Madam Speaker, first, those of us on this side of the House very much agree with the importance of dialogue. We believe there is a time and a place for dialogue. That dialogue should not take place on the train tracks, in dangerous spaces or in the midst of specific places in a context when enforcement is appropriate. However, dialogue and engagement is very much a part of the process of reconciliation.
I would ask the member if she would agree with the principle that when we are having dialogue about the future of a community, about the development happening in a community, that the dialogue has to be with the elected representatives of that community. If the member wants to find out what development should happen in Sherwood Park, she should not be engaging in dialogue with somebody on the other side of the country about the future of my community. The same principle applies to the Wet'suwet'en people.
The dialogue that needs to happen is between the elected leadership and other stakeholders, such as the company and the government, about what should happen with respect to development. The ultimate decisions about that should go through the elected Wet'suwet'en representatives. It muddies the waters to have dialogue with everyone without identifying who the people with the say are.
Does the member agree with the principle that the dialogue that needs to happen is with the elected leadership of the Wet'suwet'en, who speak on behalf of those who chose them to be their representatives?