Mr. Chair, this amendment is in line with what we have proposed to members of the committee and to the House on a number of occasions.
In general, we agree that the courts should have all the flexibility they need to determine appropriate sentences, while taking into account the maximum sentences contained in the act. We agree with eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, but we think that would be inappropriate in some cases. I think it was Mr. Moore or Mr. Morrison who talked about the rise in violent gun crime that we've seen over the last year or two, particularly in Montreal, but also elsewhere in Canada. We believe that mandatory minimum sentences should be maintained for these serious crimes.
That being said, I would like to remind you that a witness we heard from at a previous meeting, Professor Desrosiers, from Laval University, in Quebec City, made a proposal to us. She said that an acceptable compromise would be for the court to waive the mandatory minimum in exceptional circumstances. In fact, Minister Lametti told our committee that, in certain circumstances, it seemed inappropriate to impose a minimum sentence. He gave the example of someone who used a firearm to shoot at a cement wall to impress his buddies. If that person clearly deserves to be punished, sending him to prison would not necessarily be appropriate. The courts should therefore be given the opportunity to waive mandatory minimum sentences in exceptional circumstances.
We are proposing this amendment, which maintains the mandatory minimum sentence. This still sends a message to the public that the offence will be dealt with severely, but gives the court the opportunity to override the mandatory minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances. Before waiving the mandatory minimum sentence, judges will have to explain why the circumstances of the case before them are exceptional.
We think that would help prevent things from going off the rails. Some crimes should not be given a prison sentence, but because of the mandatory minimum sentences, a sentence is given anyway. This would avoid sending a message to the public that Parliament is being flippant in dealing with crimes as serious as the one referred to in BQ‑1.
That is the reason for our amendment, which I think is a very honourable compromise. It maintains mandatory minimum sentences, but it gives judges the opportunity to waive them.
Thank you.