House of Commons Hansard #172 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.

Topics

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Reform

Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance on this matter to some extent.

Last evening in debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the member for Provencher, made statements with respect to the Musqueam leaseholders in Vancouver to the effect that they had not made any lease payments since 1993.

The Musqueam residents contacted me this morning. They are deeply offended. In fact they say that they are very current with their lease and—

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

We are getting into debate. Perhaps it could be incorporated in a statement tomorrow if the hon. member would like to do that.

I will now hear the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am looking for clarification from the Chair on an apparent ruling that took place during question period. It was with respect to a question posed by the hon. member for West Nova to the minister.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I refer the hon. member to 409(6).

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am sure today you will have the unanimous consent of the House, now that the government has had the privilege of reading the motion I introduced yesterday for which I sought but did not get unanimous consent.

I return today, seconded by the Reform member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. The motion reads as follows, and I request the unanimous consent of the House to move it:

That this House, barring a decision in appeal quashing the decision at trial level, recommend the removal of Mr. Justice Robert Flahiff, judge of the Quebec Superior Court, because of his inability to properly perform his duties due to

(a) a lack of honour and dignity;

(b) failure to perform his duties as judge under the Judges Act; and

(c) a lack of integrity as set forth in the Ethical Principles for Judges of the Canadian Judicial Council;

And that this removal have as its immediate consequence the revocation of the current salary and the right of the said judge to the enjoyment of a pension under the Judges Act.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to move the motion?

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yes.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the House leaders and I would ask that you seek consent to see if we could revert to the introduction of government bills. It would be the wish of the government to introduce a bill today in the name of the Minister of Finance to provide for the transfer of funds to the provinces, thereby allowing MPs to consult on proposed legislation for one additional day.

In any case, the item in question is slated for the introduction of bills. I would ask that you seek consent for its introduction.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. House leader have the consent of the House to introduce the motion?

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue from where I left off, but I also think it is appropriate to include some of the revelations we gained from the question period.

I will start with the comments of the justice minister, who said that we need to let the current process sort of work itself out. However, it is important for us all to note, those watching and listening today as well as members opposite, that section 33, the notwithstanding clause, is part of the process. It was there to be used for situations exactly like this where judicial rulings are clearly outside the intent of the legislation. It is part of the process and we have an opportunity in the House today to use that part of the process to protect children.

I thought the other interesting revelation from question period was that the justice minister commented that the current legislation is still working in other parts of Canada. Our question is: What about B.C.? We have children in B.C. We have concerned people in B.C. The pay the same high Canadian taxes that we all do. They are entitled to the same protection that we all are. They are also Canadians. Do we put them at risk and not implement this part of the process? Does that make sense? No, it does not make sense.

The whole issue of trusting the judicial process to address this tragic situation is wrong.

I point to one of my own bills in the House which deals with the pardons that are given to known sexual offenders of children. In this country over 12,000 pardons have been given to sexual offenders. Of that 12,000 over 700 of them have been caught—and there are many others who have not been caught—a second time, even after the pardon. About 400 of those were repeat offenders of children. They were convicted once and they were pardoned. Their records were hidden from the public. They were convicted again, a second time. They were caught a second time.

These are the kinds of things that give a lot of Canadians concern. Without implementing the notwithstanding clause and allowing this type of grievous material to be in the hands of Canadians is of grave concern to all of us.

I close with the argument that championing freedoms and putting the most vulnerable at risk is a mistake. When we cross over the line and put the vulnerable at risk in the cause of freedom we have gone too far. The notwithstanding clause allows us to fix it today. I appeal to every member of the House to vote in support of the motion on the floor today. Let us send a strong endorsement to all Canadians.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Madam Speaker, first, I think the hon. member who just spoke will agree that all members of this place who have spoken thus far and all those who have spoken informally on this issue abhor the issue of child pornography. That is unquestioned and that is not what this debate is about. The debate is about process.

The member has raised the issue of the notwithstanding clause. I think the member may know, possibly not, that invoking section 33(1) of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, would only apply to cases from the date of invocation forward. It would not have any effect whatsoever on the Sharpe decision. Therefore the appeal must go forward and the federal government should participate vigorously in that appeal to uphold the law.

The question, I believe—and the member could clarify this—is whether the current laws of Canada, which were ruled against by the B.C. trial division court, are adequate or whether they need to be amended.

I would like the member to clarify whether he fully understands that the notwithstanding clause does not end the Sharpe decision and that the government must act to ensure that the Sharpe decision is in fact dealt with.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I think I clearly understand the crux of the issue here. The member opposite said that we are all concerned about the grievous effect of child pornography. But then he said that is not the issue. He said the issue has to do with process. I would submit to the House that the issue is the grievous effect. The issue is the victims, the children. The issue is the negative impact on our communities. The issue is all the Canadians who are tarnished by this kind of ruling in our supreme court. The issue is for the House to do everything possible.

