Debates of Feb. 2nd, 1999

Library Of Parliament

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the parliamentary librarian for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1998.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I have the pleasure of presenting this morning.

The first is 41 pages of petitions with the signatures of 923 concerned Canadians from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, B.C. and my home province of Saskatchewan. For those who are keeping track, that is a total of 12,841 signatures of people who are demanding better protection of property rights in federal law.

These concerned Canadians say that there are no provisions in the charter of rights and freedoms that prevent the government from taking their lawfully acquired and legally owned property without compensation. The petitioners are most concerned that there is nothing in the charter which restricts the government in any way from passing laws which prohibit the ownership, use and enjoyment of their private property or reduces the value of their property.

The petitioners request parliament to support my private member's bill which would strengthen the protection of property rights in federal law by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am pleased to present contains the signatures of 289 concerned Canadians who are calling on parliament to retain section 43 of the Criminal Code which affirms the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs.

The petitioners express concern that parliament continues to fund research by people who advocate its removal. The petitioners also feel that removing section 43 would give more power to bureaucrats and weaken the role of parents. The petitioners want parents to retain the primary right of raising and disciplining their children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present an important petition on behalf of 216 residents of Kamsack, Saskatchewan who are concerned that freedom of choice in health care is becoming increasingly curtailed and threatened by government legislation.

The petitioners are calling for access to safe, natural health care products free of government restriction and censure. The petitioners want the definition of food to include dietary supplements in foods used for special health uses and that dietary supplements include tablets, capsules, powders and liquids that contain any of these vitamins, minerals, amino acids, herbs or other botanicals, concentrates or extracts. Only foods that are proven to be unsafe or fraudulently promoted be restricted and the burden of proof be on the government.

The petitioners want their concerns expressed that health choices will be limited.

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

Mr. Speaker, the last two petitions are on behalf of 1,458 Canadians from coast to coast who are concerned about the rights of the unborn. They request that parliament support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.

I have the privilege of presenting these names to be added to the many thousands who have expressed their concerns not only for the unborn but for the women who undergo medically unnecessary abortions and expose themselves to the health risks inherent in this procedure.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition from constituents concerned about nuclear weapons in the world. They are no doubt pleased at the modest progress this House has made in this regard.

The petitioners point out that the continued existence of over 30,000 nuclear weapons poses a threat to the very existence of civilization and all humanities combined, hopes for ourselves and our children. Canada although with the capacity to build nuclear weapons has rejected that option and in so doing recognizes the futility of nuclear weapons. They pray and petition that parliament support the goal of abolition of nuclear weapons on our earth by Canada advocating the immediate dealerting of all nuclear devices and that Canada join the nations of the new agenda coalition and advocate within NATO that nuclear weapons have no militarily useful role and that additional financial support be allocated to Russia to ensure the safe and secure disarmament of its nuclear arsenal.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of my constituents. They basically say their taxes are too high and pray that parliament reduce taxation, specially abolishing the GST, no more taxes on taxes, and reduce all taxes by 20%.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by many grandparents across the country asking parliament to ask the government to amend the Divorce Act to include the provision as supported in Bill C-340 regarding the right of grandparent access to or custody of their grandchildren.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

moved:

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); and

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, and with the consent of the House Leaders, when a Minister of the Crown in proposing a motion for first reading of a Bill, states that the Bill is in response to this resolution, the second reading stage and subsequent stages of the Bill may be considered in the same sitting, including Committee of the Whole.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that members of the Reform Party will be dividing their time throughout today's debate.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this motion today strikes I believe at the very moral fibre of this nation. I think we are trying to correct and at least get politicians in the House of Commons to acknowledge their responsibilities to uphold that moral fibre. That is what we will be talking about all day.

Some of my colleagues will be talking about the legalistic terms involved in this issue. Some of us will be bringing the issue closer to home.

I would ask that the government listen to the speeches that are made on this issue today and act. That is what we are looking.

