Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering an opposition motion to the effect that the government has failed to deliver criminal justice programs and laws which reflect the will and concerns of the majority of Canadians and as a consequence has put individual safety and in some case cases national security in jeopardy.
This is a useful and constructive motion to put before the House. It provides an opportunity for all sides to comment on various aspects of the criminal justice system. Some referred to specific cases where they felt the laws had allowed certain judgments to occur which were not in the best interest of Canadians, and others highlighted some of the initiatives taken on behalf of the Government of Canada and on behalf of the Parliament of Canada to continue to be vigilant with regard to issues related to criminal justice and to strengthening it over time.
Many issues have been raised by members. I want to concentrate my comments on the issue of child pornography which seized the House not so long ago with regard to a B.C. court decision. The case against the defendant involving the possession of child pornography was not successful and the judge ruled in favour of the defendant.
That issue is one of the reasons we continue to hear statements or phrases like judge-made law. Members will know that decision affected the laws of Canada as they apply in B.C. It is a decision, however, that the House unanimously concurs was a bad decision. The possession of child pornography and child pornography in its essence are wrong because they must involve child abuse to exist. There was no disagreement in this place.
The debate had to do with how the Government of Canada approaches situations like this one. The opposition put forth a motion in which it suggested that the government should initiate legislation which would reinstate the law. In essence that is what Canadians want. They wanted that decision to be reversed and for the law to be in place and unaffected by that decision.
One critical issue has to do with the mechanisms or the means by which reinstating the law would be effected. The opposition motion suggested a legislative process including enacting section 33(1) of the charter, the so-called notwithstanding clause.
I am not a lawyer. I am not on the justice committee. Therefore I have to rely on others for briefings on information relevant to issues before the House. I had a specific question with regard to the notwithstanding clause which was very important to me in terms of the way I dealt with the issue with my constituents and how I voted in the House.
The media had spun the story that the government basically voted not to do anything. It was alarming to Canadians that somehow the government would not take action when in fact the government did do something.
The options available to the government certainly were to invoke the notwithstanding clause, and there is a debate on when it should be invoked. There was also the option of appealing it directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. Another option was that the government could appeal it to the appeal court of B.C.
When I asked about some of these options it became very clear to me that the notwithstanding clause was not available to be applied retroactively. That was very important for me. If we invoked the notwithstanding clause it would mean that the case which gave rise to the debate in the first place would be unaffected by the decision of parliament. I was concerned that we had this powerful tool but it would not deal with that case, and I assume other cases that were before the courts, and therefore people would slip through the cracks.
The issue of going to the Supreme Court of Canada was another option, which is generally the approach that the Government of Canada through the Parliament of Canada would take.
From discussions I had with the Minister of Justice I understood the supreme court docket had been filled up for some six months and that it would take more than six months at a minimum before the matter could even be considered by that court. To me that would not be swift and strong action on the part of the government.
One thing I asked about, which ultimately came to pass, was the Attorney General of B.C. appealing that decision. The Government of Canada, in a very rare show of support and I guess action, actually announced that it would join in that appeal. Not only was it to join in that appeal in B.C. It was to co-operate in terms of seeking adjournments of any other cases before the courts. It was to continue to support the police in terms of continuing their investigations and the laying of charges as if that decision had not taken place. It was also to support the request that the appeal with regard to the Sharpe case would be heard on a very timely basis.
Canadians should know, if they have not read about it, that the appeal is being heard on April 26 and April 27. It is my view that because of the swiftness in the judicial system it will be dealt with in an appropriate fashion.
With regard to the decision that was made, it concerned me a bit that the defendant went before the trial division and represented himself without a lawyer and won the case against the Attorney General of B.C. I inquired of the people who were in a position to know about how such a thing could happen how the force of the laws of Canada and the strength of our laws with regard to protecting the rights of children could fail when someone is simply defending his right to possess child pornography. It just did not make sense.
It was quite clear to me that somehow or other the case provided on behalf of the office of the attorney general was clearly flawed in some way. The judgment of the court has to be based on the evidence provided to the judge. Although there was some latitude, it would appear that the case was not well argued. For that reason alone it is extremely important to go right back to the appeal of that original case.
As a result of this process I believe the outcome will be that the ruling will be overturned, that Sharpe will be found guilty of possession of child pornography, and that not one case will have slipped through the cracks.
I wanted to raise that case because from the information I got from my constituents and the media reports on what actually happened in the House of Commons in the debate and in the government actions did not fairly reflect the reality that the notwithstanding clause is not retroactively applied and could not have dealt with the situation.
I also want to touch very briefly on two other issues. The first issue concerning impaired driving has been raised by many members. I have long worked with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It has done an excellent job on behalf of Canadians in terms of raising awareness of this very serious situation in Canada. I fully support its changes with regard to initiatives such as lowering the blood alcohol threshold.
The other issue concerns consecutive sentencing. My colleague and neighbour in Mississauga, the member for Mississauga East, has worked very diligently on a file to do with consecutive sentencing. It is a very controversial issue for some, but when looking at the cases and the circumstances it becomes very clear that the issue about whether or not Canada should be considering something like consecutive sentencing as opposed to concurrent sentencing becomes a very relevant and valid debate for this place. I hope this place will have the opportunity to fully deal with the issue. It is an issue Canadians would like to see dealt with in this place.
I have had many conversations with constituents on the Young Offenders Act. I am very pleased that the justice minister brought forward, after extensive consultation with Canadians, more information and proposals for this place to consider. It is an important area for us to deal with. I am very confident that parliament through the House and its committees, et cetera, will ensure that we make the necessary changes to that law to ensure it is an appropriate law for all Canadians.