Debates of Feb. 2nd, 1999

Supply

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from the perspective of victims' rights, we are dealing here primarily with young children. They need to have somebody to speak for them because normally they cannot speak for themselves. As the member mentioned, it takes years for some of these children to talk about it. Some never do. Certainly the healing has to start as soon as possible with young children. For some, unfortunately, the trauma lasts a lifetime.

As I said in my speech, this transcends politics. We have to approach this issue from the perspective of all of us being parents, all of us being grandparents and all of us having children in our lives. These young people who are involved and who are victimized by this require and need our protection. They are not able to speak for themselves. It is up to us to do it for them.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to answer one very simple question: Why are we here today? We have to decide if possession of child pornography— materials that sexually exploit children, the weakest, the most vulnerable and defenceless in our society—is a crime in Canada. That is the only question that we have to answer today.

I have no doubt in my mind that every member of this House was as appalled by Justice Shaw's ruling as I was. They were appalled that he did not invoke section 1 of the charter. When one reads section 163 of the Criminal Code it is painfully simple. I do not think it could be written any clearer.

Justice Shaw had a choice. He did not have to rule that it was not illegal to possess child pornographic material in Canada, pictures of naked, sexually exploited children; he could have invoked section 1 of the charter. What does that do?

Section 1 is an option that the courts can use in charter arguments where there is an infringement on one's rights, where the protection or the rights of the children are paramount to that of the individual. The rights of innocent children, society's rights, are more important than those of the pedophile who chooses to look at kiddie porn, that disgusting and despicable material. Everybody here would agree with that.

Justice Shaw chose not to use section 1. We as parliamentarians cannot use section 1. We do not have that option. Section 1 is only an option for the courts. There is a parallel option that we have use for, which is section 33, the notwithstanding clause. If one looks at both sections they virtually do the same thing, except the courts cannot use section 33. Only the legislatures and the parliaments can. That is our only tool to voice our objection. If we feel that the infringement on the rights of the individual is so great, we can limit the rights under the charter of the individual or the criminal.

In this case all we are asking parliament to do is to act today in a non-partisan way. I am not trying to fill this up with rhetoric. The notwithstanding clause is very clear. I know the parliamentary secretary is as proud as I am at this decision. She loves children as much as I do and defends them just as everybody else does in this parliament. I do not have a doubt in my mind that we have a duty, an obligation to act right now.

That does not preclude the courts from acting or stopping the appeal process. It does not show any disrespect to the courts. It demonstrates the tools that we have, that we will use them and that we will take a stand. We find this to be so appalling that we are going to act immediately.

The notwithstanding clause has a limitation period. When we invoke this section we could even put in it for a year until the courts decide and we could revisit it if we need to. This does not preclude the B.C. court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would like to comment at this time on the Progressive Conservative suggestion to move it right to the Supreme Court of Canada. I agree. We should expedite it in every way we can, but we must invoke the notwithstanding clause today, immediately, to protect the children of British Columbia.

It will be said that they are protected as the law stands. However in case No. 2 a man walked out the back door of the courtroom. It was not out the door with the sheriff to the cells but out the back door as a free man who uses kiddie porn. The people of British Columbia deserve to be protected right now.

We know that this could go on for six, twelve or eighteen months. I know they have requested immediate action, for it to be expedited, but as we have seen in recent decisions interveners come in, other provinces come in, advocacy groups come in, there are delays, and it goes on and on. Every Canadian has heard or knows of personal stories of delays in our justice system.

We absolutely have to put partisan politics aside. This is not about the Reform Party. This is not about the Liberal Party or the Progressive Conservative Party. It is about the protection of children. That is what our interests are.

I beg all members of the House to support the motion. I stand here to state on record that it shows no disrespect for our justice system. I am the biggest defender of it as an officer of the court. My father was a judge in British Columbia for 25 years. He has just recently retired. I will stand to say that I have the utmost and the highest respect for the justice system in the country. That does not mean there is not a hole in it, that there is something in there on which we have to intervene. This is our only tool.

I will not complicate the matter with all the issues of the decision because we all know it is a problem, a disgrace, et cetera. However I will leave hon. members with one thought which I would like them to seriously consider.

