Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the member some of the facts I have received from a person in my riding of Peterborough.
He says: “This is to express my alarm at the present proposal being debated in parliament to use the notwithstanding clause to override the charter of rights with respect to the current concern over a judicial decision in British Columbia concerning the child pornography law”.
His concern is threefold. One concern is that the notwithstanding clause was not developed in order to have the federal parliament override the charter. It was, as we know, a compromise to accommodate some of the provinces. If the federal parliament were to use it, it would set a precedent that could undermine the charter by permitting political tampering whenever there was a volatile issue such as the one raised at the current moment.
Second, the person in my riding says, as jurors have pointed out, that the child pornography law is flawed and it should be left to the supreme court to comment on it and then for parliament to amend it in the light of intelligent, informed, judicial discussion.
This person says he is not a lawyer but he is quite familiar with this area. This is grassroots comment which the Reform Party is constantly referring to. He is not a lawyer. He is familiar with this area. He says it should be left with the supreme court.
Third, he said that using such extraordinary powers to satisfy a momentary outcry of ethical panic would lead the Canadian government to fall prey to what has infected the United States in what one of its leading constitutional lawyers, Harvard professor Allan Dershowitz has dubbed “sexual McCarthyism”. It might be well to remember that in the McCarthy era of U.S. history we in Canada had a similar tendency that manifested itself in such an embarrassing moment of history as the Taschereau-Kellock commission report which led to the demonization of such innocent individuals who had made great contributions to Canada such as John Grierson.
He points out “While many of your constituents may press for the use of this notwithstanding clause, at the moment this is the time for statesmanship to take precedence over the politics of panic guided by the media and the Reform Party”.
I would be glad if the member would comment on the comments of one of my constituents in Peterborough, a person who is following this debate.