36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 172
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 2, 1999
1005
 | LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| PETITIONS
|
| Property Rights
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Family
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1010
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Divorce Act
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1015
1020
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1025
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1030
1035
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1040
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1045
1050
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1055
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1100
1105
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1110
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1115
1120
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1125
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1130
1135
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1140
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1145
1150
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1155
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1200
1205
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1210
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1215
| Mr. John Herron |
1220
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1225
1230
1235
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1240
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1245
1250
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mr. Randy White |
1255
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1300
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1305
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1310
1315
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. John Nunziata |
1320
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1325
1330
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1335
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1340
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1345
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1350
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE FRANK LOW-BEER
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1400
| INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| NORDICITY
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| JOB CREATION
|
| Mr. David Iftody |
| THE LATE WIARTON WILLIE
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| JOHN DAVIDSON
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1405
| HEART MONTH
|
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| ANNIE PERRAULT
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| CANADA JOBS FUND
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
1410
| THE LATE ALAN JOHN SIMPSON
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| THE LATE WIARTON WILLIE
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| SONG FOR THE MILLENNIUM
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| POLAND
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1420
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| SOCIAL UNION
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1435
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BELL CANADA
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1445
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1450
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Y2K PROBLEM
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
1455
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. John Manley |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1500
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Question Period
|
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1505
| Question Period
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| The Speaker: I refer the hon. member to 409 |
| Justice Robert Flahiff
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Child Pornography
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1510
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1515
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1520
1525
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1530
| Mr. John McKay |
1535
1540
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1545
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1550
1555
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1600
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1605
1610
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1615
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1620
1625
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1630
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
1635
1640
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1645
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1650
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1655
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1700
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1705
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1710
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1715
1745
(Division 309)
| Amendment negatived
|
1750
1755
(Division 310)
| Motion negatived
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| FISHERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-302. Second reading
|
1800
1810
(Division 311)
| Motion negatived
|
| EQUAL TREATMENT FOR PERSONS COHABITING IN A
|
| Bill C-309. Second reading
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1815
1820
1825
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1830
1835
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1840
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1845
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1850
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1855
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FINANCE
|
| Motion
|
1900
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1905
1910
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1915
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1920
1925
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1930
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1935
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1940
1945
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1950
1955
| Mr. Ken Epp |
2000
| Mr. Ken Epp |
2005
2010
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
2015
2020
2025
| Mr. Ken Epp |
2030
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
2035
2040
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
2045
2050
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
2055
2100
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
2105
| Mr. Ken Epp |
2110
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
2115
2120
| Mr. Jim Hart |
2125
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
2130
2135
| Mr. Jim Hart |
2140
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
2145
2150
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
2155
2200
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
2205
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. John Williams |
2210
2215
2220
| Mr. Ken Epp |
2225
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
2230
2235
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
2240
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
2245
2250
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
2255
2300
2305
| Ms. Libby Davies |
2310
2315
2320
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
2325
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
2330
2335
2340
2345
2350
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
2355
| Mr. Ken Epp |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 172
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 2, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon
the table the report of the parliamentary librarian for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 1998.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I have the pleasure of
presenting this morning.
The first is 41 pages of petitions with the signatures of 923
concerned Canadians from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, B.C. and my
home province of Saskatchewan. For those who are keeping track,
that is a total of 12,841 signatures of people who are demanding
better protection of property rights in federal law.
These concerned Canadians say that there are no provisions in
the charter of rights and freedoms that prevent the government
from taking their lawfully acquired and legally owned property
without compensation. The petitioners are most concerned that
there is nothing in the charter which restricts the government in
any way from passing laws which prohibit the ownership, use and
enjoyment of their private property or reduces the value of their
property.
The petitioners request parliament to support my private
member's bill which would strengthen the protection of property
rights in federal law by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights.
FAMILY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition I am pleased to present
contains the signatures of 289 concerned Canadians who are
calling on parliament to retain section 43 of the Criminal Code
which affirms the duty of parents to responsibly raise their
children according to their own conscience and beliefs.
The petitioners express concern that parliament continues to
fund research by people who advocate its removal. The
petitioners also feel that removing section 43 would give more
power to bureaucrats and weaken the role of parents. The
petitioners want parents to retain the primary right of raising
and disciplining their children.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am also pleased to present an important petition on
behalf of 216 residents of Kamsack, Saskatchewan who are
concerned that freedom of choice in health care is becoming
increasingly curtailed and threatened by government legislation.
The petitioners are calling for access to safe, natural health
care products free of government restriction and censure. The
petitioners want the definition of food to include dietary
supplements in foods used for special health uses and that
dietary supplements include tablets, capsules, powders and
liquids that contain any of these vitamins, minerals, amino
acids, herbs or other botanicals, concentrates or extracts. Only
foods that are proven to be unsafe or fraudulently promoted be
restricted and the burden of proof be on the government.
The petitioners want their concerns expressed that health
choices will be limited.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last two petitions are on behalf of 1,458 Canadians
from coast to coast who are concerned about the rights of the
unborn.
They request that parliament support a binding national
referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask
Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government
funding for abortions on demand.
1010
I have the privilege of presenting these names to be added to
the many thousands who have expressed their concerns not only for
the unborn but for the women who undergo medically unnecessary
abortions and expose themselves to the health risks inherent in
this procedure.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition from constituents concerned about
nuclear weapons in the world. They are no doubt pleased at the
modest progress this House has made in this regard.
The petitioners point out that the continued existence of over
30,000 nuclear weapons poses a threat to the very existence of
civilization and all humanities combined, hopes for ourselves and
our children. Canada although with the capacity to build nuclear
weapons has rejected that option and in so doing recognizes the
futility of nuclear weapons. They pray and petition that
parliament support the goal of abolition of nuclear weapons on
our earth by Canada advocating the immediate dealerting of all
nuclear devices and that Canada join the nations of the new
agenda coalition and advocate within NATO that nuclear weapons
have no militarily useful role and that additional financial
support be allocated to Russia to ensure the safe and secure
disarmament of its nuclear arsenal.
TAXATION
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition signed by a number of my
constituents. They basically say their taxes are too high and
pray that parliament reduce taxation, specially abolishing the
GST, no more taxes on taxes, and reduce all taxes by 20%.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition signed by many grandparents across the country
asking parliament to ask the government to amend the Divorce Act
to include the provision as supported in Bill C-340 regarding the
right of grandparent access to or custody of their grandchildren.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.) moved:
That the government should take
legislative measures to reinstate the law that was struck down by
a recent decision of the Court of British Columbia regarding the
possession of child pornography, even if that entails invoking
Section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (the Notwithstanding
Clause); and
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices
of this House, and with the consent of the House Leaders, when a
Minister of the Crown in proposing a motion for first reading of
a Bill, states that the Bill is in response to this resolution,
the second reading stage and subsequent stages of the Bill may be
considered in the same sitting, including Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House
that members of the Reform Party will be dividing their time
throughout today's debate.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this motion today strikes I believe at the very moral fibre of
this nation. I think we are trying to correct and at least get
politicians in the House of Commons to acknowledge their
responsibilities to uphold that moral fibre. That is what we
will be talking about all day.
Some of my colleagues will be talking about the legalistic terms
involved in this issue. Some of us will be bringing the issue
closer to home.
1015
I would ask that the government listen to the speeches that are
made on this issue today and act. That is what we are looking.
This motion is asking for immediate legislative measures; not
next year, not in six months, not action in courts, but immediate
legislative measures. We ask that we reinstate a law which
already existed that made it illegal to possess child
pornography. We are not recreating a law, we are really
establishing that moral fibre which already exists, even if that
entails invoking the notwithstanding aspect of our charter of
rights and freedoms and our whole Constitution.
One might ask why it is necessary that the Reform Party take a
day in the House of Commons to try to get a government which has
a full majority mandate in the country to do what is right in the
first place, what was already illegal in the country and to
correct what has been made wrong by the eyes of one court
session, one judge in the country. Why is it that the judiciary
and the legal industry are rewriting and seem to be even creating
the laws of our country within the courtrooms, and it is not done
here in the House of Commons?
I do not believe that parents or anybody in this country
understand what is going on. Have we completely in the House of
Commons vacated our responsibility as those who make laws? Have
we passed it over to the courtrooms? Is that what this all
about?
Most people in this country today feel that the laws are not
made in the House, but that they are made by people out there.
They are made by those who are getting paid to take sides on
issues, and that is incorrect. We have to re-establish tonight
at a vote in the House of Commons at 5:30 p.m. the authority of
the House of Commons. It is time for all of us to stand in the
House tonight to say that the possession of child pornography is
illegal.
One might think that this is the first time this has come up in
the country, but it is not. I have been speaking on this issue
for several years.
In February 1996 a Port Hardy, B.C. provincial court judge,
Brian Sanderson, gave 57 year old Vernon Logan an absolute
discharge. I spoke about that in the House some time ago. Even
though Logan pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, the
judge said “The law banning child pornography violates the
charter of rights because it is an infringement of one's freedom
of thought, belief or opinion as unfettered access to reading
materials necessary to exercise those freedoms”.
I do not understand how we have gone from this court case to yet
another court case and now, subsequent to the latest issue in a
courtroom in British Columbia, we have other courts saying that
the possession of child pornography looks like it is okay. “It
is legal today, so we will let that go”.
We have established an unprecedented criteria for the possession
and production of child pornography. A person cannot possess
child pornography unless it is produced. We must understand the
consequences of those decisions.
This is not a time for politicians to walk away from their
responsibility and once again ask the lawyers and judges of our
country to do the job that we do not have the courage to do. It
is time tonight to make that decision.
I think and I know that parents think this because our phones
have been ringing off the hook: People are concerned that we
condone something that is immoral.
It is against all family values of all types, all sorts. It is
something that cannot occur in this country.
1020
If people can believe this, after that decision was made several
pedophiles in the United States were communicating back and forth
on the Internet. One of the comments on the Internet was “I
would rather live in Canada than the United States and love
children”. That comment was between two pedophiles who were
talking to each other on the Internet. Is that what we want
Canada to be known as, a place where pedophiles can come and love
children and read pornography because it is legal? Is that what
the Liberal government wants for our country? I do not think so.
If it were only the Reform Party the government might say
“There they go again. We should liberalize our social fibre.
The Reform Party does not like it”. However, I happen to know
that the opposition parties are going to support the vote
tonight. I happen to have 63 names from the other side who have
asked the Prime Minister to petition to change the legislation
re-establishing that child pornography is illegal. One of those
members is the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam, who won a by-election and who also voted against his
constituency on the hepatitis C issue.
We will see tonight where individuals like that stand. Do they
stand for sending a letter quietly to the Prime Minister, saying
that he has to change the laws, but when they stand to be counted
on national television in front of everybody they will do what
they are told to do? This is not about whipping the machinery of
a political party into place, this is about standing up for the
moral fibre of our country.
Let me tell the House what some other people think. Here are
some quotes: “It is frustrating when you try to work in a
system that does not support what you are doing. It sends a
message to the kids that society thinks child pornography is
okay”. That came from Shana Chetner, youth counsellor at the
Greater Vancouver Mental Health Services. She is not a
politician, but somebody who works with people who have suffered
as a result activities that are supported by child pornography.
Detective Bob Matthews, head of the child porn unit of the
Ontario Provincial Police said “The law criminalizing possession
is crucial when it comes to finding child pornographers.
Removing that part of the law would be devastating to police.
That is what we use to get most search warrants, and the only way
we can search for evidence of selling and distributing”.
Matthews also said “I cannot get my mind around how someone can
say there is nothing wrong with the possession of child
pornography. It always looks different when it is somebody
else's child, but let a member of your family have that happen,
let it be your child who has been violated to the extreme,
knowing that some pedophile has been masturbating to a picture of
your son or daughter being violated to such an extent. Tell me
there is no harm in that”.
I speak as a son, a father and on behalf of all the citizens of
Langley—Abbotsford, British Columbia. I want to vote tonight on
this issue. Tomorrow I want legislation in the House expressly
forbidding the possession of child pornography. Why does this
government and all members not stand tonight to be accounted for?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
know the member for Langley—Abbotsford has been an outspoken
critic of the judiciary when it seems to take leave of its senses
and bypasses what the expressed intent of parliament has been all
along, which was to pass a judgment on the rightness or wrongness
of the possession of child pornography.
In other words, parliament has stepped up to the batter's box and
said that it is wrong to possess child pornography. It is not
just the fact that a filthy magazine is in their hands, it is the
fact that children's lives have been ruined. People have been
devastated to the extreme in order to create the trash that the
pedophile is using. It is not just a matter of the magazine in
their hands, it is the people who have been abused in order to
get those sick photographs and information into those people's
hands.
1025
Parliament has wisely said that that will not be tolerated in
this country. Somebody has to step up to protect the kids. The
law of the land has to do it. That gives parents the backing
they need to say they are not going to take it and they are not
going to accept it because it is not in their frame of reference.
The member for Langley—Abbotsford has been critical in times
past about the judiciary. In a sense the judiciary uses its own
notwithstanding clause. It says that notwithstanding what
parliament has done it will interpret this as just an expression
of thought and will permit this stuff to be distributed. Once it
is distributed, once there is a market for it, and once it can be
disseminated to those sick people, then there is a market to
abuse children. It is an absolute licence to say “You get the
photos. I have the magazine to print them in and I can find
sickos, not just in Canada but around the world, who are eager to
snap this stuff up”.
I would like the member for Langley—Abbotsford to expand on the
role of the judiciary and, in a sense, the abuse that some of the
judiciary, not all, have taken up with this activist role.
This does not only apply to the judiciary, it also applies to
human rights commissioners, people who are unelected,
unaccountable, who are on a salary and who take a position
brought forward by an advocacy group and say “I will champion
this cause on your behalf”. It is not just the judges. The
commissioners and the tribunals in this country have said
“Parliament be damned. We will set the laws around here”.
I would like the member for Langley—Abbotsford to comment on
his experience in dealing with tribunals, commissions, judges and
other rulings that I think have mocked parliament and have
lowered the esteem of parliament. Increasingly Canadians are
asking “What is the point? That place is irrelevant because the
judges will do as they darn well please”. I would like the hon.
member to comment on his experience because I know he has done a
lot of work in that area.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, indeed I have spent a lot
of time in that area. I have spent a good deal of my political
time in courtrooms and in prisons attending parole board
hearings. Just last week I spent a whole day with a victim of
child sexual abuse. An individual got two years, if we can
believe it, for sexually abusing a young girl from the age of 10
through 18. I was in the room talking to her. This guy was
trying to get out early.
What I do not want to hear today or tonight is the justice
minister saying “Oh, we are going to look after it. We are
going to bring in a bunch of lawyers from the federal government
to intervene on an appeal court case which could last a year or
more”. Meanwhile, we still have the same problem out there and
we could still end up with the very same decision that was made
in British Columbia. That is the problem.
There should be no more legal industry involved in this. We in
this House have a responsibility and an obligation to the voters,
to everybody in Canada, to stand and say that child pornography
is illegal and that no other court case will overturn that
decision. That is the bottom line.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party today has presented parliament with
an opportunity. The motion we introduced today is a compelling
one.
It is a call for the reinstatement of the morals and values that
we hold dear. The motion is a clarion call for common sense, and
we emphasize the urgency of the situation.
1030
The B.C. supreme court decision that made possession of child
pornography no longer illegal was an affront to our sensitivities
and values. It was, as some characterized it, condoning child
abuse and manipulation of the innocent.
Even the Liberal Party talking points acknowledged that children
are the most vulnerable members of society. The notes go on to
say that the Liberal position is clear, and never more so than
against the exploitation inherent in the possession, production
and distribution of child pornography.
With this statement I know the Reform Party can count on our
Liberal colleagues to support our motion to reinstate the law
that was debased by Justice Shaw's decision, even if it entails
invoking section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which is
better known as the notwithstanding clause.
If the government truly believes what it put in its speaking
notes it will not wait for the B.C. court of appeal to rule, let
alone wait for the supreme court to rule. We all know that could
take a year. It is just too urgent to let this immoral decision
stand for even another day. The consequences are just too stark
and too frightening.
In fact one British Columbia judge has just thrown out one child
pornography possession case because of Judge Shaw's ill founded,
intemperate decision. Another 40 child pornography possession
cases are on the books of British Columbia. Across Canada there
could be hundreds which are in jeopardy, but even the fact this
one case was thrown out because of this case is the reason we in
parliament are debating the issue today.
Surely the government knowing this would not want to give
licence to individuals to deal in this very sick behaviour. The
government must know what this type of material incites. Does it
want to give licence to pedophiles? I do not think so.
Section 163(1), clause 4, of the Criminal Code is clear. Every
person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of an
indictable offence. Judge Shaw's ruling that freedom of
expression would be violated because of personal possession is an
expression of that person's essential self and subsequently his
invocation of the charter is offensive, negligent, deficient,
abusive of children and begs for overriding by the
notwithstanding clause.
Anyone in a sensible frame of mind with a scintilla of decency
and values knows child pornography is harmful. Clinical study by
medical experts conclude that child pornography is harmful. In
fact some pedophiles show it to children to make the conduct
appear normal. It is known to excite some child molesters to
commit offences, and the bottom line is that children are abused
in making this kind of material. It is an affront to our dignity
and to all our human rights. Surely this mockery of the charter
by this judge is enough to shake the government out of its
lethargy.
Justice Shaw based his judgment on two articles on the issue of
child pornography, one dated 1987 and the other 1988. In effect,
Justice Shaw assimilated this complex medical psychological issue
by reading two articles, listening to two witnesses, and he
became an expert. Come on. We all know he is certainly not an
expert on this issue.
Justice Shaw's distinction of highly erotic and mildly erotic
was based on one paragraph from data done in 1974 and 1977. It
is downright incomprehensible to think a judge could exhibit such
a lack of attention to detail and studies. It is even more
incomprehensible, in fact reprehensible, that this judge is not
accountable for such irresponsible behaviour. Has no one every
told him the community standards theory? Many judges over the
years have used the community standards theory to override the
charter.
Judge Shaw invokes the charter which ostensibly gave more rights
to a person who likes child porn than to the child it debases.
That is the crux of the motion today and the reason it is so
urgent. I will say that again. He gave more rights to the
person who likes child porn than he gave to the child who is
abused in making it. Everyone in the House has to agree that is
very sick and something we should not stand for in Canada.
What our motion does is give parliament a chance to tell this
judge that we do not like his decision, that we have community
standards and we do not like child porn.
Parliament has the power. Let us use it today. Using the
charter as the judge did is weak and inexcusable. Even in the
Zundel case the court acknowledged that not all expression is
equally worth protection. Did Judge Shaw that into account? Does
Judge Shaw really think child porn is worthy of protection?
Certainly he does in his decision.
1035
Judge Shaw, in his weighing process, decided that the
deleterious effects outweighed the salutary effects so the
limitation on freedom of expression was not saved. In sum, he
dismissed salutary effects like abuse of children and making
pornography, incitement of some pedophiles to commit offences,
and advocacy of the commission of sexual offences. Is that not
in and of itself to limit the freedom of expression?
Judge Shaw's decision has made it open season for pedophiles to
play on children and for the proliferation of child pornography.
It jeopardizes hundreds of child pornography cases before the
courts. As I mentioned earlier, one case has already been thrown
out. A person walked free because of this decision.
It behoves us to immediately invoke the notwithstanding clause
and thereby assure Canadians that possession of this type of
material is still a crime in Canada. We must send a message to
the type of people who use this material and to pedophiles that
we find them despicable parasites which we will not tolerate.
People like Mr. Sharpe are probably watching this debate today.
I saw him on TV after he was let go by Judge Shaw flouting it in
our faces saying it was his right to do this, that it is his
right to like young little boys. He is a despicable person and
anybody like him is despicable, and we should not have any laws
in the the country that allow him to get away with that.
I will talk about a petition I received signed by 70 Liberals on
the other side. There are a lot of names we know well on this
petition including my friend from Port Moody—Coquitlam. They
signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to immediately solve
the problem. Immediate does not mean next month or the month
after. Immediate means today or yesterday if we could have done
it.
We followed the rules of the House. Our party brought the
motion today at the first possible time we could. I would have
hoped the government would have done it sooner. I heard the
minister say that the questions yesterday were silly. It was
very offensive to me and I think offensive to most Canadians that
the Minister of Justice would talk about this as being something
silly. Mr. Sharpe is not somebody silly.
I had another case in British Columbia that was dismissed
because of this case. That is not silly. We have to solve this
problem today.
The government has the power to set our morale standards back on
track. I urge the government to support the motion. It is what
all Canadians want. I urge those Canadians who are watching the
debate today to go to the blue pages, phone their members of
parliament right now and tell their offices that they want them
to vote for the motion today.
This is an important decision we will make today. It is time
parliament took back control of the courts. Let us make the laws
so the judges do not have any decisions in these matters. It is
in the books that this is an offence. Let us make it an offence
and send them to jail for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. Let
us demand it for this ugly miserable offence. I move:
The Deputy Speaker: The debate is therefore on the
amendment.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast
on his speech and the points he brought forward. I want him to
comment on what I believe is a fundamental right. I would like
his views.
1040
Justice Shaw could have used section 1 of the charter to limit
the rights of freedom of expression. He could have ruled that
the rights of children not to be exploited sexually are far more
important than the rights of pedophiles to view disgusting,
disgraceful and obscene material. However he chose not to. That
was his tool. Our only tool is section 33, the notwithstanding
clause. I believe silence is consent. If we do not invoke
section 33 we will be reinforcing his decision. It is the only
tool we have to actively voice our objection to this ruling.
I would like the member's comments about the use of section 33.
If we do not, we will be abrogating our responsibility by not
acting or by silence. Silence is consent; we would be in fact
approving it. I would like the member's comments with respect to
that.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Judge Shaw's ruling that
freedom of expression would be violated because of personal
possession is unbelievable. As the member just stated, section 1
of the charter allows a judge in a case like I mentioned earlier
with the Zundel case to invoke that section and sentence the
individual, no matter what right the offender has. This is a
heinous crime against society and children.
Let me tell Canadians what the sentence for possession of child
pornography is under the Criminal Code. It states that every
person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of an
indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years or an offence punishable on summary
conviction. Sentences are much greater in areas such as the
making of child pornography.
Justice Shaw has chosen not to use section 1 of the charter. He
has chosen not to say that the crime is so heinous the other side
of it for possession is not good enough. He did not do that.
Yet he should have and other judges have done it in the past.
We are telling parliament to fix this law. Let us use the
notwithstanding clause, section 33, which was included in the
charter to give parliament that power. Section 33 gives every
member of the House the right to take on the charter and say it
is not good enough for Canada and it is not good enough for
Canadians. That is what every member of the House has to do.
I am not a lawyer. We are very lucky in the House to have
non-lawyers and lawyers. However we have read it and we have
talked to some of the top lawyers in Canada. They have told us
that we can insert the notwithstanding clause under this crime by
a simple vote in the House today. As I said yesterday—and I
will say it many times again—when the House wants to do
something it gets it done. When we wanted a pay raise it took 15
minutes, all stages of the bill; everything went through.
This is a terrible issue. My colleague from Port
Moody—Coquitlam signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to
get something done immediately on this issue as 69 other Liberals
did. Let us do it immediately. Let us pass the motion today.
Let us do it right now. If I were to move that we vote right now
to pass the motion we would save a lot of debate. Let us get it
done now. Canadians want it done. We want people like Mr. Shaw
to know that Canadians do not respect him, that parliament does
not respect him, nor should they.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on January 15 a ruling was released by a trial level judge of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia striking down the prohibition
in the Criminal Code against the possession of child pornography.
It sparked an intense national debate. Since that day, a day has
not gone by when most of us have not been confronted with
someone's deep felt emotion on the matter, be it in print, in the
media, in our offices here and at home, in the House, on the
streets or elsewhere.
The decision has provoked strong reactions. It is difficult to
understand why someone would decide that it should not be a crime
to possess materials which represent the sexual abuse and
exploitation of children. On the other hand, the type of
rhetoric from the Reform Party is the fearmongering that has
taken place in the House over and over again, saying that
pedophiles are running amok in the country, that they are running
loose so we should shut our children away. This is not the type
of debate that should take place in the House.
1045
When the minister made the comment about silly, it was on those
remarks alone and not on the issues that were being debated in
this House.
The type of mob mentality that is being fueled by the Reform
Party in B.C. is not the type of judicial system we want in this
country. Respect for the judiciary is one of the fundamental
frameworks of what our democracy is all about.
[Translation]
While that decision had a major impact in terms of the reaction
among Canadians, a large number of people do not realize that,
at this point in time, the legal repercussions are limited.
Except for British Columbia, where that decision is only binding
on provincial court judges, the act prohibiting the simple
possession of child pornography still remains in force. In all
other parts of Canada, and contrary to what hon. members have
said in this House, it is illegal to have this kind of material
in one's possession.
Most people find the idea that possession of child pornography
could be legal in any part of the country for even a short
period of time unacceptable. We share the distressing feeling
that this material not only represents child sexual abuse and
exploitation, but is also used in an attempt to convince the
most vulnerable that it is all right to engage in sexual
activities with adults.
Those who abuse and exploit children often make use of visual
material such as child pornography to desensitize young people
and to encourage them to perform certain acts by making them
believe that their peers have taken part in similar acts.
[English]
It was to dissuade and prevent such abuse and exploitation that
prohibitions specifically aimed at child pornography were
proclaimed into force a number of years ago. While the Criminal
Code definition of obscenity in section 163 was interpreted in
the 1992 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Butler
case to include pornography that involves the use of children,
determined action was nevertheless taken by parliament to target
the market for these materials.
In 1993, offences were introduced which were subject to greater
penalties than those existing at the time. The new offence of
simple possession was included in recognition of the underground
nature of the market and the need to attack the problem at its
base level: the individual who creates or trades in child
pornography for his personal use.
These amendments to the laws on child pornography were
unanimously supported by this House. The ruling which sparked
this debate is now the subject of an appeal by the Attorney
General of British Columbia to the court of appeal in that
province. He has requested that this matter be dealt with
expeditiously.
At the federal level, the Minister of Justice has announced that
in her role as Attorney General of Canada she is seeking leave to
intervene in the matter which is clearly an issue of national
importance. We did act immediately. The government has stressed
that it supports this legislation, that it believes it is
constitutionally sound, and that it will fight to ensure that it
is upheld.
[Translation]
Obviously, we want this matter to be solved as quickly as
possible. We must, however, acknowledge that the court appeal
process is the appropriate approach to take. The purpose of
this system is to allow decisions to be reviewed when questions
of law or of fact are in dispute.
I understand why other approaches have been suggested,
particularly the taking of immediate steps to reinstate the
legislation banning the possession of child pornography, which
was struck down by this decision, but only in British Columbia.
I do not, however, believe we should take that route.
If we believe our current legislation is valid, no steps ought
to be taken which could harm that position.
[English]
The necessary steps have been taken to see that it is remedied
as quickly as possible. Other than in British Columbia—and I
did say this at the beginning of my speech but I will repeat
it—where this decision is binding upon the provincial court
judges, the law prohibiting the simple possession of child
pornography remains in force. It is illegal everywhere in Canada
to possess these materials.
1050
None of the cases across Canada outside of B.C. is in jeopardy
at this time. The ruling is only binding on provincial court
judges in B.C. Elsewhere cases continue to be investigated and
will proceed before the courts.
Even in B.C. law enforcement continues to work on these cases.
In other jurisdictions the law prohibiting possession continues
to be in force as in the past. As I said, fearmongering is not
going to solve this problem.
In the interim, we in this House can declare our support for the
current laws against child pornography found in section 163.1 of
the Criminal Code as well as our support for those at the front
lines, at our borders, in our communities and in our courtrooms
who work unfailingly to see that these laws are enforced and
continue to remain in force.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the member stated that it is mere rhetoric coming from
the Reform Party and that we have no respect for our justice
system.
I want to tell the parliamentary secretary that I am an officer
of the court and I have the highest respect for our justice
system. My father was a judge in this country for 25 years and I
have learned to respect our justice system.
That does not mean it is infallible. That does not mean it is
perfect. We cannot abrogate our responsibility. There is nothing
stopping us today from acting. We have a duty to protect
citizens right across the country.
The parliamentary secretary has insulted every Canadian by
referring to this issue as mere rhetoric. It is a disgrace. We
are here speaking for every Canadian on this issue.
Why does the parliamentary secretary believe that she cannot do
anything in this House, she cannot stand up, that does not
preclude this process from going through the appeal? We in the
Reform Party absolutely believe that this decision has to be
appealed. Yes, there is a man who walked out of court free. We
believe that should be appealed. He should be brought back
before the courts. The courts should overturn that decision and
hold him accountable and send him to jail. His actions are not
acceptable.
That does not stop us from acting now. Canadians should not be
forced to wait six months, a year, or a year and a half for some
type of action while this issue sits, while we wait for
interveners. Will all the provinces come on board?
We do not have to wait. We have a tool that was made available
for us to use. Why is the Government of Canada afraid to use
that tool? It is so painfully simple. I am going to read section
33 of the Constitution:
Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly
declare in an act of parliament or the legislature as the case
may be, that the act of a provision thereof shall operate
notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or section 7 to
15 of this charter.
