Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1999

Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly as proud as anyone about the international space station and I am very enthusiastic about the use of space and how it can affect our daily lives. One of the greatest uses of space to date has been the global positioning system. RADARSAT has been of great benefit to us with respect to to ice conditions and agriculture.

My question to the member for Wentworth—Burlington concerns the fact that the boundaries for the Nisga'a people in the Nisga'a area have to be determined on a scientific basis. I want to know if this member can explain how space can help set those boundaries. I would like him to also explain how these boundaries can be set so as to avoid any conflict with neighbouring aboriginal people who are claiming the same land. Is there some kind of magical outer space area that will settle these problems here on Earth, for example through the use of the GPS? I think he understands the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a sense it is a very good question because global positioning, which is what he means by GPS, and also the various remote sensing capabilities, not only of the space station but also of other rocketry we have in space, enable the finest imaginable calculation of boundaries. We can calculate boundaries from outer space down to the very last metre, if not millimetre.

The member is absolutely right. When it comes to settling disputes among us, when it comes to having those fences that separate us as neighbours, in the end it is not hardware or space stations that matter, but the law. That is why I see it as so significant that we have before us legislation that takes the law, one of the best products of the human spirit, one step further, one step forward for mankind, one step into space.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member explained the GPS system in terms of global positioning and what it has done for our navigators and seafarers worldwide. However, I would remind him that it is still controlled by the Americans. What assurance can he or his government give that the new treaty on the space station will not be absolutely controlled by one nation, for example the United States?

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

Mr. Speaker, at last we have a question that we should be dealing with. That is precisely the core of this legislation. What it defines is the parameters of the laws that apply to all members who are on the space platform at any given time. The legislation we have before us is echoed in other countries, or by the other partners shall we say.

In the end there is one thing that goes beyond the law and that is the trust we share among us. What we are seeing in this historic piece of legislation is a moment in time at the end of this century when countries with competing interests will have to work together in order to save and preserve the very lives in the ultimate hostile environment. They are going to have to have faith in one another. I admit that is probably a step of the human spirit that actually transcends respect for the law.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty to inform the House that from this moment forward debate will be 10 minutes with no questions or comments.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, are you suggesting that I have been time limited on the debate on Bill C-4? That is quite ironic. It gives me an interesting angle to address.

I want to begin by saying how touched I was to hear my hon. and eloquent colleague from Wentworth—Burlington speak in such glowing terms about his romantic soul and the expanding human spirit. He really does seem to want to go where no man has gone before. I was expecting that at any moment during his speech he would be beamed up out of the Chamber. Perhaps I could suggest to that colleague that we could volunteer him to be one of the first Canadian trial astronauts in the new space station. I suspect his constituents would rather have him in space than here representing them.

I am pleased to rise to debate this important bill, 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.

The bill's statutory summary states:

This enactment relates to the implementation of Canada's obligations under the agreement concerning co-operation on the Civil International Space Station. The parties to the agreement undertake to establish a framework for mutual international co-operation in the long term in relation to the detailed design, development, operation and utilization of a permanently inhabited civil international space station for peaceful purposes. The agreement provides for mechanisms and arrangements to ensure the fulfilment of these objectives.

This is indeed an important bill before us. It is so important that I am distressed to learn that because of the rules of this place and the government's distaste for expansive debate on important statutes I will be limited to 10 minutes. In my remarks—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member knows that after five hours of debate any piece of legislation is dropped down to 10 minutes without questions and comments. There is no limit on this debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That was not a point of order.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that being the case, I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House that my colleague, who had prepared for a 20 minute speech, be allowed the 20 minutes for his speech, to reflect exactly what that member said.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there we have it. They always blame it on the rules, but when it comes to an option to expand debate and to listen to the diverse voices of a pluralistic society, government members say no, no, no every time.