This motion is asking for immediate legislative measures; not next year, not in six months, not action in courts, but immediate legislative measures. We ask that we reinstate a law which already existed that made it illegal to possess child pornography. We are not recreating a law, we are really establishing that moral fibre which already exists, even if that entails invoking the notwithstanding aspect of our charter of rights and freedoms and our whole Constitution.

One might ask why it is necessary that the Reform Party take a day in the House of Commons to try to get a government which has a full majority mandate in the country to do what is right in the first place, what was already illegal in the country and to correct what has been made wrong by the eyes of one court session, one judge in the country. Why is it that the judiciary and the legal industry are rewriting and seem to be even creating the laws of our country within the courtrooms, and it is not done here in the House of Commons?

I do not believe that parents or anybody in this country understand what is going on. Have we completely in the House of Commons vacated our responsibility as those who make laws? Have we passed it over to the courtrooms? Is that what this all about?

Most people in this country today feel that the laws are not made in the House, but that they are made by people out there. They are made by those who are getting paid to take sides on issues, and that is incorrect. We have to re-establish tonight at a vote in the House of Commons at 5:30 p.m. the authority of the House of Commons. It is time for all of us to stand in the House tonight to say that the possession of child pornography is illegal.

One might think that this is the first time this has come up in the country, but it is not. I have been speaking on this issue for several years.

In February 1996 a Port Hardy, B.C. provincial court judge, Brian Sanderson, gave 57 year old Vernon Logan an absolute discharge. I spoke about that in the House some time ago. Even though Logan pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, the judge said “The law banning child pornography violates the charter of rights because it is an infringement of one's freedom of thought, belief or opinion as unfettered access to reading materials necessary to exercise those freedoms”.

I do not understand how we have gone from this court case to yet another court case and now, subsequent to the latest issue in a courtroom in British Columbia, we have other courts saying that the possession of child pornography looks like it is okay. “It is legal today, so we will let that go”.

We have established an unprecedented criteria for the possession and production of child pornography. A person cannot possess child pornography unless it is produced. We must understand the consequences of those decisions.

This is not a time for politicians to walk away from their responsibility and once again ask the lawyers and judges of our country to do the job that we do not have the courage to do. It is time tonight to make that decision.

I think and I know that parents think this because our phones have been ringing off the hook: People are concerned that we condone something that is immoral. It is against all family values of all types, all sorts. It is something that cannot occur in this country.

If people can believe this, after that decision was made several pedophiles in the United States were communicating back and forth on the Internet. One of the comments on the Internet was “I would rather live in Canada than the United States and love children”. That comment was between two pedophiles who were talking to each other on the Internet. Is that what we want Canada to be known as, a place where pedophiles can come and love children and read pornography because it is legal? Is that what the Liberal government wants for our country? I do not think so.

If it were only the Reform Party the government might say “There they go again. We should liberalize our social fibre. The Reform Party does not like it”. However, I happen to know that the opposition parties are going to support the vote tonight. I happen to have 63 names from the other side who have asked the Prime Minister to petition to change the legislation re-establishing that child pornography is illegal. One of those members is the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, who won a by-election and who also voted against his constituency on the hepatitis C issue.

We will see tonight where individuals like that stand. Do they stand for sending a letter quietly to the Prime Minister, saying that he has to change the laws, but when they stand to be counted on national television in front of everybody they will do what they are told to do? This is not about whipping the machinery of a political party into place, this is about standing up for the moral fibre of our country.

Let me tell the House what some other people think. Here are some quotes: “It is frustrating when you try to work in a system that does not support what you are doing. It sends a message to the kids that society thinks child pornography is okay”. That came from Shana Chetner, youth counsellor at the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Services. She is not a politician, but somebody who works with people who have suffered as a result activities that are supported by child pornography.

Detective Bob Matthews, head of the child porn unit of the Ontario Provincial Police said “The law criminalizing possession is crucial when it comes to finding child pornographers. Removing that part of the law would be devastating to police. That is what we use to get most search warrants, and the only way we can search for evidence of selling and distributing”.

