Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1999

The Late Roderick Webb

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my condolences and those of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois to the family and friends of Roderick Webb, who died last month at the age of 89. Our thoughts go especially to his wife Roxie and his son Fred.

Mr. Webb was elected on four occasions and sat as the member for the Ontario riding of Hastings—Frontenac and a member of the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party between 1959 and 1968.

Before his election, Roderick Webb headed his own company, Rod Webb Electric, for 15 years in Norwood. Throughout his life, Mr. Webb was involved in his community of Norwood and contributed to its economic and social development. Among other things, he sat on the Norwood town council for 13 years. His friends have described him as a natural leader, whose political and community involvement inspired others.

With the approach of Remembrance Day, I would mention that, in the second world war, Mr. Webb served his country in the Canadian air force, as a master mechanic, from 1940 to 1945. I commend his memory to his comrades in arms, who served with him to defend the democratic values we all hold dear.

They, like Roderick Webb, keep our democracy alive. Mr. Webb was never one to seek honour and glory, preferring to be involved in a thousand different ways within his community, working for change and improving society.

He left the business world to devote himself to public life, serving his constituents of Hastings Frontenac to the best of his abilities. To my knowledge, he was never a minister, nor did he aspire to high places in government. Like most MPs of the past, the present and the future, his work was often done on the sidelines, out of the public eye.

He sat for long hours on parliamentary committees, hearing the input from members of the public as well as experts in order to draft policies that would be profitable to all. He took part in parliamentary debates, some more interesting than others, but all equally necessary to ensure a diversity of opinions.

What he did most was to travel the length and breadth of his riding, meeting its people. He spoke to them on the phone, answered their mail, advocated for them before government in order to solve their problems and help in their projects.

A society is not reflected only in its VIPs, in its stars. It is also built daily by the actions of dedicated people of conviction like Roderick Webb, and that is why we are paying him tribute here today.

His accomplishments are known to us. May he rest in peace.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic caucus I too am very pleased to stand and offer our condolences on the passing of Roderick Webb who was elected 40 years ago this fall in a byelection in Hastings—Frontenac to represent that constituency. Mr. Webb was re-elected in 1962, 1963 and 1965 and retired in 1968 undefeated, which is a feat in and of itself.

What a political decade Roderick Webb lived through. When historians write about the century that is just ending and about the political scene in Canada, they will probably single out the 1960s as one of the most, if not the most, turbulent decades. Mr. Diefenbaker's huge majority after 1958 was reduced to a minority in 1962. Mr. Pearson was unable to secure a majority in 1963 and again in 1965. It was an extremely fascinating time. Roderick Webb was here and was very much a part of that decade.

Other people have spoken very eloquently in the House about Mr. Webb and his background. I would simply like to conclude by noting what a friend of Mr. Webb said upon his passing: “He enjoyed politics and life, was a community leader and just a nice person”. Would not all of us like to be remembered that way?

On behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus our sincere condolences to Mrs. Webb, Mr. Webb's son Fred and grandchildren.

The House resumed 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

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

When the House broke for question period the hon. member for Red Deer was answering questions.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Red Deer has considerable experience as a result of being on the foreign affairs standing committee for the last six years and as the foreign affairs critic for the Reform Party. He knows something about the way Canada handles international treaties and the signing of international treaties and agreements.

The space station agreement made with the United States, Japan, the European Union and Russia is one such agreement Canada signed two years ago. It is now before the House to be ratified. We have had considerable difficulty with the process of not having any input and essentially rubber stamping that issue.

I wonder how he would compare what is happening with the Nisga'a agreement, the signing of a treaty again and expecting the House to rubber stamp it with no amendments, and the approach the government is using on the international scheme of things which does not seem to adequately consult members of parliament.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question of the member for Peace River. He is very right. Numerous letters from Canadians constantly remind us that we had input into the treaty that was signed at a UN conference somewhere in the world. We could talk about Kyoto. We could talk about Cairo. We could talk about many international agreements that have been signed, including the MAI.

