Lost her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
Child Pornography February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I return to the fact that the government has acted quickly in conjunction with the Attorney General of British Columbia. This matter will be dealt with by the B.C. court of appeal in an expedited manner.
I resent the fact that, because we perhaps choose to adopt a different process than that proffered by the Reform Party, somehow we on this side of the House do not care as much about children.
Child Pornography February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, let me clarify some of the inaccuracies. I would presume the hon. member knows the law in question is constitutional and in full force and effect in nine provinces and two territories.
I presume she also knows that we acted quickly. We have indicated our intention to intervene before the B.C. court of appeal. The B.C. attorney general has indicated his intention to appeal. He is seeking that the case be expedited before the B.C. court of appeal. Indeed we have acted quickly to protect the children of the country.
Supply February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to clarify for the House that in relation to one Mr. Robin Sharpe, there are two other charges pending against this individual, one in relation to production and one in relation to distribution. I therefore would ask that the Reform Party stop spreading misrepresentations in this situation.
Supply February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I should put on the record to clarify it. There are those who wish to misrepresent the situation that presently exists in relation to one Mr. Robin Sharpe who was the subject of the case that has led to the—
Supply February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a number of important points. I must put on record that he asks that I eschew the use of politics. It was not we who played politics with this very important issue of substance on behalf of Canadians. We are debating this today because the Reform Party decided to play politics with an issue of such fundamental importance to Canadians.
We have acted quickly. We have acted in an extraordinary way. My colleague, the Attorney General of British Columbia is asking for this appeal to be expedited. Therefore I have no doubt this matter will be dealt with in a timely fashion, in due course before the courts of the land.
I reiterate a fundamental point. The notwithstanding clause was intended to be used in extraordinary circumstances. It is this government's opinion, shared by the vast majority of former parliamentarians, that section 33 should only be invoked after we receive the advice and guidance of the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada.
Supply February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, all members of this House share with Canadians a common position in this debate, an abhorrence of child pornography.
These materials represent evidence of the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, the most vulnerable members of our society.
It was this common position that led all parties in 1993 to vote unanimously in favour of the legislation that today we are now unanimously compelled to defend. The reasons are simple. Our children are the most vulnerable members of society and we must do all we can to protect children from the harm that flows from the creation and possession of child pornography.
Not only does child pornography serve as a permanent record of the sexual abuse of children, it perpetuates the message that children are appropriate objects of sexual interest. They are not.
That is why this government and I as Minister of Justice believe that the court ruling that limits the state's ability to fight child pornography must be appealed vigorously.
Let me be clear. This government will defend the constitutionality of the legislation with every ounce of energy we possess. That is why we have taken the unusual step to intervene in the appeal launched by the British Columbia attorney general. We are acting immediately. We will not wait for this case to reach the Supreme Court of Canada.
We are mindful of the importance of protecting the rights that have been guaranteed to us under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We respect the need to balance the powers of the state with the rights and liberties of individuals. We also know there are circumstances that demand that some of these freedoms be limited where such limits are reasonably justified in a free and democratic society. Clearly this issue before us is one such circumstance.
Limitations are justified in curtailing the availability of child pornography. This ruling must be challenged. Our government will provide all the necessary assistance we can to the Government of British Columbia in defence of this law. But our common abhorrence for the evil of child pornography must not allow us to either exaggerate the reach of the recent supreme court ruling or lead us to take rash measures whose impact would ultimately not serve the interests of Canadians.
There is no question that the impact of the British Columbia supreme court's decision has been far reaching in the terms of response it has elicited from Canadians. But what many fail to realize is that its legal impact at this point is limited. There is no open season for pedophiles in Canadian society as a result of this decision.
We must all remember that while provincial trial court judges in British Columbia are bound by this recent ruling, it is not legally binding on courts of the same or higher levels in British Columbia or across the country.
Possession of child pornography remains an offence in Canada. Officials in other jurisdictions have indicated that they will continue to vigorously enforce the prohibition against the possession of child pornography in their own jurisdictions as in the past. We applaud and support this decision.
In British Columbia law enforcement personnel are continuing to investigate child pornography cases and crown counsel are seeking adjournments in matters scheduled to proceed before provincial court judges.
There are also many other legal avenues available to police and crown prosecutors across the country to crack down on those who would exploit our children. As parliamentarians we take seriously the responsibility to respond to the concerns of our constituents and to protect those who are often unable to protect themselves.
