Debates of Feb. 2nd, 1999

Supply

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his excellent speech and the background he gave us on the situation.

If I understand correctly, he is saying that we are having this debate prematurely. What really ought to be occurring is that we should wait until the appeal courts hear this case. As the member suggests, in all probability they will throw it out and we will not have to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

Perhaps what the Reform Party ought to do is reconsider the motives for bringing this debate forward to the House at this time and that it ought to have been postponed until we saw due process in the courts. At this time I expect that every member in the House would support invoking the notwithstanding clause if by the rarest of chance the appeal court upheld this abominable decision. However, I do not think it is going to happen. I suggest the member is really supporting what the parliamentary secretary said in her speech.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has understood what I was driving at, except for one point. I believe the Reform Party has acted properly in calling for this debate in the House. It is not premature to consider the matter. This is in fact the right time to do so in order to send a very clear message to all those listening: that the House of Commons shares the view of Canadians and Quebeckers that child pornography is reprehensible.

This was the time to act in order to send this message. But I am unable to agree to the immediate use of the notwithstanding clause, because an appeal is under way. Furthermore, the federal government has applied for intervenor status in this case, a move I fully support. I am convinced that the Canadian consensus will be heard, that the motion, as written, will be adopted by the House of Commons. I believe that the message will be clear enough. It will not be necessary to invoke the notwithstanding clause. There is still time to take that route, should it become necessary to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too commend the member for his speech and the detailed analysis of this decision. He said it was premature at this time.

Until the court of appeal rules on this decision there is no protection in British Columbia. We have already seen a provincial court decision where it has followed Justice Shaw who said we are bound to. It is absolutely true that they are. The provincial courts in British Columbia are bound to follow this decision.

There is a five year limitation. Under the notwithstanding section in the charter we could put our own limitation period on it.

I would like to ask the member if he believes that as an interim measure, until the court of appeal has ruled, we could offer protection for British Columbians today by putting in a one year or a two year limitation period or whatever we think will be necessary until this has gone through the court of appeal. As we have seen the past, the court of appeal can drag on for months and into years depending on how many interveners and how many delays there are.

Does the member not support using the notwithstanding clause now as an interim measure to give British Columbia the protection it needs until we see where the court of appeal is and then we can readdress it at that time if we need to?

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think children in B.C., like all children across Canada, are still protected by this legislation. It has been declared invalid by a court at the trial level, therefore it is inoperative, but it still exists.

When I was a law student, I remember that certain provisions were constitutional, in terms of the distributions of powers or whatever, even if they had been declared inoperative by courts at lower levels. So long as the final court of appeal did not make the decision, the law continued to be applied as if nothing had changed. It concerned the distribution of powers that Quebec was calling for. Therefore, an inoperative provision is still applicable.

I think that, in B.C., unless I am mistaken, and that can be checked, crown prosecutors and politicians, especially, will still be able to work to protect children, to build cases or whatever. If the crown has everything it needs to take legal proceedings, it can still do so, subject to the final decision in appeal.

Here again, given the importance of this issue, I am sure the appeal court judges will do everything in their power to expedite the matter and hear the case quickly and especially to reach a decision as soon as they can.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion today and indicate the support of the NDP caucus for the motion moved by our Reform Party colleagues.

I think we should acknowledge that yesterday the House did speak with one voice on a motion that was supported by all parties which expressed the continuing confidence of the House in that section of the Criminal Code which was found to be unconstitutional in the case we are discussing. So it is not as if the House of Commons has not already spoken on this.

However, what we have before us today, thanks to the Reform Party, is an opportunity to actually speak to this issue and to express our views. Yesterday there was only a vote with no debate. Today we have a chance to express the collective outrage of members of parliament and of Canadians in general at this judgment. It is not just outrage, it is bewilderment. In this case as in some others, I think Canadians are increasingly bewildered by some of the judgments they see coming out of the courts and this is certainly one of those cases.

What we all want to make clear here today, each in our own way, the NDP by supporting the motion, is that in this country the rights of children not to be sexually exploited or sexually abused will always trump the rights of individuals to any form of freedom of expression which involves the use of child pornography which has been produced through the use of children.

In every case we want this right of children to trump whatever rights may be seen to be enshrined in the charter or understood by some to be enshrined in the charter. I can tell the House as one who was here, and there are fewer and fewer of us all the time who voted for the charter at that time, that when we voted for the charter of rights and freedoms, we did not vote for the right of people to possess child pornography. That was not the intent of parliament at that time. It has never been the intent of parliament, either when it voted for the charter of rights and freedoms or particularly when it voted for that section of the criminal code.

