Okay. That wasn't a trick question. I appreciate your candour on that and giving a simple answer.
I'm assuming you're aware that a few weeks ago the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a mandatory minimum sentence for someone convicted of possessing and sharing child sexual exploitation and abuse material was cruel and unusual punishment, a mandatory minimum sentence of even just one year.
Now, on the cases that led to this, in one of them, a gentleman from Quebec had “317 images of children constituting” what the court called “child pornography”. I'm quoting the court decision: “Of those images, 90 percent were of young girls between 3 and 6 years of age, some showing victims being subjected to acts of penetration and sodomy committed by adults and minors.”
The other case involved another man, also from Quebec, who had “531 images and 274 videos...of children from 5 to 10 years of age being subjected to sexual abuse, such as fellatio and vaginal and anal penetration, by adults.”
I do not enjoy reading those words. I know that no one in this room enjoys hearing them. Do you believe that a mandatory minimum sentence of one year is cruel and unusual punishment?