That is exactly what we are dealing with here. We have an
opportunity to put the rights of the innocent, the most
vulnerable in our society, the defenceless, our children, ahead
of those of the sick-minded pedophiles who use and want to
possess this child pornography.
How is that rhetoric? That is straight fact. It does not
preclude us from the appeal process. We support the appeal
process. We must do that. It does not hamper it in any way. We
reinforce it by putting our point on the record.
Why is the member not prepared to support the appeal process as
opposed to sitting back and being silent?
1055
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands proved my point about the rhetoric once
more.
As far as acting, I do not think there is any monopoly in this
House on the other side in what is morally right. There is no
monopoly whatsoever on who will protect the most defenceless in
our society.
There is a law. We have intervened in a decision that was made
in a B.C. provincial court. I will repeat what I said because I
want all Canadians to understand this. The law does stand. The
law will be respected everywhere in this country, once the
decision is rendered in terms of the appeal process in B.C., on
which we will continue to intervene. We did act. Elsewhere in
this country law enforcement officers will continue to arrest
anyone who possesses child pornography.
Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code will be respected in this
country despite the rhetoric on the other side.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like
the members who spoke before me, when I read the decision by Mr.
Justice Shaw of British Columbia regarding child pornography, I
was very surprised.
What surprised me was that a well-educated judge living in a
society that tolerates some things but not others, an adult
member of that society, could interpret a piece of legislation
as he did.
I was very surprised by the judge's interpretation of the
legislation and by his intellectual contortion of certain
provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
This is no small matter. It is a very serious one. I can
understand that parliamentarians would wish to sit down and look
at what is not working in this legislation.
I do not wish to go over all the ground again, because I think
the House has been well informed. I merely wish to recall, as
other members have done before me, the provisions of sections
163.1(3) and 163.1(4) which we are examining, specifically the
mere possession of child pornography, which is an offence under
these sections.
The individual was charged and the police officers conducted a
search. What they found in his apartment was serious: 14 boxes
of child pornography. There was enough to wonder if he was
intending to sell it, which was probably why he was charged
under section 163.1(3).
What did he rely on in his defence? He relied on section 2 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which talks about
the fundamental freedoms of conscience, religion, thought,
belief, opinion, expression and so on. He even relied on the
equality provisions in section 15 of the Charter.
That was his right. The Charter gives him that right. We live
in a free and democratic society, with rights and obligations,
and he had the right to use the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms as a defence. It was, in fact, the only defence open
to him, given the material found in his apartment.
I think that the crown did what it had to do. It tried to
demonstrate that, even if the freedom of expression as
guaranteed by the charter had been violated, such violation was
justified in a free and democratic society. That is what section
1 states; the section 1 test, for those who have some knowledge
of these inner workings, is what they tried to demonstrate
before the judge.
What is important to note in order to understand what happened
next is the case made by the crown in this matter. The crown
called in experts.
1100
One of the witnesses, a female detective with the Vancouver
police—which also explains why the section was adopted in 1993 or
1994—testified that the Internet led to a surge in the
availability of child pornography. She said that indictments for
simple possession enable the police to obtain search warrants,
which help identify pedophiles.
Why did the lawmaker provide for that? Simply because the
lawmaker knew about it. Evidence has been heard from various
people, including psychiatrists.
These professionals were invited by the crown to testify in this
matter. According to an expert in this field, every study done
on the behaviour of these deviant men and women—primarily men
in the case of pedophilia—shows that child pornography is a
danger to children. He gave very compelling evidence to that
effect.
The point was made that child pornography may encourage
pedophiles to commit sexual abuse. I think that this borders
dangerously on the test under section 1 of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.
However, one of the judges who heard the evidence came to a
different conclusion. Justice Shaw ruled that it had not been
clearly demonstrated that child pornography caused
direct injury. I do not know on what planet this judge lives,
but this was his ruling.
However, I think his interpretation of the legislation in his
decision was fairly twisted. He did note the following
“Explicit pornography involving children entails a certain risk
to the children because of the use pedophiles might make of it”.
This is no mean observation. But it did not prevent him from
reaching a different conclusion.
He also said “Children are abused in the production of
pornographic films”. That is obvious. In a video of acts
adults commit with children, the child is being abused. The
proof is clear. In addition there are people behind the cameras
and in the room doing the filming and then there are maniacs who
buy these films and watch them. Clearly the child has been
abused.
The judge stated that there was no proof there would be less
production of pornographic films if simple possession of this
type of material were criminalized. I think the judge made a
mistake with the evidence I saw in the decision. I think this
finding was proven wrong.
The judge mentioned that “freedom of expression plays an
important role in this matter. An individual's personal effects
assume the person's particular character, their personality. A
ban on simple possession acts on a very intimate part and
interferes with an individual's right to privacy”. According to
his point of view, this is hugely important.
I think this is where the judge himself went awry. There is one
route he should not have taken—and that is when he weighed the
pros and cons of all this. I think the judge really erred in
law in his assessment.
The judge added that “—an important aspect of every person's
right to privacy is the ability to enjoy that freedom in one's
own home”. I fully agree with that view. In this case, the
police went to Mr. Sharpe's home to seize his collection of
material, which was presumed to be of a pornographic nature.
Indeed, 14 boxes of pornographic material were seized.
To violate a person's freedom of expression and right to privacy
is a serious matter. The prohibition of possession applies to
any person, including those who use pornographic material in a
dangerous manner, and they may be collectors of such material,
regardless of their interests. However, these people are not
necessarily dangerous. And, given the evidence heard by the
court, it is not obvious that he is right.
In balancing these views, the judge concluded that the first
test of the charter of rights was not met and that the
individual had to be acquitted.
I think that decision is totally wrong and that we in this House
must do something.
1105
The first step is to support the official opposition's motion,
as it is worded in the Order Paper. I agree with the wording
used by the Reform Party. However, I do not agree with the
amendment it moved and the inclusion of the word “immediately”.
I cannot agree with the inclusion of that word. Therefore, I
will vote against the amendment to the motion, but I will
support the main motion, since we are part of a process. I agree
with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
regarding the section of the act that was invalidated by the
judge. It is true that the act is currently not in effect in
British Columbia.
But this does not prevent the police from doing their job. This
does not prevent the crown prosecutors from continuing to
examine cases, prepare them and so forth. Let us wait and see
how the Court of Appeal judges rule. Let us wait for their
reaction to what they have just heard, for they are members of
society too. They are aware that the lawmakers in the House of
Commons find this trial level decision unacceptable.
I am convinced that right-thinking judges, judges with solid
legal training, Appeal Court judges who know how to listen to
what is going on, will overturn this trial level decision. We
will probably not have the opportunity or the need to go as far
as invoking the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the
Charter.
However, and I will close with this, should the Court of Appeal
uphold the trial level decision, that will be the time for
lawmakers, for members of Parliament, to unite and invoke the
notwithstanding clause. I think that it is premature to do so
today.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member on his excellent speech and
the background he gave us on the situation.
If I understand correctly, he is saying that we are having this
debate prematurely. What really ought to be occurring is that we
should wait until the appeal courts hear this case. As the
member suggests, in all probability they will throw it out and we
will not have to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
Perhaps what the Reform Party ought to do is reconsider the
motives for bringing this debate forward to the House at this
time and that it ought to have been postponed until we saw due
process in the courts. At this time I expect that every member
in the House would support invoking the notwithstanding clause if
by the rarest of chance the appeal court upheld this abominable
decision. However, I do not think it is going to happen. I
suggest the member is really supporting what the parliamentary
secretary said in her speech.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the member has understood
what I was driving at, except for one point. I believe the
Reform Party has acted properly in calling for this debate in
the House. It is not premature to consider the matter. This is
in fact the right time to do so in order to send a very clear
message to all those listening: that the House of Commons
shares the view of Canadians and Quebeckers that child
pornography is reprehensible.
This was the time to act in order to send this message. But I
am unable to agree to the immediate use of the notwithstanding
clause, because an appeal is under way. Furthermore, the
federal government has applied for intervenor status in this
case, a move I fully support. I am convinced that the Canadian
consensus will be heard, that the motion, as written, will be
adopted by the House of Commons. I believe that the message
will be clear enough. It will not be necessary to invoke the
notwithstanding clause. There is still time to take that route,
should it become necessary to do so.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too commend the member for his speech and the detailed
analysis of this decision. He said it was premature at this
time.
1110
Until the court of appeal rules on this decision there is no
protection in British Columbia. We have already seen a
provincial court decision where it has followed Justice Shaw who
said we are bound to. It is absolutely true that they are.
The provincial courts in British Columbia are bound to follow
this decision.
There is a five year limitation. Under the notwithstanding
section in the charter we could put our own limitation period on
it.
I would like to ask the member if he believes that as an interim
measure, until the court of appeal has ruled, we could offer
protection for British Columbians today by putting in a one year
or a two year limitation period or whatever we think will be
necessary until this has gone through the court of appeal. As we
have seen the past, the court of appeal can drag on for months
and into years depending on how many interveners and how many
delays there are.
Does the member not support using the notwithstanding clause now
as an interim measure to give British Columbia the protection it
needs until we see where the court of appeal is and then we can
readdress it at that time if we need to?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I
think children in B.C., like all children across Canada, are
still protected by this legislation. It has been declared
invalid by a court at the trial level, therefore it is
inoperative, but it still exists.
When I was a law student, I remember that certain provisions
were constitutional, in terms of the distributions of powers or
whatever, even if they had been declared inoperative by courts
at lower levels.
So long as the final court of appeal did not make the decision,
the law continued to be applied as if nothing had changed. It
concerned the distribution of powers that Quebec was calling
for. Therefore, an inoperative provision is still applicable.
I think that, in B.C., unless I am mistaken, and that can be
checked, crown prosecutors and politicians, especially, will
still be able to work to protect children, to build cases or
whatever. If the crown has everything it needs to take legal
proceedings, it can still do so, subject to the final decision
in appeal.
Here again, given the importance of this issue, I am sure the
appeal court judges will do everything in their power to
expedite the matter and hear the case quickly and especially to
reach a decision as soon as they can.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to the motion today and indicate the
support of the NDP caucus for the motion moved by our Reform
Party colleagues.
I think we should acknowledge that yesterday the House did speak
with one voice on a motion that was supported by all parties
which expressed the continuing confidence of the House in that
section of the Criminal Code which was found to be
unconstitutional in the case we are discussing. So it is not as
if the House of Commons has not already spoken on this.
However, what we have before us today, thanks to the Reform
Party, is an opportunity to actually speak to this issue and to
express our views. Yesterday there was only a vote with no
debate. Today we have a chance to express the collective outrage
of members of parliament and of Canadians in general at this
judgment. It is not just outrage, it is bewilderment. In this
case as in some others, I think Canadians are increasingly
bewildered by some of the judgments they see coming out of the
courts and this is certainly one of those cases.
What we all want to make clear here today, each in our own way,
the NDP by supporting the motion, is that in this country the
rights of children not to be sexually exploited or sexually
abused will always trump the rights of individuals to any form of
freedom of expression which involves the use of child pornography
which has been produced through the use of children.
In every case we want this right of children to trump whatever
rights may be seen to be enshrined in the charter or understood
by some to be enshrined in the charter.
I can tell the House as one who was here, and there are fewer and
fewer of us all the time who voted for the charter at that time,
that when we voted for the charter of rights and freedoms, we did
not vote for the right of people to possess child pornography.
That was not the intent of parliament at that time. It has never
been the intent of parliament, either when it voted for the
charter of rights and freedoms or particularly when it voted for
that section of the criminal code.
1115
I think it is important for parliament to reassert its intention
both with respect to the charter and with respect to that section
of the criminal code.
I want to say for the record that on January 27, my leader, the
member for Halifax, wrote to the Minister of Justice. I will
read part of the letter: “In ruling that the criminal code
prohibition on the possession of child pornography is
unconstitutional, the court has exposed children to appalling
dangers of sexual abuse and exploitation in the production of
child pornography. Canadians are rightly horrified that a court
could interpret the charter of rights in such a way as to deny
the rights of children to be protected from sexual
exploitation”. The letter goes on to give a commitment on
behalf of the NDP that we would support whatever legislative
action is necessary to ensure children are protected from sexual
exploitation by child pornography.
I have to be honest with my Reform colleagues and say we have
some misgivings about the amendment which could be interpreted as
calling for the immediate implementation of section 33 or the
notwithstanding clause. We liked in the original motion the
timing of whatever it is, because again the motion is unclear.
It just talks about legislative measures and then says even if it
requires section 33, so it does not require the use of section.
Given that the motion itself is unclear, what is to happen
immediately? Is it some other legislative measure or is it the
invocation of section 33? We felt that there was wisdom in the
original motion which would have permitted a united front at
least here in the opposition, even if the government did not see
the wisdom of voting for the motion.
But we now see that at least one opposition party has expressed
concerns about the amendment. We have some ourselves and we will
have to decide how we are actually going to treat the amendment
when it comes to a vote. I just want to be perfectly honest
about this and say we have some concerns about the amendment
because it may well be that with the expedited appeal, et cetera,
we might have an early judgment in this case. I am sure members
would agree with me that it would be better if it could happen
quickly for the law to be found constitutional.
The problem with invoking section 33 immediately, if that is
what this motion came to be interpreted as, because as I say the
motion is not clear about that, is in some respects it
gives far too much respect to the judgment of Justice Shaw in
finding that section of the criminal code to be unconstitutional.
Why would we want to, or at least we should ask ourselves this
question, act in such a way as to say that yes, the finding of
that section of the criminal code as unconstitutional
is in some ways definitive and therefore we have to use the
notwithstanding clause, because the notwithstanding clause is
there for when things are found in the final analysis to be
unconstitutional and parliament says that in spite of that,
notwithstanding that, we want this to happen in any event. So
there are some concerns there about the motion or at least about
the amendment.
What needs to happen here today, and I think the government has
failed so far to make this clear, is not when specifically
parliament is going to act and in what way it is going to act,
whether it is through the invocation of section 33 or by some
other legislative measure undefined in the motion, but what needs
to be made clear today is that parliament will act. The
government has yet to make a statement. One of the backbenchers
seemed to allude to it. The parliamentary secretary did not say,
unless I missed it, that the government is committed to bringing
in the notwithstanding clause or acting in some other decisive
legislative way should this decision of Justice Shaw be upheld in
the courts.
If the government were willing to say that, it seems to me it
could save itself a lot of time instead of appearing to want to
hang on to the legal process to the exclusion of the political
process. If the government were willing to say “We have this
respect for the legal process and we feel that it should unfold
in the following way, but we want to make clear that should the
legal process not produce an outcome which protects children and
which upholds that section of the Criminal Code which has been
struck down by Judge Shaw that parliament will act and it will
act under the leadership of the government”.
1120
The government has not made it clear that it intends to provide
that leadership. Until it does it stands open to criticism. I
invite the government to speak to that. That is really what I
think Canadians want to know. They want to know from their
politicians that we are not just willing to sit back and say this
is a matter for the courts and that it will always be a matter
for the courts and that we do not really want to get involved.
Canadians want us to be involved and they want to know that
their politicians and their parliamentarians are in a position to
and willing to assert their values over the values of the courts
when those values being asserted by the courts are found to be so
out of whack with ordinary everyday common moral sense, which
holds that child pornography is wrong, that the possession of it
is wrong and that people who are in possession of it should be
open to prosecution on the basis of this particular section of
the Criminal Code which has been found wrongly to be
unconstitutional by this judge.
There is really no need to say a lot more about where we stand
on this. We stand with the entire Canadian population it seems
to me in wanting parliament to say something and to commit to
doing something should this judgment not be eliminated in the
course of the days to come. Canadians also want a commitment I
think from the government that if the legal process turns out to
be a long drawn out one that the government would have the
freedom to act and not have to wait until the final legal act.
That is where the whole question of timing comes in.
I do not think it would be good to bind us that we would have to
wait until the end or bind us that we have to act tomorrow, but
give ourselves some flexibility.
I could go on and say something more generally about the
emerging problem of judicial activism versus parliamentary intent
and parliamentary supremacy but my time has run out.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure that all hon. members of the House would not disagree
with the sentiments expressed by the member with regard to the
so-called trump or the right of children, and the rights of
children will always be placed ahead of the rights of others to
possess child pornography or indeed to have a freedom of
expression.
My question for the member has to do with the proposition he
raised about the government declaring at this moment that it is
committed to using the notwithstanding clause at any moment. The
member has been here some time. I wonder if he might want to
reconsider the sentiment in terms of the optics to the courts
with regard to a virtual threat to undermine the court process if
it does not follow a particular course. It does smack a bit of
coercion on behalf of the government if that were the case.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would not say it smacks
of coercion. I would say it smacks of parliamentary supremacy
which is what the notwithstanding clause is all about and one of
the reasons why I voted for the charter at that time.
1125
Others were very concerned about the notwithstanding clause.
There was division between political parties and within political
parties about the value or the rightfulness of the
notwithstanding clause. Certainly at the time I thought the
notwithstanding clause was a good thing.
I would not want to see it be used frivolously or often. It
should not be regarded as the legal or political equivalent of
the nuclear deterrent, never used. It should be used and
certainly it seems to me that the government should make clear in
this case that this is something it is prepared to use should it
feel necessary.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the primary purpose of government is to maintain law and
order, to protect those people who cannot protect themselves, to
protect the citizens of Canada and to provide for our peace and
safety.
We have people walking free who are committing criminal,
despicable acts offensive to most Canadians. We need to punish
criminal behaviour. Our children cannot protect themselves. Our
citizens, men and women and children, are at risk because of this
judge's decision.
We have given more rights to those who want to use child
pornography than to children who will be—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
has a question, would he put it right now, please.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, my primary concern is
that pornography is having a very negative effect. We are the
highest court in the land and as that highest court in the land,
do we not have an obligation to send a signal to the lower courts
that something needs—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Winnipeg Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already
made my sentiments clear on what the hon. member is raising.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his remarks. The
analogy of nuclear deterrent is a very good one.
Would there be support in his party, and I do not want to
characterize this as a halfway measure, for the initiative by
this government to send this question directly to the Supreme
Court of Canada where it is not taken immediately out of the
hands of the court system? We should encourage faith in our
system and give Supreme Court of Canada judges an opportunity to
rule again on this issue. I say again because there already has
been direction from the supreme court on this issue. Would the
hon. member and his party support that initiative which was asked
of the Minister of Justice yesterday?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we have not taken a
position on whether the suggestion made by the hon. member
yesterday in the House would be the preferable course of action.
I take his point that this is another way in which the
government, if it wanted to, could show it was committed to
having this dealt with as fast as possible so that there was not
the possibility of apparently already manifesting itself.
Enforcement and police action carries on. There is the
possibility we might for a period of some months or perhaps even
longer be in a situation where people are getting off in some
places because of this judgment, particularly in B.C.
This would be another way the government could expedite matters,
not just by asking for an expedited appeal but by coming to the
conclusion that this thing will probably end up in the supreme
court anyway. I do not know if that is the right conclusion. I
do not know enough about the system to know whether this is
destined for the supreme court or not. I do not claim to have
that kind of expertise.
If the government feels this is something that will end up in
the supreme court in any event, and it is in a better position to
know that than I am, then it certainly should consider what the
hon. member is suggesting.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part today in the debate on the motion by the Reform
Party's leader in the House concerning the recent Supreme Court
of British Columbia decision which struck down the section of
the Criminal Code forbidding the simple possession of child
pornography.
I must express my thanks to the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford for this opportunity to voice our opinion on
this matter of great national concern. In my opinion, our
children, the most vulnerable members of our society, represent
this country's finest resource. They are the incarnation of our
hopes, our values and our collective future.
I therefore believe we must do everything in our collective
power to allow them to grow and develop within a safe
environment, free of any form of exploitation with the potential
of jeopardizing their healthy development.
Now, if there is one form of exploitation which is known to
irrevocably scar a child's soul and spirit, it is sexual
exploitation.
1130
We are all aware that the recent decision which unites us today
has totally ignored that fact, which I would remind the House is
based on the findings of the huge majority of specialists who
have seriously addressed the question of child pornography and
report the incalculable damage caused to children in producing
such material.
The great outcry triggered by this astonishing decision shows
the general disapproval of such a reductive interpretation of
the law. I would even go so far as to say that the currently
prevailing social consensus in Canada reaffirms, if such
reaffirmation is necessary, the appropriateness of this recently
contested legislative provision.
People from all sectors, particularly advocates of children's
rights and of the victims of crime, even numerous civil
libertarians, have expressed outrage that a member of our
judiciary could place a citizen's right to possess child
pornography ahead of society's right to protect its children by
restricting the use of this pernicious and highly objectionable
material.
Incidentally, let us recall that there are urgent reasons to
criminalize simple possession of child pornography. By making
possession of this material an offence, the legislator is in
fact attacking the producers and distributors, by punishing
their accomplices, or in other words the consumers of child
pornography.
The government was asked to introduce such a measure by many
people, including members of law enforcement agencies, who
believe that by not making the simple possession of child
pornography illegal, the government is indirectly promoting the
sale of such products.
This prompted the Progressive Conservative government of the day
to introduce Bill C-128, an act to amend the Criminal Code and
the Customs Tariff, in the House of Commons on May 13, 1993.
Approved by all parties, the bill was quickly passed both in the
Commons and the Senate.
While recognizing the need to fight child pornography, various
groups in the arts and culture community as well as civil
libertarians raised serious concerns about the wording of the
bill, which nevertheless received royal assent on June 23, 1993,
and came into force on August 1, 1993.
Still today, there are people who contend that the causal
connection between pornography and any real physical violence
has yet to be demonstrated and that other potential effects of
pornography are too minor and inconsequential to justify
adversely affecting the freedom of expression guaranteed under
the Constitution.
Obviously, I do not share this opinion. By its very nature,
child pornography makes victims out of the children who
unwillingly participate in this activity. A special committee
established in 1991 by the health and justice ministers
concluded, as the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children
and Youths, better known as the Badgley Committee, did in 1984,
that the production of child pornography almost inevitably
resulted in sexual assault on the children involved.
Furthermore, even back then, the report predicted that new
communications technologies such as the Internet would lead to a
rapid and inevitable growth in child pornography. It is now
therefore reasonable to conclude that the growth in child
pornography resulting from the explosion of the Internet has led
to a considerable increase in the number of victims in recent
years. In fact, the proliferation in pornographic material,
particularly that involving children, on the Internet is now a
major source of concern for lawmakers in all industrialized
countries.
According to one expert, the Internet has approximately 250,000
adult sites. This raises serious questions of access and
responsibility for regulating such material, particularly when
it crosses national borders.
Police forces are now directing a large part of their efforts at
the Internet.
Although there have been convictions, the very nature of
computer technology often impedes investigations. Various
avenues are now being explored in order to put a stop to this
worldwide phenomenon.
In July 1996, iStar, one of the largest Internet providers,
blocked its clients' access to child pornography. While few
people approve of this material being circulated, some have
still expressed reservations about the method used by the
company and the precedent thus set.
1135
Alternatives have been suggested, such as software that deletes
the offensive material. The nature and quantity of pornographic
material circulating on the Internet continues to give rise to
animated debates, which are quite likely to drag on for some
time before a way is found to regulate circulation.
The more this material spreads, the more it contravenes
traditional public legislation. The challenges are complex and
are not limited to access to ordinary pornography and its
circulation. Furthermore, various governments have already
tackled this problem, which will undoubtedly become more
widespread in the years to come.
So I ask: Is it not ironic that, in this country, we are once
again discussing the precedence of personal rights over
collective ones, while trading in child pornography is thriving
all over the world and while international organizations such as
UNESCO and the International Labour Office are joining forces to
combat this deplorable world phenomenon?
It is not ironic, it is pathetic. We must make a contribution to
help the children of the world, who are the first victims of
this ideological and legal battle.
Moreover, since I firmly believe that, ultimately, it is
Canadian society as a whole that will suffer from this lack of
coherence and collective vision, I want to stress again that the
use of criminal law to reduce the demand for child pornography
is a very appropriate measure, to the extent that it puts a
reasonable restriction on an individual's freedom of expression.
This is why I am asking the government to immediately begin
considering appropriate legislation to ensure our children's
protection and well-being.
Let me conclude by saying that it is both as a mother and a
lawmaker that I intend to pursue this issue, which is of
particular interest to me. I will not rest until the rights of
children take precedence over those of individuals who have no
qualms about violating a child's most fundamental rights to
satisfy their despicable sexual urges.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague the member for Shefford not
only for her remarks but also for her earlier intervention.
Yesterday she put before the House of Commons a motion which
received unanimous consent and which basically affirmed and
reassured Canadians that section 163 of the Criminal Code is
something this House of Commons respects.
She put very bluntly before the House the question that needs to
be asked and that is, when is the government going to take a
proactive approach to this? This is not something we should be
waiting for. We should not be sitting on our heels waiting for
the B.C. Court of Appeal to rule again, perhaps incorrectly. That
matter will be decided.
This is something where the Minister of Justice and the
government must intervene quickly. Pornography, particularly
child pornography, has to been seen as a rot or a rust on the
morals of this country.
Does the hon. member not feel that the quickness and the need
for intervention for the protection of our most vulnerable
citizens, children, is not something that would warrant the
government to move on quickly, either through a supreme court
reference or through the motion that is presently before the
House?
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his comments.
I agree with him that we cannot delay an appeal, because delays
are involved and criminals are obtaining pornographic material
in the meantime, and it is the children that are paying the
price. Therefore, I agree we should go right to the Supreme
Court and do everything in our power to help these children.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to commend the speaker from the
Progressive Conservative Party for a fine job.
I have heard in this debate, and certainly not from this member,
what I consider to be a very dangerous phrase, which is that
simple possession is not dangerous. I would like to hear the
member's viewpoint on this. Some 41 years ago I was involved in
cases where they ignored a very serious situation and I can show
the House the results today. Nobody can persuade me that simple
possession is not dangerous.
I would like to hear the member's comment on that.
1140
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to
reassure my colleague. Although I said that, I did not
necessarily want to, because I think simple possession is
dangerous.
If there are child porn consumers, there will always be people
to produce it. We must charge consumers so as to discourage
people from producing child pornography. If there were no
consumers, there would be no producers.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like
the member's opinion on the fact that the government has in
effect taken very extraordinary measures to make intervention to
the B.C. court. That is extraordinary in terms of legal steps.
What I would like to see is something extraordinary along the
lines of political action because that is what our job is here in
this House.
If it were any other issue rather than the vulnerability of our
children being exposed to pornography, I would be satisfied with
the steps the government has taken, but we are talking about the
most vulnerable in our society. As a social worker, I have dealt
with many children who have been abused. The abuse is bad enough
but photographing it, dispensing it and selling it is truly
horrifying. Many pedophiles use these pictures to get themselves
all worked up; they use them as a warm up for the real event.
The government absolutely must take extraordinary action in the
political realm so that there is never a question that we support
in any sense photographs that are taken of children who are
abused.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite get my
colleague's intervention. I missed the beginning, but I agree
with the end of it. Indeed, political measures must be taken to
prevent people from producing child pornography and arrest
producers.
As I said earlier, if there were no consumers of pornographic
material, it would mean the end of those producing it.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the issue of child
pornography.
A recent case decision in my home province of British Columbia
has attracted considerable attention. It has also produced
predictable outrage from Canadians from every part of the
country.
For the record, I wrote to the Minister of Justice on January
21, mere days after the ruling, suggesting that she not wait for
the appellate court but to get amending legislation before
parliament as quickly as possible.
Some speakers to today's official opposition supply day motion
may not have had time to review the specific case which has
caused such a concern. I will take a couple of moments to
briefly outline the situation.
The case is still before the courts. The accused was facing
four charges relating to child pornography: two charges of being
in possession for the purpose of distribution or sale and two
charges for being in simple possession.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia only dismissed the two
charges of simple possession. As such that is essentially the
only issue under appeal. The accused still faces his remaining
charges and they are scheduled for this month. On the issue of
the two charges of simple possession, I will briefly highlight
the essential elements of this debate.
As has often been stated, tough cases make tough law. Others
might state that bad cases make bad law. In the case at issue
the crown conceded that section 163.1(4), possession of child
pornography, violated the guarantee of freedom of expression set
out in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
The only real argument before the Supreme Court of British
Columbia was whether the violation of section 2(b) was saved by
section 1 of the charter, that is, that the infringement is a
reasonable limit prescribed by law which is demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society.
Of course the reason for all the hullabaloo over this case and
the cause of why today we are debating this issue is that the
justice of the B.C. supreme court decided that the possession of
child pornography law was not a reasonable violation of the right
to freedom of expression in that instance.
With the greatest of respect to the particular justice of the
B.C. supreme court, I would have to disagree with his position,
but that is beside the point. The problem has been presented and
we have to address it.
The Minister of Justice has taken the position that she will
just join the province in the appeal. That is not good enough.
The Minister of Justice has a second title. She is the Minister
of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. She has already
made public statements indicating her preparedness to act within
her role as Attorney General of Canada. She plans to join the
attempt to uphold the constitutionality of section 163.1(4) and
this is as it should be.