We have an opportunity today to send a message to all Canadians and to the courts that the crux of this issue is victims and we are not going to stand for it any more in this country.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Madam Speaker, certainly I share the concern that has been voiced by all members of the House with respect to the decision of Justice Shaw and I strongly support the decision of the B.C. attorney general to appeal and welcome the decision of the federal government to seek an expedited hearing and intervene.

I want to ask the hon. member from Calgary to respond to two concerns that have been raised. The first concern is with respect to the issue of the distinction between the use of materials in which children are being used to produce the materials, in which the images of children are being used in child pornography. Certainly there is no question whatsoever that is repugnant and the possession of that material must be dealt with.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association and others have suggested a distinction between that on the one hand and materials which may be written materials, materials which do not involve the use of children in their production. I want to ask the hon. member how he responds to the suggestion that there should be a distinction between those two.

Second, I ask him to respond to the concern that many have raised that by calling for immediate action, as the amendment of the Reform Party does now, the only immediate action that will pre-empt the courts is bringing in a law now with the notwithstanding clause and in effect that would be conceding that this law is unconstitutional and that rather we should support an expedited appeal. Should that appeal be unsuccessful then certainly we could give consideration to the avenue suggested by the official opposition.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I think the issue of trying to determine which material is appropriate and which material is not really is splitting hairs. What we are really debating today is this case and the details of this case. We know what material was involved in this case. The ruling on this case is what has incensed Canadians, I am glad to see, right across this country. It is the details and the material that was so offensive to so many of us that necessitated us to take some action, and I am glad to say members on all sides of the House to take some action, to eliminate or to address this material in a proactive manner.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Reg Alcock LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

I have worked with young children for the first two decades of my working life. When I was a student in high school in Winnipeg I used to volunteer downtown in what we called the community development centres then. I went on to work as child care worker with kids who were by all accounts victims to some of the activities that we heard reference to today. During part of my career as the director of child welfare in Manitoba I had the privilege of being part of a group of people who wrote the 1985 child and family services act in Manitoba.

I had a chance then to work with some of the leaders in this country in the area of child abuse, one of which was Dr. Charlie Fergusson who is known throughout Canada as the exposer of it, a person who, back when no one would talk about this horrible stain in our communities, would talk about it. Charlie kept confronting people with the fact that in our communities children were being treated in these horribly abusive and very destructive ways.

Much of my work was trying to help the victims of child abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse, recover and put their lives back together, to think it through and come to terms with the very terrible experiences they had.

The member from Burnaby asked a member from the Reform Party whether there was a distinction between one kind of child pornography and another.

While I have some appreciation for the arguments that are made by civil libertarians around the general issue of sexual freedom and sexual exploration, I think a legitimate concern is raised when we try to repress too forcefully certain information or certain discussion.

We do as a community draw a line between acts that involve adults and acts that involve children. I have no difficulty with drawing that line. I have no difficulty standing against all kinds of child pornography, all depictions of sexual acts with children.

We as a country have said for a long time that children have and deserve special status, and because of their extra vulnerability we as a country will protect them. I do not think there is a person in this House, despite the rhetoric that has gone down in the last two hours, who truly believes otherwise.

I end up being somewhat saddened to find myself standing one more time on the floor of the House debating a motion that has been brought forward by the Reform Party, in the fullness of virtue and goodness and to proclaim its righteousness, which is simply a kind of cheap political ploy to try to put people on the spot, to try to pick at people's differences and to try to make people feel uncomfortable on what is an extremely important and sensitive issue.

This is an issue that this country would not even have recognized 25 or 30 years ago when I first started to work. One could not even talk about the fact that young girls were being sexually abused by their fathers or by men, who still have difficulty getting laws that make it a criminal act for a man to have sex with a child. Do we debate these things or hear about these things?

What we see from the official opposition is this desire to run in this House in front of the latest outrage in the community and demand all sorts of actions.

The fundamental problem I have with that is that it is not unlike any other lynch mob every time we are outraged by what goes on in the community. If we are to do our job as legislators, if we are to provide the kind of leadership the country expects and deserves from this House and from the system of laws and justice that we have built, then we owe everyone in this country calm, quiet deliberation. We owe it to ourselves and everyone else to let the process work.

