Mr. Speaker, on February 12 I asked the Minister of Justice some further questions on what was happening with regard to possession of child pornography in Canada.
In her answer the parliamentary secretary talked about it being before the appeal court, that we had intervened, and that it would be heard on April 26 and April 27. Our argument is that is too long to wait. Every day in the country that someone is in possession of child pornography is one day too long. The government could have stepped in using the charter to make sure that did not happen.
The parliamentary secretary said:
To repeat what I said in the House, the law is still the law of the land. It is only one court in the land that has ruled someone can possess child pornography for personal use but we are going to be appealing. We are awaiting the decision of the court of appeal where we have intervened.
One court of the land has ruled that one can do it. Since the last time I had a chance to ask this question in the House, we had a case in Vernon where a person actually pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. That case was adjourned by the judge because of the situation of this ruling.
We on this side of the House still say that every day is one day too long. If we do not get the right decision on April 26 to 29 on this appeal we could then be waiting a lot longer for a supreme court ruling. That is not good enough.
I quote from the member for Scarborough Southwest in a speech he delivered in the House on May 11, 1993 when debating the issue of pornography and pedophiles:
This is crucially important because the only people who are interested in the possession of child pornography are pedophiles. I would also say it is true that there are very few passive pedophiles, if I can put it that way, those who are prepared to go no further than to look at the pictures.
We also know from various studies that pedophiles prey on children. There are no one-victim pedophiles. In fact most of the studies that have been done show that pedophiles, both heterosexual and homosexual, prey on more than 200 children each in their lifetimes.
In this case we have a government that is prepared to wait. I do not think most Canadians want them to wait.
Quoting again from the member for Scarborough Southwest:
What kind of a country do we have if we do not protect our children from pedophiles? What has our government done about it? It has done absolutely nothing.
Every child depicted is a victim for life. They are scarred forever and those are the people we have to protect in this country.
I could not agree with the member more. Remember this was a bill in 1993 when Liberal government members were in opposition and making these kinds of statements. Now that they are in government they have changed their minds.
He went on:
I do say to the government that in whatever bill it has suddenly discovered is on the legislative agenda it should provide for the broadest possible spectrum of what could be defined as child pornography because I would rather err on the side of protecting child victims than on the side of protecting child pedophiles.
That is why this government should have taken the action it could have taken quite a few weeks ago to make sure that pedophiles in British Columbia cannot possess child pornography.
It always interesting in this House when one finds these speeches written by members such as one by the member for Scarborough Southwest who was in the opposition then and now sits in the government. It is now his government that is allowing pedophiles in Canada to possess child pornography. It is prepared to wait until a judge decides, instead of parliament doing the responsible thing and taking the proper action.