Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in the debate on the motion by the Reform Party's leader in the House concerning the recent Supreme Court of British Columbia decision which struck down the section of the Criminal Code forbidding the simple possession of child pornography.
I must express my thanks to the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford for this opportunity to voice our opinion on this matter of great national concern. In my opinion, our children, the most vulnerable members of our society, represent this country's finest resource. They are the incarnation of our hopes, our values and our collective future.
I therefore believe we must do everything in our collective power to allow them to grow and develop within a safe environment, free of any form of exploitation with the potential of jeopardizing their healthy development.
Now, if there is one form of exploitation which is known to irrevocably scar a child's soul and spirit, it is sexual exploitation.
We are all aware that the recent decision which unites us today has totally ignored that fact, which I would remind the House is based on the findings of the huge majority of specialists who have seriously addressed the question of child pornography and report the incalculable damage caused to children in producing such material.
The great outcry triggered by this astonishing decision shows the general disapproval of such a reductive interpretation of the law. I would even go so far as to say that the currently prevailing social consensus in Canada reaffirms, if such reaffirmation is necessary, the appropriateness of this recently contested legislative provision.
People from all sectors, particularly advocates of children's rights and of the victims of crime, even numerous civil libertarians, have expressed outrage that a member of our judiciary could place a citizen's right to possess child pornography ahead of society's right to protect its children by restricting the use of this pernicious and highly objectionable material.
Incidentally, let us recall that there are urgent reasons to criminalize simple possession of child pornography. By making possession of this material an offence, the legislator is in fact attacking the producers and distributors, by punishing their accomplices, or in other words the consumers of child pornography.
The government was asked to introduce such a measure by many people, including members of law enforcement agencies, who believe that by not making the simple possession of child pornography illegal, the government is indirectly promoting the sale of such products.
This prompted the Progressive Conservative government of the day to introduce Bill C-128, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff, in the House of Commons on May 13, 1993. Approved by all parties, the bill was quickly passed both in the Commons and the Senate.
While recognizing the need to fight child pornography, various groups in the arts and culture community as well as civil libertarians raised serious concerns about the wording of the bill, which nevertheless received royal assent on June 23, 1993, and came into force on August 1, 1993.
Still today, there are people who contend that the causal connection between pornography and any real physical violence has yet to be demonstrated and that other potential effects of pornography are too minor and inconsequential to justify adversely affecting the freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution.
Obviously, I do not share this opinion. By its very nature, child pornography makes victims out of the children who unwillingly participate in this activity. A special committee established in 1991 by the health and justice ministers concluded, as the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths, better known as the Badgley Committee, did in 1984, that the production of child pornography almost inevitably resulted in sexual assault on the children involved.
Furthermore, even back then, the report predicted that new communications technologies such as the Internet would lead to a rapid and inevitable growth in child pornography. It is now therefore reasonable to conclude that the growth in child pornography resulting from the explosion of the Internet has led to a considerable increase in the number of victims in recent years. In fact, the proliferation in pornographic material, particularly that involving children, on the Internet is now a major source of concern for lawmakers in all industrialized countries.
According to one expert, the Internet has approximately 250,000 adult sites. This raises serious questions of access and responsibility for regulating such material, particularly when it crosses national borders.
Police forces are now directing a large part of their efforts at the Internet. Although there have been convictions, the very nature of computer technology often impedes investigations. Various avenues are now being explored in order to put a stop to this worldwide phenomenon.
In July 1996, iStar, one of the largest Internet providers, blocked its clients' access to child pornography. While few people approve of this material being circulated, some have still expressed reservations about the method used by the company and the precedent thus set.
Alternatives have been suggested, such as software that deletes the offensive material. The nature and quantity of pornographic material circulating on the Internet continues to give rise to animated debates, which are quite likely to drag on for some time before a way is found to regulate circulation.
The more this material spreads, the more it contravenes traditional public legislation. The challenges are complex and are not limited to access to ordinary pornography and its circulation. Furthermore, various governments have already tackled this problem, which will undoubtedly become more widespread in the years to come.
So I ask: Is it not ironic that, in this country, we are once again discussing the precedence of personal rights over collective ones, while trading in child pornography is thriving all over the world and while international organizations such as UNESCO and the International Labour Office are joining forces to combat this deplorable world phenomenon?
It is not ironic, it is pathetic. We must make a contribution to help the children of the world, who are the first victims of this ideological and legal battle.
Moreover, since I firmly believe that, ultimately, it is Canadian society as a whole that will suffer from this lack of coherence and collective vision, I want to stress again that the use of criminal law to reduce the demand for child pornography is a very appropriate measure, to the extent that it puts a reasonable restriction on an individual's freedom of expression.
This is why I am asking the government to immediately begin considering appropriate legislation to ensure our children's protection and well-being.
Let me conclude by saying that it is both as a mother and a lawmaker that I intend to pursue this issue, which is of particular interest to me. I will not rest until the rights of children take precedence over those of individuals who have no qualms about violating a child's most fundamental rights to satisfy their despicable sexual urges.