These agreements are done in secret. Canadians are never consulted about them until after the fact when they are asked to ratify them. We have some that do not really represent the Canadian interest. Yet they are signed, sealed and delivered on behalf of Canadians. I guess the big concern is about how much negotiation went on for the space station. We do not know anything about that. It was all done behind closed doors.

Then there was something, as the member mentioned, that put doubt in our minds, the Nisga'a agreement. That is just the tip of the iceberg of how the government treats its citizens when it thinks it can ram through with four hours and 12 minutes of debate something that will affect not only the people here but our children and our grandchildren and will result in a disruption in the country like we have never seen before.

Why would we take a race based policy, one that is not based on equality of people, entrench it in the constitution and create a future for us that will be just what we are seeing in Atlantic Canada now, what we have seen in B.C. and the comments we are hearing in our constituencies? Why would we create something like that without clearly opening it up to the public? What is the government afraid of that it has to use closure and shut things down?

It is despicable. B.C. had four months of debate and then used closure. Here we had four hours. How can that be called democracy? How can the Liberals say it is even a semblance of democracy? Perception is everything.

They expect us to stand and rubber stamp an agreement. Whether we rubber stamp the space agency agreement or the Nisga'a agreement they will use closure. They use closure like they change their socks. It is just the way they run this place. It is a dictatorship and the perception out there is that there is a level of arrogance. They will not even open the House and let us debate, let people hear what are the issues, and let us look at them all.

This is just like the last parliament with the Tories running things: close shop, shut the door, use closure, do not listen to people, do not consult anyone and control the witnesses who come forward. That is exactly how the government is operating.

Now we hear that as the committees travel they will not be able to call the witnesses they want. It will be a select group, a closed door. They will just hear from witnesses that are friendly to government policy. What kind of democracy is that? I hope Canadians will demand the government to change the way it treats its citizens.

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

Madam Speaker, I did not want to let the hon. member get away with suggesting that the Nisga'a treaty would be ratified by the House with only four hours of debate. We dealt with time allocation on second reading debate.

Would the member concede that we have completed second reading debate at this point and the matter is referred to committee? There are over 50 or 60 witnesses currently being considered for the committee hearings. That will involve undoubtedly many hours of consideration by members of parliament. It will come back to the House for report stage. I am sure there will be consideration of some amendments and there will be a third reading debate. It is very clear that we are not dealing with closure at this point.

If the member is suggesting that we will only debate the issue for four hours, I hope he will acknowledge to us that is incorrect and that we have many hours of debate still to go on the issue.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, certainly it will come back to the House. The committee will be a controlled process with controlled witnesses. I would like the assurance of that member that closure will not be used at every stage from here on in, that we will not have closure, closure, closure; four hours, four hours, and that is it.

That is not the way to treat democracy. That is not the way to treat the people of Canada. They should be upset with the way the government is operating. It is a total abuse of democracy.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-4. It is fascinating to watch how we can move from Bill C-4 to another topic. I will do the same and I will explain to the Canadian public why I am doing it.

Bill C-4 is formalizing our commitment to the space station, something that every Canadian should be proud of. Every Canadian would expect the bill to be unanimously approved. Of course I approve of the bill.

The U.S., Japan, Europe, Russia and Canada are the countries involved in the space station. These are countries with vastly different political systems, vastly different cultures and different monetary systems. What did they end up doing? Did they end up dwelling on those differences, unable to co-operate, and fighting among one another? No. The scientists joined forces. The engineers got together and divided up the tasks. The astronauts trained for complementary roles. The politicians set aside their own agendas and they co-operated.

The result was the Canadarm, something which most Canadians have seen and are proud of; Julie Payette; and high tech wizardry in Canada. Good solid employment trickled down to our universities. Professors are proud of our involvement in the space station. Students had a goal to strive for. There was co-operation, give and take, sharing, interchange, dependence upon one another and looking after common goals. That is what the space station has done.