Members have all said in private discussions that it is an absolute disgrace, appalling, shameful and everything else that Justice Shaw did not use section 1 in his decision to rule that it is a crime in Canada to possess child pornography. We will be cast in that same light because the only tool we have is section 33. If we do not act, we are put in the same light that we did not have the guts to stand in the House and use that clause to protect children.

The notwithstanding clause has been used before. It has been used in Saskatchewan. It is in the appeal process. At the end of the day the Supreme Court of Canada in fact ruled the law was valid. In that case it was back to work legislation, but the law was saved by the notwithstanding clause. We can do the same thing. We absolutely have to do it.

I ask every member of the House tonight to leave partisan politics aside, to elevate above Justice Shaw's decision and to use the only tool that we can. The only tool we have is section 33. Some will argue other legislation or to enact a new law. If we read section 163 it is painfully clear. Other members have read it. We could not make it any clearer.

The Minister of Justice says to wait and see what the courts decide. That appeal could run its course. We all agree it should be appealed. We all agree that this man should be brought back before the courts. He should be convicted. He should be sent to jail, but that does not preclude us from doing something today, right now.

I will leave hon. members with one thought. Section 33 is the tool we have. Section 1 is the tool Justice Shaw had and he chose not to use it. If we choose not to use section 33 we are no different from what he is. Our consent will be reinforcing that possession of child pornography is not a crime in Canada. We must act.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the motion because I am having some difficulty reconciling the motion that is before the House and the petition signed by about 75 members of the Liberal caucus. The motion reads:

That the government should take legislative measures to reinstate the law that was struck down by a recent decision of the Court of British Columbia regarding the possession of child pornography, even if that entails invoking section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (the notwithstanding clause).

This was signed by 75 members of the Liberal caucus. We ask that the government not wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to be heard but immediately act in the defence of Canada's children. The undersigned Liberal members of parliament recommend that strong new child pornography legislation be introduced as soon as the House resumes. We ask also that we consider the use of the notwithstanding clause or other equivalent effective measures to send a clear message that the charter of rights will never again be used to defend the sexual abuse of Canada's children.

It would appear that the resolution today and the letter signed by 75 members of the Liberal caucus are asking for the same thing.

The Minister of Justice is about to speak; I understand she is the next speaker. She will speak against the motion. In effect she will speak against the wishes of 75 members of her own caucus.

How does the previous speaker view this? Does he view it as hypocrisy? Does he view this as members of parliament—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Let us not be throwing around hypocrisy even if it used obliquely.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe in my heart this is the right thing to do. We have to act and it does not show any disrespect for the courts.

There are 80 members who signed this petition because in their hearts and their guts they feel it is the right thing to do. They also know they have to act. There are probably many more who never saw the petition.

I pray that in the House we can leave the partisanship outside the doors, that we can come in and do what we feel is the absolute right thing. If the Minister of Justice believes that and I do not, that is up to her, but she should not preclude every member of the House or hold a club over their heads so that they cannot do the right thing.

We have to leave partisanship behind. I will not try to pit one person against another or one party against another. I do not believe the hon. member was doing that in his question. We just have to look after the interests of the children of Canada first.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and the minister have said publicly to let this thing go along, that everything is fine, that the law is still in place, et cetera.

My colleague who just spoke is a lawyer. If the minister is saying that, could he explain why there was a case in Surrey right after the case with Justice Shaw which was dismissed based on Justice Shaw's decision? How can it be the same? How can every child be safe? How can children be safe from pornography if there has been one case already? There is one person out on the street because of that ruling and there are 40 more waiting just in British Columbia. Would my colleague explain to the parliamentary secretary so we could perhaps change her mind a little on this issue?

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. When there is a decision of a higher court—and this is the B.C. supreme court—all lower courts in that province are compelled to follow it. The provincial court judge in the second case had absolutely no choice. He had to follow the higher court's decision unless it could be distinguished some other way. In this case it could not be. It was a very recent decision.

In the rest of Canada this case can be used as persuasive. I agree it is not compelled but lawyers use them as persuasive evidence. Under section 163 a person can be prosecuted either in provincial court on a summary conviction or on an indictable offence and can go to the supreme court. Even indictable offences are prosecuted in provincial court. The person who is charged has an election when he is charged. Under this criminal offence he can decide that he wants to elect a provincial court judge, a supreme court judge or a supreme court judge and jury. The accused can make that election.

