Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1999

Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, what it shows Canadians and what it shows this place is that the Liberal government treats parliament as an afterthought rather than as a key player in the development of important policies.

We have seen many examples. We have asked the Speaker to rule when a minister makes an announcement in the House about what is going to happen down the road as far as an expenditure of money, a millennium fund for students and various other things. The government never comes to the House of Commons to ask for the money to be spent. A minister just says “There are a couple of billion dollars involved in this and I held a press conference to make the announcement because I thought I would look good”.

Are expenditures of money not supposed to be passed in this place? Are we not supposed to kick them around and debate them? Time and again that has not been the case. However, Canadians assume that is the case.

It is a travesty, whether it is announcements like the millennium fund or different things that the government has declared to be true, whether they have actually been passed or not.

Then we have a case like the space agency where, well after the fact, a couple of years down the road, the government is finally getting around to approving it. The government often comes to us and says that it has known about something for two years, but it has to be completed by the end of the day because it is time sensitive. In other words, when it is convenient for the government it is an emergency and it has to be done right now.

The truth is that the government uses parliament as a rubber stamp. Whether it is this bill or important things like the position we took at the Kyoto summit and the approval of the Nisga'a agreement in principle, the government comes to the House and says “This is a done deal”. It is finished. It is unwilling to accept a single amendment of any kind, small or large, about money, about principles, about details, about the purpose of the thing, the goal of the bill, none of it. It will not accept a single amendment. It is going to bring in the Nisga'a agreement and it will be agreed to. If it is not, the government will push it through at the end of the day.

That tells me that with a bill such as the space agency bill, international agreements like Kyoto and the Nisga'a agreement, the government cares little for this place and instead cares only for what it and the people in the back rooms have decided will be done for all Canadians.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-4. It provides a unique opportunity for Canada to get involved or continue its involvement in space. I am told that the space station is the largest science and technology project in the history of humanity. We should well be proud of our involvement in that project.

From a personal point of view, the fact that Canada is continuing its involvement in space is somewhat gratifying in the sense that my uncle is considered one of Canada's space pioneers. He conducted one of the first experiments in outer space that a Canadian scientist conducted. He was one of the designers of the first satellite, Alouette I, and subsequent satellites which Canada sent up.

From a family point of view we are quite proud of my uncle, Dr. Andrew R. Molozzi, and his accomplishments are rather interesting. My uncle was my mother's brother. My grandmother was born in Poland. She was lucky to get two or three years of schooling and that was all. At the age of 15 she came to Canada, got married and raised a pack of kids, including my uncle who was the youngest. He was fortunate that in his family my grandparents encouraged him to continue at school and achieve the kind of excellence in science that he eventually did achieve.

This is a model for a lot of people to look at. In many immigrant families in the country education has perhaps not been a priority to this point. The kids leave school, not because of lack of ability but because for some reason their parents are not encouraging them to continue and fulfil their potential.

In talking about Bill C-4 I would like to address it from the point of view of a Liberal. I want to make a speech on this legislation which I think the Liberals should be making, given the fact that they pulled debate of the Nisga'a treaty from the agenda of the House yesterday. As pointed out earlier by my colleague, this was a travesty. It was pulled after only four hours of debate. I would have liked to have spoken to that bill yesterday, but I was unable to because time allocation was used.

Then we got this bill with which all of us agree. I do not think there is a parliamentarian in the House who is not encouraged by Canada's involvement in outer space and very supportive of it, because we see it as a wonderful opportunity for our children. There is probably very little interest in this debate out there in TV land, let alone in the House. It is one of those motherhood and apple pie debates.

I will address this issue as a Liberal should in light of their commitment to the Nisga'a treaty and will discuss the issue of native involvement in the Canadian space station. That may not be as much of a stretch as one might think. It is certainly not much of a stretch in light of the recent Marshall decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Let me just review that decision for a moment to show the House why the point I will make about guaranteed aboriginal involvement in the space project is reasonable from the supreme court's point of view, and certainly from the point of view of the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives.

The Marshall decision was an interpretation of a 1760 treaty signed between the British crown, the Mi'kmaq people and the Malecite people of the maritime provinces of Canada. In essence it was a peace treaty. The British had been doing battle with the French and the French had been expelled from the area. The Mi'kmaq had supported the French and the British thought it would be best to ensure that they would stay on side with them and would come to rely on them for some of the trade goods they had received through their dealings with the French, and so they signed a treaty.

Part of that treaty was the establishment of some truck houses. These truck houses were special trading posts that were to be constructed and manned to deal with Mi'kmaq people. A list of goods that were to be traded was created. It included the goods that the British would provide those truck houses. It also showed the price that they would pay for the goods. Among the trade items the Mi'kmaq had to offer the only things that were dealt with were furs, that they would trade furs for truck house items. Fish were not mentioned as a trade item.

As well, the Mi'kmaq people were required to place hostages at certain places to ensure that they lived up to the terms of the treaty. Lunenburg was one place where there were supposed to be two hostages to guarantee this. Fortunately that treaty was not long lived. It operated probably for a couple of years. Certainly within 20 years things returned to normal. That meant the Mi'kmaq people were to be treated as everyone else in the country. They were to enjoy the same trade rights as everyone else.

That was in effect until the supreme court decided to look at the issue of the 1760 treaty. What brought the court into action was that Donald Marshall had gone fishing eels and said that he had an aboriginal right. His first defence was based on a 1752 treaty. When it was clearly demonstrated that had no relevance, he switched horses and decided to base his comments on the 1760 treaty.

What the court said then was that the treaty somehow gave this blanket right to fish. That right was one that was to be enjoyed as a preferential right. It was a right to be satisfied in advance of those of everyone else. Currently we might say that we are negotiating whether non-aboriginal fishermen will have any right.

The reason I raise this issue is that the court interpreted the 1760 treaty with a view to protecting the honour of the crown. Also it suggested that the treaty was not stagnant, that it did not just affect times long ago but that it had to be viewed in light of today.

If we are to view that treaty in light of today, why are we restricting the benefits of the treaty to goods and items that might have been traded 200 and some odd years ago? Why is it that we have not taken the terms of that treaty, if it is being interpreted in today's terms and viewed in that regard? If it is supposed to protect the honour and integrity of the crown, why are we not then interpreting it in terms of today's economy?