What are we in the House like when it comes to co-operation? Let me talk about a brand new historic agreement, a treaty for a native group in the Nass Valley in British Columbia, a treaty that is complex, thick and difficult to understand. What an occasion. All the world was to co-operate. We had to get the information out and explain to everybody in the country what it was all about.

What has happened? The co-operation has been so dreadful on this issue that I as a member of parliament from southern Alberta with the largest native reserve in Canada, the Blood reserve, was denied the ability to speak on the treaty in the House by a government so intent on stopping co-operation that after four hours and 12 minutes time allocation was brought in.

To those Canadians watching that means debate was stifled, choked, smothered, shut down. I have to take my time on Bill C-4 to tell my constituents and Canadians—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it would be appropriate if debate were returned to the bill and the topic at hand.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty to ask the hon. member to try to keep his debate pertinent to the bill being debated.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

I will get as close as I can, Madam Speaker. I was talking about the co-operation on the space station and I am talking about the lack of co-operation here. I will talk about that for the rest of my time.

There were obstruction and broken promises. We were promised full debate on the issue. I listened to the Prime Minister promise that. Is this important? Oh, it is so important. Full and thorough debate.

What happened in B.C. after 11 of the 22 clauses were discussed and debated? There was closure. Why would the NDP government in B.C. shut down debate on this issue? Here is the reason. When the bill came before the B.C. public, support was pretty strong. Sixty per cent said they supported it. As they learned more and more about the bill, what has happened?

Householders were sent to 534,000 homes in B.C., most of them in ridings held by Liberal MPs. In one riding 81.5% said not to vote for the bill. In another, 94% said not to vote for the bill. Then the Liberals tried to stop travel. They tried to stop committees from going to B.C. to let the public know. At that point a huge fight broke out in the House. It was a childish fight in my view with Reform members doing childish things because they were driven to do those childish things by a government bent on preventing that travel.

I am embarrassed by some of the things that go on here. I have to explain to high school students at home why we would do a childish thing like debating over and over again, preventing the finance committee from travelling so that we could get the aboriginal committee to travel. I wish I could explain that other than to say that that crew does not want the true information about Nisga'a to come out.

The Liberals said no to debate. They said no to travel. They said no to public input.

I would like to discuss this issue from a narrow perspective, from the intergovernmental affairs perspective. That is my portfolio in the House. Just from the narrow intergovernmental affairs perspective, what does the Nisga'a treaty do? What does this big document that had four hours and twelve minutes of debate do?

It sets up a new order of government that was unheard of when our constitution was put in place. It is a third order of government. It is so specific in the agreement that it gives the Nisga'a supremacy over federal and provincial laws in 14 new areas.

It is very interesting that in health, the Nisga'a will have supremacy on the issue of the delivery of health services. That is a totally provincial responsibility in our constitution. That responsibility is being given to the Nisga'a. It is being given by the use of a phrase that is very legal. I am going to quote it. I believe these debates will go down in history as important. I am going to quote the phrase that gives the Nisga'a that supremacy: “In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between a Nisga'a law under this paragraph”—relating to 14 different areas, health in particular—“and a federal or provincial law, the Nisga'a law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict”.

That sets up a new form of sovereignty. That sets up a new form of partnership. That sets up in my view a sovereignty association. This treaty can be used as an excellent debating position by those who would want to split up our country for a sovereignty association. On sovereignty this treaty is a mistake.

Another area in which the treaty makes a mistake is on race. On the issue of race, the non-Nisga'a, those living on the reserve that are not natives, will be disenfranchised or unable to vote. Their right to vote in elections or to hold office will be taken from them.

