Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate throughout the day with great interest and I must say with some puzzlement. Several Reform members have suggested that members on this side of the House give greater importance to freedom of expression than to the protection of children. It is quite the opposite and I would appreciate the member's comments on what I am about to say.
This parliament has very clearly passed legislation that says the importance of protecting our children supersedes the individual rights to freedom of expression. The Constitution of this country allows us to do that.
The Reform Party in its motion today seems to be accepting the judgment of the British Columbia court, that in fact we have gone too far, that we do not have the right to impose that limit on freedom. The Reform Party wants us to accept that judgment and say we have to override the charter of rights and freedoms to protect the legislation.
The legislation is a very legitimate and necessary limitation on personal freedom because there is no greater obligation of this parliament than the protection of our children, especially from this kind of abuse. That is why I want to go into court and I want to demonstrate clearly that this parliament does have the right to limit personal freedom for the greater good of protecting our children. That is why I am not prepared to accept the judgment of that judge and to say now I have to act in accordance with his judgment and overrule the charter so that this law can prevail.
I ask the member also to comment on what would happen if we now say that we have to overrule the charter because we accept that the judge was right, this exceeds the charter and the only way of making it valid is to overrule the charter. Then every lawyer whose client has been convicted of possession of pornography would have the right to go back into court and say “Parliament has overridden the charter, which did not exist when my client was convicted, therefore my client should be freed because the law was unconstitutional and parliament has admitted it”.