Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the motion because I am having some difficulty reconciling the motion that is before the House and the petition signed by about 75 members of the Liberal caucus. The motion reads:
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).
This was signed by 75 members of the Liberal caucus. We ask that the government not wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to be heard but immediately act in the defence of Canada's children. The undersigned Liberal members of parliament recommend that strong new child pornography legislation be introduced as soon as the House resumes. We ask also that we consider the use of the notwithstanding clause or other equivalent effective measures to send a clear message that the charter of rights will never again be used to defend the sexual abuse of Canada's children.
It would appear that the resolution today and the letter signed by 75 members of the Liberal caucus are asking for the same thing.
The Minister of Justice is about to speak; I understand she is the next speaker. She will speak against the motion. In effect she will speak against the wishes of 75 members of her own caucus.
How does the previous speaker view this? Does he view it as hypocrisy? Does he view this as members of parliament—