Every one who is accused will elect a provincial court judge. Why? It is because they are compelled to follow the B.C. supreme court decision. It can be used persuasively in the rest of the courts and it can still run its process. We are not arguing that. It should be appealed but that is why she is wrong.

British Columbian children are not protected at all until this decision is looked after.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has acted quickly to support the decision of the attorney general of the province of British Columbia to appeal this ruling as quickly as possible in order to protect children. I applaud the quick action of my colleague and that of the Government of British Columbia.

This government will not rest until this issue has been properly addressed and has received the benefit of legal opinion of the appeal courts. Children in our society are vulnerable and must be protected from exploitation. With an appeal court ruling on this important issue we will all be better placed to craft better laws to protect our children.

There are some issues of sheer common sense at stake here. For example, can there be any question that the possession of child pornography is exploitation? I do not think that there can be. I do not think that there can be in the minds of the vast majority of Canadians who in my experience care deeply about children as do members of the House.

We as legislators have a duty to be as smart and as skilful as we can in crafting laws to protect our children. We must use every resource available to us to protect the human rights of children. One of those resources, a very valuable resource, is the appeal court. We have come a long way in the country to ensure that our children have every opportunity to have a good start in life. We work hard to create an environment that ensures their security and their happiness.

Nevertheless, child pornography risks the security and happiness of Canada's children and youth. That is why the Government of Canada has in statute very clear laws defining both child pornography and stating in a concise manner how the possession of child pornography will be dealt with.

The Reform Party is clearly not respectful of these laws or respectful of the Canadian jurisprudence. However I have faith and respect in the Canadian court system. For that reason I cannot support the motion before the House.

This does not mean that I do not stand in solidarity with my colleagues opposite as well as every other member in the House on the issue of the negative and very dehumanizing and demoralizing impact of child pornography. I believe in the court process and I believe in the wisdom and ability of the House to enact laws in this area that can withstand legal challenges.

I believe that our laws are clear. The arguments of my hon. colleagues that the notwithstanding clause in our Constitution should be used in this situation are not persuasive. They think that using it is good politics but it is not the most effective means of protecting our children. The notwithstanding clause was only intended to be applied when all legal avenues were exhausted in sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms.

I do not believe that the charter as negotiated by our Prime Minister when he was minister of justice would allow in any way child pornography. If we took the advice of the Reform Party the issue would come back to haunt Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

What members of the Reform Party may not understand about the notwithstanding clause is that it may only be applied for five years at a time. While they may think they are sweeping the whole situation underneath the carpet by imposing section 33 of the charter, this issue would rear its ugly head again and again with periodic reviews required for the use of section 33.

I appeal to my colleagues to understand that this is not a resolution. This is a reaction. I believe the attorneys general for B.C. and Canada have chosen a more permanent solution by having faith in our laws enacted by the House, by having faith in the charter of rights and freedoms, by having faith in the international convention on the rights of children and by having faith in our appeal courts.

The debate that this issue would stimulate every five years if the opposition would get its way is unnecessary when the courts can decide to put an end to it once and for all. The Reform Party would try to spin our refusal to support its motion and say that the Liberal government is not willing to stand up to child pornography. The opposite is true. The Reform tactic of trying to score political points by debating verbose and confusing motions can only do more harm than good for children in Canada.

No member on this side of the House or probably on any side of House believes that anyone who possesses, distributes or promotes child pornography has the constitution right to do so. On this side of the House we believe in respecting Canada's judicial process and making it work to our advantage. That is why the Minister of Justice is supporting her counterpart in B.C. That is why the Government of Canada is taking an active interest in protecting Canada's children. That is why I am addressing in the House of Commons this very important issue. As controversial and as sensitive as it might be, I was compelled to do so. We share a common concern. All members do as well as the general public.

This past summer I was fortunate to attend the first world ministers meeting of ministers responsible for youth. This meeting had particular relevance to this issue as one of the resolutions specifically dealt with the sexual exploitation of young women and men. This resolution which has now gone to the United Nations calls on member states to take active measures to prevent this exploitation.