I think it is important for parliament to reassert its intention both with respect to the charter and with respect to that section of the criminal code.

I want to say for the record that on January 27, my leader, the member for Halifax, wrote to the Minister of Justice. I will read part of the letter: “In ruling that the criminal code prohibition on the possession of child pornography is unconstitutional, the court has exposed children to appalling dangers of sexual abuse and exploitation in the production of child pornography. Canadians are rightly horrified that a court could interpret the charter of rights in such a way as to deny the rights of children to be protected from sexual exploitation”. The letter goes on to give a commitment on behalf of the NDP that we would support whatever legislative action is necessary to ensure children are protected from sexual exploitation by child pornography.

I have to be honest with my Reform colleagues and say we have some misgivings about the amendment which could be interpreted as calling for the immediate implementation of section 33 or the notwithstanding clause. We liked in the original motion the timing of whatever it is, because again the motion is unclear. It just talks about legislative measures and then says even if it requires section 33, so it does not require the use of section. Given that the motion itself is unclear, what is to happen immediately? Is it some other legislative measure or is it the invocation of section 33? We felt that there was wisdom in the original motion which would have permitted a united front at least here in the opposition, even if the government did not see the wisdom of voting for the motion.

But we now see that at least one opposition party has expressed concerns about the amendment. We have some ourselves and we will have to decide how we are actually going to treat the amendment when it comes to a vote. I just want to be perfectly honest about this and say we have some concerns about the amendment because it may well be that with the expedited appeal, et cetera, we might have an early judgment in this case. I am sure members would agree with me that it would be better if it could happen quickly for the law to be found constitutional.

The problem with invoking section 33 immediately, if that is what this motion came to be interpreted as, because as I say the motion is not clear about that, is in some respects it gives far too much respect to the judgment of Justice Shaw in finding that section of the criminal code to be unconstitutional. Why would we want to, or at least we should ask ourselves this question, act in such a way as to say that yes, the finding of that section of the criminal code as unconstitutional is in some ways definitive and therefore we have to use the notwithstanding clause, because the notwithstanding clause is there for when things are found in the final analysis to be unconstitutional and parliament says that in spite of that, notwithstanding that, we want this to happen in any event. So there are some concerns there about the motion or at least about the amendment.

What needs to happen here today, and I think the government has failed so far to make this clear, is not when specifically parliament is going to act and in what way it is going to act, whether it is through the invocation of section 33 or by some other legislative measure undefined in the motion, but what needs to be made clear today is that parliament will act. The government has yet to make a statement. One of the backbenchers seemed to allude to it. The parliamentary secretary did not say, unless I missed it, that the government is committed to bringing in the notwithstanding clause or acting in some other decisive legislative way should this decision of Justice Shaw be upheld in the courts. If the government were willing to say that, it seems to me it could save itself a lot of time instead of appearing to want to hang on to the legal process to the exclusion of the political process. If the government were willing to say “We have this respect for the legal process and we feel that it should unfold in the following way, but we want to make clear that should the legal process not produce an outcome which protects children and which upholds that section of the Criminal Code which has been struck down by Judge Shaw that parliament will act and it will act under the leadership of the government”.

The government has not made it clear that it intends to provide that leadership. Until it does it stands open to criticism. I invite the government to speak to that. That is really what I think Canadians want to know. They want to know from their politicians that we are not just willing to sit back and say this is a matter for the courts and that it will always be a matter for the courts and that we do not really want to get involved.

Canadians want us to be involved and they want to know that their politicians and their parliamentarians are in a position to and willing to assert their values over the values of the courts when those values being asserted by the courts are found to be so out of whack with ordinary everyday common moral sense, which holds that child pornography is wrong, that the possession of it is wrong and that people who are in possession of it should be open to prosecution on the basis of this particular section of the Criminal Code which has been found wrongly to be unconstitutional by this judge.

There is really no need to say a lot more about where we stand on this. We stand with the entire Canadian population it seems to me in wanting parliament to say something and to commit to doing something should this judgment not be eliminated in the course of the days to come. Canadians also want a commitment I think from the government that if the legal process turns out to be a long drawn out one that the government would have the freedom to act and not have to wait until the final legal act. That is where the whole question of timing comes in.

I do not think it would be good to bind us that we would have to wait until the end or bind us that we have to act tomorrow, but give ourselves some flexibility.

I could go on and say something more generally about the emerging problem of judicial activism versus parliamentary intent and parliamentary supremacy but my time has run out.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members of the House would not disagree with the sentiments expressed by the member with regard to the so-called trump or the right of children, and the rights of children will always be placed ahead of the rights of others to possess child pornography or indeed to have a freedom of expression.