As the attorney general she is responsible for safeguarding the
interests of the crown within existing laws. Part of that duty is
the protection of our laws. In all fairness the minister is
doing that.
1145
Her other role is to consider and address the legality of
government legislation, and I would suggest that in that area she
is abdicating her responsibility.
I have great difficulty with the decision of the Supreme Court
of British Columbia justice, but it really does not matter how
anyone interprets or views that case. The issue is that now we
are confronted with a serious problem. What can be done to
ensure that the laws against the possession of child pornography
are able to withstand a charter challenge based on the rights to
privacy and freedom of expression?
With respect, I belief the basic definition of child pornography
within the Criminal Code is too broad. A number of comments from
the legal profession have also raised this interpretation.
An example of this is the definition which appears at section
163.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, which states:
Any written material or visual representation that advocates or
counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years
that would be an offence under this act...
There are a number of questions concerning that part of the
definition. Why does it say any written material? What
advocates or counsels? Why a person under the age of 18? Does
the inclusion of 17 year olds detract from our attempts to
protect children? How does the written material have to
correlate with the sexual activity of a child?
By allowing a child to read Lady Chatterley's Lover by
D. H. Lawrence, does that meet this definition if that child is
encouraged by the writing to end up having sexual activity with
an adult who provided the writing?
These are all difficulties to be reviewed and analyzed in
interpreting our present law.
With respect, even if we are able to overturn the B.C. supreme
court case at some court of appeal level, these problems can
still resurface to once again shake the system.
That is why on January 21 I wrote to the minister to encourage
her to immediately bring amending legislation for the sake of the
safety of our children. We must protect our next generation from
these predators; from the degradation, the pain and suffering
they endure from being objectified and used to provide adult
sexual gratification or fantasy.
I understand that on January 26 approximately 70 members of the
Liberal backbench also urged her to introduce strong child
pornography legislation and I appreciate the Liberal support for
my proposal. I understand that the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam was among them. I am sure the
folks back home will be watching at 5.30 this evening.
Obviously, so far the minister appears to only pay attention to
the cabinet or the Prime Minister. When this case first gained
attention the minister stated that she would wait until the case
was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada before she would
become involved. It was only when the public outrage spread to
her ministerial colleagues that she was forced to change her mind
and join in the appeal before the B.C. court of appeal.
Perhaps after today she can be persuaded to change her mind
again and decide to introduce the necessary legislation. I would
hope so.
Another reason for the minister to show leadership in this
matter is the state of flux within our justice system until the
matter is resolved in months or, more realistically, in years by
our courts. The minister is well aware that there are
approximately 40 possession cases before the courts of British
Columbia that are in limbo. She is also aware that the courts
are already dismissing charges as a result of the present ruling.
I cited one such case from my own constituency in my letter to
her. She is likely aware that other provinces will have a number
of similar situations.
Pedophile websites on the Internet are alive with suggestions
that their clientele target British Columbia.
I also note the comments from various police agencies and
customs offices. They have admitted to confusion. They are
looking for help, but there has been no guidance from the
minister. I can just imagine the hesitation of our enforcement
personnel to investigate or proceed with charges due to the
almost certain likelihood that they will eventually be thrown out
of court. I can also imagine our crown prosecutors being most
hesitant to proceed with possession charges.
I just read this morning that the crown is seeking to postpone
one case in Delta, B.C. I am sure that as we speak many defence
lawyers are boning up on their Askov arguments, should these
cases ever eventually proceed through our courts. For those
unfamiliar with Askov, it is the supreme court ruling that deals
with the length of time to trial. We already have a child
molester who walked free in British Columbia because it took 17
months to get him to court.
Unfortunately we do not see a lot of leadership here. The
government merely chooses to react. The Liberal mantra of
“Don't worry; be happy” resonates through this Chamber again.
To summarize, we have a court case stating that an individual's
right to personal privacy and enjoyment of freedom to personally
express private interest in the possession of child pornography
must be protected. The judge stated at paragraph 50 of his
decision:
In my opinion, the detrimental effects substantially outweigh the
salutary effects. The intrusion into freedom of expression and
the right to privacy is so profound that it is not outweighed by
the limited beneficial effects of the prohibition.
1150
Privacy is one thing, but reasonable intrusions or exceptions to
absolute privacy is another.
I will refer to some comments made by law professor Kathleen
Mahoney who is an expert in child pornography cases. She refers
to the psychological and physical trauma to the victims as being
profound. She states:
The nature of a good portion of child pornography requires the
rape of a child, ranging from six months of age to 15 or 16 years
of age. These children are shown drugged, in pain often, and
there have been babies submitted to sexual acts with adults. The
damage does not end when the filming stops. Every time (the
pornography) is shown, that child is injured in its dignity, its
reputation, its identity. The harm is multiplied several times.
The child is offended against time and time again.
It is our duty as parliamentarians to help and protect these
victims, the most vulnerable members of our society. As parents,
grandparents, aunts and uncles, this is not a time for politics.
It is a time for doing what is right for Canada's children.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his excellent speech.
This topic was discussed last Sunday afternoon on CBC Radio's
Cross Canada Check-Up. Two callers suggested that we
should lower the age of consent in the relevant clause. They
said that there was nothing wrong with the possession of such
material and that exploiting or involving children was actually
good for them. There are people like that out there.
What would my hon. colleague say in response to a comment like
that if he were on the other end of the telephone line?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, if I were at the other end
of that telephone line my response would be very unparliamentary.
There is really no argument here. These children are put
through such degradation in order to provide this kind of
material to people who have such a fetish. For them to argue
that we should reduce the age of consent is a whole other issue.
Many people, especially those in my part of the country, have
been arguing that we should raise the age of consent to deal with
child prostitution.
Again, the only comment I could make would probably be
unparliamentary, so I will not make it in response to that
question.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his intervention. This issue is
clearly not a partisan issue. It unites not only members of this
House, but all Canadians against something that is clearly
offensive. It is offensive to the sense of values of Canadians.
If a society cannot protect the innocence of childhood, it is not
a very sound society. We have to be very careful and vigilant in
this House to uphold the law.
Section 163.1(4) was introduced in 1993 by the Progressive
Conservative justice minister Pierre Blais. I believe that every
member of this House remains committed to the principles of that
law. This is clearly an area in which we need to put aside
partisanship and do what is right to protect the children of our
country.
The member is an expert on victims' rights and the challenges
they face. Could he give me his perspective on how difficult it
is for children who come forward after having been sexually
abused, sometimes decades before? How difficult is it within the
current system for them to have their rights recognized and
supported?
Pedophelia or sexual child abuse is closely related to child
pornography. I would completely differ with anyone who would
argue otherwise. I would like to hear his feedback because he
has a significant understanding of victims' rights, which is a
very important issue as well.
1155
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, from the perspective of
victims' rights, we are dealing here primarily with young
children. They need to have somebody to speak for them because
normally they cannot speak for themselves. As the member
mentioned, it takes years for some of these children to talk
about it. Some never do. Certainly the healing has to start as
soon as possible with young children. For some, unfortunately,
the trauma lasts a lifetime.
As I said in my speech, this transcends politics. We have to
approach this issue from the perspective of all of us being
parents, all of us being grandparents and all of us having
children in our lives. These young people who are involved and
who are victimized by this require and need our protection. They
are not able to speak for themselves. It is up to us to do it
for them.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we have to answer one very simple question: Why are we here
today? We have to decide if possession of child pornography—
materials that sexually exploit children, the weakest, the most
vulnerable and defenceless in our society—is a crime in Canada.
That is the only question that we have to answer today.
I have no doubt in my mind that every member of this House was
as appalled by Justice Shaw's ruling as I was. They were
appalled that he did not invoke section 1 of the charter. When
one reads section 163 of the Criminal Code it is painfully
simple. I do not think it could be written any clearer.
Justice Shaw had a choice. He did not have to rule that it was
not illegal to possess child pornographic material in Canada,
pictures of naked, sexually exploited children; he could have
invoked section 1 of the charter. What does that do?
Section 1 is an option that the courts can use in charter
arguments where there is an infringement on one's rights, where
the protection or the rights of the children are paramount to
that of the individual. The rights of innocent children,
society's rights, are more important than those of the pedophile
who chooses to look at kiddie porn, that disgusting and
despicable material. Everybody here would agree with that.
Justice Shaw chose not to use section 1. We as parliamentarians
cannot use section 1. We do not have that option. Section 1 is
only an option for the courts. There is a parallel option that
we have use for, which is section 33, the notwithstanding clause.
If one looks at both sections they virtually do the same thing,
except the courts cannot use section 33. Only the legislatures
and the parliaments can. That is our only tool to voice our
objection. If we feel that the infringement on the rights of the
individual is so great, we can limit the rights under the charter
of the individual or the criminal.
In this case all we are asking parliament to do is to act today
in a non-partisan way. I am not trying to fill this up with
rhetoric. The notwithstanding clause is very clear. I know the
parliamentary secretary is as proud as I am at this decision. She
loves children as much as I do and defends them just as everybody
else does in this parliament. I do not have a doubt in my mind
that we have a duty, an obligation to act right now.
That does not preclude the courts from acting or stopping the
appeal process. It does not show any disrespect to the courts.
It demonstrates the tools that we have, that we will use them and
that we will take a stand. We find this to be so appalling that
we are going to act immediately.
The notwithstanding clause has a limitation period.
When we invoke this section we could even put in it for a year
until the courts decide and we could revisit it if we need to.
This does not preclude the B.C. court of appeal or the Supreme
Court of Canada.
1200
I would like to comment at this time on the Progressive
Conservative suggestion to move it right to the Supreme Court of
Canada. I agree. We should expedite it in every way we can, but
we must invoke the notwithstanding clause today, immediately, to
protect the children of British Columbia.
It will be said that they are protected as the law stands.
However in case No. 2 a man walked out the back door of the
courtroom. It was not out the door with the sheriff to the cells
but out the back door as a free man who uses kiddie porn. The
people of British Columbia deserve to be protected right now.
We know that this could go on for six, twelve or eighteen
months. I know they have requested immediate action, for it to
be expedited, but as we have seen in recent decisions interveners
come in, other provinces come in, advocacy groups come in, there
are delays, and it goes on and on. Every Canadian has heard or
knows of personal stories of delays in our justice system.
We absolutely have to put partisan politics aside. This is not
about the Reform Party. This is not about the Liberal Party or
the Progressive Conservative Party. It is about the protection
of children. That is what our interests are.
I beg all members of the House to support the motion. I stand
here to state on record that it shows no disrespect for our
justice system. I am the biggest defender of it as an officer of
the court. My father was a judge in British Columbia for 25
years. He has just recently retired. I will stand to say that I
have the utmost and the highest respect for the justice system in
the country. That does not mean there is not a hole in it, that
there is something in there on which we have to intervene. This
is our only tool.
I will not complicate the matter with all the issues of the
decision because we all know it is a problem, a disgrace, et
cetera. However I will leave hon. members with one thought which
I would like them to seriously consider.
Members have all said in private discussions that it is an
absolute disgrace, appalling, shameful and everything else that
Justice Shaw did not use section 1 in his decision to rule that
it is a crime in Canada to possess child pornography. We will be
cast in that same light because the only tool we have is section
33. If we do not act, we are put in the same light that we did
not have the guts to stand in the House and use that clause to
protect children.
The notwithstanding clause has been used before. It has been
used in Saskatchewan. It is in the appeal process. At the end
of the day the Supreme Court of Canada in fact ruled the law was
valid. In that case it was back to work legislation, but the law
was saved by the notwithstanding clause. We can do the same
thing. We absolutely have to do it.
I ask every member of the House tonight to leave partisan
politics aside, to elevate above Justice Shaw's decision and to
use the only tool that we can. The only tool we have is section
33. Some will argue other legislation or to enact a new law. If
we read section 163 it is painfully clear. Other members have
read it. We could not make it any clearer.
The Minister of Justice says to wait and see what the courts
decide. That appeal could run its course. We all agree it
should be appealed. We all agree that this man should be brought
back before the courts. He should be convicted. He should be
sent to jail, but that does not preclude us from doing something
today, right now.
I will leave hon. members with one thought. Section 33 is the
tool we have. Section 1 is the tool Justice Shaw had and he
chose not to use it. If we choose not to use section 33 we are
no different from what he is. Our consent will be reinforcing
that possession of child pornography is not a crime in Canada.
We must act.
1205
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to read the motion because I am having some
difficulty reconciling the motion that is before the House and
the petition signed by about 75 members of the Liberal caucus.
The motion reads:
That the government should take legislative measures to reinstate
the law that was struck down by a recent decision of the Court of
British Columbia regarding the possession of child pornography,
even if that entails invoking section 33 of the Constitution Act,
1982 (the notwithstanding clause).
This was signed by 75 members of the Liberal caucus. We ask
that the government not wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision
to be heard but immediately act in the defence of Canada's
children. The undersigned Liberal members of parliament
recommend that strong new child pornography legislation be
introduced as soon as the House resumes. We ask also that we
consider the use of the notwithstanding clause or other
equivalent effective measures to send a clear message that the
charter of rights will never again be used to defend the sexual
abuse of Canada's children.
It would appear that the resolution today and the letter signed
by 75 members of the Liberal caucus are asking for the same
thing.
The Minister of Justice is about to speak; I understand she is
the next speaker. She will speak against the motion. In effect
she will speak against the wishes of 75 members of her own
caucus.
How does the previous speaker view this? Does he view it as
hypocrisy? Does he view this as members of parliament—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Let us not be
throwing around hypocrisy even if it used obliquely.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I believe in my heart this is
the right thing to do. We have to act and it does not show any
disrespect for the courts.
There are 80 members who signed this petition because in their
hearts and their guts they feel it is the right thing to do. They
also know they have to act. There are probably many more who
never saw the petition.
I pray that in the House we can leave the partisanship outside
the doors, that we can come in and do what we feel is the
absolute right thing. If the Minister of Justice believes that
and I do not, that is up to her, but she should not preclude
every member of the House or hold a club over their heads so that
they cannot do the right thing.
We have to leave partisanship behind. I will not try to pit one
person against another or one party against another. I do not
believe the hon. member was doing that in his question. We just
have to look after the interests of the children of Canada first.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and the minister have
said publicly to let this thing go along, that everything is
fine, that the law is still in place, et cetera.
My colleague who just spoke is a lawyer. If the minister is
saying that, could he explain why there was a case in Surrey
right after the case with Justice Shaw which was dismissed based
on Justice Shaw's decision? How can it be the same? How can
every child be safe? How can children be safe from pornography
if there has been one case already? There is one person out on
the street because of that ruling and there are 40 more waiting
just in British Columbia. Would my colleague explain to the
parliamentary secretary so we could perhaps change her mind a
little on this issue?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. When
there is a decision of a higher court—and this is the B.C.
supreme court—all lower courts in that province are compelled to
follow it. The provincial court judge in the second case had
absolutely no choice. He had to follow the higher court's
decision unless it could be distinguished some other way. In
this case it could not be. It was a very recent decision.
In the rest of Canada this case can be used as persuasive. I
agree it is not compelled but lawyers use them as persuasive
evidence. Under section 163 a person can be prosecuted either in
provincial court on a summary conviction or on an indictable
offence and can go to the supreme court.
Even indictable offences are prosecuted in provincial court. The
person who is charged has an election when he is charged. Under
this criminal offence he can decide that he wants to elect a
provincial court judge, a supreme court judge or a supreme court
judge and jury. The accused can make that election.
1210
Every one who is accused will elect a provincial court judge.
Why? It is because they are compelled to follow the B.C. supreme
court decision. It can be used persuasively in the rest of the
courts and it can still run its process. We are not arguing
that. It should be appealed but that is why she is wrong.
British Columbian children are not protected at all until this
decision is looked after.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with
one of my colleagues.
My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has acted quickly to
support the decision of the attorney general of the province of
British Columbia to appeal this ruling as quickly as possible in
order to protect children. I applaud the quick action of my
colleague and that of the Government of British Columbia.
This government will not rest until this issue has been properly
addressed and has received the benefit of legal opinion of the
appeal courts. Children in our society are vulnerable and must
be protected from exploitation. With an appeal court ruling on
this important issue we will all be better placed to craft better
laws to protect our children.
There are some issues of sheer common sense at stake here. For
example, can there be any question that the possession of child
pornography is exploitation? I do not think that there can be. I
do not think that there can be in the minds of the vast majority
of Canadians who in my experience care deeply about children as
do members of the House.
We as legislators have a duty to be as smart and as skilful as
we can in crafting laws to protect our children. We must use
every resource available to us to protect the human rights of
children. One of those resources, a very valuable resource, is
the appeal court. We have come a long way in the country to
ensure that our children have every opportunity to have a good
start in life. We work hard to create an environment that
ensures their security and their happiness.
Nevertheless, child pornography risks the security and happiness
of Canada's children and youth. That is why the Government of
Canada has in statute very clear laws defining both child
pornography and stating in a concise manner how the possession of
child pornography will be dealt with.
The Reform Party is clearly not respectful of these laws or
respectful of the Canadian jurisprudence. However I have faith
and respect in the Canadian court system. For that reason I
cannot support the motion before the House.
This does not mean that I do not stand in solidarity with my
colleagues opposite as well as every other member in the House on
the issue of the negative and very dehumanizing and demoralizing
impact of child pornography. I believe in the court process and
I believe in the wisdom and ability of the House to enact laws in
this area that can withstand legal challenges.
I believe that our laws are clear. The arguments of my hon.
colleagues that the notwithstanding clause in our Constitution
should be used in this situation are not persuasive. They think
that using it is good politics but it is not the most effective
means of protecting our children. The notwithstanding clause was
only intended to be applied when all legal avenues were exhausted
in sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms.
I do not believe that the charter as negotiated by our Prime
Minister when he was minister of justice would allow in any way
child pornography. If we took the advice of the Reform Party the
issue would come back to haunt Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
What members of the Reform Party may not understand about the
notwithstanding clause is that it may only be applied for five
years at a time. While they may think they are sweeping the
whole situation underneath the carpet by imposing section 33 of
the charter, this issue would rear its ugly head again and again
with periodic reviews required for the use of section 33.
1215
I appeal to my colleagues to understand that this is not a
resolution. This is a reaction. I believe the attorneys general
for B.C. and Canada have chosen a more permanent solution by
having faith in our laws enacted by the House, by having faith in
the charter of rights and freedoms, by having faith in the
international convention on the rights of children and by having
faith in our appeal courts.
The debate that this issue would stimulate every five years if the
opposition would get its way is unnecessary when the courts can
decide to put an end to it once and for all. The Reform
Party would try to spin our refusal to support its motion and say
that the Liberal government is not willing to stand up to child
pornography. The opposite is true. The Reform tactic of trying
to score political points by debating verbose and confusing
motions can only do more harm than good for children in Canada.
No member on this side of the House or probably on any side of
House believes that anyone who possesses, distributes or promotes
child pornography has the constitution right to do so. On this
side of the House we believe in respecting Canada's judicial
process and making it work to our advantage. That is why the
Minister of Justice is supporting her counterpart in B.C. That is
why the Government of Canada is taking an active interest in
protecting Canada's children. That is why I am addressing in the
House of Commons this very important issue. As controversial and
as sensitive as it might be, I was compelled to do so. We share
a common concern. All members do as well as the general public.
This past summer I was fortunate to attend the first world
ministers meeting of ministers responsible for youth. This
meeting had particular relevance to this issue as one of the
resolutions specifically dealt with the sexual exploitation of
young women and men. This resolution which has now gone to the
United Nations calls on member states to take active measures
to prevent this exploitation.
This section of the Lisbon declaration is consistent with what
has been previously negotiated on the world stage. The United
Nations has specifically dealt with child pornography in its
convention of the rights of the child. The convention reads:
State Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of
sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes State
Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national
bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
c) the exploitive use of children in pornographic performances
and materials.
As a member state of the United Nations, Canada is part of this
convention and fully supports this initiative in preventing child
pornography. Pornography in all its forms is unacceptable in any
society. All efforts must be taken to stop exploitation of the
vulnerable. Members in the House should respect the courts. All
of us should respect the processes that have served our country
so well.
I leave the House with a quote from one of the world's greatest
leaders, Nelson Mandela, who said about children:
It is my deepest conviction that children should be seen and
heard as our most treasured assets. They are not ours to be
used and abused, but to be loved and nurtured and encouraged to
engage life to the full extent of their being, free from fear.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to support the motion tabled by the Reform Party. This
motion is addressing an issue that is not about partisanship. It
is about doing the right thing.
The hon. minister spoke about respecting the courts. I respect
the courts. I respect the judicial process. What we are looking
at is doing the right thing. Here is a clear example where
Canadians want us to ensure that we respect the rights of the
community versus the right of the individual in this case.
1220
We have to point out that for child pornography to exist, it
means a child has been exploited. What I want to emphasize is
that we need to send a very clear signal to all Canadians, to all
parents that parliament will defend the rights of children.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, clearly as I
stated in my speech we believe that supporting the appeal court
system is the way of doing the right thing. We share concern as
does every other member of parliament.
Without prejudice to any other members, I am sure vigilantism
was based on the feeling that people were doing the right thing.
We all know the results of that.
We have to be very careful and measured. As legislators we have
an obligation to conduct ourselves in a manner that respects the
rule of law. This is the highest court in the land and the laws
that we make here are not done in a cavalier manner or in a
manner that would suggest that when we feel like it, those laws
are applied.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the issue today is the social gap between
the workings of the superior courts and the societal norms of
what communities expect.
What happens here is not only the technical merits of what is
being decided but who is doing the deciding especially when it
relates to the Supreme Court of Canada. It applies to the
superior courts across the country that are a federal
appointment.
When we get to the fine points of splitting a hair, it comes to
the social values of who that judge is. The country has nearly
no say about who gets there. There is very little accountability
for removing someone who is not representative of Canada.
It has to go through a very long process and then come back to
this Chamber to remove a judge. We have some problems in this
country about the judiciary and appointment.
What will the government do not only to look at this decision
but, as this is an example of the problem of the appointment of
judges, what will the government do to improve the accountability
of who is on the bench and doing the deciding as well as what is
being decided?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, it may not be
known to the member opposite but there is a process by which our
justices are appointed across this country. There is the process
by which we engage in applying the rule of law.
That is something that has been subject to review time and time
again. I am sure the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada has taken his remarks under consideration. I am sure he
will be able to get better information from the Department of
Justice on this. We share common concerns on this issue.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief. The hon. secretary of state just
referred to the process of appointing judges.
I suggest to her that the Canadian people view the process as
failing them. The process is not working. During her remarks
the hon. secretary of state, and I do not know who wrote that
speech for her but it was appalling, mentioned believing in the
court system: “I believe in respecting Canada's judicial system
and invoking the notwithstanding clause is not the most effective
means”. It is a means whereby we can deal with this today, not
in weeks or months or whenever the appeal court gets around to
it.
She said this is not a resolution. In other words, invoking the
notwithstanding clause today would not be a resolution. It is a
reaction. It is. I would say courts are not the solution, courts
are the problem.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, there have been
many decisions rendered by the supreme court at the federal
level. I am assuming from what my hon. colleague is saying that
he is condemning all those good decisions that were made, some of
the decisions that advanced the rights of children, of women,
advanced the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our
society.
Is he saying that the whole system has failed because of this
one isolated incident in which we are dealing with a very
unfortunate set of circumstances? I do not agree with that.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all members of this House
share with Canadians a common position in this debate, an
abhorrence of child pornography.
1225
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.
1230
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.
1235
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I know we all agree on how despicable all of this is. I
have the highest respect for the Minister of Justice but I am
offended when she suggests that I do not. I want it put on the
record that I am deeply offended.
I want to get back to using section 33. I have the highest
respect for the courts. My respect is as high as anybody's
including the minister herself but it does not preclude following
the appeal process. It is fundamental for that to happen and
that it be expedited as quickly as possible.
Section 1 is the courts' tool to limit the rights and freedoms
of individuals. Our tool is section 33. She says it is only a
last resort. I appreciate that it is unprecedented in the
Parliament of Canada but we have to look at the gravity and
importance of the situation. The suggestion is that it can only
be used after going to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I know I do not need to preach to her about the charter. She
knows it as well as I do. The invocation of section 33(2) can be
limited. It does not have to go for five years. I know they are
laughing at this but my heart is in the right place and I am
serious. We can invoke the notwithstanding clause for any length
of time we wish in order to provide for the interim protection of
children. We do not have to wait. Canadians do not have to wait.
The courts do not have to adjourn cases. It is no disrespect to
our justice system.
Section 33 was included as a tool for parliament to limit rights
and freedoms where we feel it is necessary. Section 1 is
included in order for the courts to do that. We have a duty to
do that.
I appeal to the justice minister to leave the partisan politics
aside. I mean this in all sincerity. We should look after the
interests of our children. Look at the gravity of this
situation. We are talking about child pornography. We have the
tools right now to invoke section 33 to protect Canadians.
The Minister of Justice knows as well as I do that there can be
delays. There are all kinds of reasons people can get off
charges. We can offer that protection right now with no maybes,
with no disrespect. I put on record that I have no disrespect
for the courts. Why does the Minister of Justice feel so
passionately that we are showing disrespect by invoking section
33? I have the highest respect for our justice system.
Hon. Anne McLellan: 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.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is interesting that the minister spent her time chastising us on
this side of the House but she should have included all parties
on this side of the House. It is not just the Reform Party. All
parties on this side of the House will support this motion.
1240
It is interesting. When it comes to freedom of speech, not one
of the members over there who signed the petition asking her to
move on this has been allowed to speak. I bet we will not see
one of them speaking today.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
You will note there are a number of members who would like to ask
the Minister of Justice questions. I would ask that you seek
unanimous consent to extend the question period by 10 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the question period for 10 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Justice may make a very
brief, 20 second reply to the comment if she wishes. Otherwise
the time for questions and comments is over and we will proceed
with debate.
Hon. Anne McLellan: 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—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for York
South—Weston on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the
minister.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, her time has expired.
She cannot have it both ways. She cannot refuse to—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for York
South—Weston as usual is seeming to misrepresent the position of
the Chair in this matter. I gave the hon. the whip for the
official opposition time to ask a question. I deliberately cut
him off to allow the minister to reply. He had used up the
time, but I was prepared to allow the minister a brief reply. I
indicated that. I did not cut him off sooner in order to allow
him to complete some reasonable part of his statement, and I am
allowing the minister to reply. That is it. That will be the
end of the time for questions and comments when the minister has
completed, but she will have a very few seconds left to complete.
Hon. Anne McLellan: 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.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am amazed to be here participating in a
debate on the illegality of child pornography. I am offended by
the attitude of the Liberal government and the minister who feels
that Canadians have no right to be participating or observing a
debate on this issue. I would like to know, who are they to say
that Canadians are overreacting because they are concerned that a
judge has said that it is legal to possess child pornography?
This law was originally passed unanimously in parliament in
1993, but the decision of one man, Mr. Justice Shaw, has undone
all the work by the people's representatives.
This case raises a number of issues that go beyond the impact
upon the Sharpe case specifically and the possession of child
pornography in general. In this case Robin Sharpe got off. At
least one other case was thrown out in the B.C. provincial court
because of Justice Shaw's decision. The possession of child
pornography is therefore currently legal in the province of
British Columbia.
Make no mistakes, child pornography is not about pictures of
naked infants on bearskin rugs. It is about children, sons,
daughters, grandchildren, being abused and exploited by adults.
The only people whose rights were being infringed by this law
are pedophiles. I believe that we as a society have a right to
deny this extreme minority the right to see young children being
abused. Make no mistake, we mean real children. Real children
are being abused to make child pornography. There is no acting.
There is no consent, because children can never give consent to
acts like this. Because it is now legal to possess child
pornography in B.C., I am sure that more children are going to be
used for the creation of pornography to satisfy the appetite of
pedophiles. That means that more children will become victims of
sexual abuse in order to satisfy the charter of rights and
freedoms of pedophiles. The results are not necessarily apparent
immediately in the now. But many of the negative recriminations
occur 10, 15 or 20 years later. How often do we hear convicted
adult sex offenders plead for reduced sentences because they
themselves were sexually abused as children? What type of circle
of violence are we creating by legitimizing the possession of
child pornography?
1245
I want to extend Justice Shaw's reasoning to other criminality
that perhaps possession of stolen property could be determined to
be an infringement of the possessor's freedom of expression. What
about the possession of illegal drugs? It could easily be argued
that their use relieves tension and there is no harmful intent.
Or what about the possession of unregistered firearms? Surely it
could be argued that Bill C-68 was an infringement on the freedom
of expression of gun owners, the vast majority who have no
harmful intent.
Perhaps this government should spend as much effort keeping
child pornography out of the hands of pedophiles as it does
restricting the rights of legitimate gun owners.
I would like to raise another spectre. That is of courts taking
over the role of parliamentarians. It does not matter if 301
individuals representing five different political parties and,
more important, 30 million Canadians unanimously agreed that
child pornography is wrong. One individual has changed the law
in British Columbia.
I know the case is under appeal, but that means that three other
judges in the B.C. court of appeal will get their say. After that
maybe nine other judges in the Supreme Court of Canada will have
their say. While I respect the roles courts have in
administering justice they should not have the right to overrule
the will of the members of this House who are elected by
Canadians to make laws on their behalf.
