phone by any means. We even have phone calls people are surprised we pick up the phone and even people in California talk to us about the Columbia River Treaty so with respect to how the indigenous nations and these people are involved. You've heard about the collaboration of the five governments include three indigenous governments and their nations there. They're collaborating and everything that we do, but they also are reaching out to their members their communities on the CRT, and its future and we respect, and we support all types of their engagement with them in their own way in a good way with their community so there's always a lot more to do we're open for suggestions. Let us know which the best new ideas to connect with young people and thank you. Thanks so much Kathy and thanks to me for your question. We're going to take a really quick break here so that we can move into our next set of presentations on the process for modernizing the treaty in both countries. So, we'll take a couple of minutes. Oh, go ahead Kathy. And I'll continue to answer questions in the Q&A's during that time. Thank you very much Kathy really appreciate it so keep an eye out for Kathy's answers there. We'll come back in about five minutes and start ourselves up again so thanks very much everyone. Thanks Jane. Alright everyone. Hope you had a chance to stretch your legs. I'll get back to it here. And I'm excited to share our next speakers, or rather introduce our next speakers, who will present on both Canada and the United States process for modernizing the treaty. Corey Oleshenke is I probably miss Branson I'm so sorry Corey. This is from Global Affairs Canada and he will be presenting on Canada's process so I'd like to welcome Corey to please share your presentation. Thank you very much. Nice to see you. Nice to see you too. Hi everyone. Yes, my name is Corey Oleshenke. I'm a legal officer at Global Affairs Canada. And my responsibilities there include providing advice, legal advice to the federal government on matters of international law including as relates to the Columbia River Treaty. I'm joining you today from my home in Ottawa. I'm not projecting my voice too loudly because on the other side of the wall behind me my five year old is sleeping and I don't want to wake her, but I hope everyone can hear me well. And I'm in Ottawa which, which is the traditional home of the Algonquin people and I'm, I'm calling I'm speaking to you from there. Before I get into it too much. I'll also point out that treaty law is not specifically my area of expertise but I understand it well enough, hopefully to explain to you what the process is in Canada and to be able to answer some of your questions afterwards. So we can talk a little bit about what a modernized Columbia River Treaty would look like. And the truth is, nobody really knows what form a new treaty will take we've already heard from some of our earlier speakers who were talking about some of the things that we were trying to put into the treaty, but what will the treaty look like what will we do to modernize it from a legal perspective still remains unclear and there are a number of different options. The options are, they're not limitless but there are many of them. We could agree with the United States to amend some of the existing treaty. We could do what's called an exchange of diplomatic notes with the United States and diplomatic note is essentially an official correspondence between two governments. In these diplomatic notes we can correspond with the United States and express back and forth what our understanding is of a new modified Columbia River Treaty, or we could start a new and we could prepare an entirely 100% new Columbia River Treaty that doesn't look anything like the previous one in in terms of not so much substance but in terms of its form. Whatever we do though whatever form it takes whether it's diplomatic notes, whether it's amendments or annexes or whatever we want to call it. All of these things are still treaties. In international law, a treaty is any written exchange between governments made by people who are authorized to conclude such an agreement. So no matter the form. It's a treaty. And in Canada, an international treaty must go through a process that that I'll discuss right now. So how do we make a treaty in Canada, and in particular how would we make the Columbia River Treaty. The treaty adoption process in Canada has a few steps that it needs to follow and the Columbia River treaties, no exception to these rules. And I'll talk about some of these steps and where we are in the process. So the first step is to determine whether or not we should negotiate and we've already done that we've determined that we should be in a negotiation with the United States. So the next thing we would do before we would ever meet with our negotiating partners, the United States is to get permission to negotiate with the United States and that's called a mandate. The mandate for any treaty, including the Columbia River Treaty sets out Canada's positions. And it's developed after a study of the issue consultation with with relevant groups, for example, the province of British Columbia, Indigenous groups, stakeholders in the region. I should note this mandate is internal to the federal government that this is this is instructions that public servants in the federal government will receive from ministers and from cabinet explaining what their positions should be in the negotiation. If we fast forward a bit, and we imagine that the negotiations we have our mandate, we permission to negotiate, we have our mandate. And now let's pretend that we've already negotiated and negotiations have concluded and we've, we've come to some sort of an agreement with the United States. We'll have concluded a text with the United States, it'll have to be approved in English and French and both official languages. And then the next step would be to sign and ratify the treaty. So these are two separate important steps in the treaty adoption process in Canada. And