I agree, and I made the point here, which I really did not like making but I think has to be made, that the original statement that those who are not with us are in effect on the side of the child pornographers is certainly objectionable. It classes anybody with legitimate objections to the act, which was flawed, as somebody supporting child pornography. I don't think that statement reaches the threshold of a threat, but I find it offensive.
That's the point that I'm trying to get across here. We're in a territory where the privilege act does not stand by issue, does not stand by itself, but is a consequence of something else.
I've often wondered, looking at this, if a member had raised a question of privilege at the minister's statement that those who are not with us are with the child pornographers, whether that would not have been construed as a question of privilege as well. I find it certainly offensive to members who have legitimate disagreement with the act; whether it's a harm, I can't say.