This section of the Lisbon declaration is consistent with what has been previously negotiated on the world stage. The United Nations has specifically dealt with child pornography in its convention of the rights of the child. The convention reads:

State Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes State Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: c) the exploitive use of children in pornographic performances and materials.

As a member state of the United Nations, Canada is part of this convention and fully supports this initiative in preventing child pornography. Pornography in all its forms is unacceptable in any society. All efforts must be taken to stop exploitation of the vulnerable. Members in the House should respect the courts. All of us should respect the processes that have served our country so well.

I leave the House with a quote from one of the world's greatest leaders, Nelson Mandela, who said about children:

It is my deepest conviction that children should be seen and heard as our most treasured assets. They are not ours to be used and abused, but to be loved and nurtured and encouraged to engage life to the full extent of their being, free from fear.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion tabled by the Reform Party. This motion is addressing an issue that is not about partisanship. It is about doing the right thing.

The hon. minister spoke about respecting the courts. I respect the courts. I respect the judicial process. What we are looking at is doing the right thing. Here is a clear example where Canadians want us to ensure that we respect the rights of the community versus the right of the individual in this case.

We have to point out that for child pornography to exist, it means a child has been exploited. What I want to emphasize is that we need to send a very clear signal to all Canadians, to all parents that parliament will defend the rights of children.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, clearly as I stated in my speech we believe that supporting the appeal court system is the way of doing the right thing. We share concern as does every other member of parliament.

Without prejudice to any other members, I am sure vigilantism was based on the feeling that people were doing the right thing. We all know the results of that.

We have to be very careful and measured. As legislators we have an obligation to conduct ourselves in a manner that respects the rule of law. This is the highest court in the land and the laws that we make here are not done in a cavalier manner or in a manner that would suggest that when we feel like it, those laws are applied.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue today is the social gap between the workings of the superior courts and the societal norms of what communities expect.

What happens here is not only the technical merits of what is being decided but who is doing the deciding especially when it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada. It applies to the superior courts across the country that are a federal appointment.

When we get to the fine points of splitting a hair, it comes to the social values of who that judge is. The country has nearly no say about who gets there. There is very little accountability for removing someone who is not representative of Canada.

It has to go through a very long process and then come back to this Chamber to remove a judge. We have some problems in this country about the judiciary and appointment.

What will the government do not only to look at this decision but, as this is an example of the problem of the appointment of judges, what will the government do to improve the accountability of who is on the bench and doing the deciding as well as what is being decided?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it may not be known to the member opposite but there is a process by which our justices are appointed across this country. There is the process by which we engage in applying the rule of law.

That is something that has been subject to review time and time again. I am sure the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has taken his remarks under consideration. I am sure he will be able to get better information from the Department of Justice on this. We share common concerns on this issue.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The hon. secretary of state just referred to the process of appointing judges.

I suggest to her that the Canadian people view the process as failing them. The process is not working. During her remarks the hon. secretary of state, and I do not know who wrote that speech for her but it was appalling, mentioned believing in the court system: “I believe in respecting Canada's judicial system and invoking the notwithstanding clause is not the most effective means”. It is a means whereby we can deal with this today, not in weeks or months or whenever the appeal court gets around to it.

She said this is not a resolution. In other words, invoking the notwithstanding clause today would not be a resolution. It is a reaction. It is. I would say courts are not the solution, courts are the problem.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, there have been many decisions rendered by the supreme court at the federal level. I am assuming from what my hon. colleague is saying that he is condemning all those good decisions that were made, some of the decisions that advanced the rights of children, of women, advanced the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Is he saying that the whole system has failed because of this one isolated incident in which we are dealing with a very unfortunate set of circumstances? I do not agree with that.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, all members of this House share with Canadians a common position in this debate, an abhorrence of child pornography.

These materials represent evidence of the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, the most vulnerable members of our society.

It was this common position that led all parties in 1993 to vote unanimously in favour of the legislation that today we are now unanimously compelled to defend. The reasons are simple. Our children are the most vulnerable members of society and we must do all we can to protect children from the harm that flows from the creation and possession of child pornography.

Not only does child pornography serve as a permanent record of the sexual abuse of children, it perpetuates the message that children are appropriate objects of sexual interest. They are not.

That is why this government and I as Minister of Justice believe that the court ruling that limits the state's ability to fight child pornography must be appealed vigorously.