Matthews also said “I cannot get my mind around how someone can say there is nothing wrong with the possession of child pornography. It always looks different when it is somebody else's child, but let a member of your family have that happen, let it be your child who has been violated to the extreme, knowing that some pedophile has been masturbating to a picture of your son or daughter being violated to such an extent. Tell me there is no harm in that”.

I speak as a son, a father and on behalf of all the citizens of Langley—Abbotsford, British Columbia. I want to vote tonight on this issue. Tomorrow I want legislation in the House expressly forbidding the possession of child pornography. Why does this government and all members not stand tonight to be accounted for?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Langley—Abbotsford has been an outspoken critic of the judiciary when it seems to take leave of its senses and bypasses what the expressed intent of parliament has been all along, which was to pass a judgment on the rightness or wrongness of the possession of child pornography. In other words, parliament has stepped up to the batter's box and said that it is wrong to possess child pornography. It is not just the fact that a filthy magazine is in their hands, it is the fact that children's lives have been ruined. People have been devastated to the extreme in order to create the trash that the pedophile is using. It is not just a matter of the magazine in their hands, it is the people who have been abused in order to get those sick photographs and information into those people's hands.

Parliament has wisely said that that will not be tolerated in this country. Somebody has to step up to protect the kids. The law of the land has to do it. That gives parents the backing they need to say they are not going to take it and they are not going to accept it because it is not in their frame of reference.

The member for Langley—Abbotsford has been critical in times past about the judiciary. In a sense the judiciary uses its own notwithstanding clause. It says that notwithstanding what parliament has done it will interpret this as just an expression of thought and will permit this stuff to be distributed. Once it is distributed, once there is a market for it, and once it can be disseminated to those sick people, then there is a market to abuse children. It is an absolute licence to say “You get the photos. I have the magazine to print them in and I can find sickos, not just in Canada but around the world, who are eager to snap this stuff up”.

I would like the member for Langley—Abbotsford to expand on the role of the judiciary and, in a sense, the abuse that some of the judiciary, not all, have taken up with this activist role.

This does not only apply to the judiciary, it also applies to human rights commissioners, people who are unelected, unaccountable, who are on a salary and who take a position brought forward by an advocacy group and say “I will champion this cause on your behalf”. It is not just the judges. The commissioners and the tribunals in this country have said “Parliament be damned. We will set the laws around here”.

I would like the member for Langley—Abbotsford to comment on his experience in dealing with tribunals, commissions, judges and other rulings that I think have mocked parliament and have lowered the esteem of parliament. Increasingly Canadians are asking “What is the point? That place is irrelevant because the judges will do as they darn well please”. I would like the hon. member to comment on his experience because I know he has done a lot of work in that area.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I have spent a lot of time in that area. I have spent a good deal of my political time in courtrooms and in prisons attending parole board hearings. Just last week I spent a whole day with a victim of child sexual abuse. An individual got two years, if we can believe it, for sexually abusing a young girl from the age of 10 through 18. I was in the room talking to her. This guy was trying to get out early.

What I do not want to hear today or tonight is the justice minister saying “Oh, we are going to look after it. We are going to bring in a bunch of lawyers from the federal government to intervene on an appeal court case which could last a year or more”. Meanwhile, we still have the same problem out there and we could still end up with the very same decision that was made in British Columbia. That is the problem.

There should be no more legal industry involved in this. We in this House have a responsibility and an obligation to the voters, to everybody in Canada, to stand and say that child pornography is illegal and that no other court case will overturn that decision. That is the bottom line.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party today has presented parliament with an opportunity. The motion we introduced today is a compelling one. It is a call for the reinstatement of the morals and values that we hold dear. The motion is a clarion call for common sense, and we emphasize the urgency of the situation.

The B.C. supreme court decision that made possession of child pornography no longer illegal was an affront to our sensitivities and values. It was, as some characterized it, condoning child abuse and manipulation of the innocent.

Even the Liberal Party talking points acknowledged that children are the most vulnerable members of society. The notes go on to say that the Liberal position is clear, and never more so than against the exploitation inherent in the possession, production and distribution of child pornography.