My question for the member has to do with the proposition he raised about the government declaring at this moment that it is committed to using the notwithstanding clause at any moment. The member has been here some time. I wonder if he might want to reconsider the sentiment in terms of the optics to the courts with regard to a virtual threat to undermine the court process if it does not follow a particular course. It does smack a bit of coercion on behalf of the government if that were the case.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would not say it smacks of coercion. I would say it smacks of parliamentary supremacy which is what the notwithstanding clause is all about and one of the reasons why I voted for the charter at that time.

Others were very concerned about the notwithstanding clause. There was division between political parties and within political parties about the value or the rightfulness of the notwithstanding clause. Certainly at the time I thought the notwithstanding clause was a good thing.

I would not want to see it be used frivolously or often. It should not be regarded as the legal or political equivalent of the nuclear deterrent, never used. It should be used and certainly it seems to me that the government should make clear in this case that this is something it is prepared to use should it feel necessary.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of government is to maintain law and order, to protect those people who cannot protect themselves, to protect the citizens of Canada and to provide for our peace and safety.

We have people walking free who are committing criminal, despicable acts offensive to most Canadians. We need to punish criminal behaviour. Our children cannot protect themselves. Our citizens, men and women and children, are at risk because of this judge's decision.

We have given more rights to those who want to use child pornography than to children who will be—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

If the hon. member has a question, would he put it right now, please.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my primary concern is that pornography is having a very negative effect. We are the highest court in the land and as that highest court in the land, do we not have an obligation to send a signal to the lower courts that something needs—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have already made my sentiments clear on what the hon. member is raising.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his remarks. The analogy of nuclear deterrent is a very good one.

Would there be support in his party, and I do not want to characterize this as a halfway measure, for the initiative by this government to send this question directly to the Supreme Court of Canada where it is not taken immediately out of the hands of the court system? We should encourage faith in our system and give Supreme Court of Canada judges an opportunity to rule again on this issue. I say again because there already has been direction from the supreme court on this issue. Would the hon. member and his party support that initiative which was asked of the Minister of Justice yesterday?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have not taken a position on whether the suggestion made by the hon. member yesterday in the House would be the preferable course of action.

I take his point that this is another way in which the government, if it wanted to, could show it was committed to having this dealt with as fast as possible so that there was not the possibility of apparently already manifesting itself.

Enforcement and police action carries on. There is the possibility we might for a period of some months or perhaps even longer be in a situation where people are getting off in some places because of this judgment, particularly in B.C.

This would be another way the government could expedite matters, not just by asking for an expedited appeal but by coming to the conclusion that this thing will probably end up in the supreme court anyway. I do not know if that is the right conclusion. I do not know enough about the system to know whether this is destined for the supreme court or not. I do not claim to have that kind of expertise.

If the government feels this is something that will end up in the supreme court in any event, and it is in a better position to know that than I am, then it certainly should consider what the hon. member is suggesting.

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague the member for Shefford not only for her remarks but also for her earlier intervention. Yesterday she put before the House of Commons a motion which received unanimous consent and which basically affirmed and reassured Canadians that section 163 of the Criminal Code is something this House of Commons respects.

She put very bluntly before the House the question that needs to be asked and that is, when is the government going to take a proactive approach to this? This is not something we should be waiting for. We should not be sitting on our heels waiting for the B.C. Court of Appeal to rule again, perhaps incorrectly. That matter will be decided.

This is something where the Minister of Justice and the government must intervene quickly. Pornography, particularly child pornography, has to been seen as a rot or a rust on the morals of this country.

Does the hon. member not feel that the quickness and the need for intervention for the protection of our most vulnerable citizens, children, is not something that would warrant the government to move on quickly, either through a supreme court reference or through the motion that is presently before the House?

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his comments.

I agree with him that we cannot delay an appeal, because delays are involved and criminals are obtaining pornographic material in the meantime, and it is the children that are paying the price. Therefore, I agree we should go right to the Supreme Court and do everything in our power to help these children.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to commend the speaker from the Progressive Conservative Party for a fine job.

I have heard in this debate, and certainly not from this member, what I consider to be a very dangerous phrase, which is that simple possession is not dangerous. I would like to hear the member's viewpoint on this. Some 41 years ago I was involved in cases where they ignored a very serious situation and I can show the House the results today. Nobody can persuade me that simple possession is not dangerous.

I would like to hear the member's comment on that.

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to reassure my colleague. Although I said that, I did not necessarily want to, because I think simple possession is dangerous.