That member, in his specious point of order, suggested that this was simply an automatic limitation of debate. He realizes that this parliament governs itself through the standing orders and if we had a majority of members of this place truly dedicated to fulsome democratic debate on items like Bill C-4, the one before us today, then we could amend those standing orders to allow members to express fully their remarks in 20 minutes, plus questions and comments on any matter. We could extend the sitting hours of this place. We would not have to invoke time allocation and closure.

It is remarkable that this should come up because just yesterday at this time I was sitting here in my seat on behalf of my constituents, having spent much of the day preparing remarks to address another bill that had come before us, Bill C-9, a bill with respect to the Nisga'a treaty. I was enthusiastically waiting, having read dozens of articles and background documents, to enter my comments on behalf of my 130,000 some constituents on that piece of legislation. However, I was denied the opportunity because as I sat in this place my right to stand and speak on that treaty was stolen from me by that member and his colleagues in the government.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Your right to participate in that debate was not stolen by that member.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would not deign to suggest that member is a thief. He voted with his colleagues to take from me the right to speak on that bill by limiting debate through time allocation. I do think that is pertinent because we are talking about an important treaty which I would like, obviously, to address.

The treaty for Canada's participation in the international civil space station ultimately is the legal culmination of a 15 year process which began in 1984.

The member for Wentworth—Burlington spoke of his enthusiasm for the human spirit. There was a great leader, probably the greatest leader of the free world in the post-war period, who in 1984 proposed this vision of an international space station. His name was President Ronald Reagan. He was the man who proposed the international space station as a way for humankind to work together across national boundaries, to co-operate by bringing together the strengths of technology to further the endeavours of human science and the expansion of man's reach into space.

I want to say how proud I am to have an opportunity to stand and speak to an initiative that was begun by that great leader and defender of freedom in this century. I would furthermore say that members of the Liberal Party mocked that great leader back in the mid-1980s when Ronald Reagan was proposing that the world reach farther into space to expand our frontiers of science, research and travel. They called it star wars when Ronald Reagan suggested that perhaps the western nations of the world should co-operate to find means of strategic defence through space, using technology like that being developed in the space station, to defend the western countries, the free countries of the world from the enormous strategic threat posed by the intercontinental ballistic missiles of the evil empire.

They mocked him, but now they stand and applaud that man's vision. I want to put that on the record, that whatever benefit comes to mankind from this kind of bold scientific venture, which we in the official opposition support, ultimately came from the vision of a man who was mocked and vilified by members opposite.

This treaty will give Canada certain opportunities. We are only funding about 2.5% of the cost of this space station. We will of course have the prominent use of the Canadarm which will be employing an entirely new generation of robotics technologies, one of the very few areas of high technology where Canada has an edge. I hope this funding will have a spin-off in terms of private sector investment and development in the high technology field.

I believe that if we in Canada really wanted to take full advantage of the private sector opportunities afforded by the development of this technology in the space station, we would create a fiscal and economic environment where those scientists and the people who want to invest in that kind of science would stay in this country. Instead what do we have? A job killing tax burden which is driving away the people who would invest, the entrepreneurs who would finance the kind of real private sector development of technology represented by the Canadarm.

Sure, we are prepared to provide seed funding for this sort of technology through government, but when it comes to allowing the private sector to take over, we end up sending those people south of the border through high taxes. It is exactly what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The millionaire Prime Minister was speaking to his group of impoverished Liberal friends who paid $350 a plate at last night's dinner. He said that productive Canadians can just leave the country if they do not like staying here.

In any event I am pleased to see that the Canadarm will be used. Canada will be able to take advantage of the monitoring of the earth, the monitoring of crop conditions, the monitoring of the environment. We will be able to measure climate and the Arctic ice pack which will assist navigation for the transportation industry. We will be engaged in various sorts of experiments relating to longevity, et cetera.

Again, I want to emphasize that it is important that parliament ratifies treaties after debate. Yesterday we had before us a treaty which we did not have a chance to debate fully. The official opposition, the only party opposing that treaty, had only four hours to debate it in principle on second reading. Now it has been shunted off to committee and the government hopes that the public will not notice.