This is about far more. It is about respecting our
constitution. This is another example of the courts interpreting
the charter of rights in a manner in which it was not intended.
Every now and then the Prime Minister likes to claim
responsibility for introducing the charter of rights. I would
like to think that he did not bring in the charter of rights to
give pedophiles the right to possess child pornography.
It was almost 800 years ago that the British had the Magna Carta
which introduced such concepts of guarantees of rights and the
rule of law, as well as laying the foundation for parliamentary
democracy. The Americans have had their constitution and the
bill of rights for over 200 years. Despite the spectacles that
we see today in the American Senate it aided ennoble causes like
the freeing of slaves. Now if we compare these two historic
documents with our charter of rights that is still shy of its
20th birthday, it will be known as the document that gave
pedophiles the right to possess child pornography. We should be
ashamed that our charter is even being challenged in this way.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of this case to the value
of the charter and to the courts in general. I suspect very few
Canadians can list the benefits that the charter has brought in
their day to day lives. But if this decision is allowed to
stand, they will certainly remember it. Even before this decision
in my five years as a parliamentarian I have received countless
letters and phone calls of constituents telling me that Canada
would be much better off without the charter of rights. If this
decision were to stand, that is, if the courts decide that it is
more important to allow pedophiles the right to see children
being abused than it is to protect our children, I am afraid I
could not disagree with them.
1250
If the charter of rights and accompanying court decisions are to
have any value at all in the lives of Canadians then they must
have the support of Canadians. Decisions like this left to stand
will drive away any of the support that might still remain for
the charter of rights and our constitution.
A constitution or a charter of rights that does not have the
support of the people is an empty document. It is a document
that is devoid of any relevancy. That is our challenge today, to
make sure our charter of rights respects the feelings of
Canadians and has relevancy to all our lives in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the hon. member who has just spoken.
Is she aware of a principle generally recognized by the courts? I
believe two appeal courts in Canada have already issued a
similar opinion, the Quebec Court of Appeal for one.
The principle is that of presumption of the constitutionality of
a piece of legislation until a final court of appeal has reached
a decision. In other words, in this case, with respect to
subsections 163.1(3) and 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code, although
a court of the first instance in British Columbia has declared
these subsections of the Criminal Code unconstitutional, does
she not believe that the presumption of constitutionality of
this section can, or must, be applied until a higher court has
rendered a decision. In Canada, this means first the appeal
court and then the Supreme Court of Canada.
In other words, I am casting some doubt on the statement she or
her Reform Party colleagues have made, that the children of
British Columbia are not protected, because there is no longer
any applicable legislation on child pornography, since
subsections 163.1(3) and 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code have been
invalidated.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, if that section is held
constitutionally then why was one pedophile allowed to walk free
and why are there 40 cases in British Columbia being held back
from being tried until there is a decision made on this?
If that constitutionality is a given then why are the children
of British Columbia having to face the fact that pedophiles are
being let out of the court system on to the streets to continue
plying their trade? I do not believe the children of British
Columbia are being protected. Would the member feel the same way
if it were the children of Quebec who were at risk?
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I just heard the justice minister indicate that the
Reform Party was making this a political issue.
I ask my colleague, who happens to be a politician along with
the rest of the politicians who lack the spine to make decisions
on such issues, why she thinks this should not be a political
issue in this country. Why does she think politicians should not
stand up for the rights of the young in this country?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, our job is political and
it is to make sure that these debates and discussions take place
in an open forum for all Canadians to know that their leaders,
the 301 people who sit here, are concerned about the issues and
protecting their children.
If that is being political, that I feel it is important that we
be having this debate in the public eye, in the House of Commons,
then I am guilty of that.
I think for far too long Canadian politicians and governments
have removed the people from the governance of their country.
The day has come when that has to stop. The people in Canada
deserve the right to be part of this conversation.
1255
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after listening the my colleague's speech I would like
to ask her if she agrees that as elected representatives of
Canada our first or foremost responsibility is to the safety and
well-being of the law-abiding and innocent people of this
country.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I believe that when we
have a conflict between the rights of Canadians and they come
head to head that it is the Parliament of Canada that has to
establish very clearly whose rights take precedence.
In this case I suggest parliament has to make it very clear that
it is the rights of children, not the rights of pedophiles, that
take precedence.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it does not give me great pleasure to come to the House to debate
this as I believe that the courts have made a mistake.
I believe that the justice minister should have acted on this
issue in a far more decisive way. It does not give me pleasure
to be debating this because there should be no debate. The
children of Canada must be protected. Under this justice
minister, under this government, that is not happening.
The definition of civilization is that we protect those who
cannot protect themselves. We must look after the children of
Canada. The people of Canada are saying to us in the House
protect our children.
The justice in his ruling wrote: “There is no evidence that the
production of child pornography will be significantly reduced if
simple possession is made a crime”. The word significantly
blows this thing completely out of proportion. What does he mean
by significantly reduced?. It is the responsibility of the House
to protect the children of Canada. For this justice to say that
he is making this ruling because there is no evidence that they
will be more significantly protected, even if they are protected
one small amount, that is better than this judgment.
We are faced in Canada today with judicial activism that in no
way reflects the values of Canadian citizens and Canadian
society. The values that Canadians are concerned with is
protecting their children. They demand few things. They expect
safe streets. They are not getting safe streets. They expect to
be free from terrorism and unfortunately in some cases they are
not getting this. They expect to be free and to avoid the issue
of drugs for teens. They want the protection of their teens from
a drug culture. They expect protection from being ripped off.
Sadly this government is going very slow. They expect those
things but what do they demand? They demand the protection of
children.
The justice minister has said to the police to go ahead and do
your thing. As a solicitor general critic, as I go in and out of
RCMP detachments I run into file after file that is full to
overflowing, brimming with paper and documents just to protect
the police because of the charter action that has been taken in
so many instances. The judicial activism that is presently
underway not in any way reflecting the values of Canadians is
hampering the police in their ability to do their job.
There has been mischief by the charter of rights and it has been
mischief that has been brought forward by the law society in
Canada. We even have first degree murderers who walk away when
the courts decide they should have had a search warrant under
certain conditions. So all of a sudden things are overturned,
murderers are permitted to go free and in retrials there are
situations where there cannot even be proper evidence brought
forward.
1300
There is just one thing that I can say about murderers versus
this issue. At least the people who are murdered are dead. The
difference in this issue is that the children of Canada who are
subjected to this become the walking dead. We must protect
children and we must protect our children now.
The justice went on to say a few more things:
Another quote:
It is the means of ensuring individual self-fulfilment by
developing and articulating thoughts and ideas as they see fit.
Mr. Sharpe was quoted as saying:
How can a four year old make any kind of an informed judgment on
that? How can an eight year old make any kind of an informed
judgment? That is what Canadians are faced with today. How
absolutely pathetically stupid, ridiculous and reprehensible that
statement is.
If the people on that side of the House do not understand that
we are sitting with a hand grenade, with the pin pulled, let me
quote Eugene Meehan of Lang Mitchener on CFRA this morning. He
equated the situation to “a grenade with the pin pulled”. This
situation is urgent. The opportunity to expose child pornography
will increase rapidly as a result. It will happen. It is
happening.
A police officer testified that as a result of the possession
count against Sharpe, the police had been able to obtain warrants
and carry out searches that have assisted them in finding child
molesters. In British Columbia that is all set aside at this
point. The justice minister can say to the police go ahead but
the law has been struck down and needs to resurrected. We need
to have action and we need it now.
Let me address the issue of who we are in the Chamber. There
are 301 people in the Chamber elected by the people of Canada.
The people of Canada assume that the House of Commons is the
supreme power in the country. Under this justice minister and
her predecessor, under this solicitor general and his
predecessor, the government has allowed the courts to become the
lawmakers and the law restricters in Canada.
We must stand up. We must be counted. It is up to members of
parliament to reflect the values of the people of Canada. The
people of Canada are saying “Protect our children, protect our
children now”.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has expressed the sentiments that all members of
parliament have expressed throughout this debate, and that is our
abhorrence with the issue of child pornography.
The member is trying to suggest that this issue is all to do
with abhorrence of child pornography. He stated that because of
the Sharpe decision everything is free form now in B.C. That is
not the case. That is not advising the House of the real facts.
The fact is that in current cases before the courts adjournments
are being sought. The police are also continuing to pursue their
investigations and to lay charges. The B.C. attorney general has
asked that the appeal be expedited.
The member will know this is an issue of process and I want him
to comment on the process. The notwithstanding clause, which the
Reform Party is suggesting will be the solution to all the
problems, only deals, as he should know and I do not think he
does, with cases from today forward or from the point of
invocation forward.
It does not deal with the Sharpe case. That appeal must proceed
to deal with the Sharpe case. The federal government will be
party to that appeal and we will vigorously defend the rights of
children and the laws of Canada.
1305
The member must clarify he fully understands that this is about
process, about the integrity of our system of laws and courts and
the application of the notwithstanding clause, and not with
regard to simply abhorrence of child abuse.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, let me make very clear that
I understand the notwithstanding clause. I understand that it is
not an either/or. The appeal can proceed. We can do both, and
that is what Canadians want. Why? Because the member himself
said that adjournments were currently being sought. He also said
that it would be expedited. Expediting something in a court is
akin to watching molasses trying to drip out of a container in
the Arctic in January.
I do not care how much expediting is going on. This case will
drag on for one or two years at least. The member is not
prepared to acknowledge that.
Furthermore, at this time it is not enough that the police in
Canada have had the tools of their trade taken out of their hands
in so many other instances. In this case the member knows full
well that if the police were to go to a judge today and ask for a
search warrant on the basis of this law they would not receive
it. I read what was said, that the search warrant would have not
been granted for Sharpe if this law was not in place.
In British Columbia the law is not in place and search warrants
cannot happen. The police are being restricted in being able to
stop this most reprehensible of all crimes.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I respect the views of the hon. member for
Kootenay—Columbia and I will have something to say later on the
subject of judicial activism.
On the issue of simultaneity of action to appeal courts and by
this parliament in relation to invocation of section 33(1) of the
Constitution, would the member not accept that this would render
moot in legal terms proceeding with the appeal process before the
supreme court? I do not unfortunately think one can have both
courses at once.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, we have taken advice and our
advice is contrary to what the member just stated.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again, our friends across the way are debating whether our
criminal justice system is properly managed.
Once again, they are complaining in veiled terms about a
judicial decision, which, in their opinion, undermines the
credibility of this justice system. Once again, they are arguing
that the courts are exceeding their legitimate role. Once again,
they are calling for strong action by Parliament.
It is easy to understand why some of my fellow citizens would
have such a knee-jerk and emotionally driven reaction. It is
however much more difficult to accept this kind of reaction from
experienced parliamentarians.
Is it our role to jump every time a judicial decision is made?
Should we not be reviewing the facts much more dispassionately
and reasonably? Have we not learned that a judgement at first
instance can be appealed?
[English]
I believe it is important to participate in the debate proposed
to us, but the reaction must be measured and must be based on the
law and the basic values by which we are governed, not on the
rawest emotions. We must rise above primal reaction and consider
this issue in its context. However well intentioned the motives
may be, it is more damaging than the very decision it decries.
It is obviously not my intention to discuss the judgment
rendered in this case. Not only would this be inappropriate but
also it is under appeal. The Attorney General of Canada will
intervene in support of the validity of the provisions and thus
the legitimacy will be tested before the appellate court.
This is the procedure that is followed in a constitutional state
or a country based on the rule of law.
1310
The main purpose of my statement is to guard against the highly
emotional reaction to a decision rendered in the first instance.
I believe that matters should be placed in perspective and that
we should let Canadians know that their justice system is
operating based on sound principles. That is not our
parliamentary role.
If recourse was taken under the notwithstanding clause every
time a court trial division came to a conclusion which opposed
the government of the day either on moral, legal or political
grounds, unfortunately it would be almost a daily occurrence. It
would also be a politicization of our justice. It would be
denying justice, not contributing to it.
[Translation]
The charter of rights and freedoms is a legal instrument we have
given ourselves to guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms
of everyone. This is an instrument we are proud of, and rightly
so. It represents our core values. We have established
institutions to deal with and settle conflicts of
interpretation, for instance, when a conflict arises with
respect to a piece of legislation.
I do not know whether the Sharpe decision is well founded in
law. It will be up to the higher courts to decide.
I do know, however, that we have a legal system in this country
under which decisions can be reviewed. There is no call to push
the panic button when a trial division judge hands down a
ruling, whatever that ruling may be.
[English]
Our criminal justice system has its own checks and balances
which assure us, to the extent humanly possible, that the best
decisions will be rendered. A court decision that poses a
problem can be appealed. Appeals are heard every day in the
country. I believe it would be particularly inappropriate of me
to suggest that a legislative response is needed every time a
court decision is rendered. The system works.
I would also like to indicate that I am sharing my time. There
is no need to go on at any length about the despicable nature of
child pornography. I am certainly no defender of such material.
The immense majority of Canadians fully support our resolve to
prohibit objects or materials that can harm the community and
individuals. Child pornography is intolerable because it harms
what is dearest to us, our children.
However, we do not have the right for demagogic purposes to
leave the impression that pornographers now have free rein. For
one thing the decision is under appeal. Moreover, some have
already lost sight of the fact that possession of such materials
for the purpose of distribution is prohibited and that the
constitutional validity of this prohibition is not in doubt.
However that is not the issue.
[Translation]
Parliament has a vital role to play in determining what should
and should not be prohibited. Its role is paramount. No one is
saying otherwise. There are limitations in place, however, to
ensure the protection of certain fundamental rights and
freedoms. The courts can help us by determining how this goal
can be achieved with the least disruption to other fundamental
freedoms. There must be dialogue between Parliament and the
courts.
Some court decisions may sometimes strike us as wrong. The
first step is for the superior courts to review these decisions
and, if necessary, take corrective action.
An immediate and ill-considered reaction by Parliament along the
lines of the motion being proposed is nothing less than
counterproductive. Let us remember that invoking section 33 of
the charter implies that we think that the action taken is not
reasonable in a free and democratic society. Is this really
what we wish to do? Is this the message we want to send?
Should we not give the appeal courts a chance to do their job
and see if the decision will be overturned?
1315
I know that today's debate is the result of outrage in certain
sectors at what some see as an unjust decision. I do not
believe that we have the right to shamelessly exploit this
outrage.
I, for one, believe strongly that the justice system must be
allowed to review these rulings in the usual manner. I
understand people's outrage, but I do not share it.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am a little sad today. I thought we were in this
House to make laws for the people of Canada. I thought the job
of the courts was to enforce and apply those laws.
It is clear that there is a perceived conflict in two laws that
have been passed by this House, one making the possession of
child pornography illegal and one protecting freedom of
expression. The courts clearly are not sure which one we wish to
be paramount.
There is a motion today whereby this House can make it very
clear to the courts which law we wish to be paramount.
What is the problem with the lawmakers of this land,
representatives of the people of this country, parents and
children of this country making it clear that we do not wish to
tolerate the possession of child pornography in our society?
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
suggested that it is the role of parliament to make laws and the
role of the courts to interpret them. That is exactly what is
going on here.
Parliament has made laws prohibiting the use and possession of
certain pornographic materials and the courts are in the process
of interpreting them. The difficulty is that we are at the trial
division level.
From here there is an appeal to the British Columbia court of
appeal and then a further right of appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada. We only need go back to the last parliament to see an
example where a case was tried and appealed. I refer to the case
of the defence of drunkenness.
Parliament was not satisfied with the interpretation. It did
not accept that it was proper. Parliament exercised its
discretion and passed, under the previous justice minister, a new
law to prohibit the defence of drunkenness.
That is how the system should work. The system should be
allowed to carry its course through the courts where the courts
will interpret the laws. At the end of the day, if parliament is
not satisfied with the result of that interpretation, then it is
open to parliament to pass a new law.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, in her remarks the Minister of Justice referred to the
Reform motion as being wrong and a precipitous action, yet 75 of
her colleagues signed a letter to the Prime Minister asking for
the very same thing that this motion is asking for today.
I will quote from that letter. It reads “We ask that the
government not wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to be
heard, but immediately act in the defence of Canada's children”.
The letter to the Prime Minister goes on to ask that the use of
the notwithstanding clause be considered.
The former solicitor general, who is in the House, today signed
this letter. A number of colleagues opposite, members of the
Liberal caucus, signed this letter. Yet the Minister of Justice
and the Prime Minister are now overriding the wishes not only of
the majority of Canadians and the unified opposition on this side
of the House, but the majority of the members of the Liberal
caucus who support this motion and who are being forced not to
support the motion before the House today.
The former solicitor general is nodding his head. How can these
members reconcile having asked for a specific course of action
just a few short days ago and putting their signature to this
request in a letter to the Prime Minister and then a few days
later parking their principles at the door and acting like
obedient sheep?
Whose interests are they serving? Are they serving the interests
of their constituents? Are they serving the public interest? Or
are they afraid to offend some unelected people in the Prime
Minister's office?
1320
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I had not seen the
letter, but someone just handed me a copy of the letter that the
hon. member refers to. I understand there are 69 signatures on
it.
I cannot speak for my colleagues who signed this letter, but I
can point out that the letter asks that the government consider
the invocation of the notwithstanding clause.
Not having any more background than that, when it says
“consider the use of the notwithstanding clause”, that is not
to me a full endorsement of its invocation. It is saying that
the government should consider it the way a due diligent
government should consider all alternatives.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the member for Simcoe North sharing his time with
me.
To begin, I would like to review the history of the charter of
rights. It was not part of the original constitutional
patriation package. It was introduced because very many scholars
around the country reminded the then prime minister that we were
one of only two major countries that did not have a charter of
rights, the rights and freedoms of citizens. The other was
Switzerland. We were both mid-19th century constitutional
systems. And it was introduced.
What about the notwithstanding clause? The problem was really a
conflict of different modes of legal thinking and, in particular,
the then NDP premier of Saskatchewan, Premier Blakeney, who had
been educated in the English system where there is no charter of
rights. There is now, by the way, with the European court of
human rights and the European charter and most of the decisions
seem to affect Great Britain. In any event, Mr. Blakeney opposed
the idea of a charter, but he agreed on the basis of the present
notwithstanding clause.
It is a very awkward clause in its drafting. It had to be.
In the United States unpopular decisions have been overturned by
constitutional amendments. One can cite here, for example, the
income tax amendment which reversed supreme court decisions.
Mr. Trudeau, when he was approached on this issue and asked why
he inserted the notwithstanding clause, said “It was the price
of getting the charter. Without it I would not have had the
charter”. He then said “I am very sad about it, but I do not
believe any federal government will dare to use it”. That has
been the fact of life. No federal government has used it.
The major use of this of course has been by one provincial
legislature. Four hundred and fifty measures of that legislature
were submitted to the notwithstanding clause. Who was it?
Premier Levesque, the premier of Quebec, between 1982 and 1985.
When he left office the new premier removed the notwithstanding
clause from any consideration for any further Quebec bills, so
that it remains what many scholars have called a constitutional
aberration.
What are the alternatives? One is very obviously the appeal
route. People can differ, and I should not as a lawyer express
an opinion on a decision by a judge. He deserves respect. But I
would simply suggest that honest men and women in the judiciary
are entitled to other points of view and might very readily come
to a different point of view.
The section of the charter that is involved is one of the most
clear sections of the charter. It calls out for a species of
judicial legislation. It really embodies, almost word for word,
the provisions of the American bill of rights. Our charter, by
the way, is much too long, much too pedantic. It is often hard
to understand, but on that it is crystal clear. I would suggest
that it is reasonable to expect that other people on appeal might
come to a different answer.
What we are doing is to ask the justice minister to expedite the
appeal process. We do not have the American system of certiorari
where the highest court can pick up immediately from a lower
court a decision involving constitutional principles and render
its own decision on the file.
I think that is a gap in our legal system and it should be,
frankly, filled at some future stage not too far in the distant
future.
1325
It is probably one of the problems of our charter that we do not
have a constitutional court or even a constitutional tribunal of
the sort that some of us recommended to Mr. Trudeau when he was
going about the adoption of the charter of rights. But we do
have the appeal system and it can work very quickly.
The major decision of our supreme court perhaps of recent years
is the decision on the constitutionality of a secession by
Quebec. Issues of this sort on reference have taken in the past
three years or four years. Why not? They did it in six months.
I think we are asking, and I will ask the Minister of Justice,
to make sure that the federal government presses for quick
action. I would think this is a matter on which the court will
respond.
I listened with interest to the comment by the member for
Kootenay—Columbia because he has made some thoughtful comments
on the issue of judicial power in the past. I would like to see
the legal authority on which he relies. I think he should
publish it, as the possibility of simultaneity of an appeal
action, an action under the notwithstanding clause. I would have
thought it was elementary that the issue becomes moot in the
courts once the legislative action is proceeding. It is, in any
case, for the court itself to decide on this issue. I do not
think that it is a sound, juridical principle as advanced, but I
would like to see the argument that he has brought forward.
Are there ways in which one can substitute for judges some other
form of action? One can define, if one wishes to amend the
charter of rights. One could define in much greater detail all
the sorts of things one wants to control or prescribe.
One of the weaknesses of our charter is that it defines too
much. But when we get into the clarion principles of the
American bill of rights, as we do in the section now under
contest in this particular case, it calls out for a creative
interpretation by the judiciary.
I think the debates in the House are part of the travaux
préparatoires, part of the sources the Supreme Court of Canada
may go to. I do not exclude a situation, after decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada, when we may wish to re-examine ways of
changing the court decision. One can consider the
notwithstanding clause then. But I would suggest to hon. members
the message that should go to the justice minister is to use all
speed to make sure that the appeal processes operate with the
celerity that they did with the reference on the separation of
Quebec.
If the notwithstanding provisions are invoked, by the way, do
not expect overnight miracles. It will require fresh legislation
by the House of Commons. It will require an approval by the
Senate. It will go through all those procedures. It will be, I
think, a long and drawn out process.
My message here is, I believe, the opposition's anger and the
concerns that it has expressed, which are shared very clearly by
very many on the government side, are reflected in the debate. It
is part of the record that the Supreme Court of Canada will have
available to it on appeal and may properly be referred to.
I do not believe that the notwithstanding procedure should be
proceeded with while this matter is pending. I do have
reservations about the notwithstanding procedures generally. I
think there should be simpler processes for reversing court
decisions on the line of the American system.
What I am really saying is that the inchoate debate that the
member for Kootenay—Columbia launched last year on judicial
activism failed because basically there was no comment on
institutional possibilities.
We have gotten over the notion that everything in constitutional
change is involved with the Quebec question. There are issues of
institutional reform and I think the constructive comments that
we heard on both sides of the House during the debate, and there
have been a number, are ones better addressed in that context.
So do not mess with the charter lightly.
It is an act to achieve a charter of rights. It should be
changed, not in the reaction to a single case, but only with a
regard to long range principles.
1330
On that basis I recommend following the procedure outlined by
the minister of justice for going ahead with the file. I and
others will communicate in our own rights but I believe that it
has come clearly from the debate in the House. With all Godspeed
go ahead with the appeal process. This is a decision that I
believe is eminently arguable with all respect by the judge of
the Supreme Court of British Columbia. He is only one judge. In
the American system it would go immediately to the top which is
the sort of reform in terms of the better functioning of our
charter of rights that we could seriously consider in the future.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member said that while this
is an aberration it is just one judge, but this is another
example of a series of problems perceived by the community which
leads to a basic distrust. A gap develops between what the
community expects and the results that are delivered through the
judicial system. This is only the latest example of the basic
lack of community confidence that judges are reflective of
mainstream Canadian values. Part of it is not so much what is
being decided but also who is on the bench and who gets to be
decidee.
I refer to a time when the chairman of the justice committee
agreed with Reform on that issue. I said on that day as a
backdrop in a general sense we detect that there is not a lot of
public confidence in the judiciary itself. One of the mysteries
is that the average public does not know how judges get to be
appointed.
The late Shaughnessy Cohen, God bless her, said: “We all know
it is the committees that want to keep the process secret. We
all know they do not want to face an applicant. They do not want
to have someone who is applying for a judicial appointment put
his face right in front of them because God forbid they should be
accountable for this decision”.
She went on to say: “If this committee wants to continue to
keep this secret, perhaps they should reconsider the process and
reconsider whether they want to be on the committee or not. Maybe
it is turning into a star chamber. There is a big difference.
There are politics at play here other than Liberal politics or
Tory politics. There is also the politics of the bar which is
unaccountable and really nasty. It gets down to who is
deciding”.
She also said: “In the final analysis who is on the hook if a
judge screws up? It is the Prime Minister and the justice
minister”. That opinion was very well considered based on
experience. The opinion and the evidence we got in this Chamber
today was unaccountability, that we should let the system work,
that it is all okay. Our point today is that it is not working
and changes have to be made.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his interesting and useful comments. I have done a good deal
of pre-parliamentary work on the special institution of the
constitutional court which most countries of the world now have.
The judges are elected under specific processes that vary by
country. The legislative bodies in many countries are using
proportional systems. To institute a change of that sort here
would require a constitutional amendment which would also require
all 10 provinces and the federal government. Forget it.
When I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs we introduced a system of having departmental
appointments to ambassadorial rank brought before the committee.
A number of very distinguished people appeared and answered
questions at considerable length, and not always with
considerable politeness on the part of the questioners as to
their qualifications. That can be done by simple parliamentary
custom. It may be the sort of thing that the justice committee
could usefully consider. Would it be the sort of thing that
might be advanced?
Some judges would object. When the charter of rights was being
adopted I mentioned a system of the parliamentary election of
judges for a constitutional court. One distinguished gentleman
said that he would never agree to serve on this basis. I told
him that he would be surprised by the thunder of feet of people
rushing by him, people who would be prepared to go before an
electoral system.
I offer this for the hon. member's consideration. It might be a
point worth raising. There are already precedents, for example
in the foreign affairs committee.
1335
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud to be speaking today on the Reform motion.
The debate has been somewhat diminished by some insulting
remarks made by government members. They have characterized
Reform as fearmongers. They have said we have wrong motives,
that we are acting precipitously and we are silly.
I indict them with the charge that if the members over there sat
on this side of the House and that motion had come from this side
of the House there is probably not one of them who would not
support the motion. That is an indictment I do not think many of
them could escape, particularly those 69 who signed the petition
to their own leadership asking for a move on this issue.
There are those tonight when the vote comes up who will wish
they were on this side of the House. They will wish that they
were not whipped into shape so that they could express not only
their own hearts' desire in this matter but the desire of their
constituents, as well. When the vote comes this side of the
House is on the side of the children. It is on the side of the
parents of the children. It is on the side of what is right and
we will vote as a block on this side to support the motion.
On that side we will be interested to see what the result is and
to see if members there will stand up for what they know is
right. On the other hand there have been some members who have
made good and legal points but I do not believe that it was as
quoted by the judge, that the possession of child pornography is
an important expression of a person's essential self. That self
needs to be reigned in. The law that was struck down needs to be
reinstated as soon as possible.
It is not good enough to say that from now until whenever the
government stands aside and watches while Canadian children are
put at risk, to watch the process take a step by step management
rather than leadership approach to dealing with the problem. It
will just not accomplish what needs to be done.
Judge Shaw invoked a provision of the charter to strike down the
law that protects children from child pornography. It is within
parliament's purview to strike down his decision through use of
the notwithstanding provisions of the charter of rights and
freedoms. We do not think that a careless interpretation by one
judge should bring the entire protection of children into danger.
The role of parliament in the debate and in acting has been
trivialized by those members who have said let the system work
and we will bring in the law in a timely fashion. The Minister
of Justice has said for all the time I have been in the House of
Commons, approaching two years, to wait and that something on the
Young Offenders Act will be brought forward in a timely fashion.
The official opposition is still waiting. We have quit looking
at our watches. We have almost quit looking at the calendar. We
are beginning to look at some millennium clock to find out if
anything will happen when the government says it will act in a
timely fashion.
We have a responsibility in the House of not merely to be
regulators of society enforcing contracts between different
groups within our society and setting up those kinds of
guidelines. We are to provide some leadership and governing.
We want to consult with our people but we will not find in this
situation any public approval for consultation, waiting or
anything else. Canadians expect us to act. They do not want to
see protection for pornographers, perverts and pedophiles. They
do not want to see children left at risk. They want protection.
We have heard time and again that there are people who are
planning court challenges to take away parents' rights to
discipline and raise their children in the best way they see fit.
1340
We understand there is a lot of support for that from the
Liberal side. For goodness sake, why would we even consider
stripping away the rights of parents to raise their children when
we would not even consider stripping away the rights of a
pedophile to look at the waterworks of children for his own
perverted purposes?
We need to act but there are two ways to act. One is to cut off
the supply which is what we are doing. There are laws so that it
cannot be produced. What we want to see is something to choke
off the demand. There are millions upon millions of dollars
spent on educating the public on the dangers of alcohol, smoking
and other related social problems but education has not stopped
it. Education has only made them aware of the dangers of what it
is they are doing. We do not want to see this go down that same
road.
