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.