This is important because public debate on treaties such as those in Bills C-4 and C-9 is a very important part of parliamentary accountability. That is why I was quite surprised to see the remarks of a man I know and respect, Gordon Campbell, the leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party, speaking on another treaty that was before this place. He called the closure of debate yesterday “a reprehensible abuse of democracy that is an egregious abuse of democratic process and shows flagrant contempt for all British Columbians”. He said that the limitation of debate on that treaty was “an unacceptable slap in the face of all Canadians”.

While we support Bill C-4 and this treaty, we want real debate on all treaties. We did not have it yesterday and we will demand that in the future we have that kind of debate.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a rather interesting debate today. One theme that keeps repeating itself and which is clearly emerging is the undemocratic nature in which the Liberal government is bent on ruling in this parliament.

As has been pointed out, the debate on a bill which essentially has unanimous agreement among parliamentarians is allowed to go on without any opposition by the Liberals in having that debate continue. However, yesterday, in a very undemocratic, dictatorial fashion, the Liberal government shut down debate on a treaty that is being thrust upon the citizens of Canada in a very undemocratic and unjust way.

The constitutional ramifications of the Nisga'a treaty are extensive. However, despite the lasting repercussions that the agreement will have, both the B.C. and federal governments have refused to allow a referendum on the terms of the Nisga'a final agreement.

Why would that be? If it is a good agreement, why would we not engage in a full open public consultation followed by a referendum? Why not let the people decide the issue? It follows that the answer is for the same reason the Liberals shut down debate yesterday.

The Prime Minister is running this country like a dictator. The three main lawmaking institutions of our country are the House of Commons, the Senate and the supreme court. The Senate is unelected and unaccountable. The supreme court justices are appointed by the Prime Minister and are there to exercise his will. The parliamentarians on the Liberal side of the House are under his direct control.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

If the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt will forgive me, I wanted to reiterate the ground rules that I laid out for this debate when I was in the Chair. They are these. Considerable latitude has been allowed in this debate on Bill C-4 which has to do with the the international space station. There has been quite a bit of linkage between that and Bill C-9 but the linkage must be there. That is the challenge for those who would wish to use the rules of the House to bring other issues to the table.

I would ask that the Chair not be challenged to find the link. Make sure that the link exists so that relevance is maintained.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to the link. I first wanted to establish the method in which the Prime Minister governs the country and that is as a dictator.

The link is that with the bill before us, because there is no opposition, the Prime Minister is quite content to let opposition members of parliament speak in favour of the bill and in essence commend the government. If we are speaking in favour of the bill we are not being critical of an initiative of the government. I was just pointing out that only exists in the instance where we are supportive of a bill.

However, in the case of the Nisga'a agreement there is widespread discontent and unhappiness not only with the agreement but with the manner in which the agreement is being thrust upon the citizens of British Columbia in particular but indeed upon all the citizens of our country. That is something that needs to be discussed. It is not acceptable. People need to be made aware of how this place is being governed. They need to be made aware that solutions exist.

The Reform Party proposes referendums for such major legislation as the Nisga'a agreement. On legislation which is before the House today, we are proposing free votes in the House of Commons in which members are not under the hard iron fist of a dictator but rather are free to vote according to the wishes of their constituents. If a member can demonstrate that his or her constituents are in favour or opposed to any particular bill, such as the space station before us, the member should be free to exercise that right and actually represent the people who elected him or her. Free votes is an answer to improving the democracy of this institution.

I mentioned the Senate. We all know how badly we need Senate reform.

Finally, before I leave this point, there is member recall. The Reform Party has been very strong in advocating the right of constituents to recall their member of parliament if he or she does not represent their wishes.

The lack of an elected effective Senate, the lack of accountability of politicians to the people who elect them and the lack of free votes are all part and parcel of the undemocratic nature by which this government is ruling parliament. It explains why with Bill C-4 because there is no opposition, none of these are real issues. It is not an issue. But in the case of the Nisga'a agreement which was before the House yesterday, all of these democratic principles and concepts were quashed.

