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?