Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with anything the hon. member said. I agree that the rights of children must supersede other rights. Children have no way of protecting themselves. It is up to us to protect them.
Here is what the section says as far as defences are concerned.
Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3) or (4), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit--
The problem is that the chief justice of Canada in her decision in R. v. Sharpe said:
I conclude that “artistic merit” should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art. Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence.
That is plain nonsense. It is a loophole we never intended when we passed the section. It lowers the bar so low an ant could jump over it. We must fix it in the House of Commons, and the sooner the better.