In other words, if we can give a priority right to fish, or in other treaties such as the Nisga'a guarantee access of 25% to Nass River fish, if we can guarantee that in that treaty, why are we not guaranteeing a place for aboriginal people in the space station?

Does it not follow? The logic is there. The court very clearly said that it could not interpret the terms of the treaty as things were back in 1760. Somehow it had to give it a modern twist. It had to interpret it in terms of today and had to consider the honour of the crown.

Today's economy does not really revolve around fish. It certainly does in the maritime provinces in many of the communities affected by it. I do not mean to downplay their interest, but what I intend to do and the point I really want to make is that if we want to talk about a treaty which reflected society in 1760, if we want to talk about a treaty that we are signing today, if we want to talk about a space station today, or if we want to talk about interpreting that treaty in today's terms, maybe we should be looking at the global economy that is operating today, the whole of the economy. That means in my view an aboriginal component to the space station. Like, why not?

That question deserves an answer. Why is it that when parliamentarians and the misfits at the Supreme Court of Canada interpret who is entitled to a job and who is not, the only people they go after is the people in the resource sector? Why is it that they only tell fishermen to stand aside and allow somebody else to have their job? Why is that?

Why not say that if there is to be a place for aboriginal people in the country it should be across the broad spectrum of jobs we all enjoy and have access to today? Why are we saying that aboriginal people can only participate in the fishery and that they have a priority right to it?

Certainly the minister of northern affairs says that they have a priority right to forests and to mineral wealth. Why not the technology of today as well? Why not commerce today? Why are they not guaranteed seats on the board of directors of the Royal Bank of Canada, for example? Why not seats on Canadian Airlines and Air Canada? Why are we not guaranteeing them a place in today's world economy?

Let us put it in the context of the way I started my speech when I talked about my uncle and the fact that my grandmother came to Canada with very little education of probably no more than two or three years. She had a great desire to see my mother, my aunts and my uncles be successful in a new society, in the new country she had come to. She encouraged my uncle to seek an education, to continue his education and to develop to his full potential.

When we look at the aboriginal community we should be placing in front of it the same kinds of challenges. They can be anything they want to be. Whether it be an astronaut, a banker, a television performer or whatever, the opportunity is there. Somehow it should not be inherent in their genes that the only jobs suitable to them would be jobs in the resource extraction centre.

If there is one flaw in the government's argument today on the bill before us, I would say the flaw would be that it has completely ignored the rights of aboriginal people. The government cut that discussion off last night so that we could not present a positive alternative or a critical but positive analysis of the Nisga'a treaty. It is allowing this debate to continue today without any real reference to the welfare of the Nisga'a people or any other native in the country.

One other issue of Bill C-4, the space station bill, that I will talk about is the cost. I am told that this will cost Canadian taxpayers something in the order of $1 billion. That to me is a lot of money and I think it is to most people.

In the area I grew up in as a kid those making $10,000 were doing pretty well. I did not know too many millionaires. I still do not know too many, Mr. Speaker, other than yourself of course, but that just shows you the circle I travel in, the ordinary folk and not the wealthy.

When I look at a billion dollars I consider that a lot of money. I find it hard to visualize a billion dollars let alone a million dollars, but a billion dollars is right out of my league. I also think it is out of the government's league. I would like to know just how hard and fast the numbers are here. It is not that I object to spending money on this particular project. It is a good and worthwhile project that will provide opportunities for all Canadians who desire to get involved in the space agency.

When I look at the government's track record for spending money, I am a little bit concerned. I would like to draw members' attention back to the Nisga'a treaty. When the treaty was first made public there was a huge fanfare. The federal Liberals had joined with probably the most disreputable government in the history of Canada, the NDP government in British Columbia, a government that has stolen money from cripples, kids and single mothers to advance its causes. Overnight, it quickly found an agreement on the Nisga'a treaty and said that it would only cost the Canadian taxpayers something like $250 million. It also said that the fast ferries were going to be $200 million and they are well over $400 million. I could go on with the track record of the provincial NDP members and their inability to estimate costs, but I guess the same probably applies to their brothers across the way, the federal Liberals. They also have very little value for dollars.

When the cost was made public, there were a number of people who pointed out various matters that had not been costed and very quickly both the federal Liberal government and its brothers in Victoria, the provincial NDP government, agreed that perhaps the cost of the treaty would be more in the neighbourhood of $485 million. That is the value that has now been put on the treaty.

There were a number of us in British Columbia who looked at that and thought the figure was not quite right either. Early on, the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition conducted an independent study of the treaty. We thought it was time to do that again. A little over a year ago, I contracted with an economist to take a look at the Nisga'a treaty and give us a costing of it. I told him that when he got a range of values I wanted him to take the lower value, not the mid-value. I told him to always lowball the numbers. I told him I wanted an estimate of what he thought the treaty was going to cost British Columbia.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have great respect for my colleague across the way and his knowledge on various pieces of legislation. However, I also understand that there should be some relevance to the specific legislation that is on the floor of the House today. His remarks should be addressing that legislation.

Many times they talk about wanting to debate, so let us debate the legislation that is on the floor of the House today. We have given him sufficient time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for St. Catharines is quite right. I am also interested in hearing how the member for Delta—South Richmond will bring his comments back into the debate at hand, which is Bill C-4.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will bring it into hand. The point I am trying to make through example is that the dollar value the government puts on this treaty is questionable. If I do not reference it to something else then I am simply expressing an opinion. I am trying to solidify and give some substance to the agreement by describing another area where the government made an estimation of the value or the cost but did not live up to it. I believe that is perfectly valid point, and I am sure you agree, Mr. Speaker.

The point I made when I asked for a cost evaluation of the Nisga'a treaty was that the government lowballs the cost or this economist lowballs the cost because I did want not him to come out with an estimate that somebody could criticize and say that he estimated this while it was really down here. A lowball estimate of the cost of the Nisga'a treaty is $1.5 billion not $485 million. That leads me to wonder what the final cost is going to be on Bill C-4.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Once again I will admonish all members that if they are going to stretch the credibility of their argument on Bill C-4 by referring to other issues, which is certainly their privilege, it would be best to use some imagination and to be sure to continue to come to a touchstone and not to challenge the Chair by forcing the Chair to make a ruling. Those are the rules.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your fairness and willingness to explain the rules to us and to enforce the rules fairly.