If there are child porn consumers, there will always be people to produce it. We must charge consumers so as to discourage people from producing child pornography. If there were no consumers, there would be no producers.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member's opinion on the fact that the government has in effect taken very extraordinary measures to make intervention to the B.C. court. That is extraordinary in terms of legal steps. What I would like to see is something extraordinary along the lines of political action because that is what our job is here in this House.

If it were any other issue rather than the vulnerability of our children being exposed to pornography, I would be satisfied with the steps the government has taken, but we are talking about the most vulnerable in our society. As a social worker, I have dealt with many children who have been abused. The abuse is bad enough but photographing it, dispensing it and selling it is truly horrifying. Many pedophiles use these pictures to get themselves all worked up; they use them as a warm up for the real event.

The government absolutely must take extraordinary action in the political realm so that there is never a question that we support in any sense photographs that are taken of children who are abused.

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite get my colleague's intervention. I missed the beginning, but I agree with the end of it. Indeed, political measures must be taken to prevent people from producing child pornography and arrest producers.

As I said earlier, if there were no consumers of pornographic material, it would mean the end of those producing it.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the issue of child pornography.

A recent case decision in my home province of British Columbia has attracted considerable attention. It has also produced predictable outrage from Canadians from every part of the country.

For the record, I wrote to the Minister of Justice on January 21, mere days after the ruling, suggesting that she not wait for the appellate court but to get amending legislation before parliament as quickly as possible.

Some speakers to today's official opposition supply day motion may not have had time to review the specific case which has caused such a concern. I will take a couple of moments to briefly outline the situation.

The case is still before the courts. The accused was facing four charges relating to child pornography: two charges of being in possession for the purpose of distribution or sale and two charges for being in simple possession.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia only dismissed the two charges of simple possession. As such that is essentially the only issue under appeal. The accused still faces his remaining charges and they are scheduled for this month. On the issue of the two charges of simple possession, I will briefly highlight the essential elements of this debate.

As has often been stated, tough cases make tough law. Others might state that bad cases make bad law. In the case at issue the crown conceded that section 163.1(4), possession of child pornography, violated the guarantee of freedom of expression set out in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The only real argument before the Supreme Court of British Columbia was whether the violation of section 2(b) was saved by section 1 of the charter, that is, that the infringement is a reasonable limit prescribed by law which is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Of course the reason for all the hullabaloo over this case and the cause of why today we are debating this issue is that the justice of the B.C. supreme court decided that the possession of child pornography law was not a reasonable violation of the right to freedom of expression in that instance.

With the greatest of respect to the particular justice of the B.C. supreme court, I would have to disagree with his position, but that is beside the point. The problem has been presented and we have to address it.

The Minister of Justice has taken the position that she will just join the province in the appeal. That is not good enough. The Minister of Justice has a second title. She is the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. She has already made public statements indicating her preparedness to act within her role as Attorney General of Canada. She plans to join the attempt to uphold the constitutionality of section 163.1(4) and this is as it should be.

As the attorney general she is responsible for safeguarding the interests of the crown within existing laws. Part of that duty is the protection of our laws. In all fairness the minister is doing that.

Her other role is to consider and address the legality of government legislation, and I would suggest that in that area she is abdicating her responsibility.

I have great difficulty with the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia justice, but it really does not matter how anyone interprets or views that case. The issue is that now we are confronted with a serious problem. What can be done to ensure that the laws against the possession of child pornography are able to withstand a charter challenge based on the rights to privacy and freedom of expression?

With respect, I belief the basic definition of child pornography within the Criminal Code is too broad. A number of comments from the legal profession have also raised this interpretation.

An example of this is the definition which appears at section 163.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, which states:

Any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years that would be an offence under this act...

There are a number of questions concerning that part of the definition. Why does it say any written material? What advocates or counsels? Why a person under the age of 18? Does the inclusion of 17 year olds detract from our attempts to protect children? How does the written material have to correlate with the sexual activity of a child?

By allowing a child to read Lady Chatterley's Lover by D. H. Lawrence, does that meet this definition if that child is encouraged by the writing to end up having sexual activity with an adult who provided the writing?

These are all difficulties to be reviewed and analyzed in interpreting our present law.

With respect, even if we are able to overturn the B.C. supreme court case at some court of appeal level, these problems can still resurface to once again shake the system.

That is why on January 21 I wrote to the minister to encourage her to immediately bring amending legislation for the sake of the safety of our children. We must protect our next generation from these predators; from the degradation, the pain and suffering they endure from being objectified and used to provide adult sexual gratification or fantasy.

I understand that on January 26 approximately 70 members of the Liberal backbench also urged her to introduce strong child pornography legislation and I appreciate the Liberal support for my proposal. I understand that the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam was among them. I am sure the folks back home will be watching at 5.30 this evening.

