Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-4. It provides a unique opportunity for Canada to get involved or continue its involvement in space. I am told that the space station is the largest science and technology project in the history of humanity. We should well be proud of our involvement in that project.
From a personal point of view, the fact that Canada is continuing its involvement in space is somewhat gratifying in the sense that my uncle is considered one of Canada's space pioneers. He conducted one of the first experiments in outer space that a Canadian scientist conducted. He was one of the designers of the first satellite, Alouette I, and subsequent satellites which Canada sent up.
From a family point of view we are quite proud of my uncle, Dr. Andrew R. Molozzi, and his accomplishments are rather interesting. My uncle was my mother's brother. My grandmother was born in Poland. She was lucky to get two or three years of schooling and that was all. At the age of 15 she came to Canada, got married and raised a pack of kids, including my uncle who was the youngest. He was fortunate that in his family my grandparents encouraged him to continue at school and achieve the kind of excellence in science that he eventually did achieve.
This is a model for a lot of people to look at. In many immigrant families in the country education has perhaps not been a priority to this point. The kids leave school, not because of lack of ability but because for some reason their parents are not encouraging them to continue and fulfil their potential.
In talking about Bill C-4 I would like to address it from the point of view of a Liberal. I want to make a speech on this legislation which I think the Liberals should be making, given the fact that they pulled debate of the Nisga'a treaty from the agenda of the House yesterday. As pointed out earlier by my colleague, this was a travesty. It was pulled after only four hours of debate. I would have liked to have spoken to that bill yesterday, but I was unable to because time allocation was used.
Then we got this bill with which all of us agree. I do not think there is a parliamentarian in the House who is not encouraged by Canada's involvement in outer space and very supportive of it, because we see it as a wonderful opportunity for our children. There is probably very little interest in this debate out there in TV land, let alone in the House. It is one of those motherhood and apple pie debates.
I will address this issue as a Liberal should in light of their commitment to the Nisga'a treaty and will discuss the issue of native involvement in the Canadian space station. That may not be as much of a stretch as one might think. It is certainly not much of a stretch in light of the recent Marshall decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Let me just review that decision for a moment to show the House why the point I will make about guaranteed aboriginal involvement in the space project is reasonable from the supreme court's point of view, and certainly from the point of view of the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives.
The Marshall decision was an interpretation of a 1760 treaty signed between the British crown, the Mi'kmaq people and the Malecite people of the maritime provinces of Canada. In essence it was a peace treaty. The British had been doing battle with the French and the French had been expelled from the area. The Mi'kmaq had supported the French and the British thought it would be best to ensure that they would stay on side with them and would come to rely on them for some of the trade goods they had received through their dealings with the French, and so they signed a treaty.
Part of that treaty was the establishment of some truck houses. These truck houses were special trading posts that were to be constructed and manned to deal with Mi'kmaq people. A list of goods that were to be traded was created. It included the goods that the British would provide those truck houses. It also showed the price that they would pay for the goods. Among the trade items the Mi'kmaq had to offer the only things that were dealt with were furs, that they would trade furs for truck house items. Fish were not mentioned as a trade item.
As well, the Mi'kmaq people were required to place hostages at certain places to ensure that they lived up to the terms of the treaty. Lunenburg was one place where there were supposed to be two hostages to guarantee this. Fortunately that treaty was not long lived. It operated probably for a couple of years. Certainly within 20 years things returned to normal. That meant the Mi'kmaq people were to be treated as everyone else in the country. They were to enjoy the same trade rights as everyone else.
That was in effect until the supreme court decided to look at the issue of the 1760 treaty. What brought the court into action was that Donald Marshall had gone fishing eels and said that he had an aboriginal right. His first defence was based on a 1752 treaty. When it was clearly demonstrated that had no relevance, he switched horses and decided to base his comments on the 1760 treaty.
What the court said then was that the treaty somehow gave this blanket right to fish. That right was one that was to be enjoyed as a preferential right. It was a right to be satisfied in advance of those of everyone else. Currently we might say that we are negotiating whether non-aboriginal fishermen will have any right.
The reason I raise this issue is that the court interpreted the 1760 treaty with a view to protecting the honour of the crown. Also it suggested that the treaty was not stagnant, that it did not just affect times long ago but that it had to be viewed in light of today.
If we are to view that treaty in light of today, why are we restricting the benefits of the treaty to goods and items that might have been traded 200 and some odd years ago? Why is it that we have not taken the terms of that treaty, if it is being interpreted in today's terms and viewed in that regard? If it is supposed to protect the honour and integrity of the crown, why are we not then interpreting it in terms of today's economy?
In other words, if we can give a priority right to fish, or in other treaties such as the Nisga'a guarantee access of 25% to Nass River fish, if we can guarantee that in that treaty, why are we not guaranteeing a place for aboriginal people in the space station?