With regard to the Nisga'a final agreement, I would like to point out that the form of apartheid which has failed in the past has been used as a template for the Nisga'a and therefore future treaty negotiations. To prove that point I would like to quote from the Oxford Dictionary which defines apartheid as a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on the grounds of race.

The Nisga'a final agreement permanently entrenches the same essential elements as the reserve system in a modern treaty. It creates permanent inequality, disenfranchising non-Nisga'a people and providing for a system of taxation without representation.

Non-Nisga'a people who reside in the affected area will be able to vote for federal and provincial representatives, but they will not be able to vote for or run as council members. Band councils will hold most of the power in the Nisga'a territory and will be responsible for local tax issues. Non-Nisga'a people will have no say in how those tax policies affect them.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a lot of respect for my colleague but he has been referring to the Nisga'a bill and I thought we were debating Bill C-4. I would suggest that perhaps the member is a bit out of whack in terms of his presentation. He may want to go back to the bill we are discussing at this point in time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The admonition of the member for Ottawa Centre is accurate and correct.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that a scant two sitting days ago the Speaker of the House made a ruling that the long term practice of the House becomes the rules and we have—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

And when that Speaker is in the Chair that is the ruling. This Speaker is in the Chair and this Speaker will tell members exactly what is going to happen.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to discuss the Nisga'a treaty today because Bill C-4 which deals with the space station is also based on a treaty.

It is essential that we discuss in parliament how these treaties are coming into existence and the irrelevance that parliament has with respect to these treaties. It is insulting for these treaties to be signed and sealed as a done deal and then brought before parliament to receive a rubber stamp. This warrants looking at the details of the treaties, in particular the Nisga'a treaty.

The Nisga'a final agreement is going to build barriers and widen the gulf between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in British Columbia. It strongly contradicts one of the key founding principles of the Reform Party which is that we believe in true equality of Canadian citizens with equal rights and responsibilities for all. That statement is a direct word for word extract from the blue book of the Reform Party.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-4. I want everybody to understand that we support the broad thrust of the bill. However, we have some concerns and I have some particular concerns with regard to the bill.

One is the priorizing of spending. We are looking at approximately $1 billion. Another concern is that we do not know what the actual cost will be to the Canadian taxpayer.

For that kind of money I think we should have at least had some consultation with regard to the spending of it with perhaps some of the poorer people, the working poor of Canada. Instead the government said that it would be done, what it would spend, and that it would be coming out of the pockets of taxpayers, for we all know the government does not have money of its own.

One of my concerns with respect to Bill C-4 is the lack of consultation. Speaking of consultation kind of brings up another sore point with me. The other day debate was closed on Bill C-9, an area in which we are looking at reshaping Canada to a large extent.

Where was the consultation on that? It was about the same as it was for Bill C-4. Actually we are getting more on Bill C-4, at least on debate. On Bill C-9, the Nisga'a agreement, we had only four hours and 12 minutes before closure was brought in on debate. At least on Bill C-4 we seem to be able to talk all day because we all seem to be in agreement on it. The dictatorial might and hand of the government has allowed us to carry on this debate.

Let us look at what it did on Bill C-9 in reference to Bill C-4 and consultation. The government signed the agreement in Bill C-4 on January 29, 1998. Yet at no time did it come before parliament until now. I have to wonder how much consultation was done there with regard to Bill C-4.

Certainly on Bill C-9, the Nisga'a claims, we have had far less. We are saying now that we actually forced the government from this side to grant committee hearings in the great province of British Columbia, the province that will be directly impacted by the Nisga'a agreement.

Although we got agreement from the government on consultation through committee hearings, it put a bit of a codicil at the bottom with regard to who would speak there and what their concerns would be. If they are not rubber stamped by the government they cannot come forward as witnesses with regard to Bill C-9 and the concerns in British Columbia over the Nisga'a agreement.

The government is saying to the Canadian public that it will send out a committee for some hearings. It will pick and choose which cities it will go to for the hearings and exactly who will be heard from. If this is consultation, I have real concerns about where we are going.

