Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important debate. Abhorrence of child pornography is not at issue in this parliament and in Canada. All members of this place agree that it is not acceptable and we will defend the laws of Canada to the fullest extent to defend those principles.
The Parliament of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of the United States have concluded that the use of children to make sex pictures is child abuse, and there are many other precedents.
The fact is, in this place today and in this debate, whether or not child pornography is abhorrent is not at issue. We are in agreement. Let us move on.
I am not a lawyer, but as a member of parliament I have a responsibility to participate as fully as I can in issues that come before this place. To do that I have to seek information to inform myself from other lawyers, from judges, from colleagues and from external sources to determine what the facts are.
I would like to lay out the facts because when I lay out the facts I think members will understand why I will not be supporting the Reform motion before the House today.
On January 20 a letter was written to the Prime Minister on behalf of a large number of members of my caucus.
I point out that as of January 20 the matter had just come to the fore. The government position at that time was, should the issue come before the supreme court, it would defend the laws of Canada. The colleagues who I joined in signing this letter to the Prime Minister felt that it was important that our response be swifter and stronger.
As a result, we made are argument to our caucus colleagues, to the government and to the Prime Minister to ask for consideration on a couple of matters. We asked that we not wait until this matter was appealed to the supreme court. We asked for consideration to be given to possible new legislation if the situation was that the current laws of Canada were not strong enough to defend the social and moral fabric and the values of Canada. We also referenced, and members here have used it constantly today, the use of the notwithstanding clause, section 33(1) of the charter.
It is important for us to have made that point. In the event that no action was taken and there were exacerbating circumstances, creating more cases going before the courts and being frustrated, it would be essential for the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to stop the flow of bad decisions.
Subsequent to this letter, and to the credit of the many members of parliament who signed this letter and the many others who spoke openly to caucus, to the government and to the Prime Minister, the government acted. It acted in these ways.
First, the government took the extraordinary step of intervening in the appeal of the decision to the B.C. court of appeal. It is extraordinary for that to happen. The importance and the significance of this issue has been demonstrated by the government taking that extraordinary step.
The government has also supported the B.C. government in having the appeal decision dealt with on an expedited basis to ensure that it is dealt with as soon as possible.
We have also co-operated in seeking the co-operation of law enforcement authorities to continue all investigations and to continue laying charges under the laws of Canada. They are doing that.
We also are satisfied that adjournments have been sought for the cases currently before the courts so that no other decisions will be taken until such time as the issue presently before the appeal court has been dealt with.
It is very important to understand that the letter which has been referred to so often by the Reform Party was dated January 20 when the position was to deal with the situation when it reached the supreme court. The letter was not written today and a position was not taken today after all of these other points were in place. It is extremely important to understand that we took the actions that were necessary to ensure that this matter is dealt with as expeditiously as possible to ensure that the rights of our children are protected as quickly as possible and as forcefully as possible.
I have seen many legal opinions to date. I am advised basically by the consultations I have made as a member of parliament that the case before the appeal court has strong and very substantial merit.
There are issues that are going to have to be dealt with. It has been suggested that the judge may have been in error in the judgment. It may have been a faulty judgment. It may also have been the crown attorney who did not make substantive enough arguments in defending the constitution of Canada.
We do know that the arguments were made strongly with regard to freedom of expression. But were the arguments made substantively? I think that these are the points which have to be raised at the appeal process.
If the members believe that the current laws of Canada regarding child pornography under the Criminal Code are inadequate and unconstitutional, then we should invoke the notwithstanding clause if we believe they are not constitutional. But that is not the case.
Members have said that they support the laws of Canada. We do. And we are going to continue to support the laws of Canada. If we believe they have to be strengthened, maybe we should have additional measures to strengthen those laws.
However, right now it is plain to me, based on the consultations I have had, that invoking section 33(1) of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, is premature and may in fact constitute either coercion or the undermining of the court system itself. I say that because if we were to invoke the notwithstanding clause today, that invocation would only apply to cases that arose from today forward. It would not be applied retroactively to the Sharpe case which has precipitated this matter. That means that the appeal to the B.C. court of appeal has to proceed.
Let us consider this. If the appeal process takes place and the federal government has already invoked the notwithstanding cause, what is the purpose of the appeal? We have basically said that we do not like the court system, we do not value the courts any more, we do not believe that the laws are being treated properly under our Constitution, we are going to ignore anything that has been said and we have invoked the notwithstanding clause.
That is not the way to defend the laws of Canada. The way to defend the laws of Canada is to deal in the courts with the specific issues that come before the courts.
I believe that we have ample evidence that this was a wrong decision. It was poorly argued, and the laws under the Criminal Code regarding child pornography are in fact constitutional, valid and supportive of the children of Canada.
Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. There is no disagreement in this place. There is no disagreement in Canada that we abhor child pornography because it is child abuse.
I will be voting against this motion because, if I am correct, the motion suggests that we take legislative measures to reinstate the law. One does not take legislative measures to reinstate the law. If the notwithstanding clause is invoked, that is not reinstating the law. The motion before us today is in fact contradictory prima facie. It should be defeated. I encourage all colleagues to look very carefully at a very poor motion that undermines not only the laws of Canada but also the rights of our children.