Does it not follow? The logic is there. The court very clearly said that it could not interpret the terms of the treaty as things were back in 1760. Somehow it had to give it a modern twist. It had to interpret it in terms of today and had to consider the honour of the crown.
Today's economy does not really revolve around fish. It certainly does in the maritime provinces in many of the communities affected by it. I do not mean to downplay their interest, but what I intend to do and the point I really want to make is that if we want to talk about a treaty which reflected society in 1760, if we want to talk about a treaty that we are signing today, if we want to talk about a space station today, or if we want to talk about interpreting that treaty in today's terms, maybe we should be looking at the global economy that is operating today, the whole of the economy. That means in my view an aboriginal component to the space station. Like, why not?
That question deserves an answer. Why is it that when parliamentarians and the misfits at the Supreme Court of Canada interpret who is entitled to a job and who is not, the only people they go after is the people in the resource sector? Why is it that they only tell fishermen to stand aside and allow somebody else to have their job? Why is that?
Why not say that if there is to be a place for aboriginal people in the country it should be across the broad spectrum of jobs we all enjoy and have access to today? Why are we saying that aboriginal people can only participate in the fishery and that they have a priority right to it?
Certainly the minister of northern affairs says that they have a priority right to forests and to mineral wealth. Why not the technology of today as well? Why not commerce today? Why are they not guaranteed seats on the board of directors of the Royal Bank of Canada, for example? Why not seats on Canadian Airlines and Air Canada? Why are we not guaranteeing them a place in today's world economy?
Let us put it in the context of the way I started my speech when I talked about my uncle and the fact that my grandmother came to Canada with very little education of probably no more than two or three years. She had a great desire to see my mother, my aunts and my uncles be successful in a new society, in the new country she had come to. She encouraged my uncle to seek an education, to continue his education and to develop to his full potential.
When we look at the aboriginal community we should be placing in front of it the same kinds of challenges. They can be anything they want to be. Whether it be an astronaut, a banker, a television performer or whatever, the opportunity is there. Somehow it should not be inherent in their genes that the only jobs suitable to them would be jobs in the resource extraction centre.
If there is one flaw in the government's argument today on the bill before us, I would say the flaw would be that it has completely ignored the rights of aboriginal people. The government cut that discussion off last night so that we could not present a positive alternative or a critical but positive analysis of the Nisga'a treaty. It is allowing this debate to continue today without any real reference to the welfare of the Nisga'a people or any other native in the country.
One other issue of Bill C-4, the space station bill, that I will talk about is the cost. I am told that this will cost Canadian taxpayers something in the order of $1 billion. That to me is a lot of money and I think it is to most people.
In the area I grew up in as a kid those making $10,000 were doing pretty well. I did not know too many millionaires. I still do not know too many, Mr. Speaker, other than yourself of course, but that just shows you the circle I travel in, the ordinary folk and not the wealthy.
When I look at a billion dollars I consider that a lot of money. I find it hard to visualize a billion dollars let alone a million dollars, but a billion dollars is right out of my league. I also think it is out of the government's league. I would like to know just how hard and fast the numbers are here. It is not that I object to spending money on this particular project. It is a good and worthwhile project that will provide opportunities for all Canadians who desire to get involved in the space agency.
When I look at the government's track record for spending money, I am a little bit concerned. I would like to draw members' attention back to the Nisga'a treaty. When the treaty was first made public there was a huge fanfare. The federal Liberals had joined with probably the most disreputable government in the history of Canada, the NDP government in British Columbia, a government that has stolen money from cripples, kids and single mothers to advance its causes. Overnight, it quickly found an agreement on the Nisga'a treaty and said that it would only cost the Canadian taxpayers something like $250 million. It also said that the fast ferries were going to be $200 million and they are well over $400 million. I could go on with the track record of the provincial NDP members and their inability to estimate costs, but I guess the same probably applies to their brothers across the way, the federal Liberals. They also have very little value for dollars.
When the cost was made public, there were a number of people who pointed out various matters that had not been costed and very quickly both the federal Liberal government and its brothers in Victoria, the provincial NDP government, agreed that perhaps the cost of the treaty would be more in the neighbourhood of $485 million. That is the value that has now been put on the treaty.
There were a number of us in British Columbia who looked at that and thought the figure was not quite right either. Early on, the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition conducted an independent study of the treaty. We thought it was time to do that again. A little over a year ago, I contracted with an economist to take a look at the Nisga'a treaty and give us a costing of it. I told him that when he got a range of values I wanted him to take the lower value, not the mid-value. I told him to always lowball the numbers. I told him I wanted an estimate of what he thought the treaty was going to cost British Columbia.
