Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for the officials from the Department of Justice.
I imagine that you have followed the various testimonies we have heard. As my colleague Mr. Casey said, an example might be a young 21-year-old man receiving a pornographic picture or something like that. The clause as written right now does not leave a lot of room for those exceptional cases. As a result, the minimum sentences that were set out but have been slightly increased could be seen in a certain way.
Wouldn't the proposed amendment make it possible to manage such cases? The amendment is in order; it is fine from a legal point of view. It does not change the spirit of the bill as Mr. Dechert has just claimed. It keeps everything in place. The first part deals with an indictable offence liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year. Would that not enable the crown prosecutor to handle those cases?
Otherwise, I am afraid that the whole thing will be simply dismissed out of hand or constitutionally challenged .