Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. Unfortunately the member is not from the province of British Columbia which really makes his argument moot.
The people of British Columbia want to see an agreement that makes sense, an agreement that does not protect the property rights of Nisga'a people. We are talking about the Nisga'a people and their property rights. They do not have property rights in this agreement. This is what needs to be protected. They need to be protected in this agreement.
If we do not have the tools, which the agreement does not have, to give Nisga'a people those property rights in the 21st century, what are we giving them? We are giving them more of what they are used to now, more of what they have had for the last 200 years, and that is abject poverty. They will not be able to participate actively in the economy of the country and in the economy of British Columbia.
As I have said in my comments, they do not have the right to own that property. They do not have the right to hand it down to their heirs. They do not have the right to participate through a business.
The hon. member says he would like government members to stand and defend the Nisga'a agreement. Probably the reason they are not is it is indefensible.
The agreement is a bad agreement. It does not make sense for the Nisga'a people. I just hope at the end of the day when the deal is signed, because undoubtedly it will be, that the hon. member will be willing to go to British Columbia and explain it five years from now when the impact of the agreement on the Nisga'a people is truly felt. I hope the member is still around to explain that he stood in support of the agreement.