We want a law in place that is upheld by parliament that will
cut off the demand. We do not treat drunks with alcohol. We do
not let it trickle through. If we want to get away from
alcoholism we cut it off.
A new generation is coming and it will judge the previous
generation on both its actions and its inactions. It will judge
this House on whether it acted or whether it just let so-called
justice take its course and possibly end up as being an injustice
because of our lack of action.
Our vote tonight is action. It can be an action for what is
going on or it can be an action against what is going on. I am
calling on government members to act. I have three daughters and
I will be voting on their behalf and on behalf of my constituency
and I will be voting for this amendment.
Parliament has the final responsibility in this country. We
have appeal courts and the supreme court to review previous
decisions but parliament has the final responsibility. With
responsibility should come authority and parliament must not be
afraid to act on that authority. It must not fail to use the
authority.
President Harry Truman, one of the most respected presidents of
the United States, had a sign on his desk which read “The buck
stops here”. Are we saying that in our country the buck stops
down the road on Wellington where the supreme court justices have
final say over the laws and intentions of this House which were
produced in accordance with what our constituents asked of us
when they said they want just laws, laws that provide equality,
democracy, righteousness, freedom? Or are we to say down the
road is where you will find those things and you will have to
fight your way through every court, right through the provincial
courts to the Supreme Court of Canada at great expense? Or can we
be expected to act here for the people who we purport to
represent?
I say we act here. The buck stops here. When I accepted this
job I said I would do all I could to ensure that righteousness
prevailed. I said I would not necessarily succeed in everything
but that I would do my best to be faithful to what I promised in
the election campaign. Part of that will be voting for this
legislation tonight. Each MP's responsibility is to ensure the
country they leave is in better shape than they found it in. If
they fail to do that they fail their people and their promise to
them in the election.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to share with the member some of the facts I have
received from a person in my riding of Peterborough.
He says: “This is to express my alarm at the present proposal
being debated in parliament to use the notwithstanding clause to
override the charter of rights with respect to the current
concern over a judicial decision in British Columbia concerning
the child pornography law”.
1345
His concern is threefold. One concern is that the
notwithstanding clause was not developed in order to have the
federal parliament override the charter. It was, as we know, a
compromise to accommodate some of the provinces. If the federal
parliament were to use it, it would set a precedent that could
undermine the charter by permitting political tampering whenever
there was a volatile issue such as the one raised at the current
moment.
Second, the person in my riding says, as jurors have pointed
out, that the child pornography law is flawed and it should be
left to the supreme court to comment on it and then for
parliament to amend it in the light of intelligent, informed,
judicial discussion.
This person says he is not a lawyer but he is quite familiar
with this area. This is grassroots comment which the Reform
Party is constantly referring to. He is not a lawyer. He is
familiar with this area. He says it should be left with the
supreme court.
Third, he said that using such extraordinary powers to satisfy a
momentary outcry of ethical panic would lead the Canadian
government to fall prey to what has infected the United States in
what one of its leading constitutional lawyers, Harvard professor
Allan Dershowitz has dubbed “sexual McCarthyism”. It might be
well to remember that in the McCarthy era of U.S. history we in
Canada had a similar tendency that manifested itself in such an
embarrassing moment of history as the Taschereau-Kellock
commission report which led to the demonization of such innocent
individuals who had made great contributions to Canada such as
John Grierson.
He points out “While many of your constituents may press for
the use of this notwithstanding clause, at the moment this is the
time for statesmanship to take precedence over the politics of
panic guided by the media and the Reform Party”.
I would be glad if the member would comment on the comments of
one of my constituents in Peterborough, a person who is following
this debate.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, as the shouting dies down
I will try to make a comment or two on what the member said.
He called it sexual McCarthyism. This is one person's
viewpoint. I respect that person's viewpoint, but I do not
believe that the majority of people in this country think that
way. I certainly do not believe that the bulk of the members on
that side think that way. I think members are looking for outs so
they can support what they have been told to support.
He said the child law is flawed. I do not believe that. The law
is not flawed simply because this man says it is flawed. He may
have an opinion, but that does not necessarily mean it is the
right opinion. That is not necessarily the opinion that will be
delivered by a supreme court justice.
It is not the opinion of the Reform Party or any other member on
this side of the House who is voting in accordance with their
conscience and what their constituents wish that the law is
flawed. We say it needs to be upheld. The quickest and best way
to uphold it is to bring in section 33, the notwithstanding
clause so that this law can continue in effect. It was brought
in by a previous parliament and was supported across the board.
We want to see it supported in the House.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I find it remarkable that the member for Peterborough is quoting
with some authority Allan Dershowitz, a radical leftist American
constitutional authority.
The American constitutional system is based on judicial review,
whereas the Canadian system is based on a principle known as
parliamentary supremacy, a principle which even this Prime
Minister guaranteed was enshrined in the charter through section
33. This place has not used it before. Whenever we have raised
the issue of judicial activism this government has said that we
were Chicken Littles. Today we see the ultimate consequences of
a completely unencumbered, unaccountable judiciary. That is why I
ask my colleague from Prince Albert what he thinks about using
American constitutional theory to apply to the Canadian charter.
Mr. Peter Adams: I rise on a point
of order and ask for permission to table the document I was
citing from.
1350
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Peterborough
have the unanimous consent of the House to table the document
from which he was quoting?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Earlier today I referred to a signed letter to the Prime
Minister of Canada. I inadvertently failed to table this
document. It is a document signed by 75 members of the Liberal
caucus asking for the same action that this resolution today is
asking for. I would like to table this document.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Prince Albert will
have a few seconds to respond to the question that was asked of
him.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in Canada
we have a system where we have parliamentary supremacy. That
means we have a responsibility. We cannot abdicate it and say
that every question has to go to the supreme court. We can act
here in the House. We have a notwithstanding clause that allows
us as parliamentarians to make a law stand once we have made it
in the way in which it was intended to be made.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to this motion.
It is a painful issue for many Canadians across the country as
we have seen expressed from coast to coast.
Interestingly the crux of this argument seems to be the defence
of some sort of freedom, yet at the same time we are talking
about a failure of our system to protect the most vulnerable. In
the cause of freedom and the championing of rights we have
crossed over the line of rational thought when we can no longer
protect the most vulnerable in our society. As we charge down
the highway of rights and freedoms, we have made a grave error
today if we let this stand the way it is.
I applaud the members of the House in my party and every party.
There are some on the other side who are determined to put a
quick end to this grave mistake.
We have had supreme court rulings in the past. They have had
more wisdom on this issue than the current one. I am sure it has
been referenced in the debates today. In the Butler case it was
ruled that the access to pornographic material is not in the
public interest. It is demonstrably harmful to society. For
that very reason section 1 of the charter was called into effect
and it was deemed to be illegal. There was no outcry there. In
fact, Canadians were pleased to see that ruling. That is not
the one we are faced with today. We are seeing just the
opposite.
What concerns me is must we have more victims before we can
determine if there is harm? We talked about the determination of
harm being the criteria before we will decide whether it is
reasonable to shut this kind of thing down. How much harm must
we endure before we can say there has been enough? How many more
children, victims, need to be involved in this kind of sick thing
before we can say there has been enough?
Maybe we should not go overboard in determining harm but ask if
there is any redeeming attribute of this material that would
legitimize it. I would suggest there is absolutely not. Put the
onus on the other side. Where is the redeeming attribute in this
kind of material? How does it add to the health and safety of
our children, our families and our community? It is not there.
In a charter world we seem to stop using our heads and we rely
on legal arguments and highly articulated legalese. Somewhere we
have lost sight that there is a victim at the end of all this and
it is a child. It is tragic.
1355
I have read material that talks about the impacts of
pornography. Oftentimes those that are caught up in this cannot
tell the difference between fantasy and reality after a while and
sooner or later they act out.
I know there are all kinds of studies and debates and people
that articulate the different sides of this. However, if we
asked 100 Canadians that very question whether they think that
looking at this is going to distort our perception of reality,
that we start to look at individual children as objects rather
than individuals, of those 100 Canadians far and away the
majority will say yes, it does distort reality. It is not an
accurate picture of a child.
Interestingly, a paroled sexual offender was released in my
riding not long ago. One of the conditions of the individual's
parole was that he not avail himself, look at or expose himself
to pornographic material. That was a condition of his parole.
Here we have the court system and a judge saying that this would
not work. This would not be good for this individual. This would
distort his sense of reality again.
One court is saying do not touch it and another court is saying
it is quite all right for people to avail themselves of this
material and legitimize this market. It is wrong and we have an
opportunity here today to fix it.
I know that many members in this House want to shut this down
now which is what the Canadian people want to have happen. We can
shut this down now and put an end to the continued victimization
of children, the victims depicted in these horrible things. It
is not a case of freedoms and rights. It is a case of children
who are victims. It is a case of the children not only who are
victims today in this material but the ones who will be impacted
tomorrow if we allow this to continue and we allow the
legitimization of this market to carry on.
I suggest that all Canadians are victims. If we allow a law
like this one to stand, every Canadian is tarnished. The pride
in our country and who we are as Canadians is diminished when we
say to people from other countries that in Canada we think it is
quite all right for people to look at and study this kind of
pornographic material that depicts children. It diminishes all
of us as Canadians. We are all victimized by this. It is just
not acceptable.
To defend freedoms that fail to protect the most innocent is
crossing over the line. Many of us here know it. We know it in
our hearts. Today we have an opportunity to show the Canadian
people that being a Canadian means something. We stand for
something but we are not going to stand for this. Let us do it
today.
The Speaker: My colleague, you still have three minutes.
I want to intervene here and you will have the floor when we
return to the debate, if you want it.
We will go to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE FRANK LOW-BEER
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Frank Low-Beer, who died last month, was educated at Stanford
University and Oxford University and called to the bar of British
Columbia in 1957. He practised law in a wide range of fields,
including taxation, international transactions and resource law.
He also published extensively on such issues as the Canadian
Constitution and the role of judges in formulating policy in law
and legislation.
Frank maintained a keen interest in politics and was a candidate
in my riding of Vancouver Quadra in the 1974 federal general
election. He will be missed by associates and by scholars of law
and government.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the first responsibility of government is to protect the
safety and well-being of its law-abiding citizens. That
responsibility is especially strong when it comes to the safety
and well-being of Canada's children.
However, a judge in British Columbia has ruled that the rights
of children to be protected are less important than the so-called
rights of some adults who want to look at pictures of child
pornography.
1400
Such exploitation of children makes most Canadians sick but the
government is saying there is plenty of time to send this judge's
ruling through endless appeals in our backlogged courts. The
judgment only affects courts in B.C. and not in the rest of
Canada.
Can members imagine a parliamentary secretary making such a
statement if the ruling had come down in Ontario or Quebec?
Canadians are fed up with politicians letting the courts make
our laws instead of parliament making our laws. This House rams
through legislation when it suits them. Why should it take any
longer to act against child pornography?
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, International Development Week activities
are being held across Canada this week.
This year's theme is celebrate Canada's place in the world. It
was chosen to honour the many thousands of Canadians who have
made lasting contributions abroad.
Numerous groups active in international development include
non-governmental organizations, professional and educational
institutions, churches and the business sector.
This week's events are certain to create a healthy atmosphere
for Canada to develop closer friendship ties within the
international community.
I am pleased to join my colleagues in the House of Commons to
encourage Canadians across the country to join in these
celebrations in their neighbourhoods.
* * *
NORDICITY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
world summit on nordicity is being held in Quebec City this week.
Canada is a very appropriate host for an event that celebrates
things northern and polar.
Quebec City is a particularly appropriate venue for this event
because the term nordicité, in English nordicity, was coined
by the distinguished Quebec scholar Louis-Edmond Hamelin.
Mr. Hamelin developed a nordicity index which measures physical
and social aspects of the north. This is a way of assessing the
severity of life in different parts of the polar world. It gives,
for example, employers a way of assessing living and working
conditions for people posted to particular northern locations.
Mr. Hamelin's index has stimulated a great deal of creative
thought about life in high latitudes.
We wish those involved in the world summit on nordicity a
pleasant and productive visit to Quebec City and Canada, the home
of Louis-Edmond Hamelin.
* * *
JOB CREATION
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 18
full time jobs were created in my riding recently with the
announcement of a loan from the Government of Canada to two local
companies operated by former employees of the AECL plant in
Pinawa.
Acsion Industries is expected to create 14 full time jobs over
the next three years. The company has recently opened up
international markets for its electron beam technology which is
used in aerospace industry, parts repair, rayon fibre production
and converting hog waste into fertilizer.
Granite Internet Services Inc. is providing high level Internet
services to eastern Manitoba and is creating four full time jobs
over three years. The company provides dial-up Internet access,
business services and design services for local area networks and
websites.
I am particularly pleased to support these two young companies
because they are both owned and managed by former AECL employees.
These are the sorts of initiatives we have been aiming for
because they are creating jobs for an expanding economic base in
western Canada.
* * *
THE LATE WIARTON WILLIE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Wiarton Willie, Canada's most famous groundhog, passed
away on Sunday night. He left thousands of fans a little
lonelier this Groundhog Day and millions of Canadians wondering
whether or not spring will come early.
Oh sure, we have weather balloons and satellites. Yes, I have
heard scientists talk about El Nino and about the global freezing
your tush off theory, but the only meteorologist for many
Canadians was Wiarton's reliable rodent.
Willie lived a long and happy life. He was 22, which is three
times longer than most groundhogs live. That is like 154
dog years.
How he would have loved today: the crowds, the excitement and
the intense publicity. Would he see his shadow? Would it be six
weeks until spring?
Alas, the only shadow he saw this week was the shadow of death.
Rest in peace, my furry little friend. I hope you go to the
place in the sky where all good groundhogs go, where it is spring
all year round.
Thank you, Willie, for your life of public service and hope.
* * *
JOHN DAVIDSON
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure today to congratulate my constituent John
Davidson who, on January 20, completed his cross-country journey
to raise funds for genetic research.
John began “Jesse's Journey—A Father's Tribute” in St. John's,
Newfoundland in April of last year. He ended his inspirational
journey in Victoria, B.C. after walking nearly 8,300 kilometres
across Canada. He set out to raise $10 million to endow a fund
that would generate a million dollars a year for research into
genetic disease. So far he has been successful in raising over
$2 million. But knowing his tenacity I am convinced that with the
help of Canadians he will reach the goal.
1405
I offer my congratulations to the nuclear and extended Davidson
family, to volunteers and to contributors who worked so hard to
make this journey a success. I also offer my thanks to all
Canadians for welcoming John into their communities and into
their hearts.
With all members of this House I salute John Davidson for his
courageous and unending efforts. He has brought hope to future
generations.
* * *
[Translation]
HEART MONTH
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to remind the House, and all the people of Canada, that
February is Heart Month.
Health Canada has collaborated with the Heart and Stroke
Foundation and the provinces in the Canadian Heart Health
Initiative, in order to encourage Canadians to adopt a healthy
lifestyle and to create living and working conditions conducive
to healthy choices.
Canada has decided to adopt a public health-centred approach to
the prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Cardiovascular disease is the first-ranking cause of death, and
one of the top causes of disability in Canada.
Canada has won some important battles in the war against heart
disease and stroke, but there is still a great deal left to be
done if we are to continue to reduce the risk factors relating
to these diseases: high blood pressure, smoking, high
cholesterol levels, and diabetes.
By investing in heart health, we can make a considerable
reduction in the incidence of heart disease. And by encouraging
all of society to make this investment, we will be able to
improve the quality of life of countless numbers of Canadians.
* * *
ANNIE PERRAULT
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Annie Perreault,
a young woman from our Eastern Townships, won two medals at the
Nagano Olympics, one of them a gold in short-track speed skating.
Since that memorable performance, Annie has been honoured three
times in the last month. On January 5, she was awarded the 1998
leadership award as a model athlete by the weekly newspaper La
Nouvelle de Sherbrooke. Then, at the gala du Mérite sportif de
l'Estrie, Annie was named athlete of the year for the third
time. Finally,, last Friday, January 22, at the Sports-Québec
gala in Montreal, Annie was crowned top female international
athlete of the year.
On behalf of all the people of the riding of Sherbrooke, I offer
my heartiest congratulations to this athlete who is making our
region known throughout the world, and who has risen to the top
because of her passion for sport and her constant efforts.
Thank you so much, Annie, and good luck in future competitions.
* * *
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday when answering a question about
the child pornography case in British Columbia the minister of
justice stated that an effort to pre-empt that appellate process
is silly and wrong headed.
Outside the House she stated that opposition MPs were stirring
up unnecessary fear over the issue because the ruling is only
binding on lower court judges in B.C., which has had one case
thrown out and forty others put on hold.
As is so often the case with this government it forgets that
B.C. is still a part of Canada. I can assure the minister that
British Columbians do not appreciate being one of the few
jurisdictions in the world which legalizes child pornography.
Does the minister not realize that real children have to be
sexually abused to produce child pornography? Does she really
believe that efforts to protect these children today are silly
and wrong headed? Whose side is she on?
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA JOBS FUND
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 13, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the
Minister of Labour launched the Canada Jobs Fund to help
Canadians find employment.
In today's context of market globalization and openness in
various areas, our government believes it is important for all
Canadians to take full advantage of every opportunity to improve
their quality of live.
This initiative will benefit regions where the rate of
unemployment is 10% and over. In Quebec, the areas affected will
be Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke and Montreal.
1410
By making changes to this initiative to include more
communities, the Government of Canada recognizes the need to
stimulate employment and to reduce unemployment through a
strategy that fosters economic growth across Canada.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE ALAN JOHN SIMPSON
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 59 years
ago Alan John Simpson was born in Winnipeg and was an active,
athletic boy until he came down with polio at 14.
After three years in the hospital and at home, he told his
parents “I want to go back to school”. Alan was the first
student in a wheelchair at Gordon Bell High and then went on to
graduate from University of Manitoba.
Over his life Alan helped create 30 international and national
organizations, including the Council of Canadians with
Disabilities.
Alan did all this with humour, passion and common sense. One
neighbour remembers the day Alan wheeled up while he was
surveying his newly purchased property. “What are you going to
do right there?”, he said. The neighbour said “I am going to
put my front door”. Alan said “If you put in a ramp too, then
I will be able to come up and water your plants when you are
away”. He did put in a ramp.
Alan Simpson had an impact on people. In the late 1980s he
pressed for inclusion of disabilities in the charter of rights
and freedoms. Last October Alan received the Order of Canada.
In December Alan died due to complications from surgery. I
would like to join with all Canadians and members of the House of
Commons to remember Alan John Simpson, revered, loved and never
forgotten.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure today to remind members of the House and the
people of Quebec and Canada that this is International
Development Week.
On this occasion, I would like to acknowledge the terrific job
done by the NGOs involved in this area. Their generous
dedication brings relief to and helps improve the living
conditions of millions of human beings.
But can the same be said of the Government of Canada? No. Since
1993, this government has literally been draining the
development assistance budget, cutting it by $617 million.
I am calling on the common sense of the Minister of
International Co-operation and the Minister of Finance to take
immediate steps to make international co-operation a government
priority. If the government is still committed to devoting at
least 0.7% of the GDP to development assistance, as it promised
the UN, it should make this clear in the coming budget.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE WIARTON WILLIE
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is a country with long winters and we all look forward to
an early spring.
Today is Groundhog Day. The home of Wiarton Willie, a
constituent of mine, is located in my riding of Bruce—Grey.
Unfortunately on Sunday night Wiarton Willie passed away in the
middle of the town's annual festival in his honour. I express my
sincere condolences to the people of the town of Wiarton.
I would like to issue a Canada-wide recovery call for Willie
Junior. Willie walked in the shadow of his father but it is time
for him to come home and take up those duties.
* * *
SONG FOR THE MILLENNIUM
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, while most of
the public attention and discussion on the year 2000 focuses on
what might go wrong, there is good news from my riding of
Markham.
Justin Hines, a grade 11 student at Unionville High School, has
co-written Song for the Millennium, an inspirational tune
that was recently selected as the town of Markham's official
anthem for the millennium celebration.
I had the privilege of attending the debut of Song for the
Millennium. The audience was so moved that we jumped to a
standing ovation before Justin could finish singing.
This is just the latest of Justin's songwriting achievements.
Last year he won the YTV youth achievement award for singing and
his award winning song Kid at Play was also nominated for a
Grammy award for vocal performance.
Moreover, this 16 year old who uses a wheelchair has also become
an example to other young Canadians with disabilities.
On behalf of all members I congratulate Justin Hines and urge
the Deputy Prime Minister as minister responsible for Canada's
millennium celebrations to designate the town of Markham's
Song for the Millennium as Canada's official anthem for the
year 2000 millennium celebrations.
* * *
POLAND
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House to congratulate the government on
the success of Team Canada's recent visit to Poland, the first
ever by a Canadian prime minister.
As a Canadian of Polish heritage I was honoured to accompany the
Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade as well as
some of Canada's most dynamic business people to this proud and
prosperous country.
Our hosts admired this government's balanced budgets and low
interest rates which are powering Canada's economy and fuelling
job creation.
1415
This may go unnoticed on the opposition benches but not in
Poland where the Prime Minister was awarded an honorary doctorate
in economics. Polish business people are determined to
strengthen the economic partnership between our two countries.
Stolat. May our two countries continue 100 years of good
health.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
child pornography is poison. The minister is justifying another
lengthy court battle about this whole case.
It may be a lawyer's dream to see this tragedy played out in the
court system, but it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to
protect the vulnerable and the innocent.
How could the minister justify one more day to make it legal in
any jurisdiction in the country for someone to own child
pornography? How could she justify it?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): 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.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the minister talks about expediting things her track record
is not great. She has been the Minister of Justice for 601 days
and she was going to look after the Young Offenders Act in a
timely fashion. That is not expedited service.
For one terrified child one day is too long. She has the power
to do something about this. When will she end this nightmare?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): 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.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister knows that over 60 Liberal members have signed a
petition asking for exactly what will be happening tonight in the
vote in the House of Commons.
Could the minister actually believe that the whole child
pornography industry will just go on hold and sit tight for
awhile while she expedites things through the court case? How
can she take responsibility for inflicting such terrible and
intolerable obscenity on one child in the country? How could she
do it?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps by omission, to give
them the benefit of the doubt, they misrepresent the situation
for Canadians. For example—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We want to hear the answer from the minister
and I would ask her to be cautious about her words.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate for the
opposition that the government has acted quickly in defence of
this law.
I also remind the hon. opposition that in nine provinces and two
territories the entire section remains in full force and effect.
In British Columbia the laws in relation to the production and
distribution of child pornography are in full force and effect.
The government has acted responsibly to defend children in the
country.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast.
1420
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, this is about protecting
children. I will quote from a letter sent to the Prime Minister
by over 70 members of the House. It says “As soon as the House
resumes we ask that you consider use of the notwithstanding
clause”.
How can protecting children—and I quote the minister—be silly
and wrongheaded?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed the protection of
children is of paramount importance to everyone in the House.
What I believe is wrongheaded is the way the Reform Party
chooses to politicize this important issue which involves the
safety of our children. They choose to suggest, because we take
a different approach to the invocation of section 33 of the
charter, that we do not care about children. On behalf of
everybody in the House, I resent that.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how they do not like politics in
between elections.
Does the minister believe that the entire child pornography
industry has shut down while she is waiting for these courts to
appeal?
How can the minister rationalize just one more day to make it
legal in any way in any jurisdiction to own child pornography?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those who are the purveyors of
pornography in the country are investigated and charged every day
under the existing provisions of the Criminal Code.
The production and distribution of child pornography continue to
be offensive and possession is an offence in nine provinces and
two territories.
I come back to the point that I resent the fact the opposition
chooses to play politics with the children of the country.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
important negotiations are going on with the provinces on the
social union, we discover that the federal government is
negotiating with the Liberal opposition in Quebec.
Given that the Prime Minister has more than one nasty trick in
his bag when it comes to negotiating with Quebec, does he think
that this sort of thing will improve the climate of negotiations
with the legitimately elected Government of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
see no stigma attached to communicating with people. I would
have liked to talk to the opposition, but I did not do so. If I
have an opportunity, I will tell them that our proposal is
reasonable and means progress for all the provinces, that we
want to invest money in health and that we want Canada's social
union to work better.
I am sure that all reasonable people will consider our proposals
much better than the status quo, which the Bloc Quebecois wants
to maintain.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec confirmed less than an
hour ago that there had been contact and an exchange of
information between the Prime Minister's office and the Quebec
Liberal Party.
I would like to know whether the Prime Minister also had other
contacts, other exchanges of information, with other opposition
leaders in other provinces, and if so, with whom and when.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think he wants to quarrel over nothing. If someone from my
office or a minister spoke with the Quebec Liberal Party to pass
on information, I think that is fine.
I myself had the opportunity to discuss all sorts of problems
with the opposition leaders when the opposition was Liberal in
other parts of Canada. I intend to continue because I want
everyone to know what we are proposing, which is progress for
Quebec and not weekends spent trying to discuss things people do
not want to hear anymore, namely Quebec's separation.
1425
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
the Prime Minister to tell us whether he considers the members
of the Liberal Party across Canada to be the only ones that
count.
Does he hold discussions only with leaders of opposition
who are Liberals, or does that apply only to Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
speak with people of all parties. Mr. Romanow is not a Liberal,
although he is going to become one some day, I hope.
Some hon. members: No.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: No, you don't want that? Never mind.
Do you want Mr. Harris to become a Liberal?
Some hon. members: No.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: No, but I did speak to him.
Do you want Mr. Clark to become a Liberal?
Some hon. members: No.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: And then there is Mr. Klein.
I spoke twice to Mr. Bouchard. It is true, he was once a
Liberal.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister of Canada has a problem, if he cannot tell the
difference between someone with the status of premier and
someone who is a leader of the opposition.
To those of us on this side of the House, this is a bit
reminiscent of the Chateau Laurier kitchen plot of 1981. Not a
good sign for Quebec.
We are asking the Prime Minister what guarantee we have that
there will not be a repeat of the usual prime ministerial
strategy of negotiating with everybody except Quebec, in order
to isolate Quebec.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am convinced that the Quebec premier speaks to the Bloc
Quebecois from time to time.
We are told that it gets instructions every day from Mr.
Bouchard, even instructions to keep Mr. Parizeau occupied.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Thursday's first ministers meeting on the social union will only
succeed for Canadians if the Prime Minister brings sufficient
cash for health care to the table. Canadians do not want more
posturing. They do not want more wrangling. They want the Prime
Minister to put on the table the necessary resources to rebuild
our health care system, a minimum of $2.5 billion this year.
Can the Canadians count on the Prime Minister to come through
with the resources necessary to do that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, generally speaking the Prime Minister tries to come
through all the time.
That is why we managed to take the real mess which existed with
the $42 billion deficit and reduce it to zero. That is why there
was 11.5% unemployment in Canada when we started and now it is at
8%. We used to have 12% to 13% inflation; now it is 1%. We
generally come through.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what
will it take to get the Prime Minister to admit to the real mess
his government has left our health care system in?
Under the proposed social union the provinces may withdraw from
Canada-wide programs with compensation. Canadians fear that this
could lead to some provincial governments opting out of medicare
altogether. Ontario is already threatening to do that.
Will the Prime Minister promise today that the government will
enter into a social union agreement only if the important
principles of medicare are fully protected?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there were discussions on medicare before we started. If
I remember they were in Saskatchewan.
If the member had done her homework she would have read the
letter that was signed by all the premiers. They guaranteed in
the letter they sent me before I asked to see them that they
wanted to keep the five conditions of medicare. All the premiers
of all the governments of different colours signed the letter.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
recent ruling by the B.C. court regarding child pornography
should be dealt with immediately.
1430
The Prime Minister is a father. I am a mother and a
grandmother. I am begging this government to act now to protect
all of our Canadian children from those who make and use this
repulsive material.
I am asking the Prime Minister to intervene today and have the
justice minister fast track this matter to the Supreme Court of
Canada to be corrected immediately.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to hear that the member is concerned. In
1981 when I was the minister of justice, I introduced the first
legislation on child pornography. I think I know what this is
all about.
At that time I discussed the reality of child pornography in the
committee and I had to fight the opposition. Some NDP members
did not want me to proceed and some Conservative members did too.
They claimed that it was against freedom of speech.
I just wanted to let the member know that I started on this
problem in 1981 and I am not about to stop now. In the meantime,
I will respect the due process of law.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, as
everybody knows, including the Prime Minister, it was our party
that brought in the law that is there today.
I am saying once again that the people from coast to coast are
appalled by the B.C. ruling. This issue is critical to the very
essence of our country and the rights of our children. We cannot
sit idly by as they are being subjected to the sexual abuse and
terrors of sick individuals. It is time to protect our most
vulnerable, the little children.
I am asking the Prime Minister and the justice minister to act
as soon as possible, sooner rather than later, and to correct
this situation before it is too late.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that the Tories came to
power in 1984. I was the minister of justice in 1980.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister has the floor.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we will have to
call the American doctors soon.
We have acted very rapidly. As the minister said earlier, the
law is still being applied. We are going before the appeal court
in B.C. and we will go to the supreme court if needed. However,
we will maintain the system of law of this land. We have courts
and they make the decisions. After the Supreme Court of Canada
passes judgment, then we act in Canada.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice minister tells us that the child protection pornography
law is working for the rest of Canada.
