Madam Speaker, I am very interested in participating in this very interesting debate that has been going on here on Bill C-4, a bill committing Canada to implement its obligations for an international space station.
All of us in the House are very proud of the contribution of the Canadian Space Agency. We are very proud of the research and of the Canadian robotic arm. All of us are very proud of the contribution of Julie Payette and other scientists. It is a very interesting bill from one angle. All of us in the official opposition support the broad thrust of the bill. However we do have some reservations and concerns.
We want to ensure that intellectual property rights are protected. If a company is working in space or on the space station, we are concerned about how that intellectual property will be protected. Those issues are not properly addressed in the bill.
All companies that are doing research and development need a long time to do their research. According to the World Trade Organization agreement that was signed by member countries, Canada being one of them, there is a limit of 25 years. I think that is a major concern.
There are some other issues such as whether the scientists and researchers will be getting a fair reward for the innovations they will be making. I am interested in publishing some of my research as well as some of the discoveries and inventions which I have made. I know how important intellectual properties are.
Another concern is whether all the benefits from the space station will be dispersed equally in Canada. We know that $430 million per year will be spent for the Canadian Space Agency that is based in St. Hubert, Quebec. I do not know what contributions or benefits that space agency will create for people in British Columbia or Nova Scotia, whether we will be seeing any benefits or jobs created in other parts of the country, or whether those will be focused only on the main station.
Another area we are concerned about is transparency. When the bill was brought to the House there was absolutely no consultation with parliament and absolutely no input from parliament before the treaty was signed. When the treaty was signed it was brought here to be ratified. We are here to debate and ratify it without making any amendments. That is another major concern.
The other day we all debated the Nisga'a bill in the House. We were not allowed to participate in making any amendments or making any contributions from parliament. That is the kind of transparency we see from the government in the House.
One important point about the space contribution bill we are debating today is regarding the mission of the international space station. It is to enable long term exploration of space and to provide benefits to people on Earth. What we are doing is for the benefit of the people living on Earth. That means that the international space station is all about life on Earth.
Let us talk about life on Earth. Life on Earth is so important that all of us are talking about it. The other day when we debated the Nisga'a bill in the House we saw how the government invoked closure and did not let us raise a voice on it. That is the life we are talking about. That is the lack of understanding we are talking about.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with what we want to debate. We are saying that all Canadians are equal and that all Canadians should be treated equally. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not.
We want to say that there should be a new start for aboriginal people in Canada. We want aboriginal people to be full and equal participants in Canadian society. There is nothing wrong in that. We want aboriginal women to be full and equal partners both on reserve and off reserve. There is nothing wrong in that. We want aboriginal families to be protected by the same law that governs non-aboriginal families. Is there anything wrong in that? There is nothing wrong in that. That is the life in Canada we are talking about.
We want aboriginal people to have the same rights and protections that every Canadian enjoys. We want to eliminate the discriminatory barriers that have widened the gulf between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people for a long long time. We want to ensure that the native governments are fully accountable to grassroots natives. We want to ensure that a bright future is there for all Canadians regardless of the colour of their skin or their origin. Is there anything wrong in that? That is the life in Canada we are talking about. That is the life on this planet we are talking about.
The government members invoked closure on the bill. They did not let us raise our voice. If I look at the record of how debate was shut down in parliament by the Tory government, it took eight years for it to reach the level of 50 closures on debate. It took only five years for the Liberal government to reach the level of 50 closures on debate, up until March 1999.
I do not understand how the government can shut down debate on an important issue. The Nisga'a treaty is the most important treaty the government has signed in this century and it invoked closure on it. It did not let us debate it.
I will quote some important statements made by members on the other side concerning closure when they were the official opposition. When in opposition the current government House leader spoke differently about time allocation. He said: “I am shocked. Perhaps I should not be shocked. This government has used closure on dozens of occasions. This is just terrible. This time we are talking about a major piece of legislation”. He was talking about a particular debate in the House on November 16, 1992. This is recorded in Hansard on page 13,451. He said: “Shame on those Tories across the way”.
That is what the present government House leader said when he was in the official opposition. If I repeat his comments back to him, what would he say now? Is he not ashamed of himself when he invokes time allocation on the debate of these important issues?
Let us talk about another prominent member who is now the foreign affairs minister. He said this in reference to closure in a Toronto Star article on April 1, 1993: “It displays the utter disdain with which the government treats the Canadian people”.
When the present Deputy Speaker was in opposition he said: “The government is using time allocation once again on this bill. Just to remind the House and the Canadian public of the draconian approach this government takes to dealing with legislation in the House, closure has been used 15 times in parliament since—”