Obviously, so far the minister appears to only pay attention to the cabinet or the Prime Minister. When this case first gained attention the minister stated that she would wait until the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada before she would become involved. It was only when the public outrage spread to her ministerial colleagues that she was forced to change her mind and join in the appeal before the B.C. court of appeal.

Perhaps after today she can be persuaded to change her mind again and decide to introduce the necessary legislation. I would hope so.

Another reason for the minister to show leadership in this matter is the state of flux within our justice system until the matter is resolved in months or, more realistically, in years by our courts. The minister is well aware that there are approximately 40 possession cases before the courts of British Columbia that are in limbo. She is also aware that the courts are already dismissing charges as a result of the present ruling. I cited one such case from my own constituency in my letter to her. She is likely aware that other provinces will have a number of similar situations.

Pedophile websites on the Internet are alive with suggestions that their clientele target British Columbia.

I also note the comments from various police agencies and customs offices. They have admitted to confusion. They are looking for help, but there has been no guidance from the minister. I can just imagine the hesitation of our enforcement personnel to investigate or proceed with charges due to the almost certain likelihood that they will eventually be thrown out of court. I can also imagine our crown prosecutors being most hesitant to proceed with possession charges.

I just read this morning that the crown is seeking to postpone one case in Delta, B.C. I am sure that as we speak many defence lawyers are boning up on their Askov arguments, should these cases ever eventually proceed through our courts. For those unfamiliar with Askov, it is the supreme court ruling that deals with the length of time to trial. We already have a child molester who walked free in British Columbia because it took 17 months to get him to court.

Unfortunately we do not see a lot of leadership here. The government merely chooses to react. The Liberal mantra of “Don't worry; be happy” resonates through this Chamber again.

To summarize, we have a court case stating that an individual's right to personal privacy and enjoyment of freedom to personally express private interest in the possession of child pornography must be protected. The judge stated at paragraph 50 of his decision:

In my opinion, the detrimental effects substantially outweigh the salutary effects. The intrusion into freedom of expression and the right to privacy is so profound that it is not outweighed by the limited beneficial effects of the prohibition.

Privacy is one thing, but reasonable intrusions or exceptions to absolute privacy is another.

I will refer to some comments made by law professor Kathleen Mahoney who is an expert in child pornography cases. She refers to the psychological and physical trauma to the victims as being profound. She states:

The nature of a good portion of child pornography requires the rape of a child, ranging from six months of age to 15 or 16 years of age. These children are shown drugged, in pain often, and there have been babies submitted to sexual acts with adults. The damage does not end when the filming stops. Every time (the pornography) is shown, that child is injured in its dignity, its reputation, its identity. The harm is multiplied several times. The child is offended against time and time again.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to help and protect these victims, the most vulnerable members of our society. As parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, this is not a time for politics. It is a time for doing what is right for Canada's children.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his excellent speech.

This topic was discussed last Sunday afternoon on CBC Radio's Cross Canada Check-Up . Two callers suggested that we should lower the age of consent in the relevant clause. They said that there was nothing wrong with the possession of such material and that exploiting or involving children was actually good for them. There are people like that out there.

What would my hon. colleague say in response to a comment like that if he were on the other end of the telephone line?

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I were at the other end of that telephone line my response would be very unparliamentary.

There is really no argument here. These children are put through such degradation in order to provide this kind of material to people who have such a fetish. For them to argue that we should reduce the age of consent is a whole other issue. Many people, especially those in my part of the country, have been arguing that we should raise the age of consent to deal with child prostitution.

Again, the only comment I could make would probably be unparliamentary, so I will not make it in response to that question.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. This issue is clearly not a partisan issue. It unites not only members of this House, but all Canadians against something that is clearly offensive. It is offensive to the sense of values of Canadians. If a society cannot protect the innocence of childhood, it is not a very sound society. We have to be very careful and vigilant in this House to uphold the law.

Section 163.1(4) was introduced in 1993 by the Progressive Conservative justice minister Pierre Blais. I believe that every member of this House remains committed to the principles of that law. This is clearly an area in which we need to put aside partisanship and do what is right to protect the children of our country.

The member is an expert on victims' rights and the challenges they face. Could he give me his perspective on how difficult it is for children who come forward after having been sexually abused, sometimes decades before? How difficult is it within the current system for them to have their rights recognized and supported?

Pedophelia or sexual child abuse is closely related to child pornography. I would completely differ with anyone who would argue otherwise. I would like to hear his feedback because he has a significant understanding of victims' rights, which is a very important issue as well.