Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1999

Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sure that the hon. member is just about to come back to the subject being discussed today.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, as to the hon. member's point, I am and will be speaking on the whole issue of co-operation. It is important to recognize what co-operation can do when there is a common cause and a common purpose. A space station can be developed in four or five different countries and be assembled in space after being transported up there. Co-operation is the key point.

It is no different for the people of this country. They need to know where we stand on issues that are important to them. They need to know that the parliamentary process will allow that adequate debate, will allow input from the opposition, will allow their opinions to be heard, not shut down.

What would happen if that happened in the space program or at the international space station? I would not want to go into space and put myself in that mechanical device. I would not know if I was going to live or die because there was no co-operation on the part of the engineers, the politicians and the medical teams involved.

I will flip back over to the Nisga'a agreement where it is very clear that co-operation is at the centre of the whole affair. At no time did we state that aboriginal people should not have self-government of some form. We are not denying self-government. Co-operation is the key: all levels of government working together, just like in the space station; and all levels of those planning divisions working together to accomplish one goal.

In the particular case of the Nisga'a agreement, we have a form of government that is apart from all other governments. Who is accountable to whom? What government is going to act independently? We are talking about co-operation in a space station. We are talking about co-operation by different levels of government. The Nisga'a government is one such level.

I cannot understand why the government is actually afraid to debate the Nisga'a agreement to its nth degree? It should be proud of being able to do that. I would suggest that is the democratic process. I do not know why the government is so nervous about discussing the particulars of the treaty?

What I find rather unsettling is this tendency to label its opponents, or those with an opposing point of view to this treaty, in the cowardly manner in which it does. It all showed up when closure was invoked, which, in my humble opinion, was undemocratic, cowardly and a desperate act to attempt to smother a good and sound free speech debate in the House.

When it comes to the government, its action is no different than the B.C. government that rammed through the Nisga'a treaty in the provincial legislature against huge opposition.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is an historic piece of legislation before us. It is legislation that has never been seen in the House before. It is legislation of the millennium. Would the member please address the legislation at hand and leave politics behind.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must agree with the member that the current speaker should stay on the bill being discussed before the House.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Historic legislation is important. The Canadian space station is an historic occurrence. There is no question that the development, the co-operation and the resulting influence from the research that will be done up there will be historic. It is going to be a preparation for greater things to come in space, including a trip to Mars. Speaking with those in the area of research focused on that particular station, I know that is a very close agenda. Maybe with some exceptions, probably most of us here will be alive to see that happen.

However, there is another historic piece of legislation that was never debated in the House and that was the Nisga'a agreement. The government shut it down before we could get to the nitty-gritty, the nub of the matter. There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people who are unhappy with that agreement.

We have an agreement here that everyone agrees with but we are still debating it. We can laud all the possibilities that the space station will bring to the country, if not to the world, but let us talk about the country because we are the ones who are contributing to it.

We are also contributing to the Nisga'a agreement as to what may come of it in the end. As members of the opposition party, we have a responsibility to deal with that very complicated issue and complicated bill. I do not know if most people realize this, but there are two books that deal only with the Nisga'a agreement. It is very significant in scope.

I do not remember who the speaker was, but he or she identified the Nisga'a treaty as the balkanization of Canada.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member speaking right now keeps debating off a very good bill, Bill C-4, which I believe reaches a lot of consensus among all political parties here. It is a worldwide agreement and something that is very important.

I am surprised he is not talking about taxation, or sports or anything of that nature. I wish that you, Madam Speaker, would instruct the hon. member to stick to the subject at hand.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sure the hon. member realizes that it is the duty of the Chair to try to keep the debate on the subject at hand. I would again remind the hon. member of that.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, certainly I intend to do that as I do come back to the issue during my debate. I think it is important to compare and compare I will do. I know, Madam Speaker, that you will not disagree with that particular point so I will try to keep my comparisons very relevant.

I understand that the treaty struck for the space station among these different countries was certainly an historic treaty. However, I do not recall just how much debate there was in the House over that particular issue or how much consultation there was here. The only thing I recall over this particular treaty, and it is a treaty, is that the space station agreement was brought here for rubber-stamping. It is all over, finished and done. All the government wants is the House's approval. That is no different than the Nisga'a agreement.

The Nisga'a agreement was done by the government in the same way. It was compiled with little consultation with those who really mattered. That is an important issue when we talk about an agreement that has such an impact on the lives of people in British Columbia and, for that matter, across the country. It is the taxpayer who is footing the bill. It is no different than on the space station issue where the taxpayer will also be footing the bill, although with the space station there is certainly going to be a different spinoff in the country than there will be with the Nisga'a agreement. It will be the balkanization of Canada.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really do regret that the member for Calgary Northeast spoiled what could have been an excellent speech, which began as an excellent speech, on a historic piece of legislation by toeing his party line and obeying his whip to divert the debate to a discussion of time allocation on the Nisga'a treaty. The member for Calgary Northeast is well known for his interest in the law and legal matters.

We have before us a piece of legislation that truly is very historic in ways that go far beyond just the recitation of technology or the recitation of advancements in science. We have legislation before us that is an advancement in human organization, the advancement in democracy and the advancement in law. We have legislation that for the first time ever applies the laws of Canada not just outside of Canada but out of this world. For the first time ever, the law applies not just on the space capsule and among the spacemen, but the law applies to any vehicle that separates from the space station.

The reason this is so significant is because it takes the human spirit that is represented in our political institutions, and more than that in our legal institutions, and for the first time ever it has taken the law out of this world. That may sound trivial to some members but it is an enormous step. Symbolically, it means that the human spirit has passed the boundaries of geography, has passed the boundaries of city states, of the political states of the world and has actually entered into interplanetary space.

In 1,000 years or 500 years from now, humanity will look back at this moment and this piece of legislation, where it moves the law and mankind outside of the world, as a turning point in the history of all humankind.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with the member for Wentworth—Burlington with respect to what the technology and the space station program will create. I agree wholeheartedly. I certainly laud the program. It is marvellous. I would like to see greater opportunities in Canada to develop our young people in the whole area of space technology which we lack in many respects. We have made some strides over the last few years but with no credit necessary to the government.

However, that was not the point I was making with my comparison of this treaty to the treaty that was just drafted on the Nisga'a agreement. I was also not following the party line.

We are concerned about what happens in the House, like any opposition member should be. We have a responsibility to ensure that debate does take place and that there is no other hidden agenda on any bill that may come forward. If the member for Wentworth—Burlington would dig into the short path, he would clearly see that there have been hidden agendas in other bills that have come before the House.

It is not the space station bill that I have any quarrel with in that regard. I think it is a marvellous opportunity for our country. However, when the government of the day decides that it is acting as God and decides to shut down debate on a bill that will have a greater impact on people in our country in a negative way than the space station will have in a positive way, then I have a problem with that. I and I know my colleagues will take every opportunity to voice that particular opinion.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for Wentworth—Burlington accused our member of toeing the party's line in speaking to Bill C-9 at this point in time after his government and he toed the party line by voting to shut down debate in the House. That is shameful and ought not to be done by a person who believes in democracy, as I am sure he did before he was elected to the Liberal Party.

Our whip said that we would begin to discuss Bill C-4 when we had finished discussing Bill C-9, and that has not happened yet. My colleague was entirely correct in his answer to the member on the other side. I would like to add my amen to what he said.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would certainly like to thank my colleague for his support. The time is opportune for the Liberal government and certain members, I might add, to make mention of issues that are democratic. It is convenient and should be brought to the attention of the world because somebody all of a sudden is taking a right or a privilege away, and not to say that it should not be.

However, that applies on this side too because there are rights and privileges being taken away from others as a result of the Nisga'a agreement. We as the opposition have every responsibility to bring that to the attention of others in the country.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I continue to be throwing pearls on barren ground. What we are taking about here is a historic moment, a historic debate, a historic piece of legislation. We are applying the law off this planet for the first time ever. It is going to go to the moon, to Mars, to planets all across the solar system as mankind advances.

Can the member not see for one moment the historical significance of what is before the House? It is not a matter of partisan politics. Surely the member can appreciate the moment.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have no quarrel with the whole issue of what may happen and is happening with the space program and the space station. I do not think a person on this side of the House has any quarrel with the member in that regard.

He cannot seem to get it through his thick skull that the space station is not in question here but rather the Nisga'a agreement. That is why I am using that as a comparison. On one side we have a treaty that we find co-operation and benefit from. On the other side they shut down individual rights, which has a negative impact on society. The member across the way cannot get that through his head.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will ask a simple question. Does Bill C-4, the space agency bill, deal with the constitution of Canada? If not, could he tell us other bills that in fact deal with the constitution of Canada where the Liberal government is trying to railroad and wreck democracy in the country?

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague. No, the agreement or treaty that was struck in reference to the space station is not a constitutional matter.

My colleague across the way may say there is a Canadian law involved here. Maybe there is something in that reflection, but specifically on that treaty, no.

When it comes to the Nisga'a agreement we cannot impact more seriously on the constitution than what this agreement has done. It is worthy of much debate in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Natural Disasters; the hon. member for Palliser, Agriculture.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had no plan of speaking to this particular bill as I came to the House this afternoon, but I have witnessed the way members opposite have taken what should have been a debate in celebration of one of the most significant pieces of legislation to come before the House in this century instead of celebrating that legislation by an informed debate. What they have done is that they have diverted the discussion to cheap and partisan political opportunism. They have changed a debate that should have been about the advancement of mankind. They have turned it into a debate about time allocation, about a piece of legislation that they disagree with that was debated on another occasion.