What about the children of B.C.? Are they not Canadians too?
This judge's ruling was out of bounds and we can do something
about it in this House today. I do not want to hear more
legalise from legal experts. I want to know today from the Prime
Minister if he will call off his whips and allow his caucus a
free vote on this issue today in this House.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate yet again
that this government has acted and it acted expeditiously when
this particular section of the Criminal Code was struck down. We
are supporting the attorney general of British Columbia.
The attorney general of British Columbia is asking that this
appeal be expedited before the court of appeal. The attorney
general of British Columbia continues to enforce those provisions
of the law that deal with child pornography.
This government has acted.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are tired of legalise when children are suffering.
I am having a flashback to the hepatitis C vote. I am concerned
that the same thing is happening here again today. Many Liberals
want to vote in support of this shutdown of child pornography.
My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. When will
this Prime Minister allow his backbenchers and his party to vote
with a free conscience on this motion?
1435
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate yet again for
the official opposition and for others who have expressed, I
know, a legitimate concern here today. In fact we have acted in
defence of Canada's children. We have intervened to appeal the
decision of the B.C. Court of Queen's Bench. We support the
attorney general of British Columbia in his seeking an expedited
appeal.
I presume the hon. member when he refers to legalise is probably
suggesting that we should simply ignore the rule of law and the
due process of law.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Prime Minister said, and I quote “All we are asking is that the
provinces taking the money we want applied to health care
guarantee that that is where it will go”.
Since the provinces have already provided written assurance that
they will invest all the money they get from Ottawa in health
care, does the Prime Minister not think he already has his
guarantees and must therefore pay the provinces the money?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
said we also wanted the public to be clearly informed.
It is very important that the members of this House, who vote
for the appropriations, know that the money is spent on health
care and not used in other sectors.
I know that the provinces want to apply it, but we want a
guarantee that the public will be kept informed and satisfied.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what reason
could the government have for not paying the money for health to
a province if it has already agreed to honour the five
conditions in the Canada Health Act and has undertaken to direct
all the money it will receive to health care?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has just added another factor, that of ensuring
the five conditions.
We will be meeting on Thursday, and I hope that we will quickly
reach an agreement so we may take the steps we want, which are
not easy, because there are other government priorities. The
premiers were all pleased to meet Thursday, and I am sure the
meeting will be very productive.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we heard the attorney general say that she wants the rule of law.
We want the rule of law.
Right now what we have in British Columbia is rule by judge and
lawlessness when it comes to the possession of child pornography.
We want the rule of law. The constitution of this land says
that this parliament has the power and in fact the responsibility
to override irresponsible decisions by the courts.
Will this Minister of Justice give her members the right to vote
their conscience this evening on this motion, yes or no?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, this
government acted in relation to this matter and we acted quickly.
I do want to clarify something for the hon. member. If, for
example, he suggests that the section in question, in Mr. Justice
Shaw's judgment, is not in force in British Columbia or is
binding on all judges in British Columbia, let me clarify that.
In fact the judgment of Mr. Justice Shaw is not binding on—
An hon. member: Whip your people into line.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan: I simply want to clarify that Mr.
Justice Shaw's judgment is binding only on provincial court
judges in the province of British Columbia and is not binding
upon any other judge, including Mr. Justice Shaw's reference to
the B.C. Court of Queen's Bench.
I come back to the point. This government has acted and I would
ask the official opposition to respect the rule of law.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this Minister of Justice is not defending the rule of law. She
is undermining it today by refusing to assert the sovereignty of
this parliament to defend innocent children.
She says that this only matters to the lower court level in
British Columbia. So only 10% of Canadian children are subject
to this kind of obscenity through possession of child
pornography.
1440
My question is to the Prime Minister. Tonight will he or will
he not allow a free vote so that his members can vote their
conscience, yes or no? Will he allow a free vote, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a motion on which the opposition is trying to
play politics with an extremely difficult problem. The members
of my party do not want to use sensitive issues like this to play
politics and they will not fall into the trap of the Reform
Party.
* * *
[Translation]
BELL CANADA
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bell Canada
angered the public by deciding to sell off its telephone
operators to an American company.
These 2,400 women are far from being guaranteed employment, and
their working conditions are going to take a dramatic turn for
the worse. The Telecommunications Act requires that quality
services be provided and prohibits foreign ownership.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. Does the minister
intend to intervene in this matter?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
under the Telecommunications Act, the CRTC is the body
responsible for ensuring the quality of the telecommunications
services provided to Canadians, including the services of
telephone operators, in both official languages.
It is not necessary for me to intervene. The CRTC may intervene
if necessary.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
legislation gives the Minister of Industry the power to issue
directions, and he has already used that power against consumers
in a CRTC decision that went in their favour.
Does he intend to use this power to issue directions to ask the
CRTC to hold public hearings and this time serve consumers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is always possible that the CRTC's decision will be appealed.
If it is, I will have to make a recommendation to cabinet.
For now, I am not required to say anything before the CRTC has
considered arguments and reached conclusions.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 75 residents
of the Musqueam reserve in Vancouver are facing financial ruin.
Their life savings are going up in smoke. Many are retirees, in
poor health, living on fixed incomes. They have asked the
minister of Indian affairs to intervene on their behalf and to
help them, and she has refused all requests to meet with them,
saying that her obligation is to the band only.
If the minister of Indian affairs will not intervene to help
these people, who over on that side will? Who has responsibility
over on that side for the Musqueam residents?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question of the Musqueam
first nation is a very complex one indeed. There is a
contractual relationship between the first nation and the people
living in the Musqueam park. There was a contract that was
written in 1965 and the leases were to be reviewed 30 years
later. This lease is legitimate. The first nation has a
legitimate right to set the lease amounts. The federal court of
appeal has actually said it is fair market value. That will be
the process by which the lease will be signed.
In 30 years, indeed, the price of land has increased. It is
very difficult for those people who are living in the park. As
for my responsibility, I am glad to bring the parties—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what the
minister failed to tell the House was that those people signed
leases with the minister of Indian affairs.
By doing nothing for the residents of Musqueam, are the Liberals
saying that these people have no rights, that they have no future
on the reserve and that they may as well pack up and leave their
entire lives and their entire life savings behind them? Is that
what this minister is saying to these people?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I will point out is
that the first nation has a legitimate right, accepted by the
court of appeal, to set the leases in this particular
circumstance.
The role that I feel responsible to play is to do what I can to
bring the parties together to find a mutually acceptable way to
implement this legitimate right of the first nation.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, what the Bloc Quebecois found out in its
travels throughout all the regions of Quebec to meet with the
victims of the employment insurance cuts is most serious.
1445
Poverty is on the rise and the people feel abandoned by a
minister who sticks to his role of technocrat.
Over and above his meaningless statements on the subject, does
the minister not understand that the outcome of his employment
insurance cuts has been the systematic impoverishment of the
jobless and of the regions?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a government we have
embarked upon an extremely important reform of employment
insurance, and we have made a commitment to report once a year
on the impact of that reform, because we are aware that it
affects some regions and many individuals in this country.
I will have the privilege of tabling that report in this House
within the next few weeks, and we will then, of course, be able
to discuss the reality of this reform. It is not, however, as
negative as the opposition would like us to believe.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, between
February 4 and 6, parliamentarians from the world over will be
in the Netherlands to discuss the initiatives their governments
have taken since 1994 to support the action program of the
International Conference on Population and Development.
Could the Minister for International Cooperation explain to this
House the measures our government and CIDA have taken to follow
up on ICPD commitments?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CIDA
has made women's health care one of its priorities. I must say
that education is the program with the greatest effect on
women's health, since educated women tend to have fewer children
and healthier ones.
We are at the forefront in educating young women in developing
countries.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today we have another example of obsolete equipment endangering
the lives of Canadian armed forces personnel.
Canada's T-33 and Tutor jets have faulty ejection seats. These
seats are so old and rickety that they are putting our pilots at
risk.
Can the minister tell Canadians what is more valuable: replacing
the ejection seats, or the lives of our pilots? Why not just buy
new seats?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course the lives of our personnel are
of utmost concern to the department and this government.
The seats are not the problem; it is the parachutes. We are
putting new parachutes in the seats so that we can ensure the
utmost safety of our pilots.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a chronic problem developing in the minister's
department.
We have a shortage of pilots in the Canadian armed forces.
Obsolete equipment has now forced the grounding of instructors
and pilots. This is reducing the Canadian armed forces
operational capability.
What is it going to take for the Minister of National Defence to
give the men and women of the Canadian armed forces the resources
they need to train and do their job properly?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following the Reform Party would
certainly not help deal with these issues that we are facing
today because in the last election campaign it was calling for
further reductions in spending on the Canadian forces.
We are doing all we can to ensure the safety of our pilots. In
this particular case we have said that some of them will not be
able to fly for a period of time until we correct this problem.
We want to make sure that when the planes fly that they are safe
to fly and that we have in fact minimized the risk for our
pilots.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, this government has been telling us that its UI reform
has been benefiting Canadians.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development explain to the
unemployed and to small and medium businesses how cutting $275
million annually from the New Brunswick economy and $524 million
annually from the Newfoundland economy has benefited them?
1450
At the same time, this government is bragging that it has a UI
surplus. Will the minister guarantee to Canadians that this year
the UI surplus will go toward improving benefits for the
unemployed and put a stop to the disgusting hardship caused to
the families and communities in this country?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the NDP would like to bring
us back to the 1970s but that is not where Canadians want to go.
We have moved from an income supplement system that brought too
many people to live in dependency on an EI system. It was high
time that we changed and there are many people out there who
appreciate that very much.
I know it is tough for some people but at the same time, EI is
one program which is accompanied by many others as well. There is
a Canada jobs fund which is helping to create employment in some
regions where unemployment is too high. We have the youth
employment strategy which helps the young integrate into the
labour market. These accompany the EI reform.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the upshot of the reform is that the minister is refusing to
visit New Brunswick. So much for his reform.
The minister's figures are incorrect. According to statistics
from his department, in southeastern New Brunswick alone, 12,000
claimants will be without income for weeks and months.
Will the minister again contradict his own department's
statistics, or will he help Canadians who are now destitute, who
have no job and are not receiving benefits because of the cuts
made by this government, which is completely heartless and
unfeeling and only looks after the rich?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear from what the member
says that she does not understand that EI is temporary
assistance. Her figure includes all those who have exhausted
their benefits.
It is clear from what she says that she is including everyone,
and does not understand that EI is there to provide temporary
relief.
But we have other programs for these people. We have active
measures to help them return to the labour market. We have a
Canada-wide job creation fund to help people return to the labour
market.
Those who have exhausted their EI benefits want to return to
work. That is the best way out of poverty.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, in a recent
article in Le Soleil, the President of the Treasury Board
is quoted as saying that he would support a city of Quebec
initiative to try to recoup the millions of dollars spent on its
failed Olympic bid for the 2002 games.
It appears that a member of this government was well aware of
the corruption that permeated within the IOC and should have
adequately advised the Quebec Olympic committee.
Would the President of the Treasury Board not agree that the
Government of Canada has some responsibility and therefore should
compensate the Quebec Olympic committee for its losses?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I said no such thing and therefore I do not have to comment on
the subject.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, with the recent
revelations of corruption within the IOC, many Canadians are
wondering how such a scandal could have gone on. The Minister
of National Defence says he did not learn of the existence of
irregularities until 1991, although the City of Toronto's
auditor suggests otherwise.
Can the Minister of National Defence tell Canadians when he
first became aware of the corruption?
The Speaker: The hon. member's question is out of order. The
hon. member for Carleton—Gloucester.
* * *
Y2K PROBLEM
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with the year 2000 rapidly approaching, Canadians are becoming
more and more concerned about the possibility of interruptions
to essential services.
[English]
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. What is
the government's state of preparedness on this subject?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on this subject we have a report dated December 1998 which
indicates that the government is now ready up to 82% for its
mission critical government-wide systems. This compares to about
43% last June. Considerable progress has been made in that
field.
[Translation]
From now on, there will be monthly reports, which will keep the
House up to date on what is being done in the government. Our
reports will be available on the Year 2000 web site.
* * *
1455
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, media
reports today indicate that illegal entry into Canada from China
is a very serious problem. According to the RCMP and immigration
officials, people smuggling is mushrooming. While legitimate
refugees wait in line, those willing to break the law continue to
stream into our country.
My question is for the minister of immigration. Do legitimate
refugees waiting in line not deserve better than this? Do they
not deserve to be put first in line?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to state to begin with
that we deplore the fact that there is illegal trafficking in
immigrants on an international scale. Women and children in
particular are victims of this practice, and we have just had an
example of this.
This is the reason why Canada has always played a lead role in
fighting this scourge, both within the country and
internationally.
Clearly, when someone turns up at an entry point to this country
asking for Canada's protection, requesting refugee status, we
have an obligation to examine that request and to provide a
response as promptly as possible, and we honour that obligation.
* * *
POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
With only a few weeks to go before his budget, the government
continues to claim its fight against poverty is effective.
However, since it has been in office, poverty has been
consistently on the rise in Canada.
Would the Minister of Finance make the commitment that his
upcoming budget will contain major changes to the employment
insurance system, one of the main causes of the impoverishment
of Canadian families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the member must know, in the last budget we substantially
increased the national child benefit, for the very purpose of
helping poor families.
I can assure the member that it is this government's intention
to remain concerned about our society's most disadvantaged.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In most regions of Canada these days it is so rare for a
business to get a government grant or a loan that it is like
winning a lottery. However, in Shawinigan a businessman with a
criminal record and a bad credit rating calls his MP's office and
gets not one grant but five grants and two loans in one year
totalling $840,000. What special criteria did this guy meet?
Canadians believe these are either golf buddy grants or political
in nature. Why will the Prime Minister not do as he says, come
through, clear the air and appoint an independent investigator to
check this thing out?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member is referring to
but with respect to the loans from the Business Development Bank
of Canada, I would like to direct the hon. member to a number of
points.
This loan was dealt with in the normal process. It was at a
level beyond the lending jurisdiction of the local branch and was
therefore dealt with by a vice-president in charge of credit at
the bank. It was never reviewed by for example the board of
directors of the bank as it was not that large of a loan. It was
at commercial rates which, in the case of the Business
Development Bank of Canada, are higher than the average
commercial rate. Furthermore, it was part of a financing package
which included private sector lenders.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, earlier
today on behalf of the member for Cumberland—Colchester, I
contacted the minister of fisheries concerning a proposal to
create a large agricultural mussel farm in the waters off
Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia. The project calls for 1,200 acres to
be set aside for mussel farming but many residents still have
unanswered questions about the plans and how this will affect
their community. Last year we wrote to the minister of fisheries
and urged him to complete an environmental impact assessment to
address the concerns of area residents. Will the minister
announce today that he intends to respond to the concerns of the
community and complete a full environmental assessment?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fundy—Royal
for his letters last month and in December.
No decision has been made with respect to establishing the
mussel farm. We are on a committee with the province and
interested parties. If it appears as a result of the committee
examination, discussion and ultimate decision that an
environmental assessment is necessary, I will look at the
Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act and will
proceed from there with the appropriate environmental assessment.
* * *
1500
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The civil war in Sierra Leone has escalated recently with
widespread killings, mutilations and hundreds of thousands of
refugees. In short, it is a humanitarian crisis.
Can the minister tell the House what the government is doing at
the UN Security Council to focus attention on this terrible human
tragedy?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this tragic
circumstance to the attention of the House.
Last week during a visit to West Africa I met with senior
government officials to talk about Sierra Leone. They requested
the president of the council to take the matter up. I can inform
the House that after consultations it will be dealt with this
week at the security council.
I can also say that as part of our commitment the Prime Minister
has authorize us to offer a $1 million contribution to the
peacekeeping activities in West Africa so that we can begin to
deliver humanitarian aid.
The Speaker: That will bring to a close our question
period today.
I have a question of privilege and three points of order that I
will deal with. I will deal with the question of privilege
first.
Yesterday the member for Sydney—Victoria raised a question of
privilege. Now I am faced with this dilemma. Although at the
time the question of privilege was raised the minister was not
here, I see now that the hon. member, for whatever reason, is not
in the House. I will hold the matter in abeyance until the hon.
minister can make the statement directly when the other member is
here.
I ask the hon. minister if we could do this tomorrow when the
hon. member is here. I did not want the hon. member to raise the
point unless the minister was here. In fairness, the minister
should not make a response until the hon. member is here.
I will hear the first point of order from the hon. Minister of
Human Resources Development.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House
during question period the member for Burin—St. George's told us
that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had received more money
from the EI account than they had paid into the account.
I call the attention of the House to the real numbers.
Newfoundlanders—
The Speaker: The hon. minister can probably incorporate
that in an answer one day in question period. This is now a
point of debate.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I seek your
guidance on this matter to some extent.
1505
Last evening in debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the member
for Provencher, made statements with respect to the Musqueam
leaseholders in Vancouver to the effect that they had not made
any lease payments since 1993.
The Musqueam residents contacted me this morning. They are
deeply offended. In fact they say that they are very current
with their lease and—
The Speaker: We are getting into debate. Perhaps it
could be incorporated in a statement tomorrow if the hon. member
would like to do that.
I will now hear the House leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party.
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am looking for clarification from the Chair on an
apparent ruling that took place during question period. It was
with respect to a question posed by the hon. member for West Nova
to the minister.
The Speaker: I refer the hon. member to 409(6).
[Translation]
JUSTICE ROBERT FLAHIFF
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure today you will have the unanimous consent of the House, now
that the government has had the privilege of reading the motion
I introduced yesterday for which I sought but did not get
unanimous consent.
I return today, seconded by the Reform member for Saanich—Gulf
Islands. The motion reads as follows, and I request the
unanimous consent of the House to move it:
That this House, barring a decision in appeal quashing the
decision at trial level, recommend the removal of Mr. Justice
Robert Flahiff, judge of the Quebec Superior Court, because of
his inability to properly perform his duties due to
(a) a lack of honour and dignity;
(b) failure to perform his duties as judge under the Judges Act;
and
(c) a lack of integrity as set forth in the Ethical Principles
for Judges of the Canadian Judicial Council;
And that this removal have as its immediate consequence the
revocation of the current salary and the right of the said judge
to the enjoyment of a pension under the Judges Act.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there have been
discussions among the House leaders and I would ask that you seek
consent to see if we could revert to the introduction of
government bills. It would be the wish of the government to
introduce a bill today in the name of the Minister of Finance to
provide for the transfer of funds to the provinces, thereby
allowing MPs to consult on proposed legislation for one
additional day.
In any case, the item in question is slated for the introduction
of bills. I would ask that you seek consent for its
introduction.
The Speaker: Does the hon. House leader have the consent
of the House to introduce the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to continue from where I left off, but I also think it is
appropriate to include some of the revelations we gained from the
question period.
I will start with the comments of the justice minister, who said
that we need to let the current process sort of work itself out.
However, it is important for us all to note, those watching and
listening today as well as members opposite, that section 33,
the notwithstanding clause, is part of the process. It was there
to be used for situations exactly like this where judicial
rulings are clearly outside the intent of the legislation. It is
part of the process and we have an opportunity in the House today
to use that part of the process to protect children.
1510
I thought the other interesting revelation from question period
was that the justice minister commented that the current
legislation is still working in other parts of Canada. Our
question is: What about B.C.? We have children in B.C. We have
concerned people in B.C. The pay the same high Canadian taxes
that we all do. They are entitled to the same protection that we
all are. They are also Canadians. Do we put them at risk and
not implement this part of the process? Does that make sense?
No, it does not make sense.
The whole issue of trusting the judicial process to address this
tragic situation is wrong.
I point to one of my own bills in the House which deals with the
pardons that are given to known sexual offenders of children. In
this country over 12,000 pardons have been given to sexual
offenders. Of that 12,000 over 700 of them have been caught—and
there are many others who have not been caught—a second time,
even after the pardon. About 400 of those were repeat offenders
of children. They were convicted once and they were pardoned.
Their records were hidden from the public. They were convicted
again, a second time. They were caught a second time.
These are the kinds of things that give a lot of Canadians
concern. Without implementing the notwithstanding clause and
allowing this type of grievous material to be in the hands of
Canadians is of grave concern to all of us.
I close with the argument that championing freedoms and putting
the most vulnerable at risk is a mistake. When we cross over the
line and put the vulnerable at risk in the cause of freedom we
have gone too far. The notwithstanding clause allows us to fix
it today. I appeal to every member of the House to vote in
support of the motion on the floor today. Let us send a strong
endorsement to all Canadians.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
first, I think the hon. member who just spoke will agree that all
members of this place who have spoken thus far and all those who
have spoken informally on this issue abhor the issue of child
pornography. That is unquestioned and that is not what this
debate is about. The debate is about process.
The member has raised the issue of the notwithstanding clause. I
think the member may know, possibly not, that invoking section
33(1) of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, would only
apply to cases from the date of invocation forward. It would not
have any effect whatsoever on the Sharpe decision. Therefore the
appeal must go forward and the federal government should
participate vigorously in that appeal to uphold the law.
The question, I believe—and the member could clarify this—is
whether the current laws of Canada, which were ruled against by
the B.C. trial division court, are adequate or whether they need
to be amended.
I would like the member to clarify whether he fully understands
that the notwithstanding clause does not end the Sharpe decision
and that the government must act to ensure that the Sharpe
decision is in fact dealt with.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, I think I clearly
understand the crux of the issue here. The member opposite said
that we are all concerned about the grievous effect of child
pornography. But then he said that is not the issue. He said
the issue has to do with process. I would submit to the
House that the issue is the grievous effect. The issue is the
victims, the children. The issue is the negative impact on our
communities. The issue is all the Canadians who are tarnished by
this kind of ruling in our supreme court. The issue is for the
House to do everything possible.
We have an opportunity today to send a message to all Canadians
and to the courts that the crux of this issue is victims and we
are not going to stand for it any more in this country.
1515
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, certainly I share the concern that has been voiced by
all members of the House with respect to the decision of Justice
Shaw and I strongly support the decision of the B.C. attorney
general to appeal and welcome the decision of the federal
government to seek an expedited hearing and intervene.
I want to ask the hon. member from Calgary to respond to two
concerns that have been raised. The first concern is with
respect to the issue of the distinction between the use of
materials in which children are being used to produce the
materials, in which the images of children are being used in
child pornography. Certainly there is no question whatsoever
that is repugnant and the possession of that material must be
dealt with.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association and others have suggested a
distinction between that on the one hand and materials which may
be written materials, materials which do not involve the use of
children in their production. I want to ask the hon. member how
he responds to the suggestion that there should be a distinction
between those two.
Second, I ask him to respond to the concern that many have
raised that by calling for immediate action, as the amendment of
the Reform Party does now, the only immediate action that will
pre-empt the courts is bringing in a law now with the
notwithstanding clause and in effect that would be conceding that
this law is unconstitutional and that rather we should support an
expedited appeal. Should that appeal be unsuccessful then
certainly we could give consideration to the avenue suggested by
the official opposition.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, I think the issue of
trying to determine which material is appropriate and which
material is not really is splitting hairs. What we are really
debating today is this case and the details of this case. We
know what material was involved in this case. The ruling on this
case is what has incensed Canadians, I am glad to see, right
across this country. It is the details and the material that was
so offensive to so many of us that necessitated us to take some
action, and I am glad to say members on all sides of the House to
take some action, to eliminate or to address this material in a
proactive manner.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank you
for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
I have worked with young children for the first two decades of
my working life. When I was a student in high school in Winnipeg
I used to volunteer downtown in what we called the community
development centres then. I went on to work as child care worker
with kids who were by all accounts victims to some of the
activities that we heard reference to today. During part of my
career as the director of child welfare in Manitoba I had the
privilege of being part of a group of people who wrote the 1985
child and family services act in Manitoba.
I had a chance then to work with some of the leaders in this
country in the area of child abuse, one of which was Dr. Charlie
Fergusson who is known throughout Canada as the exposer of it, a
person who, back when no one would talk about this horrible stain
in our communities, would talk about it. Charlie kept
confronting people with the fact that in our communities children
were being treated in these horribly abusive and very destructive
ways.
Much of my work was trying to help the victims of child abuse,
physical abuse and sexual abuse, recover and put their lives back
together, to think it through and come to terms with the very
terrible experiences they had.
The member from Burnaby asked a member from the Reform Party
whether there was a distinction between one kind of child
pornography and another.
1520
While I have some appreciation for the arguments that are made
by civil libertarians around the general issue of sexual freedom
and sexual exploration, I think a legitimate concern is raised
when we try to repress too forcefully certain information or
certain discussion.
We do as a community draw a line between acts that involve
adults and acts that involve children. I have no difficulty with
drawing that line. I have no difficulty standing against all
kinds of child pornography, all depictions of sexual acts with
children.
We as a country have said for a long time that children have and
deserve special status, and because of their extra vulnerability
we as a country will protect them. I do not think there is a
person in this House, despite the rhetoric that has gone down in
the last two hours, who truly believes otherwise.
I end up being somewhat saddened to find myself standing one
more time on the floor of the House debating a motion that has
been brought forward by the Reform Party, in the fullness of
virtue and goodness and to proclaim its righteousness, which is
simply a kind of cheap political ploy to try to put people on the
spot, to try to pick at people's differences and to try to make
people feel uncomfortable on what is an extremely important and
sensitive issue.
This is an issue that this country would not even have
recognized 25 or 30 years ago when I first started to work. One
could not even talk about the fact that young girls were being
sexually abused by their fathers or by men, who still have
difficulty getting laws that make it a criminal act for a man to
have sex with a child. Do we debate these things or hear about
these things?
What we see from the official opposition is this desire to run
in this House in front of the latest outrage in the community and
demand all sorts of actions.
The fundamental problem I have with that is that it is not
unlike any other lynch mob every time we are outraged by what
goes on in the community. If we are to do our job as
legislators, if we are to provide the kind of leadership the
country expects and deserves from this House and from the system
of laws and justice that we have built, then we owe everyone in
this country calm, quiet deliberation. We owe it to ourselves
and everyone else to let the process work.
The fact is a mistake was made. I believe this judge has ruled
in error and I believe that ruling should be overturned as
quickly as possible. I also believe there is a process in place
for that. There is an appeal process in place and the government
has agreed to expedite that appeal. We have reflected our
concern about the issues that lie at the heart of this debate.
Beyond that, this is little more than an attempt to grab a
headline. I am saddened that we would use an issue that is so
fundamentally important to the lives of young children for that
purpose.
There are a lot of things that happen in this country on a daily
and weekly basis that we do not like such as someone who drives
drunk through a stop sign and kills somebody. We are all
emotional about those issues and we all hate them. I have two
young daughters, four months old and six years old. The thought
of this repulses me. However, I also owe it to them to not do
what we did in days of old and run down the street with our
torches and hang the first person who comes into sight.
We have a system of law and justice that allows us as a country
to reflect on these issues and move in a judicious, careful and
responsible manner. All we are saying here is that process
exists.
Frankly I am also a little saddened by the image of the
judiciary that is constantly brought up in this House by members
of the Reform Party. I have worked with the judiciary and have
sat in these courts many times on these kinds of issues and have
watched the judges and the prosecutors struggle with this. I
think our court system in Canada serves us very well. When the
judiciary does things which calls its wisdom into question it
also has mechanisms to correct itself.
When it cannot, we should act. If we reach that point on this
case or any other, we will act. But we should do it with the
kind of judicious consideration, the kind of bringing to bear our
intelligence on those issues that produces a solution, not simply
to pander to the momentary emotion that we all feel when
confronted with an outrageous and despicable crime against anyone
in this community.
1525
I would, as I have often done in this House, urge the Reform
Party to be a little cautious, take a deep breath. When it comes
forward with debate, bring it forward having reflected on it,
having thought about the consequences, having thought about the
end point.
Does the Reform Party really want us to be using the
notwithstanding clause every time the federal government is
offended by something that happens somewhere in the provinces? Is
that its goal in this? Does the Reform Party want us to be
running around every time, immediately upon an action taken that
we do not like? Or does it want us to respect the law? We are
the law makers. Does the Reform Party want us to respect the
laws we create and hold ourselves accountable to?
I am splitting my time with another member.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the previous speech demonstrates the real problem we
have in this House. There is an attempt to appear reasonable but
the inaction is unconscionable.
I am not trying to grab headlines. What would really grab the
headlines right now is if these Liberals would reverse their
position and act responsibly with regard to this matter.
What is the primary question at stake here? Is pornography,
particularly child pornography, a concern? Does it have a
negative impact on society, especially in B.C., at this moment?
Yes, it does. Does it put people at risk at this moment if we do
not act? Yes, it does. Does pornography have a useful place in
society? No, I do not think it has.
What this member has to answer is should we maintain laws
against it. Yes, we should. If there is a gap in those laws
because of what court decision has come down, we must act
immediately.
To be accused to fearmongering and all the other accusations
that have come across here is completely counterproductive. If
we see a problem developing in society, we must accept
responsibility and we must act on that. That is what we are
trying to do right now. We appeal to those members opposite to
consider what we have to say. I cannot believe those members
opposite would downplay the seriousness of this issue or not take
it responsibly.