basically, it requires the negotiators to get more permission, another mandate from the federal cabinet to do each of these two steps. So any mandate to negotiate requires consultation and so would a mandate for signing and ratification. It comes with study consultation with British Columbia with the Indigenous groups and stakeholders in the basin to make sure that to confirm that we have achieved our negotiating mandate. So what are these things? What is signing? What is ratification? So signing a treaty just means that we agree in principle with the terms that have been negotiated. It's not the same thing as ratification. Ratification would signal Canada's intent to be bound by the treaty. So these are two different things. Signature does not always lead to ratification. Ratification essentially means that Canada would indicate publicly and to the United States. It's intention to be bound by the treaty. And it happens after any necessary changes might be made to our laws if changes are needed. So in Canada, before ratification of a treaty can take place, our treaty process has an extra step. And that's the step for requiring the Minister of Foreign Affairs to table a signed treaty in the House of Commons for 21 sitting days before proceeding with ratification. And this period is meant to give members of Parliament an opportunity to debate or discuss the treaty before it's ratified if they choose to do so. So there's a mandate to negotiate and there's a mandate to sign and ratify the treaty. Then it's tabled for 21 days, sitting days in the House of Commons. Then the steps needed to ratify are taken so that might include changes to laws, creating Canadian legislation that allows us to do things or prohibits people from doing other things that might interfere with the fulfillment of our international obligations. And then will the treaty be binding upon Canada. The treaty itself will indicate what its process is for entry into force to, to come into effect essentially, it'll either have a specific date set out or it'll, there'll be another one of these exchanges of diplomatic notes this official correspondence between governments, one side confirming that they consider the treaty to be in force. But this is, this is a matter to be worked out by the negotiators when, when we get to that stage. And this is true, these steps are true, pretty much no matter what form the treaty takes. The Columbia River Treaty negotiators, they're not at the step where they're discussing form as you heard were were deep into the substance at this point, and the discussion now remains about our content. So the key to the treaty adoption process in Canada is to receive the permission for each step in the tabling in the House of Commons those those are the key elements I think to retain. Those are the steps that ensure that negotiators know what they must achieve, and whether they've achieved their goals to the satisfaction of cabinet and tabling in the House ensures that all MPs have had a chance to discuss the treaty if they want. And that that pretty much sums it up. I understand I can take some questions afterwards but I don't want to. I don't want to preempt barb so I'll leave it there. Great. Thanks very much Corey and I'll turn it over to barb to share the US process. Thanks barb. Thank you. Well, I, I would like to first thank all of you who have managed to to hang on to the, to the bitter end here. And thank you for being interested in staying engaged in Columbia River issues. I would also like to thank Minister Connery for her kind words this morning. I'd like to begin by acknowledging that I'm speaking to you from the aboriginal hunting and fishing grounds of both the Nespers and court lane tribes, and these, this area then became the 1855 treaty lands of the Nespers tribe. I'm a retired professor from the University of Idaho College of Law, and my role in the Columbia River has been I've participated in education on Columbia River treaty issues for about the past 12 years. I do not have any official capacity in the negotiations, and I do not represent anyone involved in the Columbia River treaty negotiation issues. What I'm going to do today is briefly go through the process the United States adheres to in entering a treaty in international law so that the negotiation, the ratification and then very briefly implementation. The negotiation the sole authority to negotiate a treaty lies with the executive, and the president generally does that through the Department of State. The original treaty for the Columbia River had a negotiation team that was led by the Department of State, it included representatives from the Department of Interior. The committee Bureau of Reclamation dams on the river and that's why Department of Interior would be interested, and there were representatives from the Army Corps of Engineers, who also already had dams on the Columbia River for navigation. Also on the original committee they had observers members of the congressional delegation from the basin who served on the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs participated. It's, it's a much broader range of expertise on the team, and I can't speak to the question that was asked earlier about how they choose their team I can only tell you the interest in the basin that these various entities bring expertise on. Again US Department of State is leading negotiations, and the team consists of representatives from what are currently the two operating entities so appointed under the treaty for the last 58 years. Bonaparte power administration and the Northwest Division of US Army Corps of Engineers have been the operating entities, they have represent representatives at the table. The team also includes as it did the first time representatives from the US Department of Interior. There's really three entities within interior that that have interest in the base in the Bureau of Reclamation. Again, because it has dams within the basin particularly Grand Coulee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs which handles a lot