Debates of March 8th, 1999

Division No. 329

[The Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 22 carried.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that the bill be concurred.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the House would agree I would propose you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea, that is the same Liberal members who voted yea on Motion No. 22.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote no to this motion.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will vote in favour of this motion.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

New Democratic Party will be voting yes, Mr. Speaker.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with the exception of my colleague for Burin—St. George's, who will be voting against it, all Progressive-Conservative members will vote for this motion.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, unfettered by party discipline, I will vote in favour of the bill.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 330

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nation land management, be read the third time and passed.

First Nations Land Management Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-49. The question is on the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 331

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 332

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

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.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we are all concerned with the availability of child pornography in this country. As many have said, it represents evidence of the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and perpetuates the message that they are appropriate sexual partners.

That is why the federal government is intervening in the Sharpe case before the British Columbia Court of Appeal to vigorously defend the constitutionality of our laws which prohibit the possession of child pornography in any form.

We have all had the opportunity in the House to raise our concerns. Unfortunately the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast and other members of his party have been exploiting this issue and misinforming the public as well as fearmongering. This is not a question of pedophiles.

Members will recall at that time the Minister of Justice stressed the importance of respecting the rule of law, particularly where we are privileged to live in a free and democratic country where our Constitution and charter of rights are respected.

I support the minister's views, as do the majority of the members of the House. Attorneys general across the country are still enforcing the law. They are indicating their support for pursuing this matter through the courts. All of us recognize that other more drastic approaches would not be in the best interests of all Canadians.

We know that the Sharpe case has had some impact on British Columbia where it is binding on provincial court judges. However, let us be clear. Contrary to what others in the House have suggested, including the hon. future leader of the so-called united alternative, cases are not being thrown out of the courts. A number of cases scheduled to proceed before these judges are being postponed until after the Sharpe case is heard by the B.C. court of appeal. Let us not forget that the attorney general of British Columbia has indicated that cases continue to be investigated in that province and charges are being laid.

Officials in other provinces are also continuing to enforce the prohibitions against the possession of child pornography. The government is confident that the child pornography legislation is constitutional and will be strongly defending this legislation before the British Columbia Court of Appeal shortly.