I am particularly interested in the member's comments about the space station bill. It is my understanding that the space station will have some beneficial aspects for agriculture, for example, in being able to survey large tracts of agricultural land. Will that surveillance also apply to other areas of the space station's abilities? I am thinking, for example, about how government allows the uneven enforcement of laws. Would the space station be able to pick up things like that?

Since being elected, I have heard a number of stories in my constituency relating to wildlife resources. I am thinking of a rider looking after his cattle who comes across 16 slain deer. Out of those deer, four hind quarters are removed. I wonder if a space station could see things like that.

I am aware that this year in my part of the country, central British Columbia, for the first time there are limited entry moose hunting permits because the moose population is so depleted. I have been told that the reason the moose population is so depleted is that there are actually reefers, refrigerated trucks that are parked, and people are loading these trucks with moose carcasses and hauling them out of the country.

One aboriginal guide came to me and showed me the map of his territory, his guide licence, his hunting licence and the list of customers he had. He said “There are so many moose being hauled out of the country that there is nothing left for my customers to admire and perhaps even to shoot and take home”.

I am aware that although the fish have been scarce this year on the Fraser River, in past years there have been truckloads of salmon hauled out and taken to Alberta while some have been taken down into the United States. I have actually contacted the authorities about these things and have been told that there was nothing they could do about it. They said that they were under orders from the government to not enforce those laws.

I am concerned about the uneven enforcement of the laws. I am not criticizing aboriginal people. They are just doing what they are able to do. It is the government that is allowing this to happen. I wonder if the space station technology could see this and convince the authorities to enforce the laws evenly and fairly?

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge the Speaker for his very liberal viewpoints on many issues and also for his very conservative implementation of the rules of this place. He does not allow much leeway and I recognize that. That is why I try to stick as closely as I can to the rules as the Speaker sees them.

The issues that were raised by my colleague are interesting. He talked about the scientific benefits of the space station for Canada and our ability to monitor the Earth and study our environment, including monitoring agricultural crop and the Arctic ice pack, aiding in navigation for shipping and those sorts of things.

The member raises a good point. Certainly, the space station may very well be an aid to agriculture and to farmers, that is if there are any farmers left after the government is done with them. That is the real question. The technology will benefit farmers, but whether there will be any farmers left to benefit from it, God only knows and the Liberal government only knows because I certainly do not.

The space station can play a role in monitoring. Science and satellite technology can play a role in monitoring ships at sea off our coasts and so on. That is certainly a possibility.

[An hon. member]

Illegal immigrants.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Yes, illegal immigrants as well. There is no doubt about that.

The potential for the scientific community and the benefit to mankind are limitless through the technology and opportunity being created by this particular space station. I look forward to enjoying the benefits and watching it as it progresses over the next decades.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do believe in equality of all people in Canada so that they will be able to participate in programs like the space program in the various educational institutions. It seems to me that all government legislation in this place should make people equal, not set them aside with special status. As an example, that is what the Nisga'a agreement does not do.

On another issue from the last question, in areas like Kashmir, Iraq, Iran or wherever, it seems to me that it would be very important, from an intelligence and peace standpoint, to use a facility like the space station for those observations. Does he see a lot of implications of this development for that purpose as well?

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the first comment the member made is an interesting one. It has to do with the whole notion of equality of all Canadians. The government appears to think it is important in this bill because it does not try to separate Canadians. The implication is that there is equal opportunity for everyone. Why it does not apply that to bills that reference the extraction and harvesting of natural resources is beyond me. Why it has only been the fishing industry on both coasts which have been required to bear the burden of treaties entered into long ago is beyond me. It is beyond reason.

As I said in my remarks, if the government truly believes, as the supreme court seems to, that the supreme court was interpreting this treaty in its modern context, then it should have expanded that to include aboriginal access to the space station and to other government facilities, business and so on. Do not just identify one group, one industry and tell it to pay the bill for the rest of us. If that fairness as the government sees it, that inequality as I see it, applies to the fishing industry, then that equality should be right across the board and we should be guaranteeing that kind of access.

There is unlimited potential for the technology, the monitoring capabilities that will result from the space station, and which we currently have from satellites. As time goes by scientists will develop even more effective cameras and other systems that we can only dream about now. It is a wonderful opportunity for this country to be involved in the station.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak about Bill C-4, which is an act to implement the agreement among the Government of Canada, the governments of member states of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian federation and the Government of the United States of America concerning co-operation on the civil international space station.

The first thing that strikes me about this bill is that it concerns an agreement between many nations. The order paper says that on the bill before us today there will be speeches of 20 minutes which are subject to a period for questions and comments of 10 minutes for the first five hours of debate. I am wondering if we will actually get five hours of debate. Most bills in this House do not, as everyone is probably aware. Usually closure is brought to bear long before we ever get to that period.

I think back to the last bill that was discussed in this House, the Nisga'a land claim, that was supposed to be the final deal with the Nisga'a. That is a very erroneous title. It certainly will not be the final deal. I do see some similarities between what we are discussing today and the whole idea of the Nisga'a.

The similarity is that there was a government to government discussion with the Nisga'a. There is a government to government discussion with the international space agency. In the case of the international space agency, I believe it is quite appropriate. In the other instance, I think it was totally inappropriate.

The Nisga'a land settlement claim that is supposed to be the final claim was never discussed at the grassroots level. Thank heaven for the pressure applied by the Reform Party because the committee will now travel to some parts of British Columbia during the week of November 14 to have hearings and perhaps get a little local and grassroots input on the bill.

I see some similarities between these two pieces of legislation. Both of them, as I have already touched on, were part of multiparty negotiations. I am not too sure about the space agency negotiations, but I am pretty sure that most of the Nisga'a negotiations took place behind closed doors. Perhaps some of the negotiations for the space station took place behind closed doors as well.

I would also draw a similarity in the projected cost of these agreements. It is suggested that $1.5 billion or thereabouts, over $1 billion at least, will be needed to support the international space station. We are also going to have to come up with another $1 billion to support the Nisga'a treaty. In the people's republic of British Columbia it was suggested that it is not going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia much money, that federal taxpayer money would be used to seal the deal.