It is wrong to simply push this on to the courts. The courts
are wrong and we need to act immediately. Parliament sends
signals to society. Parliament sends signals as to what is right
and what is wrong. We need to send the correct signal right now.
We are the highest court in the land and it is about time we took
that responsibility.
Do lower courts make mistakes? Yes. That is why we have higher
courts. We need to act now in this place. Child pornography
needs to be kept a crime. What could ever motivate us not to
act? That would be my question for the member opposite. What
would motivate us not to act right now?
Pedophiles are walking free at this moment. Decisions have come
down. The police are no longer pursuing this because of the
court decision. This is serious because this lack of enforcement
is already having a very negative effect. Should we not be
acting as soon as possible, right now?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member
when he began his remarks said that he did not want to do
anything to inflame the debate, that he was not here to fan the
fires. The member then says that today in B.C. pedophiles are
walking free because of this law. That is absolute nonsense.
Take it on face. This is a law that made it illegal to possess
child pornography.
The person was accused of the possession of child pornography. It
is not a good thing. It is a bad thing. I said that many times.
Members on this side of the House have said that. Let me put it
very clearly for members opposite. Members on this side of the
House have risen over and over and over—
1530
An hon. member: Don't be patronizing.
Mr. Reg Alcock: I will be as patronizing as you are. You
should learn to come forward just once in the House with a
substantive argument and stop playing these silly kinds of games.
It is absolutely unbelievable that they come forward into the
House, puff themselves up, pretend they are the defenders of
righteousness and justice, and then make statements like that.
When the member rose he talked about inaction. What inaction?
The Attorney General of British Columbia appealed the case
immediately. Our justice department expedited the process.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not know whether the member is in order to be saying
you and speaking in the first person to members on this side of
the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I remind the member
to address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can recall the
remark I was making when I committed the error. Through you,
Madam Speaker, I believe the member opposite side is
irresponsible and attempting to simply irresponsibly inflame
debate.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the Reform Party calls upon parliament and the government to take
legislative initiatives to strike down and reach a decision on
the British Columbia lower court decision concerning child
pornography.
The motion invites the government to take all legislative
measures necessary to reinstate the law and to invoke section 33
of the Constitution commonly known as the notwithstanding clause.
I thought it might be useful for members on all sides of the
House to actually review the sections of the law that are
applicable to this case, particularly section 163.1 and the
definition of child pornography:
a photographic, film, video or other visual representation,
whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the
age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged
in explicit sexual activity—
The accused is charged under two sections. The first is
subsection (3):
Every person who imports, distributes, sells or possesses for the
purpose of distribution or sale any child pornography is guilty
of—
Also subsection (4) which says “every person who possesses”.
There are two offences here: possession for the purpose of and
simple possession. As indicated, Mr. Sharpe was charged with
subsections (3) and (4), namely possession for the purposes of
distribution and possession of child pornography.
I would like to note that the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals as
recently as last week quoted the Canadian legislation favourably
in upholding the constitutionality of that law.
Child pornography is a curse that all members of the House view
with distaste. It is something that has to be addressed and has
attempted to be addressed on both sides of the border.
Mr. Sharpe in turn claimed his fundamental freedoms,
particularly section 2(a) of the charter, freedom of conscience;
section 2(b), freedom of expression and opinion; section 2(d),
freedom of association; and section 15(1), equality rights under
the charter. He claimed all those sections with respect to the
possession charge. With respect to the possession for the
purposes of, he simply claimed section 2(b).
The crown acknowledged that there is a limitation on the
freedoms pursuant to section 1 of the charter and that the rights
and freedoms of the rights of citizens are subject to reasonable
limits as prescribed by law and as can demonstrably be justified
in a free and democratic society.
Then the judge went into an analysis of the evidence that was
before him.
1535
Subsection 3, possession for the purpose, was upheld as valid
constitutional law. I will not deal with that. The section that
has members opposite concerned is with respect to what is known
as simple possession. It was found to be void and
unconstitutional. I thought a review of the decision would be
appropriate and in order, given the level of rhetoric the House
enjoyed.
Page 7 of the decision indicates that sexually explicit
pornography involving children possesses a danger to children
because of its use by pedophiles in the seduction process.
Children are abused from the production of film or videotaped
pornography. Highly erotic pornography incites some pedophiles
to commit offences. Highly erotic pornography helps some
pedophiles relieve pent-up sexual tension.
It is not possible to say which of the two foregoing effects is
greater. Mildly erotic pornography appears to inhibit
aggression. Pornography involving children can be a factor in
augmenting or reinforcing the cognitive distortions of
pedophiles. There is no evidence which demonstrates an increase
in the harm to children as a result of pornography augmenting or
reinforcing the cognitive distortions of pedophiles. The
dissemination of written material which counsels or advocates
sexual offences against children poses some risk to the harm of
children.
The crown conceded that this is a violation of one's guaranteed
freedom of expression but argued that it was a reasonable limit
within the limits of the law. Only one case was cited, the
attorney general v Langer, in which the law was actually held to
be a valid law. Section 163.1 was explicitly held to be valid
and thereafter the paintings themselves were returned to the
accused.
In dealing with that case Judge Shaw says that Judge McCombs did
not do “a proportionality test”. A proportionality test is
nothing other than a fancy way of saying risk benefit analysis;
in other words weighing the legislative objective against the
effects of the legislation. The question becomes whether to use
a legislative hammer, i.e. the Criminal Code, to kill the
impugned behaviour in the context of our charter.
Several other tests are referred to in the course of the
decision but the judge concluded that in his view it was
appropriate to the present case to consider the proportionality
test between the desultory effects and the salutary effects on
the prohibition and possession of child pornography.
He then went through a weighing process and made the conclusion
that there was no evidence which demonstrated any significant
increase in danger to children related to the confirmation or
augmentation of cognitive distortions caused by pornography. That
is a conclusion with which many of us would have some serious
difficulty. I quote it:
There is no evidence which demonstrates any significant increase
of danger to children related to the confirmation or augmentation
of cognitive distortions caused by pornography. There is no
evidence that “mildly erotic” imagines are used in the
“grooming process”. Only assumption supports the proposition
that materials that advocate or counsel sexual crimes with
children have the effect of increasing the occurrence of such
crimes. Sexually explicit pornography is used by some pedophiles
to relieve pent-up sexual tension. A person who is prone to act
on his fantasies will likely do so irrespective of the
availability of pornography. There is no evidence that the
production of child pornography will be significantly reduced if
simple possession is made a crime.
With respect I believe the judge was wrong. I believe the House
believes the judge was wrong. When it comes down to it, we are
talking about a question of values. Surely it is the right of
parliament to expect that it can create an environment in which
it wants to see Canadian children raised.
Children should be free of the fantasies of adults and free of
the abuse that this is something of a false test, and it is a
false test. There will never be an empirical test that says if
a possesses child pornography it therefore follows that
b will be harmed. We cannot do it. We are human beings.
It does not work. The test appears to be objective but I submit
it is quite naive. It is nothing other than legal fiction.
1540
It is up to parliament to express its view that this test is
nonsense. Canadians believe that it is a Canadian value that
possession of this material leads to harm and is degrading to our
society.
I can do no better than to quote from a letter sent to my hon.
colleague from Greenwood—Broadview dated today's date by Mr.
Danson, the lawyer for the Mahaffy and French families, who
should know something about this issue. He said:
Both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of the
United States have concluded that the use of children to make
sexual pictures is child abuse. Simply put, child pornography is
a direct product of child sexual abuse and constitutes a
permanent record of a child's sexual exploitation.
Once Judge Shaw arrived at the conclusion he arrived at, it
follows that consideration of the detrimental effects will be pro
forma. Judge Shaw believed that the invasion of personal freedom
and privacy were profound and therefore by a circuitous bit of
reasoning used his earlier findings as the basis for his findings
that the detrimental effect of an invasion of privacy was a fact
that overwhelmed the issue concerning possession. In the
interest of time I will not quote it.
I believe Judge Shaw's findings are wrong. He used a false test
which has led to absurd conclusions. I suggest all members
support the attorney general in her intervention and await the
decision of the appeal court. The House could only do one thing
that is more absurd than Judge Shaw's reasoning, and that is
support the motion.
I quote from the final page of Mr. Danson's letter:
I know in bringing forward this motion in Parliament today they
are motivated by genuine, honest and good intentions, but I have
to say to you that on this one, the Minister of Justice is
absolutely correct and should be fully supported.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Scarborough East on his
logical premises and his reasoned debate. It is one of a few we
have heard from the government side today.
I do not agree with his conclusion based on the premises that he
cited, that the only conclusion could be to support the attorney
general's intervention in this case. The conclusion he drew
based on the premises he made is not the only conclusion that can
be reached. This was a ruling by Judge Shaw that was incorrect.
It was wrong and many people do not agree with it. The member
stated that he did not agree with Judge Shaw. Yet he also
clearly stated that the production of child pornography produced
a record of child abuse and the abuses involved in the creation
of child pornography.
Would the member not agree that by waiting even through an
expedited process by the attorney general and by not taking
action immediately the attorney general allows this kind of abuse
to continue in the jurisdiction of British Columbia? I know his
legal background. He knows that cases which set precedent in one
jurisdiction are often used in other jurisdictions in future
cases.
Does he not agree with the fact that this decision and failing
to intervene now would mean there would not be some further
abuses happening to children, particularly in the jurisdiction of
British Columbia?
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question.
First, the decision was issued on January 13. As I understand,
within the week the British Columbia attorney general appealed
the decision. Within the following week, one week before
parliament was recalled, the Attorney General of Canada joined
the appeal in an intervener status to uphold the
constitutionality of the case. I cannot think of any response
that could be quicker.
As to the issue of whether we should use, if you will, the
nuclear bomb of the Constitution in order to blow up this
possession, I think that is a gross overreaction. It is a
conclusion that is not warranted under the circumstances. In my
view it has no precedent value.
1545
This is a decision of the trial court of British Columbia. It
is a lower court decision. If it is upheld, their argument
becomes much stronger. But in my view this has no precedent
value. It has no precedent value in other provincial court
jurisdictions. It has no precedent value on his fellow judges.
It is simply a stand-alone decision. In my respectful submission
it was a timely response on the part of the Attorney General of
Canada and on the part of the Attorney General of British
Columbia.
To invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution in
order to quash this offence is a disproportionate response to the
offence that we all want to see corrected.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I take great exception to the member making an analogy
between a nuclear bomb and the notwithstanding clause. If we are
ever going to send a message to the judiciary that parliamentary
supremacy over legislation is meaningful, and if the public at
large is going to receive that message as well, there is no
better time to use this than at a time when something so offends
the common sensibilities of people.
I am trying to get at the basis of why so many members on the
other side, including the hon. member, feel so strongly that this
is an overreaction. Why is it an overreaction?
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, the first reaction should
not be an overreaction. The first reaction is to read the case
which is 21 pages and to review the reasoning of the judge. If
we review the reasoning of the judge we will see it is clearly
flawed. That is the first response we would have. We would also
be well advised to read Mr. Dosanjh's comments on that case which
attack the reasoning of the judge. That would be the first
appropriate and proportionate response. It is completely out of
line to use section 33 for this purpose.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I too commend the member for Scarborough East for his
thoughtful and reasoned remarks.
He did not compellingly answer the question just posed as to why
he feels it is an overreaction to invoke section 33. He merely
reiterated his assertion. However, the tone of his comments was
appropriate in that his comments did not follow the pattern of
his colleague from Winnipeg South who launched unfortunately on
an all too common partisan speech imputing motives to others who
feel very strongly about this as do I.
An hon. member: Coming from you those are really new
words. Like you are not partisan on what you speak.
Mr. Jason Kenney: As I was about to say to the very hon.
lady opposite, I have no doubt that the government members here
have nothing but the best of motives in the position they take.
They place greater emphasis on the importance of the authority of
judges as opposed to those of us who place greater emphasis on
the importance of the authority of parliament. It is a
legitimate debate to have in a democracy.
I do not choose to castigate my colleagues opposite for arriving
at a different conclusion than do I. I would invite them to
accept a similar position of equanimity when it comes to such a
critically important debate.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South castigated the official
opposition for calling for immediate action in its motion.
Let me make reference to that motion as it has not been read for
some time. What we simply seek is “that the government should
take immediate measures to reinstate the law that was struck down
by a recent decision of the court of British Columbia regarding
the possession of child pornography, even if that entails”—not
necessarily but even if that entails—“invoking section 33 of
the Constitution Act, the notwithstanding clause”.
1550
On this point, if the House were to pass this motion and
officials from the justice department were to conclude that other
reasonable measures could be taken immediately to counteract the
effects of this judgment apart from the invocation of section 33,
then I am sure we would support that. I agree section 33 is the
ultimate legal constitutional lever available at our disposal and
we should use it with great discretion.
I would call on members of the government, if this motion
passes, to provide us with reasoned opinions as to whether or not
there are other legal avenues available to act immediately,
rather than waiting for the indefinite appeal process.
The second element of the motion says essentially that
notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of this
House the bill would be considered in one sitting so as to
expedite it. I think it is a reasonable motion.
I also read a letter sent on January 20, 1999 to the right hon.
Prime Minister from some 70 members of the government, including
the hon. member for Winnipeg South who said that it was
unreasonable for the opposition to call for immediate action in
this. Yet I look at the letter to which he has affixed his name
where he, among others, wrote to the Prime Minister “We ask that
you send an unmistakable message to the nation that your
government will not tolerate any proliferation of child
pornography through the weakness of our laws. We ask that the
government not wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to be
heard, but immediately act in defence of Canada's children”.
This is not me speaking; it is conscientious members opposite
who have signed this letter. I am not using this as a partisan
lever. I am just pointing out that the member for Winnipeg South
seems a bit schizophrenic today, because the letter went on to
say “The undersigned recommend that strong new child pornography
legislation be introduced as soon as the House resumes”. That
was yesterday. We, the official opposition, introduced this
motion as soon as we had the opportunity.
The member and his colleagues went on to say “We ask also that
you consider the use of the notwithstanding clause”. Let me
quote that again in case the member for Winnipeg South is not
listening. “We ask also that you consider the use of the
notwithstanding clause or other equivalent effective
measures”—which we are open to in our motion—“to send a clear
message that Canada's charter of rights will never again be used
to defend the sexual abuse of Canada's children”.
They call to immediately act at the first opportunity in the
House and to consider invoking the notwithstanding clause. I
would suggest their wording is even stronger than that proposed
in the motion before us. This is a letter that was signed by my
colleague from Winnipeg South who just stood up and for making
the same argument imputed my motives as being strictly partisan
and political. I resent that.
Yes, I am a politician. I am a partisan. But on matters like
this one I do believe that common sense and common values can
prevail.
I submit that if we were to consult our constituents broadly
there would not be a debate. There would be as close as we could
find the unanimity in a democratic society on the need for this
sovereign legislature to use all of its power to act and to act
immediately.
Some of the members opposite offer soothing words about
respecting the judicial process and allowing the appeals process
to work. I know as well as they do, and certainly as well as the
member for Scarborough, a lawyer, does, that the appeals process
can be tortuously long at times. It is a slow tortuous process
open to procedural delays and there is no guarantee that this
will come to a satisfactory conclusion.
In fact there seems to be among those opposing this motion a
presumption that the higher courts, the appeal courts, will
overturn the absurd, disgraceful, bizarre judgment, as I would
characterize it, rendered at the B.C. court. I do not share
their presumption. I might be able to share their presumption if
I had not seen over the past 15 years the courts grow bolder and
bolder and bolder in asserting essentially a legislative power
and legislating from the bench, notwithstanding the democratic
consensus of Canadians on critical issues.
1555
This is not a political issue. I suspect and hope there are
members of all parties who will support this motion this evening.
I have just received a copy of a letter from the Canadian Police
Association which is also speaking on behalf of victims of crime,
CAVEAT and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. It
is signed by Mr. Grant Obst, the president of the CPA. It is a
letter to my house leader with a copy to the Minister of Justice
in which he writes:
I have been made aware of the motion you made this morning in
the House of Commons calling upon the federal government to enact
legislation criminalizing the possession of child pornography. On
behalf of the Canadian Police Association, let me lend you the
support of our 35,000 members across the country.
We believe that the current law is constitutional—
—contra the judge—
Cases have been thrown out. Pedophiles have been let out on the
street as a consequence.
There is clearly an urgency to this issue and we therefore hope
that parliament can act swiftly to ensure that the laws against
possession of child pornography are upheld in B.C. and in the
rest of Canada. Given that urgency, we support any action which
will ensure the laws against possession of child pornography are
upheld.
We applaud your initiative on this matter.
It does not say anything about any party. It talks about the
principle of the issue before us.
I appeal to all members to put aside partisanship, not to impute
motives. One of the reasons I am a member of the Reform Party is
because I oppose judicial usurpation of democratic authority from
the parliament. It is one of the reasons I left the Liberal
Party and joined the Reform Party. But that does not mean
Canadians cannot agree in principle beyond partisanship that
there is a need from time to time to use the constitutional
levers put at our disposal to protect not just our children but
perhaps even more importantly the principle of parliamentary
supremacy. That is what this debate comes down to.
Some members seem to believe that invoking section 33, the
notwithstanding clause, characterizes an overreaction. The real
true overreaction, the real legal nuclear bomb if you will, is
the abuse of judicial authority exercised by judges, such as the
one in this case, where they use their own narrow, parochial,
social, political values to impose them on society contra the
virtual unanimity of Canadian democracy.
I call on my colleagues on all sides of the House to not impute
motives to one another here but let us assert the sovereignty of
this parliament. We can act. The Constitution gives us the
power to act and we must act. To do otherwise is to abdicate our
fundamental democratic responsibility.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have been listening to the debate throughout the day
with great interest and I must say with some puzzlement. Several
Reform members have suggested that members on this side of the
House give greater importance to freedom of expression than to
the protection of children. It is quite the opposite and I would
appreciate the member's comments on what I am about to say.
This parliament has very clearly passed legislation that says
the importance of protecting our children supersedes the
individual rights to freedom of expression. The Constitution of
this country allows us to do that.
The Reform Party in its motion today seems to be accepting the
judgment of the British Columbia court, that in fact we have gone
too far, that we do not have the right to impose that limit on
freedom. The Reform Party wants us to accept that judgment and
say we have to override the charter of rights and freedoms to
protect the legislation.
The legislation is a very legitimate and necessary limitation on
personal freedom because there is no greater obligation of this
parliament than the protection of our children, especially from
this kind of abuse.
That is why I want to go into court and I want to demonstrate
clearly that this parliament does have the right to limit
personal freedom for the greater good of protecting our children.
That is why I am not prepared to accept the judgment of that
judge and to say now I have to act in accordance with his
judgment and overrule the charter so that this law can prevail.
1600
I ask the member also to comment on what would happen if we now
say that we have to overrule the charter because we accept that
the judge was right, this exceeds the charter and the only way of
making it valid is to overrule the charter. Then every lawyer
whose client has been convicted of possession of pornography
would have the right to go back into court and say “Parliament
has overridden the charter, which did not exist when my client
was convicted, therefore my client should be freed because the
law was unconstitutional and parliament has admitted it”.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, I did not imply that the
members opposite value freedom of expression over the
responsibility of the protection of children from pornography. I
did suggest that some of the members opposite may value the
authority of the courts contra the balance versus the authority
of parliament. I think that is a legitimate debate.
She knows she is being disingenuous when she suggests the Reform
Party supports the judgment and believes that it is
constitutional. She knows that is absurd.
I do not think there is a member in the House who believes this
judgment is constitutional. But the point is this. The appeals
process can work on track. We can invoke the notwithstanding
clause in this place and protect these children immediately by
reinstating the law. We can do that and allow the attorney
general of British Columbia to pursue the appeal.
The hon. accountant opposite seems to disagree with the judgment
of the lawyers I have spoken with. Let me make it clear that we
can put this to the supreme court and let it have its say. It is
nice that members opposite seem to have an absolutely unmitigated
faith that the Supreme Court of Canada will undo this unjust,
unconstitutional, outrageous decision. I am not entirely sure
based on some of the precedents I have seen come out of that
court.
But we can allow the appeals process to work and allow that to
take the years and millions of tax dollars that it will to
satisfy this British Columbia pervert's desire to tie up our
court system. We can allow that to happen but at the same time
protect the children by invoking section 33. The are not
mutually exclusive. They are mutually compatible.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, after
that rousing speech and retort I will try to carry on.
Along with most Canadians I was shocked and outraged when we
heard that a B.C. supreme court judge had struck down the section
in the Criminal Code that prohibited possession of child
pornography. The judge in his decision stated that Robin Sharpe's
freedom of expression was violated by the Criminal Code which
prohibits possession of child pornography.
It is not at all surprising that such an offensive attack on the
values of society comes from the benches of the unelected and the
unaccountable. Judicial activism, a recently coined term, refers
to rulings by judges which go well beyond the intent of the law.
These decision substantively change the law to the point where
judges have taken on the role of legislators or law makers as
opposed to simply interpreting and applying the law.
The courts have turned free some of the worst criminals in
society, from drunk drivers to child pornographers. These judges
who are acting without an electoral mandate are singlehandedly
changing the laws in this country.
We as elected members of parliament make the laws that govern
this nation right here in the House of Commons. So why are we
allowing these laws to be arbitrarily changed on the strength of
a decision made by a few unelected, unaccountable officials? How
many more shocking decisions are Canadians going to have to
endure before this activism is stopped?
The first section of the charter guarantees the rights and
freedoms set out in it are subject only to reasonable limits
described by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society.
1605
What was so democratic about striking down a portion of section
163? In interpreting this section, a judge is to apply a test of
proportionality, balancing the interests of society with that of
the individual. I must say I cannot imagine that any legislative
assembly in this land would agree with this decision, a decision
that puts the rights of the pedophile before the rights of his
victims, the children of our society.
Much has been discussed today but I want to spend just a few
moments discussing pornography and the effects it can have on the
user in society.
Sex is everywhere. We read about it every morning in the
papers. We hear about it all day long on the radio and watch it
on the national news each night. No one in society can escape
it. This fascination has fuelled a huge increase in the growth
of pornography.
Here are a few stats. The adult industry is worth over $10
billion a year. In 1996 the amount of hardcore video rentals
numbered 665 million. Each week 150 new pornography videos are
produced in the United States. Hotel guests spent $175 million
in 1996 to get pornography in their rooms. Between 9 p.m. and 1
a.m. each night over 250,000 people dial phone sex numbers. In
the United States the number of stores distributing hardcore
pornography have even outnumbered McDonald's restaurants.
McDonald's was the former king of capitalism.
Although these figures are for the U.S., it does not lessen
their impact. Nowhere has this growth been so prevalent as on the
Internet. By some estimates, some 17 million web pages are
dedicated to pornography. Detective Noreen Waters of the
Vancouver police, an expert on child pornography, testified in
the B.C. case that with the advent of the Internet there has been
a veritable explosion of the availability of child pornography.
Dr. Michael Mehta, a professor from Queen's University, has
studied the Internet extensively and estimates that up to 20% of
the activity on the web has to do with child pornography. This
number is even great when one considers all the other obscene
material, material that is illegal under Canadian law but yet is
available on the net.
However, there are some that would say that an individual has
every right to view whatever he wants in the privacy of his home.
This may be true but there have to be limits.
Before I clarify that, I want to explain the harmful effects
that pornography can have on its users. First of all, it is
important to understand that pornography is addictive and, as
with all addictions, more and more exposure is needed to satisfy
the cravings. These sexual addictions do not happen overnight.
They take time to develop. There is a gradual progression from
the soft porn pages of Playboy to the hardcore images on
videos. However, just as not everyone who tries a cigarette
becomes addicted, not everyone who uses pornography will become
addicted.
However, once an individual develops an addiction, almost
nothing can come between them and their cravings. In this case
the judge heard from expert witnesses who testified that
pedophiles often go to great lengths to get their hands on
explicit pornography and use it in ways that put children at
risk.
Can this government not see that each day a pornography addict
is allowed to possess this disgusting and obscene material that
it is aiding and abetting his addiction? Each day their
addiction is strengthened, each day they need more to satisfy
their perversions and each day they are closer, if they are not
already, to abusing children.
When pornography users become pornography addicts everyone
around them suffers. Their family suffers, their colleagues
suffer, society suffers and everyone becomes a victim.
In spite of these effects, pornography is legal. In a decision
of the supreme court R. v Butler, Mr. Justice Sopinka
acknowledged that pornography was a legitimate freedom of
expression but it did allow reasonable limits to be imposed.
These reasonable limits do not try to legislate morality but
rather they try to protect society from the harmful effects of
pornography.
When parliament declared that child pornography was illegal it
realized that the rights of innocent children, the most
vulnerable members of society, were more important than the
rights of child molesters.
If this ruling is allowed to stand we may as well declare open
season on all our children; not even infants will be safe. The
sexual deviants who prey on young children have no limits.
According to investigators it is not uncommon to find images
depicting children in sexual acts. Police have even investigated
cases where babies were violated.
The Internet has spawned a huge underground network where
pedophiles exchange pictures and information on hunting down
children and making child pornography. This material is used by
pedophiles to groom their victims, to lure their victims into
thinking that abuse is normal and that they should enjoy it.
What happens to the children who are victimized in pornography?
As an example, consider that 85% of teen prostitutes were abused
as children.
We cannot waste any more time in correcting this wrong. One
child pornographer has already been set free. How many more
perverts are sitting in their houses surrounded by their dirty
pictures ready to abuse another child?
1610
Appealing this decision could take months, if not years, and
then we have no guarantee that the judge will respect the wishes
of the Canadian people.
When the charter was drafted a section was included that will
allow any legislative assembly, including parliament, to enact
the notwithstanding clause. This clause was not meant to be used
often. But if it cannot even be used to outlaw child
pornography, what can it be used for?
The family is being attacked on all sides in our society. The
government discriminates against it through its tax system.
Special interest groups mock it and now it is being violated by
the courts.
This is tragic because the family, without question, is our most
valuable institution and the heart of our social order. It is the
place where children are brought into the world and cared for. It
is where they learn trust, love and security as well as the
values and behaviour that will make them good citizens and in
turn good parents themselves.
Many of us in this House are parents and grandparents. We know
how precious our children are to us. We know that if our
children are being abused by these pornographers we would demand
action immediately. We would not waste any time in doing what we
could to protect our children. We would act now.
The Reform Party recognizes the importance of children and
families in our society which is why we have introduced this
motion today. However, our good intentions are not enough. We
need the support of the government benches to pass this motion.
I know there are many Liberals who have signed a petition asking
for exactly the same thing we are asking for, a petition to the
Prime Minister, a petition to take immediate action. I want these
members, these parents and these grandparents to stand together
with the members on this side and do the right thing.
This is not about partisan politics. This is about the
well-being of our children. Why can we not band together today,
put aside partisan politics and do the right thing? Let us do it
for our kids.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to state how preposterous it is that we are
in the House of Commons, the law making body of our country,
debating something so entirely stupid and ridiculous. This
should not be a question in anybody's mind. I submit to members
that the only people who have a question as to the appropriate
thing to do here are the Liberal MPs.
I spent the last couple of days talking to my constituents and
they say in no uncertain terms to exercise our authority and end
possession of child pornography, to take whatever steps we have
to.
The media unfortunately are reporting that Reform is bringing
this to a vote for partisan purposes. That is not the story. The
story is that 70 Liberal MPs signed their name demanding exactly
what we are asking for here today and now they are going to
reverse their decision. Why? For one reason. They were ordered
by a dictator, a dictator who does not allow free votes in the
House of Commons, a dictator who appoints all senators so there
is no body above the House of Commons to intervene when decisions
are not made with proper thought. Furthermore, he is a dictator
who appoints all the supreme court justices.
We have the three major institutions in this country that act in
passing and enforcing laws under the control of one man and
tonight he is going to force these MPs to vote against the wishes
of surely most every Canadian who is not a demented pervert.
I would like the hon. member for Lethbridge to let me know his
opinion of the authority that is vested in one individual who
does not allow free votes, appoints all senators and all supreme
court justices. What is the member's opinion of Jean Chrétien?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must remind the
hon. member never to mention people by name in the House.
Mr. Rick Casson: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question.
Earlier today we pursued the Prime Minister on the question of
whether he would allow his members to have free votes.
1615
We have in our hands a petition signed by 70-plus members of the
party who suggest that they do exactly the right thing. It is a
letter to the Prime Minister.
When the Prime Minister was asked if he would allow his members
to have a free vote, he stood and said “This is not about free
votes. This is about process”.
I suggest that it is not about either. This is about our
children being attacked by perverts. If members opposite do not
have the guts to stand and protect our children, then they should
not stand at all.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, unlike any member of the Reform Party, I was here in
1993. When this law was passed I was the official opposition
critic for the solicitor general.
Unlike any member of the Reform Party, I voted for this law when
it came into being. Every member of my party voted for this law
and every member of the House of Commons voted for this law.
This law was and is supported by the House of Commons.
The issue is the nature of the motion. Members opposite get
very edgy when they are accused of rhetoric, and yet we hear one
member referring to the leader of the country as a dictator. If
that is not rhetoric I do not know what is.