of the federal services to Indian tribes within the basin and across the United States. There's a Fish and Wildlife Service that has authority over resident listed fish species so in the Columbia that would be full trout and white sturgeon. Also from the Department of Commerce, they have no, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, they have authority over anadromous fish species so that would mean salmon and steelhead that are listed within the basin. So the website list that is the team and then says also present are the US Department of Energy for obvious reasons hydropower is a very important on carbon source of energy and expert advisors from three of the 15 tribes in the reservation the confederated tribes of the Cauville reservation the Kootenai tribe of Idaho and the confederated tribes of the Mantilla reservation. So that's, that's who's at the table negotiating. Ratification, which as Corey said is actually indicating the intent to be bound by the document that's negotiated actually has three methods in the United States. In fact, that the US Constitution specifies the advice and consent of the Senate is required for the president to then ratify a treaty. In practice, that's really only one of three methods. The other two allow unilateral action by the president. The first one is in areas that are matters under the Constitution of executive authority, and that includes within an existing treaty. So if a minor adjustment was made within an existing treaty that can be accomplished through an exchange of notes that that the president would undertake. Method that doesn't require the advice and consent is with authority from Congress and it's my understanding that that's a common method used in trade treaties, not necessarily water treaties. It's not stated but still relevant 1984 study showed that 94% of the international agreements that the US entered into between the end of World War two and 1972 were ratified under one of these two methods of unilateral authority. How is the method chosen for ratification, the Department of State has a list of criteria to determine if the agreement rises to the left level of advice and consent with the Senate. Those items include things like risk to the nation. There's no need for formality the duration of the agreement, but the things that are really of particular importance for a water treaty is first of all, past US practice. The original Columbia River Treaty went through the advice and consent of the Senate, and the other water treaties the US has with Canada have done the same as have the water treaties that the US has with Mexico. In the related areas in the list of criteria that are very important for water and that is the preference of Congress and the effect on state law. The Senate with its two representatives from each state regardless of the population of that state is designed to reflect the interests of the states as political entities and and while certainly the Columbia River is a major importance. Nationally because of its hydropower production because of its federally listed species because of the tribes that reside in the basin and have interest in the water. It's also considered water is always considered a particular importance regionally. So the preference of Congress Congress would want to see an agreement on water. So that is the most likely way that a treaty would be ratified. The process of advice and consent. The negotiations are completed and result in a document agreed to by the negotiating teams. The President submits the treaty to the Senate. And that treaty always goes to the Senate committee on foreign relations. That's the only, the only committee it can go to that committee generally conducts a hearing. What's called discharge from committee takes it to the Senate floor where it must receive advice and consent which is a two thirds majority that means 67 votes within the Senate. Key point on that is the two thirds majority means bipartisan support on the treaty regardless of what happens in in November elections. The Senate can in that process impose conditions on its advice and consent and if they do so the President will bring that back to the negotiating session. If the treaty passes the Senate with at least 67 votes, it returns to the President, and it's the President's signature that constitutes ratification president then exchanges, and what's called an instrument of ratification with Canada. And the treaty enters into a force on the day at which the treaty specified so usually the terms of the treaty itself says how it actually enters into force. Finally implementation because very often treaties are not self implementing there has to be additional legislation to implement them so for example in the original treaty. Congress authorized funding appropriations for a part of the grid that would tie in the Pacific Northwest with the US Southwest so that hydropower could be sold from the Columbia River basin, particularly in summer to the Southwest which which has been a very lucrative prospect for the basin. So any aspect of a new treaty requires appropriations by Congress, that would go through the normal congressional process of bill introduced in the House and the Senate, approving it with a majority vote. So I will end there and I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much Barb and Corey for that. Yeah, we've heard a lot tonight about the process of negotiating and as Corey put it in the details negotiating what a modernized treaty could look like. And now we've heard what the, what the processes in both countries to carry that forward. Thank you both for providing that context. So there's been a lot of questions flying in the Q&A section. And a lot of our panelists have been asking them in writing, but maybe I'll raise one of the questions that came up and maybe invite Bill to answer I know he typed in the response but I think it's a good one to clarify. Okay, so we heard both countries and their process for modernizing the treaty. The question is how are groups at the table ensuring