We all know there is only one taxpayer. It is impossible to line people up and say, “You people pay strictly provincial taxes and you people over here pay strictly federal taxes”. You know this, Mr. Speaker, because you pay a lot of taxes. It is one of the hazards of people in your income category. There is no differentiation between whether you pay provincial or federal taxes. You pay taxes. There is only one taxpayer and that taxpayer is hit with all different levels of taxation.

The international space station, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, has great potential. One thing we look forward to is getting some information on climate change; whether civilization is having a tremendous impact on the climate, or whether the climate is having an impact on civilization. I for one would be very interested in observations made by that international body as to which is the case. A great controversy is raging as to which is the case.

Some people say that we have depleted our ozone layer through our activities here on Earth to the point where it is no longer safe to go out in the sunshine. I wonder if we have come to the point where we can measure the thickness or the intensity of the ozone layer, and now having the method in which to measure those layers, if we are not just observing a natural phenomenon and leaping to the conclusion that civilization is to blame for what is happening.

I am under the impression that this is a done deal, that the Government of Canada is now saying, “Oh, by the way, we need $1.5 billion”. That is entirely consistent with the way the Liberals do things. It was the same with the Nisga'a deal. The deal was cut. It was passed through the provincial house in British Columbia and it was done so with closure.

There must be something about that bill which carries the desire to invoke closure on it because it certainly has had that effect on the House. After four hours of debate, we have something that is going to create another level of government in the country and it is going to be entrenched in the constitution.

Changing the constitution in this country is a very onerous task, as it should be. It takes a great amount of consultation and agreement. There is the 7-50 rule, seven provinces with better than 50% of the population voting in favour of changes to the constitution. That was never done.

The Nisga'a deal has made changes to the constitution. That treaty has been entrenched in the constitution of Canada without ever having asked the citizens of Canada whether they wanted to have those changes made.

I know the position that we as a party are taking on this certainly is not the mainstream sentiment. The position this party took on the Charlottetown accord was not the accepted position. The establishment across Canada felt that the Charlottetown accord was the best invention since penicillin. The Reform Party and some other groups took the position that it was not. It was fraught with flaws. When the Charlottetown accord went to a referendum, we were vindicated in that 70% of Canadians who voted in that referendum voted against it. It was a resounding defeat.

The architects said that they would not be worried about that at all. They said they had other ways of amending the constitution and that they would set about doing it through the back door. Apparently the back door is wide open. Now we have a treaty that is entrenched in the constitution of Canada. The laws of the people that this treaty covers now supersede those of the province and of the dominion, and if Canadians do not like it, too bad. The Liberals know best. It is no longer father knows best; it is the Liberals know best.

We hear time and time again from the members of the government that it is just a matter that they have to educate Canadians, that it is being done in Canadians' best interests. We will see about that. I am quite confident that history will bear us out that we have taken the proper position.

My information on the civil international space station agreement is that it more or less has been a done deal since January 29, 1998. We are closing in on a year since the deal was signed. Of course the government comes to us now and says, “Oh, by the way, we forgot one minor detail. We need $1 billion or maybe $1.5 billion to finance this project”. It is not that I begrudge the financing of the international space station, but it is the way it was done, and $1 billion or $1.5 billion is a pile of money.

I am invited to talk to school children from time to time. They ask me questions about the difference between the deficit and the debt. I try my best to put $1 billion into perspective. We bandy that word around like it was nothing, a billion here, a billion there. Mr. Speaker, pretty soon it runs into real money. It could even deplete your bank account in time.

I try to explain it to the students. I think everybody can put $100 in perspective. Even primary school children can put $100 in perspective. Ten $10 bills make $100. One hundred $100 bills make $1,000. They are all with me so far, even the primary students. Then if we have a thousand $1,000 bills, we have $1 million. If we have one thousand million, we have $1 billion. Of course, as I do this I just keep adding zeros to the $10 bill. That puts $1 billion in perspective.

If that does not register with them, I try this story. If we had $1 million and it was on the table and we decided to spend that at $1,000 a day, in about three years or a little less, it would be gone. Let us assume that it does not attract any interest rate. It is just laying there on the table in thousand dollar bills. If I spent one a day, in about three years it would all be gone. If there were $1 billion dollars on the table, I would have to live about 3,000 years to spend it at $1,000 a day. I think that puts $1 billion in perspective. It is a lot of money.

At the present time we have a debt of about $580 billion. We are paying out between $40 billion and $50 billion a year in interest. That money has to come out of the pockets of families across the nation. We have a duty to spend that money wisely and frugally. Just because government has the ability to reach into people's pockets and extract their hard earned wages does not give it that right. There is a huge difference between the ability and the right. The government has given itself the ability to reach into the pockets of Canadians and take out any given amount.

When we look at the history of the country we realize that taxes have consistently risen. They have never decreased and I think it is about time they did. We were told in 1991 that the GST would replace the manufacturers sales tax, a 12% tax that applied to some items. The items the manufacturers sales tax applied to were to be less expensive because the tax that would be applied to them would be a very reasonable 7% tax rather than the rather onerous 12% manufacturers sales tax. That has not happened. As a result about $15 billion a year comes into the federal coffers through the GST, and still the country was running $42 billion deficits as late as 1993.

On the subject at hand, we want to ensure that intellectual property rights are protected. If a company or an individual working on some aspect of the space station were to come up with some leading edge technology, some kind of ground breaking work discovery, how would that intellectual property be protected? Are we talking about a communal effort, the same aspect as the Hutterite colony where nobody owns anything and everything is owned collectively? Is that the way this process works, or will individual intellectual rights be protected? I am not at all sure of that.

While we are talking about collective rights versus individual rights, I am again reminded of the bill we were discussing, the Nisga'a so-called final agreement. Collective rights in the Nisga'a agreement supersede individual rights. I do not think that is the Canadian way of doing things. Individual rights in the country are of paramount importance and should always take precedence over collective rights.

One year my wife and I took a holiday to enjoy the beaches of Cuba. One thing which was extremely apparent there was that individuals had no rights. They might have a form of security but they had no rights. A policeman can stand on the street corner. When people are driving by in their dilapidated old cars, he simply blows his whistle and points to whomever he wants to stop, and they bloody well stop right away. They know that if they do not they could have their old car all shot to pieces, and themselves besides.

