CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 138 Ï NUMBER 002 Ï 2nd SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, October 1, 2002 (Part A) Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 15 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, October 1, 2002 The House met at 10 a.m. pornography. They are disappointed and frustrated by a recent court decision related to child pornography. The petitioners call on Prayers parliament to take all necessary steps to protect our children by outlawing all materials that promote or glorify child pornography. *** ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER Ï (1000) Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of [Translation] the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I PETITIONS ask that all questions be allowed to stand. INUIT COMMUNITY OF NUNAVIK The Speaker: If there are any, they will stand. I thank the hon. Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. parliamentary secretary. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by residents from Puvirnituq, in Nunavik, and several other communities. The petitioners are asking Parliament to set up a public inquiry to shed light on the policy of sled dog killings in New Quebec. SPEECH FROM THE THRONE During the fifties and the sixties, the Royal Canadian Mounted [English] Police and the Government of Canada killed all sled dogs in Nunavik, and the Inuit from Nunavik are asking for an inquiry into RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY the matter. Ï (1005) The House resumed from September 30 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in [English] reply to her speech at the opening of the session. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to begin debate on the Speaker, I have six petitions, each calling on the government to Speech from the Throne, my first such occasion to do so. protect our children and take all necessary steps to ensure that all material which promotes or glorifies pedophilia or sado-masochistic [Translation] activities involving children are outlawed. This petition has about 1,000 signatures in total. As tradition has it, it is the responsibility of the leader of the official opposition to launch the debate in reply to the Speech from STEM CELL RESEARCH the Throne, just as it is the Governor General's duty to deliver it. This Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. is a traditional duty I am honoured to fulfil. Speaker, I also have a petition which calls on parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research rather than [English] embryonic stem cell research. For this honour I owe it once again to express my gratitude to CHILD PORNOGRAPHY members of the Canadian Reform-Conservative alliance from coast Mr. Janko Perić (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to to coast as well as to the constituents of Calgary Southwest. My Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present to the House a gratitude in these matters is tempered only by the understanding that petition which contains 600 signatures from concerned constituents Laureen and I have. So many who have given so much to send us in my riding of Cambridge. here, both in our political lives and in our personal lives, are people we will now find ourselves too often removed from. For my family My constituents wish to bring to the attention of the House that a and me these have been times of tremendous change, but of course clear majority of Canadians condemn the creation and use of child we are only a small part of the story. 16 COMMONS DEBATES October 1, 2002 The Address Only a couple of years ago the western world was still discussing realities and real problems of today and focus on what we will leave the peace dividend. How things have changed. Since September 11, to our children and grandchildren. 2001, we have become preoccupied with military conflict and rumours of war. Boundless speculation in the stock market and boundless optimism in the economy have been replaced by the Those who are serious about building real legacies are not bearish retreat and deep concern about future trends. Predictions of surprised by the so-called new realities that we face. We are prepared huge surpluses by the government have been overtaken by warnings for the fact that the world is dangerous and that peace is always about limited room to manoeuvre. Apparent satisfaction with the precarious. We know that we must spend on our priorities and that status quo politically and apparent stagnation in the Canadian we cannot have everything we want. We are not fooled by empty political landscape have turned into some rapidly shifting ground. slogans that mask naked ambition, and yes I do put the words democratic deficit in that category. What has been the Liberal response to all of these developments? It has been twofold: it has been the throne speech but it has also been Ï (1010) the emergence of a Liberal leadership race. Let me comment on that first. Real legacies are founded on values that work, values that have The appetite for political change we are seeing has been translated survived the rigorous tests of time, values that have been handed into a taste for leadership change within the Liberal Party as it has down from generation to generation, not values invented by been within all parties. However with the Liberals it has been communication strategists for the suppertime news. In other words, different. With the Liberals we were told that we would have no it is values that work, not values that just sound good. ordinary leadership debate, no ordinary leadership race, but we would have an answer to the so-called democratic deficit itself. What are our values? We say that taxes belong to the people from What has that answer been so far? To start with, when we left here whom they were raised and that they are held in trust for the benefit we were told the Liberal Party would have a leadership review. What of ordinary Canadians, not to build personal monuments for we have seen is the cancellation of that leadership review vote politicians. because party memberships could not be sold. The fix was in. What we heard next were rumours of the probable cancellation of We believe in creating real jobs by expanding the economy, rather the leadership race itself so we could have for the first time in our than by enlarging the government. We believe that this is political history a true coronation of the next Prime Minister of accomplished by selling products to customers, not by giving Canada. This office, in which power is so concentrated, could be subsidies to contributors. We believe in helping the young, the old, decided without a vote by the people or even without a vote by the the poor and the sick, not out of any superior moral insight, but governing party. because we may all be those things in our own time. Some hon. members: Oh, oh. We believe in family and relationships. We know that those can Mr. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some never be replaced satisfactorily by institutions and programs. We excited people over there. They want to have a debate within their believe in accountability and know that power should never be own party. exercised without it. The pattern of behaviour that we have seen in this instance is repeated throughout the Speech from the Throne itself. We heard Those are the values of our party. They do not appeal to the grandiose rhetoric delivering little or even the opposite of what it chattering classes or the empire builders. They are the values of the promises. We heard communication strategies that talked around real ordinary citizens who have joined us and built this party: workers, issues, ignored previous failures, gave no details, no plans and no farmers, business people, public servants and students. From these price tags. Why? The most obvious explanation is that yesterday's ranks come the team that I am honoured to lead in this House today: throne speech was not really about anything except two men: one long-standing members of Parliament with a reputation for moving desperate to leave a legacy and the other whose legacy will simply our policies forward, sometimes even getting these fellows in the be leading, if only for a short period of time. government to adopt a few things, such as eliminating the deficit and dealing with Quebec separatism to actually have a little bit of a What is a legacy? The word is bandied about a lot here. Why does legacy; former provincial cabinet ministers with a reputation and the government not have a legacy after nine years? Creating a real impressive records of accomplishment; and, of course, a vibrant core legacy was the reason my party was founded. It was not the lure of of the youngest, brightest and most energetic members of Parliament power nor the attraction of the spotlight. It was not to pad our in the House of Commons. resumes, reward our friends or settle the family score. It was to create something that will last, something that will offer tangible and enduring benefits to all Canadians. It was something that will leave The Liberal version of a legacy is reflected in this throne speech our descendants better off and inspire them to attain greater success.