With this statement I know the Reform Party can count on our Liberal colleagues to support our motion to reinstate the law that was debased by Justice Shaw's decision, even if it entails invoking section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which is better known as the notwithstanding clause.

If the government truly believes what it put in its speaking notes it will not wait for the B.C. court of appeal to rule, let alone wait for the supreme court to rule. We all know that could take a year. It is just too urgent to let this immoral decision stand for even another day. The consequences are just too stark and too frightening.

In fact one British Columbia judge has just thrown out one child pornography possession case because of Judge Shaw's ill founded, intemperate decision. Another 40 child pornography possession cases are on the books of British Columbia. Across Canada there could be hundreds which are in jeopardy, but even the fact this one case was thrown out because of this case is the reason we in parliament are debating the issue today.

Surely the government knowing this would not want to give licence to individuals to deal in this very sick behaviour. The government must know what this type of material incites. Does it want to give licence to pedophiles? I do not think so.

Section 163(1), clause 4, of the Criminal Code is clear. Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of an indictable offence. Judge Shaw's ruling that freedom of expression would be violated because of personal possession is an expression of that person's essential self and subsequently his invocation of the charter is offensive, negligent, deficient, abusive of children and begs for overriding by the notwithstanding clause.

Anyone in a sensible frame of mind with a scintilla of decency and values knows child pornography is harmful. Clinical study by medical experts conclude that child pornography is harmful. In fact some pedophiles show it to children to make the conduct appear normal. It is known to excite some child molesters to commit offences, and the bottom line is that children are abused in making this kind of material. It is an affront to our dignity and to all our human rights. Surely this mockery of the charter by this judge is enough to shake the government out of its lethargy.

Justice Shaw based his judgment on two articles on the issue of child pornography, one dated 1987 and the other 1988. In effect, Justice Shaw assimilated this complex medical psychological issue by reading two articles, listening to two witnesses, and he became an expert. Come on. We all know he is certainly not an expert on this issue.

Justice Shaw's distinction of highly erotic and mildly erotic was based on one paragraph from data done in 1974 and 1977. It is downright incomprehensible to think a judge could exhibit such a lack of attention to detail and studies. It is even more incomprehensible, in fact reprehensible, that this judge is not accountable for such irresponsible behaviour. Has no one every told him the community standards theory? Many judges over the years have used the community standards theory to override the charter.

Judge Shaw invokes the charter which ostensibly gave more rights to a person who likes child porn than to the child it debases. That is the crux of the motion today and the reason it is so urgent. I will say that again. He gave more rights to the person who likes child porn than he gave to the child who is abused in making it. Everyone in the House has to agree that is very sick and something we should not stand for in Canada.

What our motion does is give parliament a chance to tell this judge that we do not like his decision, that we have community standards and we do not like child porn. Parliament has the power. Let us use it today. Using the charter as the judge did is weak and inexcusable. Even in the Zundel case the court acknowledged that not all expression is equally worth protection. Did Judge Shaw that into account? Does Judge Shaw really think child porn is worthy of protection? Certainly he does in his decision.

Judge Shaw, in his weighing process, decided that the deleterious effects outweighed the salutary effects so the limitation on freedom of expression was not saved. In sum, he dismissed salutary effects like abuse of children and making pornography, incitement of some pedophiles to commit offences, and advocacy of the commission of sexual offences. Is that not in and of itself to limit the freedom of expression?

Judge Shaw's decision has made it open season for pedophiles to play on children and for the proliferation of child pornography. It jeopardizes hundreds of child pornography cases before the courts. As I mentioned earlier, one case has already been thrown out. A person walked free because of this decision.

It behoves us to immediately invoke the notwithstanding clause and thereby assure Canadians that possession of this type of material is still a crime in Canada. We must send a message to the type of people who use this material and to pedophiles that we find them despicable parasites which we will not tolerate.