Let us stick with the issue. The hon. member's motion wants us
to take legislative measures to reinstate the law that was struck
down by a recent decision of the court of British Columbia. That
is plainly wrong.
The law is still the law of Canada. It does not need to be
reinstated. One judge of one superior court in one province has
rendered a decision—
An hon. member: The appeal is—
Mr. Tom Wappel: Obviously members opposite do not wish
to listen to reason.
The judge has rendered a decision based on rubbish thinking, but
that does not render this law inviolate.
I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on that.
Mr. Rick Casson: Madam Speaker, I think the issue we are
faced with is whether the law is in effect or not. The appeal
process has been started. The appeal process could go on for who
knows how long.
The result of that appeal process we do not know because we do
not know if the rest of the judges will support what Canadians
want.
The issue is that parliamentarians should act now and invoke
this notwithstanding clause to protect our kids.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in this important debate. Abhorrence
of child pornography is not at issue in this parliament and in
Canada. All members of this place agree that it is not
acceptable and we will defend the laws of Canada to the fullest
extent to defend those principles.
The Parliament of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada and the
Supreme Court of the United States have concluded that the use of
children to make sex pictures is child abuse, and there are many
other precedents.
The fact is, in this place today and in this debate, whether or
not child pornography is abhorrent is not at issue. We are in
agreement. Let us move on.
I am not a lawyer, but as a member of parliament I have a
responsibility to participate as fully as I can in issues that
come before this place. To do that I have to seek information to
inform myself from other lawyers, from judges, from colleagues
and from external sources to determine what the facts are.
I would like to lay out the facts because when I lay out the
facts I think members will understand why I will not be
supporting the Reform motion before the House today.
On January 20 a letter was written to the Prime Minister on
behalf of a large number of members of my caucus.
1620
I point out that as of January 20 the matter had just come to
the fore. The government position at that time was, should the
issue come before the supreme court, it would defend the laws of
Canada. The colleagues who I joined in signing this letter to
the Prime Minister felt that it was important that our response
be swifter and stronger.
As a result, we made are argument to our caucus colleagues, to
the government and to the Prime Minister to ask for consideration
on a couple of matters. We asked that we not wait until this
matter was appealed to the supreme court. We asked for
consideration to be given to possible new legislation if the
situation was that the current laws of Canada were not strong
enough to defend the social and moral fabric and the values of
Canada. We also referenced, and members here have used it
constantly today, the use of the notwithstanding clause, section
33(1) of the charter.
It is important for us to have made that point. In the event
that no action was taken and there were exacerbating
circumstances, creating more cases going before the courts and
being frustrated, it would be essential for the government to
invoke the notwithstanding clause to stop the flow of bad
decisions.
Subsequent to this letter, and to the credit of the many members
of parliament who signed this letter and the many others who
spoke openly to caucus, to the government and to the Prime
Minister, the government acted. It acted in these ways.
First, the government took the extraordinary step of intervening
in the appeal of the decision to the B.C. court of appeal. It is
extraordinary for that to happen. The importance and the
significance of this issue has been demonstrated by the
government taking that extraordinary step.
The government has also supported the B.C. government in having
the appeal decision dealt with on an expedited basis to ensure
that it is dealt with as soon as possible.
We have also co-operated in seeking the co-operation of law
enforcement authorities to continue all investigations and to
continue laying charges under the laws of Canada. They are doing
that.
We also are satisfied that adjournments have been sought for the
cases currently before the courts so that no other decisions will
be taken until such time as the issue presently before the appeal
court has been dealt with.
It is very important to understand that the letter which has
been referred to so often by the Reform Party was dated January
20 when the position was to deal with the situation when it
reached the supreme court. The letter was not written today and
a position was not taken today after all of these other points
were in place. It is extremely important to understand that we
took the actions that were necessary to ensure that this matter
is dealt with as expeditiously as possible to ensure that the
rights of our children are protected as quickly as possible and
as forcefully as possible.
I have seen many legal opinions to date. I am advised basically
by the consultations I have made as a member of parliament that
the case before the appeal court has strong and very substantial
merit.
There are issues that are going to have to be dealt with. It
has been suggested that the judge may have been in error in the
judgment. It may have been a faulty judgment. It may also have
been the crown attorney who did not make substantive enough
arguments in defending the constitution of Canada.
1625
We do know that the arguments were made strongly with regard to
freedom of expression. But were the arguments made
substantively? I think that these are the points which have to
be raised at the appeal process.
If the members believe that the current laws of Canada regarding
child pornography under the Criminal Code are inadequate and
unconstitutional, then we should invoke the notwithstanding
clause if we believe they are not constitutional. But that is
not the case.
Members have said that they support the laws of Canada. We do.
And we are going to continue to support the laws of Canada. If
we believe they have to be strengthened, maybe we should have
additional measures to strengthen those laws.
However, right now it is plain to me, based on the consultations
I have had, that invoking section 33(1) of the charter, the
notwithstanding clause, is premature and may in fact constitute
either coercion or the undermining of the court system itself. I
say that because if we were to invoke the notwithstanding clause
today, that invocation would only apply to cases that arose from
today forward. It would not be applied retroactively to the
Sharpe case which has precipitated this matter. That means that
the appeal to the B.C. court of appeal has to proceed.
Let us consider this. If the appeal process takes place and the
federal government has already invoked the notwithstanding cause,
what is the purpose of the appeal? We have basically said that
we do not like the court system, we do not value the courts any
more, we do not believe that the laws are being treated properly
under our Constitution, we are going to ignore anything that has
been said and we have invoked the notwithstanding clause.
That is not the way to defend the laws of Canada. The way to
defend the laws of Canada is to deal in the courts with the
specific issues that come before the courts.
I believe that we have ample evidence that this was a wrong
decision. It was poorly argued, and the laws under the Criminal
Code regarding child pornography are in fact constitutional,
valid and supportive of the children of Canada.
Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. There is no
disagreement in this place. There is no disagreement in Canada
that we abhor child pornography because it is child abuse.
I will be voting against this motion because, if I am correct,
the motion suggests that we take legislative measures to
reinstate the law. One does not take legislative measures to
reinstate the law. If the notwithstanding clause is invoked,
that is not reinstating the law. The motion before us today is
in fact contradictory prima facie. It should be defeated. I
encourage all colleagues to look very carefully at a very poor
motion that undermines not only the laws of Canada but also the
rights of our children.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
am hesitant to interrupt the excellent speeches being made, but I
believe you would find unanimous consent for the following
motion. There have been consultations among the parties and I
would like to propose the following motion to the House:
1. That Bill C-306, now in the name of the hon. member for
Brome—Missisquoi, stand instead in the name of the member for
Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
2. That the Order for consideration of Bill C-415, in the name
of the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, be
discharged and that the bill be withdrawn.
3. That the bill on the Notice Paper in the name of the
Minister of Finance, entitled an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, be deemed now to have
been introduced, read a first time, ordered to be printed and
ordered for consideration for second reading at the next sitting
of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1630
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pose a question to
the member opposite.
I listened carefully to the comments of several members today
including the member opposite from Scarborough Southwest. He
commented specifically about the fact that he was present in the
House when this legislative change was first inserted in the
Criminal Code. That was done by a Conservative government.
The motion yesterday was brought forward by the Conservatives
and similarly received unanimous support of the House. I believe
there is room for some common ground and some compromise on this
issue. I am referring to a middle ground with respect to
positions that have been outlined throughout the day by various
members.
The Reform Party has proposed what I think is fair to
characterize as a fairly extreme response. Given the emotion
that is wrapped up in this issue, its seriousness and the
implications thereof, that is not outlandish. However, the
previous speaker indicated quite clearly that there is a need for
rational response. There is a need for due process, a word the
minister has used throughout the day.
In all sincerity, I ask the member, is there not a compromise in
a referral to the Supreme Court of Canada? That is a response
that would leave it in the hands of the judiciary, which is not
always embraced by the Reform Party. There is a cynicism that
exists in that regard, but it would expedite matters.
We all know the old maxim about delay being the deadliest form
of denial. We have seen denial by the government. We saw denial
in the late intervention with respect to the referendum. We saw
delay with respect to the introduction of changes to the Young
Offenders Act.
Would this not be an infinitely reasonable solution for the
Minister of Justice to act now with legislative authority from
the supreme court act and the Criminal Code to refer this matter
of extreme importance to the Supreme Court of Canada where nine
judges of the highest court in the land could pass judgment on
the issue and we would have a definitive answer?
Then we would also have the fallback position that is being
proposed by the Reform Party that if need be at that time this
measure, which could be described as perhaps too extreme' could
then be invoked.
Let us leave the word pedophelia and all the emotion out of it.
There is a need for timeliness here and that has not been the
government's trademark. Would the solution not be to go to the
Supreme Court of Canada?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I understand the member's
point. I agree with him that in the best interest of all
Canadians this matter has to be dealt with in as expeditiously a
manner as possible.
The member has given advice to the House with regard to what
kind of timeline a reference to the supreme court would take. It
is very clear that the supreme court has already dealt with the
issue and it is very clear that the supreme court has upheld the
same arguments already, so it would be an automatic process.
I ask rhetorically whether participating as an intervener and
defending the laws of Canada before the B.C. appeal court would
not have a shorter timeline than a reference to the supreme
court. I do not know the answer to that question. I believe,
though, that the justice minister is considering all those
options.
I agree with the member that to invoke the notwithstanding
clause is tantamount to admitting that the current laws of Canada
are not constitutional and that we are basically desirous of
overruling the charter. I believe that position is extreme. It
is certainly premature. I believe it is one of the reasons we
have to defeat the motion but continue to take the tightest line
in getting our laws reinstated in a manner which is acceptable to
all.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am honoured to say a few words on the motion brought
forward today.
I will try to be as careful as I can in my words and not impute
motive, as has been suggested by members of the official
opposition, but rather deal with the motion as put forward and my
views on it.
1635
It is useful to have a look at what the motion proposes:
That the government should take legislative measures to reinstate
the law that was struck down by a recent decision of the Court of
British Columbia—
That statement is simply wrong. The law in question, section
163 of the Criminal Code and some of its subsections, is still
the law of Canada. A particular judge of the British Columbia
superior court has ruled in what can only be described as a
boneheaded decision that there is some sort of constitutional
right to possess child pornography.
That ruling is not even binding on his fellow judges, never mind
judges in other provinces, never mind appeal courts, never mind
the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no doubt the judgment has
caused a huge outcry in Canada. There is no doubt from listening
to the debate today that everybody is completely in favour of
making it a crime and continuing to have it a crime to possess
child pornography. That is not the issue.
The issue is whether or not we vote in favour of the motion. If
we vote no, why are we voting no? I will tell the House why I am
voting no. We have a law and that law is still in force. It is
still being enforced by police forces across the country. The
Minister of Justice indicated that it is the will of the
Government of Canada that the law continue to be enforced. Police
forces across the country have indicated they will continue to do
it.
In British Columbia, the subject of this judgment, there are
lower courts which generally speaking have to follow the
precedent of a higher court but can adjourn cases pending
clarification of the law. They do not need to dismiss them. On
any cases that are dismissed the crown counsel can appeal those
decisions and make sure everything is in order waiting for the
court of appeal.
How can we take legislative measures to reinstate a law that
does not need reinstatement? It is still the law of Canada. To
vote for the motion is to be completely illogical. We cannot
vote to reinstate a law that does need reinstatement.
We are not talking about a circumstance down the road when the
highest court of the land might theoretically overturn the
section in question. If that were to occur, no matter how fast I
hurried I would probably still not be the first person to call
for the invocation of section 33 of the Constitution, and I
would. However that time has not yet arisen.
The first reason I am voting against the motion is that it asks
us to do something based on the false premise that the law is no
longer the law of Canada. It asks us to reinstate something that
is already in status. Second, it asks us to do so by invoking
section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the notwithstanding
clause.
I have not been here all day so I do not know if anybody has
referred to the actual wording of section 33(1) of the charter of
rights and freedoms. It might be useful to have a look at the
wording of that section if we are being asked to invoke it at
this point in time:
Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare
in an Act of Parliament or the legislature as the case may be,
that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding
a provision included in section 2 or section 7 to 15 of this
Charter.
That is a lot of gobbledegook to non-lawyers unless we analyse
it, so I will analyze it briefly for us.
Parliament may expressly declare under section 33 of the charter
that section 163.1(4) shall operate notwithstanding a provision
included in section 2 of the charter.
1640
If the courts were to find as a matter of law that section 2 of
the charter gives a charter right to the possession of child
pornography, notwithstanding that court decision the Parliament
of Canada using section 33 could declare section 163.1(4) still
to be the law of Canada.
In order to invoke section 33 we need a judicial decision
deciding that section 2 overrides section 163.1(4) and that
judicial decision must apply across Canada. It has to make it a
law of Canada that it is a charter right to possess child
pornography.
There is no such decision in Canada today. If there is no such
decision in Canada today, the notwithstanding clause of section
33(1) of the charter cannot be invoked because it requires
something in the Constitution to be overridden notwithstanding
that it is in the Constitution.
The judgment of Justice Shaw does not do that. The judgment of
Justice Shaw stands completely alone. It stands isolated in
Canada. None of the members of parliament who have spoken today
support the judgment of Justice Shaw. None of us support his
rationale, his legal rationale or any kind of rationale he
proposed in his decision. That decision has been roundly and
completely criticized in the House today. The House has sent a
very clear message on behalf of Canadians to the court of appeal
and to the Supreme Court of Canada.
How can we in good conscience as responsible legislators,
notwithstanding that we abhor the concept of child pornography,
that we do not agree it is a charter right to possess child
pornography, vote for a motion that is based on two legal
fallacies: one that the law protecting children is not in force
across Canada and the other that there is somehow across Canada a
declaration that it is a charter right to possess child
pornography which therefore we have to override using the
charter? Neither of those circumstances is in place.
That being the case, the motion if not technically and
procedurally out of order is logically out of order since it does
not make any legal sense whatsoever.
I want to make abundantly clear that if there is any kind of
inordinate delay in getting to the court of appeal or any kind of
dealing with the matter expeditiously, we still have the
opportunity to consider the proposal put forward by the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and a quick reference to the
Supreme Court of Canada.
Should it be that the highest court in the land strikes this
down, I will try to be the first to call for the charter to be
invoked to override such a ridiculous decision. In the meantime,
in law and in logic we cannot support the motion no matter what
good intentions are behind it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, Canadians watching the debate must be going crazy. To
hear the nonsense being spouted from government benches is beyond
belief.
The member is just the latest example of it. He says the law is
in effect in Canada. Guess what? Letters have been read in the
House including one from the Canadian Police Association which
say that in the province of British Columbia possession of child
pornography cases are being thrown out of court. The law is not
in effect in the country.
It is not in effect in the province of B.C. People with children
and grandchildren and relatives and friends, people they care
about in British Columbia, are going to hold this member to
account when he dares to stand in his place and says what is to
worry about, the law is in effect, when he knows very well that
it is not in effect in the province of British Columbia. But of
course that does not matter to this member. Then he said and
gasped “We are being asked to invoke section 33 to override the
charter. How can we possibly do that? This would be terrible
for parliament to say it is supreme. How can we do such a
nonsensical thing?”
1645
I would like to read from a letter dated January 20 signed by
Liberal members: “We ask that the government not wait for the
appeal of the B.C. decision to be heard. We ask also that you
consider”, this is to the Prime Minister “the use of the
notwithstanding clause”. Guess who signed this letter on January
20? The member who just spoke.
I would like to ask the member who got to him between January
20, 1999 and February 2, 1999, or perhaps he just wanted to be
able to tell his supporters that he really fought this thing but
when it came time for him to put his money where his mouth was,
he was not willing to do it.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Madam Speaker, the comments of the last
10 minutes indicate why I am voting against the motion.
My hon. colleague can try to portray them any way she wants. She
can take whatever shot she wants. I have stood in the House of
Commons and spoken in front of Canadians as to my reasons. Let me
say, however, I do not in any way, shape or form say that we
should not in appropriate circumstances use the notwithstanding
clause and I indicated what those circumstances were.
I should indicate that when I signed that letter my purpose was
to indicate to the Prime Minister how very concerned we were as
ordinary backbenchers as to the ramifications of this decision.
When the hon. member for Mississauga South spoke he made a
number of very excellent points about why he signed the letter
and I agree with all those. I signed the letter. I stood in
this place and explained why I am not supporting this motion.
Absolutely no one got to me, as the member puts it. No one has
called me to tell me which way to vote. No one has twisted my
arm. No one has asked me to hide behind the curtains.
Everybody knows that on an issue like this I will vote the way I
think I should vote and I am going to vote against this motion
for the reasons I indicated. What got to me was the wording of
the motion.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, shortly following the news of the B.C. court decision I
heard from a constituent in Surrey Central who recounted to me
her sad story that exhibits the pain and suffering that can
result from the lax attitude and the laws we are facing today.
She was involved in child pornography when she was in her teens.
She was vulnerable and made a bad choice. Years later evidence
of her involvement became evident to her employers and employees
and she had to quit her job. So she continues to suffer
considerable embarrassment, regret and shame as we are talking.
The point is she did not consent but she had to suffer.
I would like to ask the member what he would suggest I tell my
constituent who is still suffering today.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Madam Speaker, I suggest that he tell his
constituent that every member of the House on behalf of all
Canadians expresses their sympathy for the tragedy of his
constituent.
None of us support child pornography. All of us are against it.
All of us are in favour of the law as it now stands. That is
what he should tell his constituent.
1650
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
wish to speak on behalf of my party to the Reform Party motion
so that our party's position is again made clear, as it was this
morning by the member for Berthier—Montcalm, our justice critic.
The Bloc Quebecois intends to vote against the amendment moved
by the Reform Party because it does not think it appropriate to
immediately invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although this clause can, on
occasion and in the proper circumstances, provide Parliament
with a means of giving the views of lawmakers precedence over
those of judges.
But, in the present circumstances, we do not think it
appropriate to invoke this clause right away, because the matter
is before the courts and it is up to them to pursue the process
set in motion by the complainant in this affair.
I have examined the decision handed down on January 13 by Mr.
Justice Shaw. It is clear from this decision that the judge
thinks the Criminal Code, specifically subsection 163.1(4) is
contrary to the Constitution of Canada and that it violates
certain of the Constitution's provisions and certain fundamental
freedoms. Having considered the arguments, the judge goes on to
say that this provision is justified in a free and democratic
society.
This is where the Bloc Quebecois parts company with the judge
and, through the voice of its members who will support the
motion after voting against the amendment, wishes to make known
to this judge and to other judges who will be asked to rule on
this matter, because this case will be appealed, probably to the
Supreme Court, that elected officials consider this provision
unreasonable and feel that, in a free and democratic society,
the government must oppose child pornography. It must adopt
measures to discourage this practice and to prohibit the
wholesale distribution of child pornography, which is harmful to
children and violates their most fundamental rights.
It is for this reason that the Bloc Quebecois will vote in
favour.
It wants to send a message to the public and to the judges who
will have to again decide this matter, so that they may consider
that, in a free and democratic society, a government and a
Parliament are justified in wishing to restrict basic freedoms
where pornography is concerned, particularly child pornography.
Other alternative measures have been presented, in particular
the one suggested by the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and his colleagues, that a reference
to the supreme court be made by the federal government under the
Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code. Such a procedure would
make it possible to speed up the debate and would allow the
courts to reach a decision more quickly, and ought not,
moreover, to be excluded from the hypotheses considered by the
Minister of Justice.
For the moment, however, having spoken to certain people,
certain criminal law specialists who are of the opinion that the
integrity of the Canadian criminal justice system might be put
in jeopardy if there were immediate recourse to the
notwithstanding clause, and having considered these opinions, it
is certainly worthwhile for the judges and the public to
understand that, in the present circumstances, the Bloc
Quebecois considers it inappropriate to make use of the
notwithstanding clause, as the Reform members wish to do.
Instead, a certain degree of patience is required, allowing the
legal process to take its course.
1655
In conclusion, to repeat the position taken this morning by the
hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, our justice critic, the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting in favour of this motion, because it
represents a means of sending a clear message that this judgment
and the position taken by Mr. Justice Shaw do not appear to be
in line with our party's views of what is reasonable in a free
and democratic society. Also, as for the amendment, we will be
voting against it.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am honoured to speak on this issue on behalf of my
constituents. This is a very sensitive and delicate issue.
No one is pleased to debate in this House child pornography or
other things which are hurting our society. We have to address
these sensitive moral issues very seriously and we have to
effectively suggest and act in this Chamber so that we can
control these issues and take the right decisions.
My colleagues and I, as the official opposition, have chosen to
use our supply day today to force the House to debate and vote on
the recent decision by a British Columbian judge that in effect
allowed the possession of child pornography and made it legal in
this country.
It is a good thing for Canadians that we are here on this side
of the House as an alternative to the government. We are here to
hold the Liberal government accountable and suggest that it make
the right decision in this Chamber. The Liberals are apparently
prepared to do nothing about the effect the legal possession of
child pornography will have except sitting on their hands and
waiting for the courts to do something.
Courts cannot replace elected officials. The judges are
unelected. They are unaccountable. It is we in this House who
have to think, who have to act. We cannot tinker with the law. We
need a law that has strong teeth which can give
protection to society, which can give protection to the
children and the most vulnerable in society.
The constituents of Surrey Central and I are outraged that the
Liberal government is not prepared to take immediate action to
protect our children. During the break I received an
unprecedented number of phone calls on this issue. In fact, the
Liberal justice minister has been spewing forth legal mumbo-jumbo
ever since this decision in an attempt to do nothing about the
situation.
As parliamentarians Canadians expect us to work on their behalf
in this place to defend and uphold the levels of morality in our
society. Clearly the production and possession of child
pornography is unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians.
The other day on the Internet two pedophiles were talking to
each other. One said that he would rather choose Canada to live
in and love children. How pathetic this is. Do the Liberals
want to make Canada famous for red lights? Will it be a red
light country?
Our children need care and they need protection. They need
protection from drugs. They need protection from violence,
television, the Internet and sexual abuse.
1700
We do not want Canada to be a haven for pedophiles, drug
dealers, criminals and terrorists. It would be a shame if we in
this House did not act on this right away when it is needed. We
expect the government to act and to act fast. We believe it is
our duty as the elected representatives of the people to do
something about this decision and outlaw the possession of child
pornography.
My constituents and I were assured that immediately upon return
to Ottawa this week the House would take measures to ensure the
protection of our children from being induced or forced to commit
sexual acts.
On January 22 about 70 members of parliament from the government
side wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. It will be surprising
to see what kind of result we will get from the vote today. I
wonder how they will vote. If these members have the guts to
write to their Prime Minister, who was probably not listening to
them in caucus, we would encourage them to stand and represent
their constituents and a vast majority of Canadians and vote
accordingly.
We on this side of the House believe it is our moral
responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society, the
children. I am sure the members on the other side of the House
will think the same way.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I think a few points are being missed in this debate. I
would like to point out to members of the Reform Party that I
will be standing up and voting my conscience. It will not be in
support of the motion that the Reform Party has proposed. The
reason for this is fairly simple.
We live in one of the best countries in the world and we all
recognize this. One of the reasons this is the best country in
the world is that we have some very good institutions. One of
those good institutions, even though once in a while some judge
makes a wrong decision, is our court system.
I think the Reform Party is being somewhat disingenuous on the
one hand to try to pretend that it is for law and order and then
to continually try to undermine the courts of this country.
Members of the Reform Party cannot have it both ways. Reform
members would serve their constituents very well if they would
explain how the system works and then wait for the outcome. I do
believe the member would be doing a greater favour to his
constituents than to stand up in this House day after day and
exploit a difficult issue for pure political gain.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, our current justice
minister has been holding her portfolio for 601 days. She has
been dragging her feet on the Young Offenders Act. She has been
dragging her feet on important decisions she was supposed to
make. She has shown a lack of leadership on the important issues
that this parliament and this country is facing.
Just now the hon. member on the other side pointed out that a
wrong decision has been made. What is the member doing about it?
Is he going to close his eyes and ears and just let it go as it
is?
Why did 70 members on the government side write to the Prime
Minister on January 20? Because they know that something wrong
has been done. If something wrong has been done then we as the
elected representatives of Canadians must stand in this House and
work through our conscience and vote the way our constituents are
telling us to vote.
How many Canadians want child pornography to continue?
How many Canadians want their children in this situation? I have
two teenage boys. God forbid if they were forced into this
situation. How would I feel if the judge made a decision that
would allow the pedophile out, he thanked the judge and then said
“here are the pictures of your children”?
1705
This is a very emotional issue. I know that members on the
government side in their hearts know that they are wrong to
oppose this motion. Let us forget about politics on this ground.
We are not in an election mode. Let us look through the lens of
issues. Let us do something which will make history in this
country, which will make our children's future the best on the
planet.
I ask all members, particularly the member who asked the
question, if they agree that what is being done is wrong, then
have guts. Do not sit in the House like a bag of sand. Work on
your conscious and vote accordingly.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
point out that what distinguishes our society from non-democratic
societies is the rule of law.
There is no question that no one in the House today has
indicated anything but abhorrence for the decision of the chief
justice of the British Columbia supreme court. What seems to be
at issue here with some members of the opposition—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the hon. member but the time for questions and comments
has expired. The hon. member for Surrey Central has 10 seconds to
reply.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I do not know what
the question was but I am sure the member was talking about the
rule of law.
We cannot have different laws for different people. Yesterday
we debated Bill C-49. In this situation we cannot make a law in
the House which will not serve Canadians—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Oak Ridges.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I
was indicating, we have a rule of law in this country. Very
clearly the law is in effect even in British Columbia. It has
been pointed out by other members of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia that the ruling of Justice Shaw is not binding on them.
To use section 33 is a very drastic step. It is one that is
available. It has only been used twice. It has been used by two
provincial governments. In both cases it was after every legal
recourse had been exhausted. This is not the case in this
situation.
Members of the opposition referred to the fact that some members
signed a letter to the Prime Minister urging him to consider the
notwithstanding clause or other equivalent effective measures. I
would suggest that the Minister of Justice responded very
quickly. The government has taken the extraordinary step of
intervening in the appeal of the decision of the British Columbia
Court of Appeal in order to defend the law, a law which this
government believes will be upheld.
Let us make no mistake. The fact is that members of this party
urged the Prime Minister to take action. Action has been taken
and very swiftly.
This government, and I think everyone in the House, supports the
protection of our children. It is absolutely paramount to every
member here. There is no monopoly on that issue. It is for that
reason the government has decided to act and to act quickly, not
to wait if it ever goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, but to
take immediate action.
This government believes that the existing law on the possession
of child pornography is constitutional. I clearly oppose the
decision. It is an abhorrent decision. But I have faith in the
rule of law. I do not believe that anyone should be allowed to
possess, produce or distribute child pornography. Let us make no
mistake.
1710
The fact is there is a process. If governments start to react
to court decisions, two things are going to happen. I think the
judges are going to be very careful about what they do and we
will then question the independence of the judiciary. One judge
has made a decision, a decision which we clearly oppose, but
there is a process. The Minister of Justice has taken action.
There is no contradiction between the letter which is being
brandished about by the opposition and what the government has
done. Clearly members on the government benches have asked that
action be taken. Action has been taken very quickly. I see no
contradiction whatsoever.
We are clearly not giving nor will we give a blank cheque to
child pornographers in this country. Therefore the decision to
intervene is very important.
Children are our most valuable members of society and we will
not tolerate any exploitation. Therefore the legal course of
action is the appropriate one. We as parliamentarians write the
laws. When this law was passed in 1993, it was passed unanimously
by the House of Commons. I have faith that the law which was
passed in 1993 will be upheld and it will be upheld by the
British Columbia Court of Appeal.
I have no doubt that the action the minister has taken has
clearly indicated that this government is prepared to stand
behind the law which this parliament enacted. Canadians clearly
want to see the government take action. I know from the comments
I have heard that Canadians realize that action through the
process of the law has been taken.
The rule of law is critical. That is what distinguishes
ourselves from other forms of government. We do not have a
politicized judiciary in the fact that we cannot simply say this
is the decision we want. We have faith in the law of the land. I
believe that law will be upheld.
In conclusion, we know clearly that child pornography degrades
and victimizes young children. The Parliament of Canada and in
fact the Supreme Court of Canada have indicated very clearly that
the self-worth and the importance of children in our society is
paramount. Therefore the decision by the government is the right
one and I will be voting against this motion this evening.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I think the government is on the horns of dilemma here. The
dilemma is the ancient story of what came first, the chicken or
the egg? In this case it is what came first, the people or the
law?
It seems to me that in our democracy the people came first and
they made the law. That means the people whom we represent in
this House are the ones who decide whether or not the law is
being applied correctly and whether it is a law that is just.
That is where the real problem lies in this debate. The members
across the way have not settled that dilemma.
I ask the member which came first, the people or the law?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.15 p.m.,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1715
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt to
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
| Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
| Davies
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
|
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
| Gilmour
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
| Guarnieri
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Iftody
| Jaffer
|
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
| McDonough
| McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
|
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| Steckle
|
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 84
|
NAYS
Members
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|