That is an ultimate example of where collective rights supersede individual rights. I talked to the people in Cuba and discovered there were two kinds of people: those involved in the regime and great supporters of it, and those who were governed by the regime and did not support it at all.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know we have been advised this morning that the Indian affairs committee refused to allow anybody but witnesses friendly to the Liberal government at the Nisga'a hearings in B.C. I know we have heard that and I know it is difficult for my colleague—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In fairness to the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, explain to the Chair how this could possibly be a point of order relevant to the debate that is taking place right now.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was about to do that. I was explaining that because Liberal members of the Indian affairs committee have refused to let hostile—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As the hon. member knows, what goes on it committee goes on in committee. Committees are their own masters. That does not have a direct relevance to the House. It is not a point of order.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I see quite a few parallels in the bill in the way it came to us as a fait accompli. Our caucus is very anxious to speak to the bill.

It would not surprise me in the slightest to see that it too becomes the subject of closure yet again. If we look at the government's agenda we wonder what is the urgency. What does it have on the agenda that is so urgent that it has to shut down debate after four hours? Those who look at the agenda just scratch their heads because there is nothing there but thin soup.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some trepidation on Bill C-4. It is not particularly controversial; in fact it is anything but. The reason I am concerned is that the Liberal government is making this place completely irrelevant.

I call them the green foreheads over there. We look at the chairs over there and we see that they are green. I am speaking to many green foreheads over there, the green party over there which maybe we should call the brown party because there is as much brown over there too.

Of course Bill C-4 is important. It shows the priorities of the government both in spending money and in using the time of the House for debate. I guess it is good because it is an indicator. It is like a red light on the dash. I wish every Canadian would wake up right now, look at the red light on the dash and realize that the red light or the red book is giving them big problems.

When we ask for an opportunity to debate an issue of terrible importance to the people of British Columbia, of immense importance to all Canadians across the country at the present time and of increasing importance for generations to come, when we ask that we in the House and throughout the country have ample time to debate such an issue, the Liberals invoke closure and say no. They will not talk about that. They want to talk about Bill C-4, an agreement on an international space agency.

That tells us something. I do not want to be disrespectful. I think the technological advancements we are participating in as Canadians are wonderful, but this shows that the government is totally spaced out.

It is right out of it when it comes to evaluating what is important to Canadians. It is right out of it when it comes to trying to figure out how to spend money. It is right out of it when it sets the agenda for what is debated in the House and what is debated among Canadians.

Canadians from coast to coast would like to engage in a debate on the future of the country. Right now we have a government with its dictatorial powers and its majority that it uses so blatantly. Where does the government stand on the issues that are important to Canadians? It is pulling the strings of its members and getting them to vote the way they are told on all sorts of issues.

It is Bill C-4 today. It is a very small bill. The Liberal government has chosen to debate this bill today instead of the Nisga'a one. It is an agreement between Canada and a number of other countries. It is an agreement to co-operate on building an international space station and operating it. A number of elements are involved. A number of elements require co-operation among different countries. It is probably a job that is too large for one country to bear. The two elements of greatest importance to us are our contribution of personnel and our contribution of dollars.

Bill C-4 is an act to implement the agreement among the Government of Canada, governments of member states of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the United States of America concerning co-operation on the civil international space station and to make related amendments to other acts.

If we look at the more detailed list a number of countries in the European Union are involved. When I saw the bill I was absolutely amazed. The government hammered out an agreement behind closed doors and signed it on January 29, 1998. This is almost the end of 1999. We are approaching two years since Canada signed the agreement. To show its total disdain for parliament, having signed the agreement almost two years ago, it now has the gall to say that it would like parliament to ratify the agreement. It would like parliament to give its consent to an agreement that it has already signed.

A couple of things come to my mind when I hear that. One is how Canadians through their parliament and perhaps directly in debate were not involved previously. Why were they not informed that the agreement was being considered? It is a tremendous expenditure of money.

It is a strange coincidence that the cost of this program, $1.4 billion, is pretty well the cost of the immediate implementation of the Nisga'a agreement, although that agreement has the potential with its spin-offs across the country to cost the country in excess of $200 billion or more than the annual budget of the Government of Canada right now.

The government is willing to cut off debate on the Nisga'a agreement and deal with Bill C-4, which shows that it does not want to deal in any real or substantial way with anything of any relevance to Canadians. Government members want to sweep the big problems under the rug and try to get them jammed through before anyone wakes up and realizes what they are doing. I guess they learned from the Charlottetown accord that they could not trust Canadians to be totally ignorant. They want to keep them ignorant by ramming through those things really fast so that no one has the time to become informed and react. They want to do it quickly and let the consequences of the future be as they may.

I have a firm belief that in a true democracy, which we do not have in Canada, once we have debated an issue and have come to an agreement it would have been because of the fact that we were promoting a sensible idea. When people consent to it, of course, they would support it and our country would remain strong and unified. That is not so with this government. It will not debate an issue which has the potential of costing $200 billion, but it will talk about this, which will cost about $1.5 billion.

I taught mathematics for a number of years. I have with me a trusty calculator which I always have with me as my auxiliary brain. I will give a perspective on what $1.5 billion means.

We have approximately 15 million taxpayers in the country. That $1.5 billion means that every taxpayer will be contributing $100 to this project. That is an immense amount of money.

I should not have admitted that I had to use my calculator for that division, but I was not thinking that these numbers were the same. I am now a little red faced and embarrassed. However, it is a lot of money. Taxpayers are being pushed.

Meanwhile, do we have $1 billion to support Canadian farmers? No. Instead what we get from the government is the hauling out of a bunch of statistics which show that the government has no interest at all in western Canadian farmers. It has let them go down the tube.

One of the advantages of the space station is that we should be able to send more people up there. When we look at our planet from space, I think it would give us a perspective on what is important down here. We as Canadians, and the Liberal people as parliamentarians, should value Canadian society and Canadian farmers. That might come to our minds if we looked at it from a different perspective.

With this agreement the government has made some unilateral decisions and is now coming to parliament for approval.