People like Mr. Sharpe are probably watching this debate today. I saw him on TV after he was let go by Judge Shaw flouting it in our faces saying it was his right to do this, that it is his right to like young little boys. He is a despicable person and anybody like him is despicable, and we should not have any laws in the the country that allow him to get away with that.

I will talk about a petition I received signed by 70 Liberals on the other side. There are a lot of names we know well on this petition including my friend from Port Moody—Coquitlam. They signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to immediately solve the problem. Immediate does not mean next month or the month after. Immediate means today or yesterday if we could have done it.

We followed the rules of the House. Our party brought the motion today at the first possible time we could. I would have hoped the government would have done it sooner. I heard the minister say that the questions yesterday were silly. It was very offensive to me and I think offensive to most Canadians that the Minister of Justice would talk about this as being something silly. Mr. Sharpe is not somebody silly.

I had another case in British Columbia that was dismissed because of this case. That is not silly. We have to solve this problem today.

The government has the power to set our morale standards back on track. I urge the government to support the motion. It is what all Canadians want. I urge those Canadians who are watching the debate today to go to the blue pages, phone their members of parliament right now and tell their offices that they want them to vote for the motion today.

This is an important decision we will make today. It is time parliament took back control of the courts. Let us make the laws so the judges do not have any decisions in these matters. It is in the books that this is an offence. Let us make it an offence and send them to jail for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. Let us demand it for this ugly miserable offence. I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “take” the word “immediate”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The debate is therefore on the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast on his speech and the points he brought forward. I want him to comment on what I believe is a fundamental right. I would like his views.

Justice Shaw could have used section 1 of the charter to limit the rights of freedom of expression. He could have ruled that the rights of children not to be exploited sexually are far more important than the rights of pedophiles to view disgusting, disgraceful and obscene material. However he chose not to. That was his tool. Our only tool is section 33, the notwithstanding clause. I believe silence is consent. If we do not invoke section 33 we will be reinforcing his decision. It is the only tool we have to actively voice our objection to this ruling.

I would like the member's comments about the use of section 33. If we do not, we will be abrogating our responsibility by not acting or by silence. Silence is consent; we would be in fact approving it. I would like the member's comments with respect to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, Judge Shaw's ruling that freedom of expression would be violated because of personal possession is unbelievable. As the member just stated, section 1 of the charter allows a judge in a case like I mentioned earlier with the Zundel case to invoke that section and sentence the individual, no matter what right the offender has. This is a heinous crime against society and children.

Let me tell Canadians what the sentence for possession of child pornography is under the Criminal Code. It states that every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an offence punishable on summary conviction. Sentences are much greater in areas such as the making of child pornography.

Justice Shaw has chosen not to use section 1 of the charter. He has chosen not to say that the crime is so heinous the other side of it for possession is not good enough. He did not do that. Yet he should have and other judges have done it in the past.

We are telling parliament to fix this law. Let us use the notwithstanding clause, section 33, which was included in the charter to give parliament that power. Section 33 gives every member of the House the right to take on the charter and say it is not good enough for Canada and it is not good enough for Canadians. That is what every member of the House has to do.

I am not a lawyer. We are very lucky in the House to have non-lawyers and lawyers. However we have read it and we have talked to some of the top lawyers in Canada. They have told us that we can insert the notwithstanding clause under this crime by a simple vote in the House today. As I said yesterday—and I will say it many times again—when the House wants to do something it gets it done. When we wanted a pay raise it took 15 minutes, all stages of the bill; everything went through.

This is a terrible issue. My colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to get something done immediately on this issue as 69 other Liberals did. Let us do it immediately. Let us pass the motion today. Let us do it right now. If I were to move that we vote right now to pass the motion we would save a lot of debate. Let us get it done now. Canadians want it done. We want people like Mr. Shaw to know that Canadians do not respect him, that parliament does not respect him, nor should they.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, on January 15 a ruling was released by a trial level judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia striking down the prohibition in the Criminal Code against the possession of child pornography. It sparked an intense national debate. Since that day, a day has not gone by when most of us have not been confronted with someone's deep felt emotion on the matter, be it in print, in the media, in our offices here and at home, in the House, on the streets or elsewhere.

