So? I need one of these lessons from one of these petty politicians from Joe what's his name and the other fellows down there?
There was a referendum in Newfoundland. The members should try to understand that there was a social responsibility. There was an issue that was important to Newfoundlanders and the process was the right process.
I am sure it was wise on behalf of Premier Tobin to hold a referendum. Whether it was entrenched in any agreement, it was the proper thing to do.
The member does not really seem to understand what he is talking about. I was saying that it is the right thing to do in British Columbia, much as it was the right thing to do in Newfoundland, regardless of whether the process is documented in legislation. Surely members on the other side can understand that.
If a referendum was permitted to be in the process in British Columbia, then the people would either say yea or nay and they would confirm either way for those who are attempting to get the agreement in place.
There are overlapping land claims comprising well over 100% of British Columbia's lands. This is the template. It is not just about Nisga'a and the Nass Valley, it is about my community of Abbotsford and Langley. It is about all of the communities of the people who live in British Columbia. If the first agreement is going to be the template, then why are all the people in British Columbia denied a say in the template? That is what this is about.
I know that Ottawa is a long distance from British Columbia. We have known that for years. The mentality in this place is that we live in the boonies. What we are saying to the House is that we deserve a say. All of our communities deserve a say, not just one isolated area.