Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I request leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration.
Following a January 1999 British Columbia supreme court decision concerning the possession of child pornography, the British Columbia Court of Appeal did, on June 30, 1999, dismiss the appeal to reinstate subsection (4) of section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.
The supreme court has scheduled a hearing on this matter for mid-January 2000. Given the normal time required for the supreme court judgments, this issue will not be disposed of until perhaps 2001.
The legality of the possession of child pornography is not limited to the province of British Columbia. In fact, defence counsel in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta are arguing cases now based on the British Columbia decision to make child pornography legal in those provinces.
The government did not find reason in the Speech from the Throne to discuss this issue. That is why I served notice after the speech yesterday.
On February 2 the minister said in the House that the government was acting immediately on the issue and would not wait for the case to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. Sixty-three Liberal MPs and six senators signed a notice to the Prime Minister asking him to use the notwithstanding clause in this child pornography issue because it was so important last February.
The children of this country cannot wait until 2001 to find out that child pornography is illegal to possess in Canada.
This is an issue of children. Children were mentioned in the throne speech yesterday but this issue was not mentioned.
I think all members of the House agree that the law we have is a good one; it is only some judges who do not. We have to debate that issue in the House and come up with a solution to protect our children a lot quicker than the judges of this land want to protect our children.