that indigenous values and priorities like ecosystem benefits water, the individual beings, and the connection that we have are included and stay within the negotiations and don't get put aside. Billy are you able to speak to that. A little bit. And, yeah, so Nathan, Jay and myself are part of the negotiations team and it is our job on behalf of the nations we work for to make to achieve exactly what you, you've described but it's not just us there's also with each from each nation and that team and that team three or four individuals sits on the negotiation advisory team which involves all five governments. And, yeah, we work hard with considerable discussions and we've developed quite a few different ways to attempt to address. What impacts to indigenous cultural values on from the Columbia retreat so we're working really hard. That's our job to do that. And, you know the other part of it is noted in my written response is that, as Jay said we are participant observers in the negotiating team and we carry that job right to the negotiating team. Thanks. Thanks so much bill. So would you like to share some perspectives from the US side. Yeah, again, again with the caveat that I am not officially a part of the negotiating team that there was on the US side there was a formal process of review prior to commencement of negotiations and that process ended in 2013 with a regional meeting and in that process, led by one one of the power in the Army Corps. There was put together what was called the sovereign review team and it had five representatives from the 15 Indian reservations on the US side of the order, and it had one representative from each of the four main states and that regional. And then had, there was Native American input into that. It also had a sovereign review technical team that had representation from each of those entities. The regional recommendation, according to the State Department website is still the document that is guiding their positions in negotiations. And then the extent to which the team consults with both tribes members of Congress and states would not be something that that I would have any knowledge to speak to. Thanks very much Barb. So there's some other questions coming up maybe I'll ask one more and then pass it over to Lynn who I know has been monitoring the questions. But there's question here if the due process of negotiations runs past the end date of the existing treaty is the existing treaty grandfathered. And I'm not sure Corey or Barb if one of you would like to respond or one of our previous panelists, I'll leave it open. I can, I can answer that because it's a very good question. And so that if we if we the current treaty does not expire. Right. There's one part of it that changes in 2024 where we go from a assured flood risk management regime to a more ad hoc regime. Flood risk management regime called called upon. So if in the eventuality that that 2024 comes and we haven't been able to finalize a renewal of the treaty the treaty goes on right. There are provisions Kathy said earlier there are some provisions on called upon that are maybe not as clear as we would like them to be. But but the treaty doesn't doesn't end. It just keeps going, but the flood risk management regime will become different. That's the difference so it's not grandfathered it just remains in force. Thanks very much Sylvain. And I see my lawyer nodding so it must be true. And I know you've been monitoring the Q&A is what other questions do we have. Thanks, Brooke. Does Canada have energy representation. I lost that question one second. Does Canada have energy representation on the negotiation team, ie natural resources Canada. We are we are constantly keeping our colleagues in other government departments and agencies on top of what we do. We, when we have formal rounds before the rounds we explain what we're going to be talking about and welcome comments. We had for a while someone from the Department of Energy, who was on the attended some of the rounds. Now that person has moved on. It's it's it's open where we're trying to limit the size of the negotiating delegation but it's not close to them. We do have people from ECCC department of environment and fisheries, especially when we discuss issues that pertain more directly to them. And I would like to just supplement by my saying that in 1964, an agreement signed between BC and Canada to delegate the obligations and benefits of the treaty to the province and and in in the treaty constructed a an entity's function to implement the treaty which is BC hydro on the Canadian side so they are charged with implementing the treaty as they have. They, they operate the dams in the Columbia, most of the dams and recalling that BC hydro is a crown corporation of the province of BC. So the energy sector is is strongly represented at the negotiating table. Thank you very much to both of you. When do we have another one. Yeah, for sure I'm actually going to put two out there. The first is, is there a dispute resolution mechanism for this treaty, like the softwood lumber agreement. That's the first question. The next question for the panel is, it seems clear already that the US intends to reduce the Canadian entitlement BPA customers and Northwest Republicans are pushing that position hard. How will negotiations negotiators get past that. That's the first question you you mentioned softwood lumber but I missed the beginning sorry. Sure, sure thing. Is there a dispute resolution mechanism for this treaty, like the softwood lumber agreement. There is in the treaty, a place for dispute resolution, if it doesn't work. It goes through the permanent engineering board of the treaty and then if it doesn't work there, you can go to the IJC. And then there are there's even a provision Kathy correct me if I'm wrong for international arbitration. I disagree on something never been used, but it, but in the case of a strong disagreement, it could be used. And it's used it's used in if there are non compliances or disputes in the current treaty implementation, but there are no dispute resolution mechanisms to in the development or modernization or changes to an existing treaty that is the purview of the governments governments on both sides of the border. Yeah. And the second question is, oh yeah. Well, of course, it's a negotiation, everybody wants more or less depending on their point of view and, and, and you know without going into details. What Canada's interested in is an overall basket of Canada. I mean the Canadian side that includes BC is is something that takes into consideration into consideration the overall benefit sharing of the treaty right so it's not just about the the entitlement. It's about FRM. It's about flexibility for ecosystems, etc. So it's the whole thing. It's not just we don't take and we shouldn't take any part of the treaty in isolation. Right. You kind of have to take them in isolation for a minute when you discuss them but nothing is agreed until the overall is agreed and we make sure that that you know that we get what we want from that treaty from from the modernized treaty. Thanks very much. So we have four minutes left time for maybe one more question before we wrap up Lynn do you have something for us. Sure. If if there is a conflict does the new Columbia water treaty supersede the water treaty of 1909 the boundary waters treaty. I'll let my lawyer handle that one. I say my lawyer I say that as a joke. I would lawyer. I'm the Canadian government's lawyer. The crowns lawyer. The question is if could you repeat it again. There is there is a question related to the CRT and the boundary waters treaty. The question is if there is a conflict does the new Columbia water treaty supersede the water treaty of 1909. Would any new treaty we negotiate supersede the boundary waters treaty. I mean, it would really depend on what the new treaty says. Right it depends on what we negotiate in there we would. It's one of the things that the negotiators will have to think about how the, the new Columbia River Treaty would interact with the existing boundary waters treaty. You know, the column, the existing Columbia River Treaty has sort of fills the vacuum that might otherwise be filled by the boundary waters treaty, if there were no existing Columbia River Treaty. So the boundary waters treaties in 1909 agreement between Canada and the United States at the time it was Great Britain and the United States, and it was meant to resolve boundary water disputes across the Canada US border about the levels of water and about pollution of waters. So it doesn't have a significant application at this time it doesn't have a significant application to the Columbia River itself. So a new treaty would, would have to take that into consideration. So go ahead Barb. I'll just add to that with the work that I did with Nigel banks at Calgary when we were looking at what would happen is, say the Columbia River Treaty was terminated then that the boundary waters treaty would be in place kind of as a backdrop behind it but but the current Columbia River Treaty supersedes that. And then because as Corey says that the boundary waters treaty speaks to specifically to some of the water bodies shared by the US and Canada, but not to the Columbia River. So it, it really fills a gap and it's hard for me to imagine where the two would come into come into But the general rule if there is a conflict is that the latter enacted, you were on notice that the former one existed and and the later enacted law supersedes. Thank you very much. So we are at eight o'clock Pacific time I see there's there's a raised hand and there's for sure unanswered questions. You guys are a very inquisitive wonderful thank you so much for your participation so I encourage you. If you haven't had your question answered email it to us at Columbia River Treaty at gov.bc.ca will put that up at the end here, and we'll get back to you. At this point I'd like to thank absolutely everybody for participating. A heartfelt thank you to all of our panelists for taking the time and energy to be here tonight I know it's a lot of dense information to squish into two hours will hold more sessions like this I'm sure over time. Oh and Kathy has her hand up so please. Thank you so much and for your brook. So, is it, is it possible to allow some of us to just for a short time continue answering the questions in the q amp a without the meeting continuing can we do that, or. So definitely the meeting would continue, but we would all turn our cameras off so we wouldn't be engaging but if folks still wanted to pay attention to the q amp a leave that open for a bit of time. I have more questions and I just, I appreciate how lively the interaction has been back and forth and with answers from chief crow and bill and others so I'm happy to stay a little longer and finish answering the question. Don't send any more yet, and we will answer them by email and we'll post it on our website so all of your answers. All your questions will be answered. Thank you very much Kathy absolutely. So, so there you go so folks who want to stay on and keep monitoring Kathy's responses to the questions go for it. Otherwise, again, thank you so much to everybody panelists who want to feel free to turn on your camera and wave goodbye. The next session of course will be available on our website in the next little while, and please watch for a survey that will come to your email we'd love to hear your feedback on this session on any other issues you want to hear about. So please check that out and then of course always feel free to email us Columbia River Treaty at gob.bc.ca. Finally, a reminder to join our next info session on June 15 to hear about the incredible work that's happening to explore potential changes to the treaty that could benefit ecosystems in the Columbia Basin that'll be a really jam packed. Amazing session so I'll put the link to that in the chat before we sign out here. Otherwise, thank you very much. I really appreciate everybody and wish you all a wonderful evening. Thanks Brooke. Thank you all. Take good care.