I raise this matter because one person who should have been looked at very closely with regard to the committee hearings and what is happening in the province of British Columbia, everybody in the House must agree, would have to be an ex-premier of that province, one who sat in government for years and was the premier of British Columbia. His name is Bill Vander Zalm. Yet the committee has absolutely stamped not a good witness upon Mr. Vander Zalm and he will not be able to go before committee. I think a great atrocity has been done there.

It is the same for Bill C-4. When we look at Bill C-4 and what property rights are protected in it, we have no answer. In the same way we do not have an answer in the Nisga'a agreement with regard to property rights. One of the big concerns in the Nisga'a agreement was for private property rights given to the individual Nisga'a people, particularly with regard to any spousal disagreement or break up of marriage. In most cases it is usually the woman who takes the hardest blow. In the Nisga'a agreement there is no protection there. I have to wonder why there were no property rights put into that agreement. It creates grave concern.

It is the same in Bill C-4. We looked at intellectual property rights. We do not see where they are protected in Bill C-4 either.

It started out that we would have five hours of open debate in the House, 20 minute speeches. Then all of a sudden we were cut down to 10 minute speeches with no questions and comments. The Nisga'a agreement was cut to even less than that, which is something that will have far greater impact upon the country than a space station.

I listened to some government members who said that these were the rules. When we were elected to the House of Commons we were originally sent here to help make and shape the rules so that they would apply equally to everyone. Unfortunately members on the other side of the House still do not have this through their heads yet. They have rules for some that differ greatly from rules for others.

For example, most people in Canada fall under property rights and that aspect of marriage. There are some rights for both spouses in case of marriage break up. In the Nisga'a agreement that is not the case. There is no protection. There is one right for one part of society and another right for another part of society. I do not understand why the government which says that it has a caring, sharing nature has not looked very closely at this matter, allowed the debate to continue, and at least had a broad discussion with the people of British Columbia.

Not only the people of British Columbia should have concerns about the Nisga'a agreement. It should be all Canadians. It will be all of them. It will be everyone. It will be the people of Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. They will pick up the tab for this. It will not just be the people of British Columbia.

The government likes to say that it will pick up the tab. The government has no money. It only has the money that it can rip off working people. That is the only money it has. The government knows that and I think the working people of Canada are starting to realize that is the case. All they have to do is look at their paycheques to see how much in taxes are being ripped off by this caring, sharing government in Ottawa. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Let us have a look at the Nisga'a agreement. Let us just see how caring and sharing the government is. How concerned is it really? This agreement is being put in place basically in the northwest part of British Columbia, but where is the government to hold some of the hearings? It will hold some of them in Victoria and Vancouver, British Columbia. I have news for Liberal members. That is a long way from Nisga'a country. It is a long way from a lot of the concern.

We asked if the government would not hold some hearings in another part of British Columbia, in the Okanagan Valley where we will feel an impact from the agreement. The answer was no. The government absolutely refused to do that. I would like to see the committee at least spend more than four days in the great province of British Columbia. I do not know if the government thinks that it is only the size of Prince Edward Island or if it the size of a smaller area. I do not think it fully understands that the size of British Columbia, as the third largest province in Canada, is extensive.

For something that will forever impact the people of Canada for generations, the government will only allow three or four days. I have concerns about that. It goes to show us in the west that we have the right attitude. Once they get to Ottawa representatives from other parts of the country have absolutely no idea where British Columbia is. They have no idea of what are the problems in British Columbia. They have no idea about what the impact will be upon the people of British Columbia.

As a matter of fact I will pre-warn my staff that perhaps we should get a bunch of maps and draw British Columbia on them in a different colour so that government members will at least know where it is. I have news for them. It is just over on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. They should know it well. They have ripped the people off there for their money for years and years. They should at least get to know the province and get to know that it is a large area.

For those who say that they can accomplish what they are trying to accomplish in three or four days I think they should give, and we like to talk about space stations, the empty space between their ears a shake.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, the interesting debate we have been participating also provoked interest in me.