In a lot of bills there is a great deal more power being attributed to the minister. That is also true of this bill. This is amazing. Clause 7 gives a lot of power to the minister. It reads:

The Minister may send a notice to any person that the Minister believes, on reasonable grounds, has information or documents relevant to the administration or enforcement of this Act, requesting the person to provide, within any reasonable period that the Minister specifies, that information or those documents to the Minister or any person that the Minister designates.

That is pretty scary stuff, which is actually standard in a lot of the bills the government brings in. Basically the minister has the power to do anything he wants. If he believe it is the right thing to do, the bill will give the minister the ability to do it. If the person objects to providing or fails to provide the information, then the minister can take the person to court.

Has anyone had a fight with a schoolyard bully? I have not because I was always so cuddly. I did not pick fights a lot. I was the brunt of a lot of teasing and every once in a while people would attack me, but I would not call those fights. However, when we take an individual and put the weight of the government behind a lawsuit, I do not think that individual has a chance of winning. All of the resources of the government would go behind the lawsuit and the funds of the poor individual, who is usually limited to whatever he can borrow against his house, if the government permits that, would be eaten up very quickly.

We have an agreement. I like the concept of agreement. It says in the schedule of this bill that this is an agreement among the government and all of these different countries. It adds the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Swiss Confederation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Add to that the list of all of the parties I read before.

This is a multilateral agreement. Is it not interesting that the government is willing to go through the work of arranging an agreement that these different parties can agree to? When it comes to an element as important as Nisga'a, does it make sure the parties come together? No. It totally fails to do that. It has not recognized that when it comes to an agreement like the Nisga'a agreement there are two parties to it. Sure it has the Nisga'a people, but it also has all of the non-native people who are a party to that agreement. The only difference is that this Liberal government does not even want to discuss it with the other members of the agreement. It wants to unilaterally impose it on them and hopefully keep them in the dark and ignorant about the terms and issues in the agreement.

Today we are debating the space station when we should be debating the importance and the relevance of probably the most important piece of legislation to hit this country in the last 30 years. Instead the Liberal government is saying “That is the end of that debate. We cannot let members talk for more than fours on that, but go ahead and talk all day on the international space agreement”.

Here we have an example of an agreement which was reached among all the parties, but the government is imposing on Canadians an agreement with the Nisga'a in which one party to the agreement is not allowed to be involved. The terms and conditions are being dictated to them. They are not allowed to have any input. If anything, the government would like for them to have no understanding of it. That is atrocious. As far as I am concerned that is a serious aberration of what we call democracy. With this kind of contempt for the House of Commons and the people of Canada, I do not believe the Liberal government has the moral authority to stand in governance over us. It has failed us. It continues to fail us because of the fact that it does not want to engage in democratic debate, democratic give and take, on an agreement which will so vitally affect both parties.

While we are in principle in favour of Bill C-4, because it ratifies an agreement, we think it should have been done in advance of the agreement's being signed. It is arrogant of the government to go ahead and sign the agreement and say that it can get it through parliament. All sorts of things could prevent this from happening. For example, the government may simply not be re-elected. It could well be that the next government would have something else on its agenda besides this agreement and that it would not necessarily pass. I am not predicting this because I do not think that is my role. I am not able to see the future that way, but I think it is going to happen. For the sake of Canadians, the sooner it happens the better.

We need to make sure that Canadians are represented and that the wishes and will of Canadians are represented in this parliament. Without that we are not going to be successful as a democratic society.

I have one more item to talk about which relates to Bill C-4.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are very pleased at how relevant I am remaining. By the way, I should add in passing that it has become a practice in this House that wide ranging debate be permitted. As the Speaker ruled a couple of days ago, when we have wide ranging consensus and practice over a period of time, then that sort of becomes the operating method of the House, and I appreciate that freedom.

At page 16 of the bill we have article 12. It has to do with transportation. It says that every country which is a party to this agreement shall have right of access to the space station. That is sort of cool. It means that I can go, maybe with some of my friends, up to the space station if I happen to be selected and trained. It indicates once again some of the countries. Then it states that there is an obligation on the part of the participating countries to provide launch and return transportation services for the space station and, in addition, other space transportation systems.

I could not help but remember something that happened in my riding a couple of years ago. Because of a very weak showing by the Liberal Party in Alberta, it decided to make some changes. Without a great deal of thought from a military point of view, it decided to move the air base from Namao to never-never land and to bring in the army to that base instead. The result is that the longest and strongest runways in North America, which were at the Namao air base, have been changed into streets leading up to warehouses for the army. There was not even the foresight to keep the buildings far enough away so that in an emergency that airstrip could still be used. It has often been said that this was one of the collateral runways that was available to spacecraft returning.

We have an obligation to provide and to do our share in providing transportation to and from the space station, which in an emergency would necessitate the use of those long runways, but we have disabled them. Again it shows a total lack of foresight on the part of this government. I am absolutely disgusted that those decisions are so often clouded with political ramifications instead of being made on a rational basis.

I look forward to questions from the green foreheads.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not qualify for the category my hon. colleague mentioned, but seeing none of the green foreheads standing I thought I would ask a question of my colleague from Elk Island.

Being the critic for industry, I want to say that the Reform Party is very supportive of Bill C-4 and the Canadian Space Agency. I know that my colleague had many good comments about the work that space station will do to help in the future.

My colleague is a keen follower of new technologies and the ability of the space station to monitor Earth. The good that it will do for crop monitoring for farmers and the monitoring of the ice pack to aid in the navigation of shipping in our Arctic are all things that I think my colleague from Elk Island would agree are important factors.

Some of the things that we take for granted in Canadian society, such as individual property rights, are not available under the constitution and yet we have fee simple use of our land. We have fee simple title to our land, whether it be a lot, a house or a farm.

Intellectual property rights and patent rights are being protected for Canadian companies and the Canadian government when doing research on the international space station. The fact that there are going to be eight different countries involved makes it important to protect intellectual property and patent rights. Yet we see in the Nisga'a agreement things that we take for granted in our Canadian law through intellectual property rights.

In the Nisga'a agreement property rights are not protected for Canadian Nisga'a women in terms of a marriage breakup. They are not protected in terms of fee simple land for the Nisga'a. Individuals will not be able to own a piece of property. They are going down that road of communal property which is a failed policy. Even the east bloc countries in eastern Europe finally had to admit that it does not work.