The decision has provoked strong reactions. It is difficult to understand why someone would decide that it should not be a crime to possess materials which represent the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. On the other hand, the type of rhetoric from the Reform Party is the fearmongering that has taken place in the House over and over again, saying that pedophiles are running amok in the country, that they are running loose so we should shut our children away. This is not the type of debate that should take place in the House.

When the minister made the comment about silly, it was on those remarks alone and not on the issues that were being debated in this House.

The type of mob mentality that is being fueled by the Reform Party in B.C. is not the type of judicial system we want in this country. Respect for the judiciary is one of the fundamental frameworks of what our democracy is all about.

While that decision had a major impact in terms of the reaction among Canadians, a large number of people do not realize that, at this point in time, the legal repercussions are limited.

Except for British Columbia, where that decision is only binding on provincial court judges, the act prohibiting the simple possession of child pornography still remains in force. In all other parts of Canada, and contrary to what hon. members have said in this House, it is illegal to have this kind of material in one's possession.

Most people find the idea that possession of child pornography could be legal in any part of the country for even a short period of time unacceptable. We share the distressing feeling that this material not only represents child sexual abuse and exploitation, but is also used in an attempt to convince the most vulnerable that it is all right to engage in sexual activities with adults.

Those who abuse and exploit children often make use of visual material such as child pornography to desensitize young people and to encourage them to perform certain acts by making them believe that their peers have taken part in similar acts.

It was to dissuade and prevent such abuse and exploitation that prohibitions specifically aimed at child pornography were proclaimed into force a number of years ago. While the Criminal Code definition of obscenity in section 163 was interpreted in the 1992 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Butler case to include pornography that involves the use of children, determined action was nevertheless taken by parliament to target the market for these materials.

In 1993, offences were introduced which were subject to greater penalties than those existing at the time. The new offence of simple possession was included in recognition of the underground nature of the market and the need to attack the problem at its base level: the individual who creates or trades in child pornography for his personal use.

These amendments to the laws on child pornography were unanimously supported by this House. The ruling which sparked this debate is now the subject of an appeal by the Attorney General of British Columbia to the court of appeal in that province. He has requested that this matter be dealt with expeditiously.

At the federal level, the Minister of Justice has announced that in her role as Attorney General of Canada she is seeking leave to intervene in the matter which is clearly an issue of national importance. We did act immediately. The government has stressed that it supports this legislation, that it believes it is constitutionally sound, and that it will fight to ensure that it is upheld.

Obviously, we want this matter to be solved as quickly as possible. We must, however, acknowledge that the court appeal process is the appropriate approach to take. The purpose of this system is to allow decisions to be reviewed when questions of law or of fact are in dispute.

I understand why other approaches have been suggested, particularly the taking of immediate steps to reinstate the legislation banning the possession of child pornography, which was struck down by this decision, but only in British Columbia. I do not, however, believe we should take that route.

If we believe our current legislation is valid, no steps ought to be taken which could harm that position.

The necessary steps have been taken to see that it is remedied as quickly as possible. Other than in British Columbia—and I did say this at the beginning of my speech but I will repeat it—where this decision is binding upon the provincial court judges, the law prohibiting the simple possession of child pornography remains in force. It is illegal everywhere in Canada to possess these materials.

None of the cases across Canada outside of B.C. is in jeopardy at this time. The ruling is only binding on provincial court judges in B.C. Elsewhere cases continue to be investigated and will proceed before the courts.

Even in B.C. law enforcement continues to work on these cases. In other jurisdictions the law prohibiting possession continues to be in force as in the past. As I said, fearmongering is not going to solve this problem.

In the interim, we in this House can declare our support for the current laws against child pornography found in section 163.1 of the Criminal Code as well as our support for those at the front lines, at our borders, in our communities and in our courtrooms who work unfailingly to see that these laws are enforced and continue to remain in force.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member stated that it is mere rhetoric coming from the Reform Party and that we have no respect for our justice system.