I have listened to my colleagues say that that is no big deal, that they can still be consulted. They can be consulted all right, on things like the health board. But when the Nisga'a government taxes them, and the provision is in the agreement to allow it to tax those non-Nisga'a citizens, they will be taxed without the right to vote for those who are taxing them. That is against every rule of democracy that I understand. This is a new order, a non-constitutional order, a third order. On the issue of race, this treaty is a mistake.

The third and most basic area in which this treaty is a mistake is on the issue of the charter of rights and freedoms. This is a truly debatable point. It says right in the treaty that the charter will apply, clearly, plainly and specifically. But the charter itself says that it should not be interpreted so “as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal treaty or other rights” of native peoples; abrogate or derogate, take away from, any of those native rights.

Here we have a treaty which says that the charter applies and we have in the charter a section that says that it does not apply. That is debatable and I am not sure where that would come down in a court of law being no lawyer myself. This treaty is a mistake as it relates to the charter.

Politicians are great at coming to conclusions and arguing those conclusions until they are blue in the face. We can hear that in the House. We have complete disagreement on this issue of the charter.

I will quote someone who I think is fairly balanced in perspective. This is a journalist I personally have faith in. I find this individual able to come to conclusions that are defensible. He says that the treaty would accord the Nisga'a status and rights far surpassing those of other native bands, nor is that the end of it. He also said that the premier of B.C. may no longer boast that the treaty would serve as a template for settling the province's sixty-odd outstanding land claims, but it is hard to believe that native negotiators in any future treaty would settle for less. If this treaty, as he says and as I agree with him, sets out a brand new order of government unheard of before with far greater rights for our native brothers, it will be used as a template and to break these agreements that were put in place years and years ago.

All that was a diatribe on the co-operation we have had in the House. What would improve the process in the future for natives? Surely they do not deserve the treaty system we have given them. Surely they do not deserve the reservations we have given them. Surely they do not deserve the health problems, the drug and alcohol problems and the employment problems that I saw in my practice as a medical doctor. I treated people from the reserves in my own riding who came to the hospital.

What could we have done better? We could have looked at the position of how we could gain equality under the law for every single Canadian. Some of the things in this treaty move in baby steps toward that.

On the issue of taxation we will end up with natives who will pay income tax but they do not have the economic levers they need to become individually self-sufficient. They do not have the ability to own their own property in fee simple. They do not have the ability to use that to guarantee them a mortgage. They do not have the ability to do the things other Canadians can do.

If this treaty becomes a template for the future of our native brothers, it will be a grave error. It is an error on those big principles I have mentioned.

I have been talking about the problems with this treaty. I will slip back to Bill C-4 and what I think could have happened with this treaty. There is co-operation among the countries on the space station. They have put aside their differences and have really looked for common solutions. That could have and should have happened on this agreement.

It has been an embarrassment to have to use this time on Bill C-4 to talk about the Nisga'a treaty. I say to every Canadian that I would have stood in my place and I would have talked even if it was for half as much time on the Nisga'a treaty if I had been allowed to. I was blocked from the ability to do that.

I apologize to those who wanted to hear about Bill C-4. I know I did not talk about it in a way that was appropriate to the space station, but the Nisga'a treaty will go down in history as a mistake. I want to say that so plainly and so clearly to every single Canadian who is listening.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was very enlightened by the remarks of the member for Macleod on the bill with respect to the Canadian space station. He drew a very effective analogy between that bill and the Nisga'a bill which we dispatched from this place yesterday.

Does the member think that if the Liberal Party of Canada were in opposition its members would have supported the invocation of time limitation on a bill of that importance? Does he think the Liberals would have supported the Mulroney government for instance in its frequent invocation of closure and time allocation? Could the member comment on whether he believes that the government is doing what it said it would do when in opposition with respect to allowing full and free debate and allowing opposition parties to express dissenting opinions on matters of important legislation such as that before us today?

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an issue I would enjoy greatly commenting on.