Let me be clear. This government will defend the constitutionality of the legislation with every ounce of energy we possess. That is why we have taken the unusual step to intervene in the appeal launched by the British Columbia attorney general. We are acting immediately. We will not wait for this case to reach the Supreme Court of Canada.

We are mindful of the importance of protecting the rights that have been guaranteed to us under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We respect the need to balance the powers of the state with the rights and liberties of individuals. We also know there are circumstances that demand that some of these freedoms be limited where such limits are reasonably justified in a free and democratic society. Clearly this issue before us is one such circumstance.

Limitations are justified in curtailing the availability of child pornography. This ruling must be challenged. Our government will provide all the necessary assistance we can to the Government of British Columbia in defence of this law. But our common abhorrence for the evil of child pornography must not allow us to either exaggerate the reach of the recent supreme court ruling or lead us to take rash measures whose impact would ultimately not serve the interests of Canadians.

There is no question that the impact of the British Columbia supreme court's decision has been far reaching in the terms of response it has elicited from Canadians. But what many fail to realize is that its legal impact at this point is limited. There is no open season for pedophiles in Canadian society as a result of this decision.

We must all remember that while provincial trial court judges in British Columbia are bound by this recent ruling, it is not legally binding on courts of the same or higher levels in British Columbia or across the country.

Possession of child pornography remains an offence in Canada. Officials in other jurisdictions have indicated that they will continue to vigorously enforce the prohibition against the possession of child pornography in their own jurisdictions as in the past. We applaud and support this decision.

In British Columbia law enforcement personnel are continuing to investigate child pornography cases and crown counsel are seeking adjournments in matters scheduled to proceed before provincial court judges.

There are also many other legal avenues available to police and crown prosecutors across the country to crack down on those who would exploit our children. As parliamentarians we take seriously the responsibility to respond to the concerns of our constituents and to protect those who are often unable to protect themselves.

We have heard the outcry of Canadians. While it is understandable that members of this House might experience a certain degree of frustration in not being able to address the public outcry in response to this case more directly, we must recognize that precipitous action on our part would not only be inappropriate, it would be wrong.

The right to appeal a decision of the trial courts in our country is a fundamental and effective element of our legal system. It is available and we will use it. The judicial process may take time but we will get an answer to this crucial issue from a higher court.

The decisions of trial courts on charter and other issues are appealed every day to the higher courts and then sometimes to the Supreme Court of Canada. The decisions of the lower courts, the trial courts, are frequently overturned by the higher appellate courts and by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Higher courts have not been at all shy to reject charter claims that have previously been upheld by lower courts. They do not shrink from, indeed they feel duty bound to examine the decisions of the lower courts to ensure that they are correct and consistent with the law. That is their job, to ensure that the laws of the land, the charter included, are properly applied by the lower courts. That is the nature of our legal system and as attorney general, I have, and must have, full faith in it.

In the unlikely event that the supreme court were to make a finding with which the government did not agree, we would then explore the possibility of legislative reform. However, we are confident that the strong arguments in defence of the existing legislation can be presented to convince the appellate courts of the constitutionality of these provisions.

Some across the way have suggested we resort to the use of section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause. While I appreciate the sincere and deeply held motivations of some that underlie this request, as Minister of Justice I believe such a move would be wrong and contrary to the long term interests of Canadians.

The use of the notwithstanding clause is a serious matter without precedent at the federal level. I do not believe that it was intended for use except as a measure of last resort, meaning after a decision of the country's highest court. That is why it has been used so rarely.

We should all ask ourselves why this is so. Contrary to what some in the Reform Party might suggest, Canadians and their governments benefit from the guidance and expertise of their courts. By allowing this case to make its way through normal channels, Canadians will receive the full benefit of their counsel. I would infinitely prefer a situation where the courts of this land ultimately upheld the legislation in question than a situation where we precipitously invoked the notwithstanding clause without due benefit of the court's counsel.

It is in this way that we live in a system where the rule of law is respected. It is in this way that we live in a free and democratic society where its constitution and charter of rights have meaning. It is in this way that we enjoy a justice system that is the envy of the world.