I want to tell the parliamentary secretary that I am an officer of the court and I have the highest respect for our justice system. My father was a judge in this country for 25 years and I have learned to respect our justice system.

That does not mean it is infallible. That does not mean it is perfect. We cannot abrogate our responsibility. There is nothing stopping us today from acting. We have a duty to protect citizens right across the country.

The parliamentary secretary has insulted every Canadian by referring to this issue as mere rhetoric. It is a disgrace. We are here speaking for every Canadian on this issue.

Why does the parliamentary secretary believe that she cannot do anything in this House, she cannot stand up, that does not preclude this process from going through the appeal? We in the Reform Party absolutely believe that this decision has to be appealed. Yes, there is a man who walked out of court free. We believe that should be appealed. He should be brought back before the courts. The courts should overturn that decision and hold him accountable and send him to jail. His actions are not acceptable.

That does not stop us from acting now. Canadians should not be forced to wait six months, a year, or a year and a half for some type of action while this issue sits, while we wait for interveners. Will all the provinces come on board?

We do not have to wait. We have a tool that was made available for us to use. Why is the Government of Canada afraid to use that tool? It is so painfully simple. I am going to read section 33 of the Constitution:

Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an act of parliament or the legislature as the case may be, that the act of a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or section 7 to 15 of this charter.

That is exactly what we are dealing with here. We have an opportunity to put the rights of the innocent, the most vulnerable in our society, the defenceless, our children, ahead of those of the sick-minded pedophiles who use and want to possess this child pornography.

How is that rhetoric? That is straight fact. It does not preclude us from the appeal process. We support the appeal process. We must do that. It does not hamper it in any way. We reinforce it by putting our point on the record.

Why is the member not prepared to support the appeal process as opposed to sitting back and being silent?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands proved my point about the rhetoric once more.

As far as acting, I do not think there is any monopoly in this House on the other side in what is morally right. There is no monopoly whatsoever on who will protect the most defenceless in our society.

There is a law. We have intervened in a decision that was made in a B.C. provincial court. I will repeat what I said because I want all Canadians to understand this. The law does stand. The law will be respected everywhere in this country, once the decision is rendered in terms of the appeal process in B.C., on which we will continue to intervene. We did act. Elsewhere in this country law enforcement officers will continue to arrest anyone who possesses child pornography.

Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code will be respected in this country despite the rhetoric on the other side.

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

Mr. Speaker, like the members who spoke before me, when I read the decision by Mr. Justice Shaw of British Columbia regarding child pornography, I was very surprised.

What surprised me was that a well-educated judge living in a society that tolerates some things but not others, an adult member of that society, could interpret a piece of legislation as he did. I was very surprised by the judge's interpretation of the legislation and by his intellectual contortion of certain provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is no small matter. It is a very serious one. I can understand that parliamentarians would wish to sit down and look at what is not working in this legislation.

I do not wish to go over all the ground again, because I think the House has been well informed. I merely wish to recall, as other members have done before me, the provisions of sections 163.1(3) and 163.1(4) which we are examining, specifically the mere possession of child pornography, which is an offence under these sections.

The individual was charged and the police officers conducted a search. What they found in his apartment was serious: 14 boxes of child pornography. There was enough to wonder if he was intending to sell it, which was probably why he was charged under section 163.1(3).

What did he rely on in his defence? He relied on section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which talks about the fundamental freedoms of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression and so on. He even relied on the equality provisions in section 15 of the Charter.

That was his right. The Charter gives him that right. We live in a free and democratic society, with rights and obligations, and he had the right to use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a defence. It was, in fact, the only defence open to him, given the material found in his apartment.

I think that the crown did what it had to do. It tried to demonstrate that, even if the freedom of expression as guaranteed by the charter had been violated, such violation was justified in a free and democratic society. That is what section 1 states; the section 1 test, for those who have some knowledge of these inner workings, is what they tried to demonstrate before the judge.

