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.