Before we take such a serious step as invoking section 33 of the charter, we have a duty to ensure that other mechanisms for addressing the situation have been tried and have failed. This principle applies even in the most difficult circumstances, even when we are faced such as we are today with a decision that has so very clearly elicited the concern of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The Reform Party in the name of judicial activism claims to represent the people's will. It believes that by attacking judges and the justice system that it serves the interests of Canadians. Well, once again the Reform Party is wrong. It is also without courage for it is in circumstances like the present one that the tough thing to do is to show respect for and have faith in our legal system.

The Reform Party's actions are about politics. While its members appear to be concerned about child pornography, the very actions they propose are ultimately contrary to the public interest.

Canadians will be better served by a process in which ultimately our legislation, the legislation we all care so much about, is upheld by our courts as constitutional. Canadians are better served in all circumstances when they live with the knowledge that the laws that govern them are constitutional. And were at some point the highest court to rule against this legislation, Canadians through parliament would still have recourse, but we would have it in possession of greater knowledge and greater wisdom.

This government has every confidence that our legislation is constitutional. We will do everything we can to defend it.

Let the system work. By it, we serve Canadians. By respecting our legal system and our laws, we serve Canadians.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know we all agree on how despicable all of this is. I have the highest respect for the Minister of Justice but I am offended when she suggests that I do not. I want it put on the record that I am deeply offended.

I want to get back to using section 33. I have the highest respect for the courts. My respect is as high as anybody's including the minister herself but it does not preclude following the appeal process. It is fundamental for that to happen and that it be expedited as quickly as possible.

Section 1 is the courts' tool to limit the rights and freedoms of individuals. Our tool is section 33. She says it is only a last resort. I appreciate that it is unprecedented in the Parliament of Canada but we have to look at the gravity and importance of the situation. The suggestion is that it can only be used after going to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I know I do not need to preach to her about the charter. She knows it as well as I do. The invocation of section 33(2) can be limited. It does not have to go for five years. I know they are laughing at this but my heart is in the right place and I am serious. We can invoke the notwithstanding clause for any length of time we wish in order to provide for the interim protection of children. We do not have to wait. Canadians do not have to wait. The courts do not have to adjourn cases. It is no disrespect to our justice system.

Section 33 was included as a tool for parliament to limit rights and freedoms where we feel it is necessary. Section 1 is included in order for the courts to do that. We have a duty to do that.

I appeal to the justice minister to leave the partisan politics aside. I mean this in all sincerity. We should look after the interests of our children. Look at the gravity of this situation. We are talking about child pornography. We have the tools right now to invoke section 33 to protect Canadians.

The Minister of Justice knows as well as I do that there can be delays. There are all kinds of reasons people can get off charges. We can offer that protection right now with no maybes, with no disrespect. I put on record that I have no disrespect for the courts. Why does the Minister of Justice feel so passionately that we are showing disrespect by invoking section 33? I have the highest respect for our justice system.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a number of important points. I must put on record that he asks that I eschew the use of politics. It was not we who played politics with this very important issue of substance on behalf of Canadians. We are debating this today because the Reform Party decided to play politics with an issue of such fundamental importance to Canadians.

We have acted quickly. We have acted in an extraordinary way. My colleague, the Attorney General of British Columbia is asking for this appeal to be expedited. Therefore I have no doubt this matter will be dealt with in a timely fashion, in due course before the courts of the land.

I reiterate a fundamental point. The notwithstanding clause was intended to be used in extraordinary circumstances. It is this government's opinion, shared by the vast majority of former parliamentarians, that section 33 should only be invoked after we receive the advice and guidance of the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the minister spent her time chastising us on this side of the House but she should have included all parties on this side of the House. It is not just the Reform Party. All parties on this side of the House will support this motion.

It is interesting. When it comes to freedom of speech, not one of the members over there who signed the petition asking her to move on this has been allowed to speak. I bet we will not see one of them speaking today.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You will note there are a number of members who would like to ask the Minister of Justice questions. I would ask that you seek unanimous consent to extend the question period by 10 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to extend the question period for 10 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Minister of Justice may make a very brief, 20 second reply to the comment if she wishes. Otherwise the time for questions and comments is over and we will proceed with debate.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I should put on the record to clarify it. There are those who wish to misrepresent the situation that presently exists in relation to one Mr. Robin Sharpe who was the subject of the case that has led to the—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for York South—Weston on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister.