Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful if the member were to spend a little time in British Columbia rather than in Peterborough. Then he might have some comprehension of what is the content of the speech from the Department of Indian Affairs that he just read to us. He clearly has no concept of what is going on in British Columbia.
When the member says this is an open process, the people in British Columbia, who are concerned about this, which is probably the majority of British Columbians, would ask: What open process?
I am consistently asked: "Who is negotiating for us? Who are they? How were they selected? Where do they meet? When do they meet? I do now know who they are". More important, I am also asked: "What is their mandate? Who gave them the mandate? How do we even know what they are negotiating on our behalf?"
I am inclined to agree with the member that if we have a problem, which we clearly do in this situation or in any situation, that it is very helpful to have negotiations with people who are sitting down eyeball to eyeball.
However, what we have in my constituency in British Columbia is 3 per cent of the people that are represented by people who are constantly in touch with them, who clearly understand what the mandate is and, more important, who go back to their people to report regularly. They also know that they are going to be subject to a ratification vote at the end of the day. Therefore, they know that they have to negotiate in good faith on behalf of the people they
represent. The same is absolutely not true of the non-aboriginal side.
I ask the member if he would care to come to British Columbia and maybe we could clue him in a little bit.