They have missed an incredible opportunity. Is it true therefore that the people on the opposite side have no sense of the historic context in which we live as human beings, much less as Canadians? Do they have no romantic souls to appreciate that, when we discuss legislation that is actually taking the most fundamental rules of organized society off the planet, that is the most mind enlarging concept I can imagine? It is the type of thing one would expect to read. In fact it is the type of thing that I did read in the fiction of my youth when pulp magazines and science fiction were very new on the newsstands and we could buy them for—

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has repeatedly reminded the Chair that we are discussing the space station bill, yet his remarks are entirely directed to his opinion of interventions by other members. I would suggest that the member live by his own advice and actually address the bill in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sure the hon. member will be speaking to the bill very shortly.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

I do not want to sully this debate any further by cheap reflection on the type of debate I have heard here already from the opposite party. No, Madam Speaker. I will confine my remarks entirely to the legislation at hand, because I think it is turning point legislation. I think it is probably some of the most significant, maybe not the most important, that we have seen before the House certainly since I have been a member.

I would suggest it really is a piece of legislation of the century because it talks about taking the law off this planet. It talks about that one giant step, not just for moving mankind physically into space but moving the best of humankind into outer space.

I liken it to ancient Greece where one of the things we remember about the time of Plato is the fact that the Greeks, in their city states, not only discovered and developed democracy as we have come to know it. The most important thing about the Greeks and why they have a special place in history is that the Greeks discovered the law. They were known for mathematics and for advancements in science, but the most important contribution of the Greeks was a respect for law.

Before we could have democracy we had to have and understand the need for law. From the Greeks came the European society that we knew in the 19th century and the medieval years, which developed into the modern states as we know it. We still hearken back to our debt to the ancient Greeks for introducing mankind to the concepts of law for all people which has to go before democracy.

I would suggest that we could talk as long as we want about the space arm, the advancements in technology and the various technological spin-offs.

I do not think we can ever match in significance the fact that for the first time in this legislation we are actually talking about applying the laws of the land in a space vehicle that is moving around the planet, and indeed about all the subcomponents of that vehicle. If they want to send from the space station a moon lander, the laws of Canada, the criminal code and all other relevant laws will apply to the human beings on those vehicles. This is the beginning, as I see it, for the application of the laws and democracy as we know them to all of mankind's explorations in space.

I note another incredibly significant thing. When we talk about applying the law in this space station, this island of humanity in the voyage, we are talking about the law applying to human beings from different countries. It is not just Canadians. It is all of those people from Russia, Japan or whatever other country that might find themselves together on that space station.

I regret that I cannot name the film, but I can remember my very first moon movie. I am sure older members of the House might remember one of the very early films where they were landing on the moon. There was conflict among the space crew because they ran out of water, or something like that, and of course there was tension. I think we have to appreciate that wherever mankind does go in the millennium ahead of us conflict will follow. The one thing that identifies us as human beings and not animals in our conflicts is that we resolve our conflicts by the law.

I suggest that this is probably one of the most significant aspects of the bill. We are, shall we say, not only sending hardware into space. We are not only sending human beings into space. We are sending our very spirit into space, and that spirit is not just our respect for democracy but that spirit is mankind's respect for the law.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to one thing the member said several times, that Bill C-4 is the most important bill parliament will have passed—what did he say—this year, this century or this millennium. I do not know what he was saying but he gave it great importance.

Does the member really believe it is more important than rejigging the relationship that we have as Canadians one to another? Even though this space station is of great consequence, and undoubtedly it is a wonderful technological masterpiece, is it more important than legislation that is pitting Canadians against Canadians, that is dividing up rights based on personal characteristics and racial origin rather than treating everyone equally as Canadians?

Does he really believe that Bill C-4 is so much more important than Bill C-9 which we would have loved to have been able to debate today?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we really are throwing pearls on barren ground around here. If the member had listened carefully, I did not say it was the most important legislation. I said it was the most significant legislation.

There is no doubt that there are other bills and have been other bills including the constitution which are more important that have appeared before the House, but it is the significance.

This bill and what it contains expands the bounds of the imagination. It expands humanity and the spirit of humanity in a way in which no other bill before the House could ever have done because it goes beyond this country. It touches all of humankind and it takes us off this very planet.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to suggest to my colleague opposite that when he is no longer in politics he can certainly become the poet laureate of Canada. I would be surprised if too many human spirits in Canada have taken flight because of the space station going up, but if the member would like to enrich his personal life by believing that I guess he can.

I am more concerned about the human spirit in Canada, particularly the spirit of aboriginal women who are not able to have the protection in cases of spousal abuse and marriage breakdown that other women have. This is certainly very debilitating to the human spirit, in particular the spirit of women.

Most Canadian women, when these circumstances arise, can request an order to have the matrimonial home for themselves and their children, as well as a division of matrimonial property. However, aboriginal women have brought forward time and time again their concern that they do not have this kind of equality.

Perhaps my poetic colleague would like to comment for the benefit of aboriginal women and suggest how their spirit can be enriched by the kind of inequality his government is forcing upon them through the Nisga'a treaty.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have commented often and elaborately on that issue before committee. I would be happy to comment when the Nisga'a bill comes back to the House on the issues the member raises.

The member illustrates that when it comes to talking about the human spirit and trying to get this other party involved we are really dealing with a four-wheel drive vehicle going gangbusters with the brakes on.