I did have an opportunity to review Hansard on that very subject. I found quotations from my Liberal colleagues when they sat in these very benches. The quotations were vicious and ferocious on the issue of time allocation and closure. They called it the most egregious and worst thing that could happen. In fact, from a medical man's perspective, I thought that high blood pressure might have caused mortal harm to some of them they were so upset.

An interesting and fascinating process seems to happen when a party crosses the floor from opposition to the government benches. It is a fascinating process. Some would call it the brain drain. I would not be so unkind as to say that none of my colleagues opposite have lost their marbles.

There are times when opposition parties obstruct the process. I recognize that is why time allocation is used.

On a bill that important, the attempt to obstruct travel, which failed and the attempt to obstruct debate, which will fail, that bill will be known to the Canadian public by the time we are through with it, I guarantee that. It is too important to allow a government bound and determined to shut down debate to be successful. I thank my colleague for that opportunity.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce discussion on the bill before the House, that is to say the intergovernmental agreement which is listed on the order paper.

It is a tribute to endeavours made during the cold war and which to some extent if adopted at the time might have put us another quarter century in advance of where we are now. It is often forgotten that when President Nixon and Secretary Brezhnev met in Moscow in 1972, they did initial an agreement on co-operation in space research, space exploration and space science. It was originally devoted to the development of co-operation in international telecommunications satellites and their utilization in broadcasting. The initial proposal was for co-operation between the western organization, which is essentially managed by an American consortium. INTELSAT was the western organization and Intersputnik was the Russian organization.

With President Nixon's departure and changes in the Soviet Union, to some extent those plans for co-operation and formation of a single international space agency were put on ice. What remained, however, was a tradition of co-operation. We saw that reach fruition as the cold war ebbed and détente expanded in co-operative U.S. and Soviet, or in the broader sense, western and Soviet explorations or participation in common space missions.

The spinoff from all this is of course that Canada was one of the pioneers in space research in scientific principles and in administration. I was director of a space law institute in Montreal and one could see the beginnings of what may now be the newest developments in Canadian scientific industrial partnerships to take us into the 21st century.

I could note that it is an important source of research, job creation and the development of export markets for industries in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada. I take pride in noting that in British Columbia we are at the leading edge of applied space engineering. Everybody knows about the space arm, which was developed and used in space rescue operations. But in other areas of pure science and its application in the finest forms of communication, British Columbia industry has made a major contribution.

The significance of this bill is that it heralds and institutionalizes co-operation across what used to be the old political ideological boundaries in co-operation with the countries that are most advanced in space research, space science and space engineering. We have them in the preamble to this bill and we notice the United States, Japan, Russia and Canada as key parts of that.

Our work in this area has involved allocations of 150 contracts to Canadian firms and universities since 1987 for automation and robotics technology development projects. There has been approximately $2 million invested in Canadian firms for this particular year, 1999-2000.

I would note that a B.C. firm developed the first automated robotic refuelling station in partnership with Shell. Newfoundland has done interesting work here on a sensitive skin developed for space robotic manipulators and it is being applied in the technology on prosthetics and bumpers of cars to control the deployment of air bags. We can see the spinoff from the most refined and esoteric form of engineering to common, everyday application in our society.

A Sainte-Foy, Quebec company has developed space robotic expertise to produce a digital imaging system for medical radiology. It provides real time x-ray images and eliminates the need for photographic film.

Further, Canada's participation in this venture entitles us to what is called a “one rack” or one laboratory shelf per year for science and technological experiments and this in a station that has an estimated 10 year lifespan. It will let us expand the work we are already doing in the microgravity field and it is an area for which the potential application includes direct connections to the medical relief of osteoporosis. Protein crystallisation in space provides tangible solutions for problems here on Earth. The spinoff is in the direct application to contemporary local medicine, the spinoff in terms of companies. EMS Technologies of Ottawa recently won a $9.5 million contract from Mitsubishi of Japan to supply the electronics to Japan's contribution to the international space station. It expects $24 million in additional orders.