I would like my colleague's comments. What does he think of the comparison between the need for intellectual property rights on the space station and doing it here at home?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this question. We do not expect any questions from the green foreheads because they have difficulty standing.

I want to answer the question with respect to property rights. One of the best kept secrets in the world is that I have a little company called Epp Software. What I used to do, and still do except it has become rather rusty now, is write computer programs. I used to have a small business and I sold some custom programs.

I was the owner of that intellectual property. When I purchased a blank disk it had a value of $1 or $1.50. After I added my program to it, I was able to sell it for $25 or $30. I added some value to it and it was my right to do that. I was hoping that I would have a copyright that would prevent other people from copying my disks and giving them to other people without penalty. That is what copyright acts are all about. They are to preserve the property of the person who actually made the invention.

It has become a tough situation. The Liberal government has completely failed on this issue. We now have the tax on blank cassettes. In other words, it assumes that people are going to break copyright laws, so they pay a penalty whether or not they break the law. It is the same as giving people speeding tickets in advance.

I am appalled that there are agreements in Bill C-4 that will protect the intellectual rights of the participants in that program, but the Nisga'a people do not even have the simplest of rights. That the government has failed to address that is even a greater travesty.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat amazed at what is going on in the House at the present time.

I see only Reform Party members speaking. One of them, a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, has just said that they were in agreement with the bill.

I can understand that this gives my hon. colleague another chance to speak about his former company and the cassettes it sold, but it seems to me that the House's time is valuable. The Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with this bill. Having visited the space agency in Saint-Hubert, there is much I could say and, being a member of the industry committee, I am somewhat aware of the various facets of this subject.

Unless there is an objective of negotiation, if there is agreement, why stretch out the discussion, especially if everyone is already in agreement? I would like my colleague to explain this to me, then perhaps I will understand.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member believes in democracy. I suppose he believes in parliament because he is here as a member of parliament. I know he believes in MP pensions because I understand he is taking it.

Parliament is here to debate the issues of the day. As he and others have observed, our right to debate in depth the full implications of the Nisga'a agreement was cut off by the Liberal government yesterday. Therefore, we are going to use the time today to debate not only this bill, but the bills that we think we should be able to debate in this place. That is my reason and it stands on its own.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Of course, on the right to do so, it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that the debate is on the question that is on the floor. Relevance has to be maintained.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-4 on the space station and what it means to Canadians.

I want to start off by talking about the provincial co-operation that needs to go on whenever we put any kind of legislation forward. Certainly Bill C-4 would be an example of that. I would like to know from government members just how much consultation went on in talking to the premiers about the implications for Canadians of a space station.

Because we have not heard answers from the Liberals, all I can do is try to project how much consultation they might have done. What I would have to do is look at the most recent bill we discussed in this House. Yesterday we talked about Nisga'a. Let us examine that and compare it to Bill C-4 and how much provincial consultation went on.

Also the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba came to try to consult on the agricultural issue. What kind of consultation happened and what were the results?

Let us examine that first in the context of Bill C-4. Let us ask government members, did they consult with the provinces? That is the question. Let us look at the examples of their consultation process.

Let us start off by looking at the Nisga'a agreement. In the Nisga'a agreement which involves the people of British Columbia, the consultation was extremely limited. Closure was used on that bill in the parliament in British Columbia. Yesterday's press release by the leader of the opposition in British Columbia puts it into perspective:

The motion this morning by the federal government to invoke closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate is a reprehensible abuse of the democratic process, said Liberal Leader Gordon Campbell.

“This is an egregious abuse of the democratic process, and shows flagrant contempt for all British Columbians,” said Campbell. “It's an unacceptable slap in the face to our province, and to all Canadians who deserve a full and open debate on the landmark treaty”.

“On a matter of this critical importance to our country, to our province and to our constitution, every member of parliament deserves the right to speak. Every Canadian should demand the right of their MP to speak. To put this in context, we would not for a moment dream of shutting off debate on a change to the constitution affecting Quebec, but that's exactly what the government's doing to B.C.”

The federal government's closure motion, introduced at 11.30 a.m. EST, will shut down all debate on the treaty this afternoon at 6.30 p.m. EST. At the time the motion was introduced, there had been less than 10 hours of debate on the treaty, of which only four hours [and 12 minutes] had been allocated to the official opposition. In that time, the official opposition was able to field just 16 speakers out of a caucus of 58 members. There are 24 Reform opposition MPs in B.C. alone.

This is the example of the co-operation the B.C. politicians feel this federal government gives them. I wonder what the B.C. government would say about the consultation on the space station and its involvement for the 21st century.

Let us move on to Alberta. There is a longstanding tradition that most Alberta politicians feel toward the federal government and its lack of consulting them on most issues. There are so many examples we would not have time to deal with all of them.

I wonder what the Alberta politicians would say about the consultation on Bill C-4, the space station and the implications for the people of Alberta.

Let us go to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Representatives from Saskatchewan and Manitoba came here last week to consult with the federal government. They wanted to talk about the most important issue they had before them which is the agricultural issue. The farmers are hurting. They are losing their farms. Young farmers are leaving simply because there is no future for them in agriculture. That is our food supply. I wonder how much consultation the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba would say the federal government has had with them.

We could talk about the space station and the implications to agriculture which one member spoke about earlier. It could be a boon to the agricultural community regarding production. I wonder if they have been consulted, if they know what is involved and if they want taxpayers' money to go toward that.

I wonder as well if Ontario and Quebec have been consulted. Mr. Bouchard makes many, many speeches on the topic of consultation with the federal government and the lack of it. It does not matter which party it is in Quebec, we hear the same thing. Mr. Harris in Ontario does not feel he has been consulted on the many issues that affect the great province of Ontario.

If we ask Atlantic Canadians if they have been consulted about the space station, they would say, “No, agreements come out and we get no support at all from the federal government. We have all kinds of fishing agreements. We have the supreme court setting the laws for us and that has opened a time bomb for Canadians”.

A race based policy has been set up in this country. This race based policy is going to cause a great many problems in the future for my children and grandchildren. They are going to have problems because we have set aside special rights for different people. I would hope that the consultation necessary between provinces would go on and would involve everything from space stations to Nisga'a to any other agreements the federal government might enter into.