The fact is a mistake was made. I believe this judge has ruled in error and I believe that ruling should be overturned as quickly as possible. I also believe there is a process in place for that. There is an appeal process in place and the government has agreed to expedite that appeal. We have reflected our concern about the issues that lie at the heart of this debate.

Beyond that, this is little more than an attempt to grab a headline. I am saddened that we would use an issue that is so fundamentally important to the lives of young children for that purpose.

There are a lot of things that happen in this country on a daily and weekly basis that we do not like such as someone who drives drunk through a stop sign and kills somebody. We are all emotional about those issues and we all hate them. I have two young daughters, four months old and six years old. The thought of this repulses me. However, I also owe it to them to not do what we did in days of old and run down the street with our torches and hang the first person who comes into sight.

We have a system of law and justice that allows us as a country to reflect on these issues and move in a judicious, careful and responsible manner. All we are saying here is that process exists.

Frankly I am also a little saddened by the image of the judiciary that is constantly brought up in this House by members of the Reform Party. I have worked with the judiciary and have sat in these courts many times on these kinds of issues and have watched the judges and the prosecutors struggle with this. I think our court system in Canada serves us very well. When the judiciary does things which calls its wisdom into question it also has mechanisms to correct itself. When it cannot, we should act. If we reach that point on this case or any other, we will act. But we should do it with the kind of judicious consideration, the kind of bringing to bear our intelligence on those issues that produces a solution, not simply to pander to the momentary emotion that we all feel when confronted with an outrageous and despicable crime against anyone in this community.

I would, as I have often done in this House, urge the Reform Party to be a little cautious, take a deep breath. When it comes forward with debate, bring it forward having reflected on it, having thought about the consequences, having thought about the end point.

Does the Reform Party really want us to be using the notwithstanding clause every time the federal government is offended by something that happens somewhere in the provinces? Is that its goal in this? Does the Reform Party want us to be running around every time, immediately upon an action taken that we do not like? Or does it want us to respect the law? We are the law makers. Does the Reform Party want us to respect the laws we create and hold ourselves accountable to?

I am splitting my time with another member.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, the previous speech demonstrates the real problem we have in this House. There is an attempt to appear reasonable but the inaction is unconscionable.

I am not trying to grab headlines. What would really grab the headlines right now is if these Liberals would reverse their position and act responsibly with regard to this matter.

What is the primary question at stake here? Is pornography, particularly child pornography, a concern? Does it have a negative impact on society, especially in B.C., at this moment? Yes, it does. Does it put people at risk at this moment if we do not act? Yes, it does. Does pornography have a useful place in society? No, I do not think it has.

What this member has to answer is should we maintain laws against it. Yes, we should. If there is a gap in those laws because of what court decision has come down, we must act immediately.

To be accused to fearmongering and all the other accusations that have come across here is completely counterproductive. If we see a problem developing in society, we must accept responsibility and we must act on that. That is what we are trying to do right now. We appeal to those members opposite to consider what we have to say. I cannot believe those members opposite would downplay the seriousness of this issue or not take it responsibly.

It is wrong to simply push this on to the courts. The courts are wrong and we need to act immediately. Parliament sends signals to society. Parliament sends signals as to what is right and what is wrong. We need to send the correct signal right now. We are the highest court in the land and it is about time we took that responsibility.

Do lower courts make mistakes? Yes. That is why we have higher courts. We need to act now in this place. Child pornography needs to be kept a crime. What could ever motivate us not to act? That would be my question for the member opposite. What would motivate us not to act right now?

Pedophiles are walking free at this moment. Decisions have come down. The police are no longer pursuing this because of the court decision. This is serious because this lack of enforcement is already having a very negative effect. Should we not be acting as soon as possible, right now?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member when he began his remarks said that he did not want to do anything to inflame the debate, that he was not here to fan the fires. The member then says that today in B.C. pedophiles are walking free because of this law. That is absolute nonsense. Take it on face. This is a law that made it illegal to possess child pornography. The person was accused of the possession of child pornography. It is not a good thing. It is a bad thing. I said that many times. Members on this side of the House have said that. Let me put it very clearly for members opposite. Members on this side of the House have risen over and over and over—

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

An hon. member

Don't be patronizing.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

I will be as patronizing as you are. You should learn to come forward just once in the House with a substantive argument and stop playing these silly kinds of games.

It is absolutely unbelievable that they come forward into the House, puff themselves up, pretend they are the defenders of righteousness and justice, and then make statements like that.

When the member rose he talked about inaction. What inaction? The Attorney General of British Columbia appealed the case immediately. Our justice department expedited the process.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Derrek Konrad Reform Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know whether the member is in order to be saying you and speaking in the first person to members on this side of the House.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I remind the member to address his remarks through the Chair.