This is the promise to invest in science, technology and pure research. It is not ivory tower work. In the end there is a concrete application in industry leading-edge technology and the spinoff is direct. There was the investment we made six years ago in TRIUMF funding at the University of British Columbia, pure research with the spinoff we noted there. In industry there has been the creation of advanced technological jobs for skilled Canadians. It is all there.

In voting on this bill we signal our co-operation and we signal that it is something in which we have as much to gain as we contribute. We can be very proud of Canada's role in contributing to the science and technology of the 21st century.

Some references have been made, in part by my good friend, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who raised what is a favourite constitutional project of his for reform in, as he sees it, the foreign affairs power. I think that deserves discussion at another time and in another place. I would simply note, however, that in this particular area and in this particular treaty I believe there has been exhaustive consultation with all the Canadian scientific community from Quebec, Ontario and all the other provinces. As to the umbrella agreement, which I am not sure was used in this case, the input from scientists in all Canadian universities and research centres was there. This is a non-self-executing treaty. By its nature it requires federal legislation and the opportunity there is to present contributions on the specific subject of the treaty.

Today, however, I have not heard any criticism of the substantive content of the treaty or what it proposes, which is I think a tribute to the prior extensive consultation with the scientific community. Be not afraid, I would say to members of the Bloc.

The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry conceded this in his response to my question this morning. The Australian analogy simply does not apply. Under the Australian treaty power, as interpreted, the mere fact of making a treaty gives the federal government power to implement that treaty notwithstanding provincial or state power. To the contrary, in Canada, as a result of the privy council's decision in the Labour Conventions case of 1937, which the member opposite rightly saluted, we cannot by making a federal treaty impinge on provincial law-making power under the constitution. We need to co-operate and speak to the provincial governments.

I see no conflict here. I heard none suggested by my friend the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. If it were to arise, then the courts would properly recognize, if it was challenged, the area of provincial power. However, it would necessitate what is going on anyway because the imperative of co-operation is there in the common interest, close continuing consultation between federal and provincial governments in implementing this treaty and in making sure that everybody in Canada shares from its benefits.

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

Madam Speaker, I know I am stretching the envelope a bit on this question, however, the hon. member does mention how all Canadians are very proud of the aerospace industry and what we do in terms of working with other countries. The Canadarm is a great example of that. As he knows, we sold the Canadarm through the Spar agency.

What assurance can the hon. member or his government give that we as a country will cease to sell our industries which are making great advancements in the world of technology?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that extremely interesting question. I do not believe that research has any frontiers. The hon. member is, I believe, a former British Columbian. I would invite him to return and if I am in town I will take him out to the TRIUMF facility. On my first visit there six years ago I saw Russians, Israelis, Austrians, Indians and Pakistanis all working together. They share the knowledge.

Knowledge cannot be given frontiers. In my view, what is wrong with selling products that we produce or selling knowledge? We benefit from it. We get into new research. The funding we obtain from the sale enables us to take the research further.

We are ahead of most countries in space research. It is one of the astonishing achievements, the acquired achievement of Canadian science in recent years. It is not trumpeted abroad, but in British Columbia, where perhaps there has been too excessive reliance in the past on primary resource industries, it is a way into the new century. We are ahead and we have nothing to fear from other people buying our research riches. We will continue to do further work and go beyond.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to give the hon. member opposite a little lesson on electronic feedback. He should not put his earphone close to his microphone because it blasts a hole into our ears. That is lesson number one.

The question I want to ask is very simple. Bill C-4 obviously draws attention to the fact that negotiations have proceeded successfully with a whole bunch of different countries. He, of course, is an expert in international law, in agreements, in constitutional things and in all of those various things that a professor of his stature is an expert on. Does he believe that the Nisga'a deal in British Columbia has been very one-sided in its negotiations and has totally avoided the other half of the equation; that is, all the people who will be affected by this agreement, namely the non-natives, who have been ignored? Does he feel that in comparison with what happened in the negotiations on Bill C-4 that was an adequate procedure?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am satisfied with the process of consultation. I was not one of those who voyaged to the signing ceremony in the Nisga'a territory 15 or 16 months ago because I wanted to study the treaty in depth. I wanted to get the actual text, the 400 pages, and I did not get it until two days before the signing ceremony. I also wanted to consult.

I have spent those 15 or 16 months talking to people and consulting with people. I think there has been an astonishing amount of input into this, including potential adversary positions.

The interesting thing about Nisga'a that may not be true in subsequent treaties was the absence of countervailing interests in concrete cases proven to those investigating the matter. I get an enormous amount of mail on just about everything. On this particular issue, strangely enough, we have very little concrete opposition. In later treaties that I can see coming, I see the strong possibility of conflicts in a substantive sense between different types of rights and I may have to give a different response then.

Frankly, as the consultations developed, I felt that the treaty could have been ratified, that is to say legislated by this parliament, even 12 months ago. The government has included though, as a result of representations made by British Columbian members and senators, the special provision in the federal enacting legislation which replicates what is in the treaty itself. However, what people do not notice in 400 pages is that it is subject to the constitution and to the charter, which will allow a judicial review and, if necessary, legal challenge if further points of conflict should arise that were not for any reason foreseen in the actual treaty negotiation itself.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has spoken quite eloquently about the economic and side benefits that are going to Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.

I happen to represent a riding in the province of Manitoba. I am sure the member can prepare an answer for me as to what the economic benefits are that will accrue to Manitoba, if any, in a direct sense as opposed to an indirect sense in that we are all Canadians and we know that we will receive an indirect benefit.

We have six members from the Liberal government in Manitoba. I have not heard them asking what benefit Manitoba will get from this. Possibly the member for Vancouver Quadra could tell the House and Canadians just where Manitobans fit in to the space agency program.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. It directs attention to the regional character of the federal system and the fact that some regions are strong in certain areas and not in others. There is a certain balance.

On the TRIUMF project I was trying to negotiate a $167.5 million grant at a period when the inherited budget deficit we had was $42.8 billion. One canvassed all the provinces and although Manitoba was not a governing member of the TRIUMF complex, there were four universities in British Columbia and Alberta, there was a spin-off to Manitoba because the University of Manitoba had expertise in the area and was able to offer co-operation and direct benefits flowed.

On the space issue my understanding at the present time is that the concentration of work is in British Columbia and Quebec but we noted Newfoundland which has its work.

All Canadians benefit by keeping advanced skills scientists here. We find their work, for example, in osteoporosis which will be a spin-off activity, has a strong Manitoba component because the University of Manitoba is very strong in medical research.

If we do find that Manitoba is not one of the leading players here, it will be in other areas. Since I got Manitoba support for TRIUMF, I will pledge Manitoba my support in equivalent scientific projects there.

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

Madam Speaker, as we approach the end of the millennium and the beginning of the next, there is one novel aspect of this legislation I would like the hon. member to comment on, especially since he is very well known in Canada as an expert in many aspects of the law, constitutional law among them. It is the fact that possibly for the first time we are making the provision for applying the criminal code and other statutes out of this world.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I simply add as a matter of personal pride that I did a good deal of work on the substance of space research, not simply the law, and particularly on international telecommunications satellites. I was involved in the negotiations which were ultimately unsuccessful between Intersputnik and Intelsat.

On this particular issue, law follows the flag, and a spaceship has a nationality, in this case multinationality. There is no problem in principle in applying national law to it in the same way that one applies national law to an aircraft crossing the Atlantic. The ship's flag, the country of nationality of the aircraft applies its criminal law, and also those who have passengers of their own nationality can attach it too. Plurality of jurisdiction is not a problem. It is not novel.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4 on the international space station.

Like my colleagues, I too will certainly make reference to the bill that was closed down very deliberately by the Liberal government. Debate was stifled on the Nisga'a agreement. I do not know what the reason was, apart from the fact that the Liberal government did not want a sound debate on that bill. The Liberals did not want Canadians to hear the true contents of that bill and its ramifications throughout the province of B.C. in particular, and for all Canadians.

The Nisga'a agreement bill impacts not only the province of British Columbia, but right across the country. Its potential in land claim settlements is quite phenomenal.

Back to the space station. I had the privilege of walking through the model of the space station outside of Houston, Texas. It was housed in a very large building as one can imagine. It is several hundred feet long and several hundred feet wide. I had the opportunity for a hands-on examination of the station. It was very, very impressive.

When we think about the beginnings of the space program in the United States of America, the roots were very much associated with Canada. I recall the scrapping of the Avro Arrow project in Canada. Some phenomenal engineering and technological achievements ended up south of the border. Unfortunately right now we do not possess the same qualities of research and support on a government level as we did back then. When we look at the history of NASA, the space race and the space industry, it very much has its roots here in Canada.

There are still many Canadian hands-on personnel down there. It just so happened that when I was down there, a number of Canadian scientists and engineers were working on different processes in reference to the robotic arm, the technology which was developed here in Canada. I saw how that arm is going to work on the space station. It is quite amazing. That arm can move like a giant spider from one end of the space station and attach itself to the other end. It can perform significant maintenance and construction feats.

A member of my family works on the medical team in NASA, Dr. Douglas Hamilton. He is known as Hammy down there. Dr. Hamilton has two degrees in engineering and a medical degree. Unfortunately he is part of the brain drain out of Canada. He was educated and received his degrees in Calgary. After he earned his medical degree he was looking around for a job and lo and behold, NASA snapped him up.

There is another one of Hammy's credentials which should be mentioned. He was in line to be an astronaut and was picked as one of the Canadian astronauts for the future. He was one of the five that was slated to go. Unfortunately it never happened. The race slowed down and a number of Canadians did not have the opportunity but he knows many of this country's present astronauts.

I was looking at a diagram of the space station. As I was walking through the station I had a good opportunity to look inside each capsule that will be made by various countries. There is no question about the importance of this space station and Canada's involvement in it.

There will be Canadians not so much in the station when it is up there but there certainly will be a lot of them on the ground. Canada's role in the station is going to be vital and ultra important. It will provide spin-off jobs in Canada as Canada contributes more and more toward that endeavour.

I walked through all of the modules. There is a co-operative effort on the part of these countries. Some of them were at odds with one another. Russia was at odds with the United States and the free world. Japan at one time was at odds with Europe and certainly North America. The United Kingdom and Europe are contributing to this effort with a substantial amount of co-operation.

I was impressed that it is a Russian escape module, if there are problems in the station itself, that will allow those inside the capsules to exit safely hopefully back to Earth should some major problem occur. Co-operation was the key to this whole affair.

Ties are being built through efforts like the space station. Bonds are being built among the scientific community and among those in the diplomatic areas of governments. Some barriers are falling down which is so vital to world peace.

I look to our own country and I see other things happening which reflect the opposite. I am coming back now to another comparison, when we talk about co-operation and what can actually be accomplished when matters come before the House that are divisive to our country and its people.

I speak of the Nisga'a agreement. Many people in the country would like to know the truth of the matter when it comes to that agreement. They are not being allowed to do that. They are being denied a debate here in parliament on that very issue.

The government chose to invoke time allocation after four hours and 12 minutes of debate. In so doing—

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

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member had an excellent speech that was right on topic and all on this side were listening raptly. But I must protest if he does steer the speech away to a subject that is not relevant to the matter at hand. Would he please return to the excellent speech that he was conducting previously.