Mr. Speaker, we have to answer one very simple question: Why are we here today? We have to decide if possession of child pornography— materials that sexually exploit children, the weakest, the most vulnerable and defenceless in our society—is a crime in Canada. That is the only question that we have to answer today.
I have no doubt in my mind that every member of this House was as appalled by Justice Shaw's ruling as I was. They were appalled that he did not invoke section 1 of the charter. When one reads section 163 of the Criminal Code it is painfully simple. I do not think it could be written any clearer.
Justice Shaw had a choice. He did not have to rule that it was not illegal to possess child pornographic material in Canada, pictures of naked, sexually exploited children; he could have invoked section 1 of the charter. What does that do?
Section 1 is an option that the courts can use in charter arguments where there is an infringement on one's rights, where the protection or the rights of the children are paramount to that of the individual. The rights of innocent children, society's rights, are more important than those of the pedophile who chooses to look at kiddie porn, that disgusting and despicable material. Everybody here would agree with that.
Justice Shaw chose not to use section 1. We as parliamentarians cannot use section 1. We do not have that option. Section 1 is only an option for the courts. There is a parallel option that we have use for, which is section 33, the notwithstanding clause. If one looks at both sections they virtually do the same thing, except the courts cannot use section 33. Only the legislatures and the parliaments can. That is our only tool to voice our objection. If we feel that the infringement on the rights of the individual is so great, we can limit the rights under the charter of the individual or the criminal.
In this case all we are asking parliament to do is to act today in a non-partisan way. I am not trying to fill this up with rhetoric. The notwithstanding clause is very clear. I know the parliamentary secretary is as proud as I am at this decision. She loves children as much as I do and defends them just as everybody else does in this parliament. I do not have a doubt in my mind that we have a duty, an obligation to act right now.
That does not preclude the courts from acting or stopping the appeal process. It does not show any disrespect to the courts. It demonstrates the tools that we have, that we will use them and that we will take a stand. We find this to be so appalling that we are going to act immediately.
The notwithstanding clause has a limitation period. When we invoke this section we could even put in it for a year until the courts decide and we could revisit it if we need to. This does not preclude the B.C. court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada.
I would like to comment at this time on the Progressive Conservative suggestion to move it right to the Supreme Court of Canada. I agree. We should expedite it in every way we can, but we must invoke the notwithstanding clause today, immediately, to protect the children of British Columbia.
It will be said that they are protected as the law stands. However in case No. 2 a man walked out the back door of the courtroom. It was not out the door with the sheriff to the cells but out the back door as a free man who uses kiddie porn. The people of British Columbia deserve to be protected right now.
We know that this could go on for six, twelve or eighteen months. I know they have requested immediate action, for it to be expedited, but as we have seen in recent decisions interveners come in, other provinces come in, advocacy groups come in, there are delays, and it goes on and on. Every Canadian has heard or knows of personal stories of delays in our justice system.
We absolutely have to put partisan politics aside. This is not about the Reform Party. This is not about the Liberal Party or the Progressive Conservative Party. It is about the protection of children. That is what our interests are.
I beg all members of the House to support the motion. I stand here to state on record that it shows no disrespect for our justice system. I am the biggest defender of it as an officer of the court. My father was a judge in British Columbia for 25 years. He has just recently retired. I will stand to say that I have the utmost and the highest respect for the justice system in the country. That does not mean there is not a hole in it, that there is something in there on which we have to intervene. This is our only tool.
I will not complicate the matter with all the issues of the decision because we all know it is a problem, a disgrace, et cetera. However I will leave hon. members with one thought which I would like them to seriously consider.
Members have all said in private discussions that it is an absolute disgrace, appalling, shameful and everything else that Justice Shaw did not use section 1 in his decision to rule that it is a crime in Canada to possess child pornography. We will be cast in that same light because the only tool we have is section 33. If we do not act, we are put in the same light that we did not have the guts to stand in the House and use that clause to protect children.
The notwithstanding clause has been used before. It has been used in Saskatchewan. It is in the appeal process. At the end of the day the Supreme Court of Canada in fact ruled the law was valid. In that case it was back to work legislation, but the law was saved by the notwithstanding clause. We can do the same thing. We absolutely have to do it.
I ask every member of the House tonight to leave partisan politics aside, to elevate above Justice Shaw's decision and to use the only tool that we can. The only tool we have is section 33. Some will argue other legislation or to enact a new law. If we read section 163 it is painfully clear. Other members have read it. We could not make it any clearer.
The Minister of Justice says to wait and see what the courts decide. That appeal could run its course. We all agree it should be appealed. We all agree that this man should be brought back before the courts. He should be convicted. He should be sent to jail, but that does not preclude us from doing something today, right now.
I will leave hon. members with one thought. Section 33 is the tool we have. Section 1 is the tool Justice Shaw had and he chose not to use it. If we choose not to use section 33 we are no different from what he is. Our consent will be reinforcing that possession of child pornography is not a crime in Canada. We must act.