One of the first items to identify in this severe problem is the co-operation between the provinces and the federal government. It just is not there. It should be there whether it is on the space station or Nisga'a. It should be there. It must be there. We should be here to fight for that right.

Let us talk about the effects on Canadians of legislation that happens here. Let us talk about the space station and what it will do for Canadians.

Obviously, there will be a pride among Canadians when they hear that Canada is playing a role in developing a space station. We are playing a scientific role. We are co-operating with the United States, Japan and countries of the European Union. There will be pride that we are part of this project.

There will be influence created by our involvement in the space station. We will have influence in terms of our marketing and sales and what we do around the world. Our trade will be helped because of the space station.

Let us talk about co-operation and what we will learn by co-operating with these other countries. The prestige and position of Canada in the world will be improved by the space station.

Let us look at the effects on Canadians. Let us compare the space station and all of the good things we have gone through to Nisga'a and the message that sends to the world. Let us compare the two. We have pride and co-operation, prestige and influence in the world because of a space station, but the Nisga'a agreement sends the message that we are persecuting a group of people, that we have a race based policy.

I hope all Canadians believe in the equality of all people, but we have a government that is putting forward a race based policy in the House. The government is afraid to debate the policy because it knows it is onerous to the people of the country. It allows four hours and twelve minutes to debate an issue like that and expects us all to be happy and say “Isn't democracy a wonderful thing”. We are sick and tired of that kind of presentation to the world. The world is looking at us.

The UN has condemned us for our treatment of our native people. The UN has said that it is time we talked about the grassroots people of the country. We do not need to be spending time in here talking about a sophisticated space station. We need to be talking about the grassroots people who really count.

What is happening to those people? They are living in poverty. They have problems with crime and alcoholism. What has caused that? The race based policy of governments in the country over the years have caused the problems. They have created a situation where they think they can solve the problems by throwing money at them and by signing these agreements which no one is happy with.

Many of the people on the reserves are contacting some of our members. The member for Wild Rose and a number of other members have done extensive work with the natives. The member for Prince Albert has also done extensive work with them. They have done a lot of talking to the grassroots people. That is the message we are sending to the world as well.

On the one side, we have the great Bill C-4, the space station bill, that gives us pride in our country. On the other side, we have another piece of legislation that makes us absolutely sick to our stomach and we cannot let the people of Canada know about it because the government is afraid to let it be debated in the House.

The Liberals have no courage at all. They do not stand by their convictions. They should be embarrassed to go out in public. I think that is why so many of them moved to Ottawa and live here. They are afraid to go back to their own constituencies. They should be afraid because of the image they are sending to the people of Canada. One day it will come to haunt the hundreds of people sitting across the way who are listening so attentively. It shows how much interest there is in this kind of issue.

Let me talk further about the constitutional changes and the loss of rights. We are here to talk about the space station. We have said what that does for us and the pride it gives to us. However, what we should be talking about is the loss of rights and the loss of democracy in the country? That should be part of what is happening here as well.

What rights have we lost? I feel I have lost rights by the use of closure in the House. When closure is used we do not have the right to debate the issues and let Canadians knows about them. It used to be that closure could be used once in a session and the government would worry about whether it would be defeated. It now uses closure on every single bill. I expect it will use closure on the space bill. Why would it not on something as great as that? That will send a great message to the world as well: We had to use closure on the space station that every party agreed with. It is a great idea. We are proud of it and we want to be involved but the government has to use closure on it because that is how its democracy works and that is how democracy exists in Canada.

We have lost our rights. We lose our rights every day in the House. Whether it is on closure, Bill C-68, the committee approach to things, satellite TV or whatever it is, the government operates like a dictatorship. It is time the government changed its attitude and started to think about the people who really count.

The government throws out fancy bills like Bill C-4 and says that everyone will agree with it because they are a bunch of patsies who are just going to go along with it. It knows we will put up one more speaker and it will then ram the bill through because it is a good bill. This is an opportunity for us as opposition members to at least let the government and the Canadian people know how the government is operating.

This is not about Bill C-4 and the space station. We are for that. We think it is great and we are proud of it. This is about democracy and the total abuse of democracy in this place. That is why all of us need to stand on our feet and be counted with regard to the issue.

The Nisga'a people would want us to stand and talk as well, even if they are opposed to what we are saying. In a democracy, one has the opportunity to speak and that is what it is all about. We go around the world peddling democracy. We say that we are the example of a democratic state. How can we say that when closure is used at the drop of a hat? It does not matter what bill it is, closure is used on it.

Here we are setting up a group of people who are going to run a socialist state, where the chief and council will have the rights to land and the rights to everything. The individual person will have no property rights. We cannot have a race based policy like that. We cannot have a top-down government like that. My God, if that worked then the east bloc countries would be leading the world. They would be the only super powers around.

I have been in all the east bloc countries. They are collapsing. They are being destroyed because of their type of government. This government is doing exactly the same thing to Canada, to this great country, a country that should be on top of the world. It is destroying it by destroying democracy and destroying the sorts of things that all of us grew up to believe Canada was all about.

It is time to examine that and to stand up and be counted. It is shameful that the other parties are not standing up to hold the government accountable. I am proud to be part of a group that is standing up, that is getting that message out and is saying what it is really all about.

As we travel internationally and involve the international community, and as foreign affairs critic I have been able to do that in lots of places, I want to be proud of the country that I come from. I want to be proud of the country that has a democratic process where every member of parliament has an opportunity to stand up and speak. I do not want to be part of a country that uses closure at the drop of a hat and allows four hours and twelve minutes of debate on something that will affect the rest of our lives, the lives of our children and our grandchildren. It is a shameful example of what we have seen in the House in the past day or so and, for that matter, over the last six years.

We are proud of the space station but we are not proud of the other things the government has done. We cannot stand in pride and also have shame in our eyes because of what the government has done. In the last 24 hours, it has just committed probably one of the most shameful things that we have seen since we have been in the House and something that will affect us for so many generations.

I am embarrassed for the government members of the House. They should hang their heads in shame, as 10 or 20 of them are doing over there right now. In fact their heads are so low I cannot even see them because they are under their seats with embarrassment, which is exactly where they should be.

The space station, yes; the Nisga'a agreement, no. Let the government take notice of just how many more speeches we have to give and how many more comments we will have about the lack of democracy that has been displayed in the House.