We have heard the outcry of Canadians. While it is understandable that members of this House might experience a certain degree of frustration in not being able to address the public outcry in response to this case more directly, we must recognize that precipitous action on our part would not only be inappropriate, it would be wrong.
The right to appeal a decision of the trial courts in our country is a fundamental and effective element of our legal system. It is available and we will use it. The judicial process may take time but we will get an answer to this crucial issue from a higher court.
The decisions of trial courts on charter and other issues are appealed every day to the higher courts and then sometimes to the Supreme Court of Canada. The decisions of the lower courts, the trial courts, are frequently overturned by the higher appellate courts and by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Higher courts have not been at all shy to reject charter claims that have previously been upheld by lower courts. They do not shrink from, indeed they feel duty bound to examine the decisions of the lower courts to ensure that they are correct and consistent with the law. That is their job, to ensure that the laws of the land, the charter included, are properly applied by the lower courts. That is the nature of our legal system and as attorney general, I have, and must have, full faith in it.
In the unlikely event that the supreme court were to make a finding with which the government did not agree, we would then explore the possibility of legislative reform. However, we are confident that the strong arguments in defence of the existing legislation can be presented to convince the appellate courts of the constitutionality of these provisions.
Some across the way have suggested we resort to the use of section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause. While I appreciate the sincere and deeply held motivations of some that underlie this request, as Minister of Justice I believe such a move would be wrong and contrary to the long term interests of Canadians.
The use of the notwithstanding clause is a serious matter without precedent at the federal level. I do not believe that it was intended for use except as a measure of last resort, meaning after a decision of the country's highest court. That is why it has been used so rarely.
We should all ask ourselves why this is so. Contrary to what some in the Reform Party might suggest, Canadians and their governments benefit from the guidance and expertise of their courts. By allowing this case to make its way through normal channels, Canadians will receive the full benefit of their counsel. I would infinitely prefer a situation where the courts of this land ultimately upheld the legislation in question than a situation where we precipitously invoked the notwithstanding clause without due benefit of the court's counsel.
It is in this way that we live in a system where the rule of law is respected. It is in this way that we live in a free and democratic society where its constitution and charter of rights have meaning. It is in this way that we enjoy a justice system that is the envy of the world.
Before we take such a serious step as invoking section 33 of the charter, we have a duty to ensure that other mechanisms for addressing the situation have been tried and have failed. This principle applies even in the most difficult circumstances, even when we are faced such as we are today with a decision that has so very clearly elicited the concern of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
The Reform Party in the name of judicial activism claims to represent the people's will. It believes that by attacking judges and the justice system that it serves the interests of Canadians. Well, once again the Reform Party is wrong. It is also without courage for it is in circumstances like the present one that the tough thing to do is to show respect for and have faith in our legal system.
The Reform Party's actions are about politics. While its members appear to be concerned about child pornography, the very actions they propose are ultimately contrary to the public interest.
Canadians will be better served by a process in which ultimately our legislation, the legislation we all care so much about, is upheld by our courts as constitutional. Canadians are better served in all circumstances when they live with the knowledge that the laws that govern them are constitutional. And were at some point the highest court to rule against this legislation, Canadians through parliament would still have recourse, but we would have it in possession of greater knowledge and greater wisdom.
This government has every confidence that our legislation is constitutional. We will do everything we can to defend it.
Let the system work. By it, we serve Canadians. By respecting our legal system and our laws, we serve Canadians.
Child Pornography February 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and others know, in our system of justice there are appeal provisions.
The appropriate course of action is to appeal the decision and listen to what the higher courts have to say. After receiving the decisions of higher courts some amendments to the law may be required. To pre-empt that appellant process is silly and wrong headed.
Child Pornography February 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated twice this afternoon that the government has taken immediate action. We have taken the extraordinary step of intervening at the B.C. Court of Appeal to support the B.C. attorney general in defence of this law. We believe the law is constitutional.
Justice February 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have to point out and express my deep dismay at the fundamentally incorrect interpretation of the effect of Mr. Justice Shaw's decision in this case. I think it is most unfortunate that the hon. member would so misrepresent the situation.
We believe that subsection of the Criminal Code is constitutional. That is why we are taking the extraordinary step of intervening before the B.C. court of appeal.
Justice February 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, we have taken action, as has the attorney general of British Columbia. He announced immediately that he will appeal the decision. He will seek an expedited appeal and we will intervene to support him in the appeal of this case.
We believe that subsection of the code to be constitutional and we will defend it.