“…46 Others may hold contrary views.47 It is well-known, however, that regardless of which view is preferred from a strictly legal perspective, the general experience of women and children in Canada under the current arrangement is one of violation of their rights to security of the person and equal protection, benefit, and enjoyment of the law under ss 7, 15, and 28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as a violation of their human rights under international law, contrary to the obligations the government of Canada has assumed under international covenants and conventions. 48 In these circumstances, it is incumbent on the federal government to take concrete steps to assume its responsibilities for enforcement of the criminal laws prohibiting all forms of criminal violence, exploitation, and coercion against women and children.49 46 Carter examines the tension between the expectation that prosecutorial authority will be exercised in a quasi-judicial and hence apolitical manner and "indications from the provinces that prosecutorial resources will not be invested in certain federal criminal law initiatives which are 'politically' unpopular" (at 168). 47 See, for example, R v Catagas (1978), 38 CCC (2d) 296 (Man CA), concluding that an explicit policy of non-prosecution of Aboriginals hunting on Crown land in violation of the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, RSC 1970, c M 12 was "a clear case of the exercise of a purported dispensing power by executive action in favour of a particular group" and, as such, was null and void on the ground that "the Crown may not by executive action dispense with the laws" (at 301).…”