What is important to note in order to understand what happened next is the case made by the crown in this matter. The crown called in experts.

One of the witnesses, a female detective with the Vancouver police—which also explains why the section was adopted in 1993 or 1994—testified that the Internet led to a surge in the availability of child pornography. She said that indictments for simple possession enable the police to obtain search warrants, which help identify pedophiles.

Why did the lawmaker provide for that? Simply because the lawmaker knew about it. Evidence has been heard from various people, including psychiatrists. These professionals were invited by the crown to testify in this matter. According to an expert in this field, every study done on the behaviour of these deviant men and women—primarily men in the case of pedophilia—shows that child pornography is a danger to children. He gave very compelling evidence to that effect.

The point was made that child pornography may encourage pedophiles to commit sexual abuse. I think that this borders dangerously on the test under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, one of the judges who heard the evidence came to a different conclusion. Justice Shaw ruled that it had not been clearly demonstrated that child pornography caused direct injury. I do not know on what planet this judge lives, but this was his ruling.

However, I think his interpretation of the legislation in his decision was fairly twisted. He did note the following “Explicit pornography involving children entails a certain risk to the children because of the use pedophiles might make of it”. This is no mean observation. But it did not prevent him from reaching a different conclusion.

He also said “Children are abused in the production of pornographic films”. That is obvious. In a video of acts adults commit with children, the child is being abused. The proof is clear. In addition there are people behind the cameras and in the room doing the filming and then there are maniacs who buy these films and watch them. Clearly the child has been abused.

The judge stated that there was no proof there would be less production of pornographic films if simple possession of this type of material were criminalized. I think the judge made a mistake with the evidence I saw in the decision. I think this finding was proven wrong.

The judge mentioned that “freedom of expression plays an important role in this matter. An individual's personal effects assume the person's particular character, their personality. A ban on simple possession acts on a very intimate part and interferes with an individual's right to privacy”. According to his point of view, this is hugely important.

I think this is where the judge himself went awry. There is one route he should not have taken—and that is when he weighed the pros and cons of all this. I think the judge really erred in law in his assessment.

The judge added that “—an important aspect of every person's right to privacy is the ability to enjoy that freedom in one's own home”. I fully agree with that view. In this case, the police went to Mr. Sharpe's home to seize his collection of material, which was presumed to be of a pornographic nature. Indeed, 14 boxes of pornographic material were seized.

To violate a person's freedom of expression and right to privacy is a serious matter. The prohibition of possession applies to any person, including those who use pornographic material in a dangerous manner, and they may be collectors of such material, regardless of their interests. However, these people are not necessarily dangerous. And, given the evidence heard by the court, it is not obvious that he is right.

In balancing these views, the judge concluded that the first test of the charter of rights was not met and that the individual had to be acquitted.

I think that decision is totally wrong and that we in this House must do something.

The first step is to support the official opposition's motion, as it is worded in the Order Paper. I agree with the wording used by the Reform Party. However, I do not agree with the amendment it moved and the inclusion of the word “immediately”. I cannot agree with the inclusion of that word. Therefore, I will vote against the amendment to the motion, but I will support the main motion, since we are part of a process. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice regarding the section of the act that was invalidated by the judge. It is true that the act is currently not in effect in British Columbia.

But this does not prevent the police from doing their job. This does not prevent the crown prosecutors from continuing to examine cases, prepare them and so forth. Let us wait and see how the Court of Appeal judges rule. Let us wait for their reaction to what they have just heard, for they are members of society too. They are aware that the lawmakers in the House of Commons find this trial level decision unacceptable.

I am convinced that right-thinking judges, judges with solid legal training, Appeal Court judges who know how to listen to what is going on, will overturn this trial level decision. We will probably not have the opportunity or the need to go as far as invoking the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the Charter.

However, and I will close with this, should the Court of Appeal uphold the trial level decision, that will be the time for lawmakers, for members of Parliament, to unite and invoke the notwithstanding clause. I think that it is premature to do so today.