Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1999

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla on October 21, 1999 concerning delays in the release of information under the Access to Information Act caused by staff of the Minister of National Defence.

Before beginning, I would like to thank the hon. member for raising the matter. I also want to acknowledge the contribution of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government to this matter.

The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla has argued that his privileges, as well as those of other member,s were breached by the actions of two employees of the Minister of National Defence, namely Mr. Aldege Bellefeuille and Mr. David Robinson, who delayed the release of information thereby obstructing him in the performance of his parliamentary work.

The member went on to assert that the delays in question constitute a contempt of the House.

Contempt as described by Joseph Maingot in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada is “an offence against the authority or dignity of the House”.

The 22nd edition of Erskine May states that:

any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

The member for Okanagan—Coquihalla did not state clearly in his presentation on this question of privilege nor in the supplemental material submitted to the Chair that he personally had been obstructed. The facts, as I have them, indicate that the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla had placed requests with the Department of National Defence to obtain information under the Access to Information Act and received the answers to his questions after what he stated was an intentional and deliberate delay initiated by Messieurs Bellefeuille and Robinson. Following this series of events, the member then proceeded to inform the Information Commissioner of his criticisms of the process. The Information Commissioner in his report found the instructions issued by these individuals to constitute improper interference with the lawful processing of access requests. As a result of the members complaint and the commissioner's report, the Department of National Defence was informed of the misconduct and acted to remedy the situation.

While the actions of Messieurs Bellefeuille and Robinson may have been deemed improper under the terms of the Access to Information Act, this is not a matter that the Speaker can judge. As Speaker Fraser eloquently stated in his ruling on January 28, 1988:

I would remind the House that it is not the duty of the Speaker to judge the actions of public officials in the fulfilment of their duties. It is my duty only to determine whether or not sufficient evidence has been presented to judge if there has been a prima facie breach of privilege or contempt of the House.

The fact that these public servants were not properly fulfilling their duties is not de facto in itself grounds for a charge of contempt.

Technically, obstructing members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings is considered to be a contempt of the House. However, as Joseph Maingot writes, in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , on page 82:

—the member must be exercising his functions as a member in a committee or in the House in the transaction of parliamentary business. Whatever he says or does in those circumstances is said or done during a “proceeding in Parliament”; in other words, while the member is functioning as a member, not in his constituency, but while actually participating in parliamentary business and saying or doing something necessarily incidental to parliamentary business.

Thus, in order for a member to claim that his privileges have been breached or that a contempt has occurred, he or she must have been actually participating in a proceeding of parliament.

Joseph Maingot reiterates this point on page 86 of his book:

A Member is doing something inherently connected with a “proceeding in Parliament” when putting down a question on the Order Paper, a notice of motion, a notice of motion for the production of papers, or a report stage amendment; when obtaining assistance to do any of these; or when obtaining assistance to draft a bill.

In order to fulfil their parliamentary duties, members should of course have access to the information they require. The Chair is mindful of the multiple responsibilities, duties and activities of all members and of the importance they play in the work of every member of parliament. However, the gathering of information by an elected representative through means other than those available exclusively to members does not, in and by itself, necessarily constitute “a proceeding of parliament”.

As stated in the 22nd edition of Erskine May on page 121:

Correspondence with constituents or official bodies, for example, and the provision of information, sought by Members on matters of public concern will very often, depending on the circumstances of the case, fall outside the scope of `proceedings in Parliament' against which a claim of privilege will be measured.

Let me stress to all members of the House that any matter concerning the privileges of members, particularly any matter which may constitute a contempt of the House, is always taken seriously. At this time, however, based on the facts presented on this matter, the Chair cannot determine that the member has been obstructed in the performance of his parliamentary duties. I am therefore bound by practice to conclude that there are not sufficient grounds to find a prima facie case nor to proceed further at this time.

I thank the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Government Response To Petitions

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Income Tax Act

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-293, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (political activities by charities receiving public funds).

Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill once enacted would disqualify from charitable status corporations, trusts and organizations that have received discretionary funding from the public money of Canada or a province if they give direct or indirect support or endorsement to parties or candidates for election at the federal level.

There is a gaping wide loophole at the moment in the act which allows charities to engage in political activities with no real accountability.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Employment Equity Act

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-294, an act to amend the Employment Equity Act (elimination of designated groups and numerical goals) and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, once this bill is adopted it will get rid of the ridiculous provisions of the Employment Equity Act, which I have mentioned in the House, which result in the sort of perverse discrimination that one of my constituents has experienced, and it would completely derail the government's agenda in that regard.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Fiscal Responsibility Act

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-295, an act to establish principles of responsible fiscal management and to require regular publication of information by the Minister of Finance to demonstrate the government's adherence to those principles.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, once adopted, would cause there to be responsible fiscal management by the Minister of Finance. Not only would the minister have to make a forecast of the fiscal state of the nation for the year on what the policies are for the government, but he would be required to report regularly to parliament to show that those things are being achieved.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Beverage Containers Act

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-296, an act respecting beverage containers.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would ensure that all beverages sold in Canada are sold in bottles upon which a deposit would be chargeable. It may be that the amount of the deposit would differ from some of the existing programs, such as those found in the breweries of Canada, but the principle is very important to ensure that we help the environment by having all of these bottles and containers returned for deposit.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Young Offenders Act

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-297, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act.

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to reintroduce the bill formerly known as Bill C-260, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, to make the offence set out in section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act a hybrid offence.

I appreciate that the Minister of Justice has recognized the value of this legislation as it is incorporated in its entirety in government Bill C-3.

I am forced to keep my bill alive as it has received the support of the majority of members of the House. As well, it is my bill that keeps the clock ticking to force the government to deal with this issue. There is no guarantee that Bill C-3 will even pass successfully from this place or that it will pass in its entirety with the issue raised by my legislation.

The bill was a votable item in the previous session. On May 25, 1999 it was referred from this place to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The bill is in the same form as it was in the first session of this parliament. Pursuant to our present rules, I am requesting that it be returned to the position it held prior to prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair is satisfied that the bill is in the same form as Bill C-260 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 36th Parliament. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 86(1), the bill is deemed to have been read the second time and referred to a committee.

(Bill deemed read the second time and referred to a committee)

Petitions

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the latest instalment of this petition on behalf of Diane Sowden of Coquitlam, British Columbia. The petition contains the names of some 7,100 citizens. It brings the total to some 11,500 Canadians who are calling on parliament to enact legislation raising the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years for sexual activity between a young person and an adult.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to finally be able to speak to Bill C-4, the civil international space station agreement implementation act. This bill will allow Canada to fulfil its obligations under the agreement concerning co-operation on the civil space station. Bill C-4 legally formalizes Canada's partnership in the space station.

Members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will work co-operatively with the government to ensure speedy passage of the bill. Why would we not? It is the culmination of a process that was started by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and President Ronald Reagan at their infamous shamrock summit. I am sure I do not have to remind the House that it was that conference which saw Canada-U.S. relations begin to thaw after the acrimonious Yankee baiting Trudeau years.

It was due to this new co-operative relationship that the Progressive Conservative government was able to successfully negotiate the free trade agreement, an agreement that has provided the present finance minister with balanced budgets and a fast track to the leadership of his own party. I am sure he joins me in congratulating the foresight of the previous government, just as my party congratulates his government for continuing this positive relationship with Bill C-4.

There are many issues I want to touch on regarding the initiative to have a permanently inhabited space station, but for just a moment I would like to pay tribute to the powers of the dreamers. One man had a dream, a dream that many different friends and allies could design, construct and permanently inhabit a space station, a station whose sole purpose would be for peace and scientific study. What is even more remarkable is that this vision arose in the midst of a cold war, a time when new space initiatives were routinely judged by their strategic benefits, not necessarily by their humanitarian and scientific attributes.

This bill honours the dream of former President Ronald Reagan, as well as the vision of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and other world leaders who quickly coalesced behind the initiative.

I do not wish to have my words misconstrued by detractors in our ranks. Certainly my party is not advocating carte blanche spending on any and all flights of fancy. Quite the opposite, since my party created the Canadian Space Agency in 1989, frugal spending with an eye to the return on investment has been the hallmark of this institution.

In this case it is the return on investment that I want to deal with. Over a 20 year period the government is telling us that Canada's total investment will be $1.4 billion, with 90% of that investment going to Canadian industry. Projected returns on investment are three to four times that amount, or at least $5 billion. Thus, from a business perspective, this investment makes good sense.

Why is Canada involved? Is it because we are good friends and neighbours with the Americans? Of course not. If that were not the case we could certainly expect to be excluded. The point here is that Canada has been invited to take part because of our own scientific merits. Our contribution to the space station includes the design, construction and operation of the mobile servicing system, plus responsibilities for the operation and use of the space station.

This high tech repair system will feature an agile robotic arm with a sleeve bearing the Canada wordmark. This remote manipulator will be monitored on the ground by the Canadian Space Agency headquartered in St-Hubert, Quebec. Clearly, Canada has made a name for itself in arming spacecrafts for peaceful purposes.

The Canadarm has become a cliched reference to our contribution to space study. I have no desire to belittle that important innovation which put us at the table with other world class space studying nations, but the reality is that we have moved exponentially beyond those days in both our research and capabilities.

Our capabilities in space robotics are renowned around the globe. In fact, it would not be arrogant bluster to state that this project simply could not go ahead without Canada's involvement. Our investment provides us with one laboratory shelf per year for science and technological experiments. This will allow us to further our research in the microgravity field which has already produced medical benefits for us in several areas, including the treatment of osteoporosis.

Since 1987 the Canadian Space Agency has allocated over 150 contracts to Canadian firms and universities for automation and robotics technology developed projects, resulting in the development of several new technologies which have already been alluded to by my colleagues in the House. In many ways this is remarkable considering the shrinking budget that the CSA has had to endure over the last several years.

Since the Liberal government was elected in 1993 it has cut the budget to the CSA by 7% thus far. In the 1999 budget the Liberals bragged that they were giving new money to the Canadian Space Agency, but in reality the government was cutting the budget by 21% from when it was first elected. We all realize that hard decisions have to be made so that we live within our means. However, when a sector of the economy provides so much spinoff and keeps racking up success after success, I really think we should re-evaluate our goals.

This project goes beyond technological and scientific advancement. As we are all aware, it was due to the hard work and lobbying efforts of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that Canada gained entry, along with Italy, into what was the G-5. Membership in the G-7 guaranteed that no longer would Canada be relegated to afterthought status when it came to important international initiatives. At that point we graduated to the big leagues. Bill C-4 continues that status for us.

Along with the United States, the space station's other partners include Russia, Japan, Brazil and 11 other European countries. It is interesting to note that whenever this agreement is referred to in terms of its partners, it almost always lumps the 11 European countries together as one, while leaving Canada as a stand-alone. Even the NASA website does this. The message from the rest of the world is clear. We have assumed the natural leadership mantle that the 20th century promised us.

My party's support for this bill is both resolute and strong. However, I would be remiss if I failed to mention our disappointment with the way the Liberals have dragged their heels in getting this bill before the House.

The partners in the international space station signed the original agreement in January 1998. This agreement provides a legal framework for the operation of the space station, including provisions for each inhabitant of the station to be subject to the laws of their own nation, a very important sovereignty issue for all the participants. The question though is why the delay? The bill seems simple enough yet it had not been called for second reading before the House prorogued.

It is now the beginning of November. This agreement has sat around for 21 months. What is the Prime Minister afraid of? In all fairness, I do not see any reason to be suspicious, but it is easy to see how waiting until the last minute when this bill must receive royal assent by mid-December can raise questions. These questions are entirely unnecessary when a government respects the role that parliament and the parliamentary committees have to play.

Having said that, I will not delay the bill any further. Let us move this bill along and give Canada's best scientific minds one more reason to stay and work in Canada.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4, the civil international space station agreement implementation act. I should say at the outset that the NDP supports this legislation. Let me give a little background on the legislation.

In January 1998 Canada, Japan, Russia, the U.S. and 11 European countries signed the civil international space station agreement. Bill C-4 provides the legislation needed for Canada to meet its commitments for ratification by all signatories before January 2000.

The lifespan of the station we are told is 10 years, from 2005 to 2014, and it will house seven astronauts. The purpose of the station is to do research in the areas of biotechnology, engineering, Earth observation and telecommunications.

Canada's contribution to the international space station is the next generation of the Canadarm, the space station robotic manipulator system. This system plays a crucial role in assembling and maintaining the international space station while in orbit. It will be used to move equipment in space, help astronauts during space walks and it will manipulate the various instruments and experiments docked on the ISS. We are all very proud of this Canadian invention and the role it has played thus far in the whole area of space development.

What rewards are there for Canada? The cost of Canada's participation over a 20 year period is approximately $1.4 billion. Ninety percent of that investment is being spent in Canadian industry and universities. Indeed we know the importance of our universities to our society and to our young people.

Since 1987 the Canadian Space Agency has allocated 150 contracts for robotics development technology to firms and universities from British Columbia right through to Newfoundland. Already the technology is being used in such diverse areas as prosthetics, the deployment of airbags in vehicles, and in a digital imaging system for medical radiology.

Firms have landed international contracts based on the expertise they have acquired through their work with the Canadian Space Agency or by supplying equipment and expertise to some of the other signatory countries to the agreement.

From our participation in the international space station we received one rack, or what is known as a laboratory shelf, per year for science and technological experiments. These shelves will allow Canada to expand its research in the microgravity field which will aid research carried out here in areas such as osteoporosis. It is very important to have this kind of research in our society. Certainly the benefits of this technology will be great for our nation.

I also noticed that the bill talks about establishing an international space station for peaceful purposes. I want to take a moment to comment on that. I certainly support the concept of a space station, but I find it somewhat disturbing that we can spend lots of money and move forward with great urgency and a certain sense of determination on things that are outside of this Earth, the space element.

It would be good if we could put as much energy into finding peace here on Earth and working toward establishing peace within the many troubled countries throughout the world. If countries across the world would put the same effort that is being put into the development of the space agency into establishing peaceful negotiations and peaceful relationships between countries, the world would certainly be a much better place. If ultimately we have an elaborate space station in outer space but we are killing each other off here on Earth, what good does it do us in the long run?

The space station will house seven astronauts. The term house draws to my attention that here on Earth on the streets within our communities many people are homeless, yet we are providing very elaborate and costly facilities to advance the cause of science and business industries. I am not saying it should not be done; I am saying that we should devote as much attention to looking after the kinds of concerns that we see as we walk out of our doors and down our streets.

I am sure many people living in constituencies right across the country have more concern about putting bread on their tables and about providing the homeless with shelter than they do with proceeding with space development. That is not to say it should not be done and I emphasize that. People will probably want to say I am putting down that effort. I am not putting down that effort. What I am saying is let us bring other efforts up to that same level of advancement.

Finally, this project emphasizes industrial development and economic development. It is very important that we as a nation move forward in those areas. But again I would say that we must also move forward in the area of social development and meet the social concerns that face many of us. It would certainly be good to see the kind of money that is being put into space development being put into many of the problems that confront our young people and the citizens of this nation.

With those remarks and that footnote about balancing the kinds of priorities we deal with, I would say that I am pleased to support this legislation.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the NDP member's speech with some interest. He touched on a very important subject and that is to what extent we support investing in these high tech projects that take a lot of money from the taxpayers.

It must be recognized that when we engage in these projects, none of the money really goes up there. It involves supporting our people and businesses that develop the space stations and that do the work there. The money actually stays on planet Earth. Most of it that is spent in Canada stays in Canada. It is spent here by the people who have earned it, thereby providing jobs for a lot of people. If these people did not have that employment in the high tech area, then obviously they would leave Canada to go to the United States or elsewhere.

I picked up from the member's speech that he generally supports the government's involvement in the international space agency projects. I would like him to respond to the issue of its funding. By providing jobs and greater economic activity in Canada as a result of it, in fact that does almost directly but certainly indirectly help our economy. It helps all of the people in this country, many of whom are struggling economically. It would increase the proportion of jobs that are available to them as they demand services and products that are put together by Canadians. I would like the member to respond to that.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, projects of this nature keep money within our communities and they do generate economic activity. I believe I did cover that point in my comments by mentioning that for this very reason we support the project.

We also have to look at priorities in terms of our communities. We have to use the same kind of energy and enthusiasm to tackle some of the problems which are very evident in our society such as the homeless, the lack of opportunities for some of our young people and the concerns they have around education and so forth.

I am not disagreeing with the member's comments. They are well taken. We did touch upon that and we do agree with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always very interesting to read, learn and discover how people in our country are participating in the leading edge technology in this way. Without technology I suppose we might argue that perhaps we would not even be in caves and tents because even that is some technological advancement. However, at a time when we are looking at the enormous burden of taxation on our people, the costs and the prioritizing of the moneys that are raised is extremely important.

I would like to ask the hon. member about another aspect of this. He mentioned the peaceful programs. Humankind has had difficulties in reserving the technological advances for strictly peaceful purposes. We have seen space surrounding Earth explored for more than peaceful purposes. I would like to have the member's comments on the peaceful purposes of the project. Is there any danger of it going beyond that?

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I too would have concerns about the possibility that a space station could lead to another space station and that some rivalry could take place in space. Many of us have watched Star Trek and Star Wars . We would certainly hope that this kind of development does not reach the point where we are not only carrying on wars here on Earth but we are carrying on wars in space or using the technology that has been learned through these programs to further devastate ourselves on Earth. We have to be vigilant about that.

It is for that reason I commented that it would be nice if we could put energy into finding peaceful solutions here on Earth. If we find peaceful solutions among the countries here on Earth, then whatever we develop beyond should be guided by the same principles. If we have wars going on here among countries and we cannot come to some solution on those issues, then the member is quite right in being concerned that perhaps the development of more technology might lead to further disaster.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-4, the civil international space station agreement implementation act.

We talked with the people responsible for the development of the Canadian aspects and the participation internationally on the space station. I was impressed by the technological advances which Canada is making and the contribution we are making toward this space station.

I have a number of questions more than concerns. We certainly support the bill. I have questions in the areas of the brain drain and our young people going south, and where the technology is headed and where it is coming from. I have questions on the aspects of training our young people to participate in such a project, the distribution of the manpower and technology throughout the country. When talking to people at the space agency a lot of the focus and the development and participation is in Quebec and some other parts of eastern and central Canada.

Having resided in the west for many years, I once again ask out of the billion and so dollars that are being spent on this matter what is in it for the west and for the young people who reside in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina and all those other places. How do they fit into the plans for this sort of thing?

If we are spending billions, basically, over the next 20 years, do we not have an obligation as a central government to have young people participate in this project from across the land and not just focus in on one part of the country? It seems to me that time and time again we stand in the House and ask why the west is being ignored while other parts of the country are indeed benefiting from major programs funded by the central government.

I find it ironic that I stand in the House today on a bill with which we basically agree. I also want to talk about what went on in the House yesterday with time allocation. We were expected to talk about the Nisga'a agreement which involves as much money or maybe even more money than the space station itself. We have a diametrically opposite point of view from that of the government and have made clear that there are significant flaws in that legislation. We have said time and time again that constitutionality was involved in it. There was taxation without representation and all those sorts of things. Why was time allocation used on the official opposition after four hours and 12 minutes?

Then the government brings in a bill for a little over a billion dollars that we essentially all agree on. We are all happy again. The government is expecting us to roll through the bill really fast because it agrees with it and thinks we agree with it.

I raise the question on whether or not my colleagues and I should be sitting in the House allowing these bills to go through. On a large bill like the Nisga'a bill the government does everything to interfere in the process of proper debate. It brought in time allocation on the Nisga'a agreement. We did not even have the opportunity for the committee to travel to British Columbia because it did not want to travel there. The bill was delayed by a day. We forced its deferral because we wanted to force the government to travel to British Columbia.

Once again I am having a difficult time, as are my colleagues, understanding why Bill C-4 on the space agency can come to the House and be zipped through when the government called time allocation rather than debate something like the Nisga'a legislation. The government is happy when we stand in the House to debate the space agency, with which I agree. It is willing to sit around all day and listen to how much I agree with this legislation, but when I stand to disagree with the Nisga'a bill it calls time allocation because it does not want to hear it.

I therefore have a bit of news for the government. I am sick and tired of time allocation and closure on bills. I formally tell the government today that if there is one more time allocation or even a mention of closure—

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Are you going to resign?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

No, I am not going to resign. I am glad the member said that because it makes me a bit more angry. If I hear even a whisper of it again on the Nisga'a bill, the House will come to a screeching halt. If the government thinks I am kidding, it should just try me.

It is the height of arrogance to table this space agency bill after the Nisga'a bill and expect us to stand here and pretend we will all be happy. We will listen to how nice the bill is and what a sweetheart deal we have when in fact we have been slapped in the face and told the government does not want to hear about our opposition to Nisga'a. I think it has another thought coming.

I could hold on to this bill, which I just might yet, and debate it for a couple of days. We will talk about Nisga'a while I am doing it and a bit about a few other things. Yes, I may be called me on relevance once in a while. Yes, I may call quorum more than once and play all those silly games. As of yesterday and the Nisga'a debate in the House, 23 of my colleagues were sitting here who did not have the opportunity to speak to the Nisga'a bill, many of whom are from British Columbia. That is unacceptable.

Today we stand in the House to talk about the space agency bill, something we all agree with, and we have two Liberals in the House talking to each other over there and not even listening. As long as we occupy the time of the House of Commons the government is okay with that, as long as we agree, but when we do not agree as with the Nisga'a legislation it is unforgivable. We have to rush it through the House, do we not?

Given that there is only a couple of them over there and they are not listening, we should wake them up a little. I could call quorum but I do not think I will because there are committees in place. We will have to discuss this bill for a while and see where it goes. At the same time we will make reference and comparison throughout to the disgusting process which took place on the Nisga'a legislation.

We have taxation without representation in the Nisga'a legislation. We have constitutional concerns and all kinds of issues yet to discuss on that bill, but we cannot get our hands on it because it was rushed through the House on time allocation.

Yet I see on the space agency bill that a little over $1 billion will be spent. That is fine. We will just sit here, talk about that, smile and all be happy. That is just plain unacceptable to me. As House leader I will be talking to my colleagues tomorrow in our caucus. I will make the points that we are sick and tired of time allocation closure on bills, that we will not put up with it any longer, and that we might just talk about all these bills a little longer.

I have one comment about the space agency bill which the government has not really considered. I well understand that another head office like that of Air Canada and all the other head offices will end up in Quebec. When will the government see fit to put one in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton or Calgary one of these day? We do have a little technology out there, believe it or not.

If we look at some of the good companies in Vancouver, I am sure they could match the technology. Why is it that we get a $1.6 billion space agency program, which is an excellent program, and it happens to sit in Quebec? Why is that? Time after time that happens.

If we look at the value of the space agency to the country, I do not think there is any question about the technology and the possibility that our young people will get jobs and that sort of thing. However, once in a while the government should give us the opportunity to have just a wee bit in the west.

I will get back to the comparison. If the space agency project is to be a good project, it is not just international and our participation in space and technology. It is more than that to me. It is young people who should be training now for 10 years from now, those who will be working on this project.

Are the universities fitting in? Has the government seen fit to bother to try to help with programs at post-secondary institutions for students to get jobs in this regard, or will we be importing jobs applicants from other countries? Should we expand the operation? Should we put satellite companies in other parts of the country? Should we ask our technicians, our young people, for participation and for ideas on the agency? How do we promote the space agency even more than it is being promoted today?

I do not think the government has thought a lot about these things. It just looks at it and says that it has another project in Quebec and it will make it work. I think there is a future for our young people to be involved and it should be looked at.

If the space agency bill is to pass the House, with which we all agree, I repeat once again that it is time the government understood that it cannot keep bringing bills like this one into the House expecting our agreement when bills with which we adamantly disagree are rammed through the House on time allocation. I have no intention whatsoever any longer of living with the government's agenda, its timeframe. If we disagree with or even if we agree with legislation it is highly likely that we will talk about it for a while, as in the case of this bill.

When we get into issues like that of the space agency, I hope the House understands that all those involved should be prepared for questions and for longer debates. If members on the other side do not have the courtesy to do that with an important bill which involves billions of dollars and affects the Nisga'a constitution, I think we will have to insist that they do it on all bills.

I will sum up. We may yet move an amendment through one of our members to extend the debate, putting emphasis on the Nisga'a agreement which my colleagues have not yet had the opportunity to fully discuss. We may have discussions about relevance in the House. I am prepared for that and I am prepared for a long debate in that regard, but it is time we gave notice to the House that we will discuss what the official opposition wants to discuss. I do not give two rats about the government's agenda.

We will agree with Bill C-4. We will discuss further Bill C-4. I will bet that between now and Christmas we will be discussing the Nisga'a agreement for many more hours rather than the four hours and twelve minutes we were given up to yesterday.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the hon. member's speech and his notations about the freedom to speak on something that we can all read from the government press releases and not to concern ourselves with the real issues that matter in the country.

I will read a few notes from the office of the leader of the official opposition of British Columbia regarding the democratic process that the member alluded to. He says “I am writing to note my extreme dismay over your government's motion to invoke closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate today.” What is important is what he says next. He says “This motion is an unacceptable slight to British Columbia and to all Canadians who deserve a full and open debate on this landmark treaty”. This is in contrast with the free and open debate on Bill C-4 which everyone is in agreement with.

He goes on to say “On a matter of this critical importance to our province, our country and our constitution, every member of parliament deserves an opportunity to speak”.

I would like the member to comment on what the B.C. premier had to say as well.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Just before the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford takes the floor to respond to the question as presented by the member for Prince Albert, if we are going to stretch the rules of the House as far as relevance is concerned, it is going to take ingenuity on the part of the members doing so.

The Chair is not going to control the debate. In absence of protests opposite, it is not the Chair's intention to try and stifle debate. However, if the opposition is going to use the rules of the House, then it must be done in the spirit of the rules of the House. It is going to demand ingenuity so that members who wish to bring other issues to the table do so in a way that will not command the Chair to intervene.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, ingenuity we have and ingenuity we will use.

It is interesting that my colleague comments on the letter the premier has received in British Columbia. The leader of the official opposition in British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, has somehow expressed the frustration we feel in the House. We come here and talk about Bill C-4 and a space station. It is fine to talk about the bill in the House. We basically all agree with it.

The Liberals would sit here for four days and talk about this and occupy what is not even much of an agenda. The moment there is something contentious that comes to the House, after four and a half hours on something like the Nisga'a agreement, they call time allocation. Go figure. What is wrong with these people?