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.