Mr. Speaker, when the member for Mississauga South was talking about the Reform opposition day motion he spoke at some length about Justice Shaw's pornography decision in British Columbia on the Sharpe case. I would like to make a few comments about that because I have some information and then I will have a question for the member for Mississauga South.
The member talked about media reports from that trial and he also talked about the fact that Mr. Sharpe was not represented by legal counsel.
There was only one member of the media at the trial, who is a radio reporter from my community. There were several UBC law students at court that day. There were other media who popped in, heard what they thought was a poorly presented case and left because they thought there was no way this individual could win. Why did the law students stay? Because they knew he was going to win. The radio reporter from my community talked to those students and therefore decided to stay.
The member for Mississauga South indicated that he is of the opinion that the case was not well argued. I beg to differ. It was not well presented, but it was well argued.
I do not believe that Justice Shaw made an error in judgment. His judgment was the culmination of a series of earlier decisions by judges because of the way in which our laws are written and earlier jurisprudence on the child pornography issue related to the Constitution.
I will make the same admission as the member for Mississauga South: I am not a lawyer, but this is my belief.
The message that I think I am hearing out of those court proceedings is that under the current legislative framework it does not matter what happens with the appeal. In the short run that may work, but in the long run the current legislative framework will be found lacking and will require a legislative solution or a notwithstanding solution.
Why is the member so quick to sign a letter to the Prime Minister and so slow to stand in the House of Commons to vote for a motion to support the very same issue?