Our motion had a very specific direction for a statement that this committee would send to the House—ideally something the House would concur with and the government would concur with, and that was that we “call on the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to reinstate...mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual exploitation....”
The amendment that we are debating now from Ms. Lattanzio of the Liberals is an amendment that changes the call to action quite significantly so that we would “call on the government to table legislation to address child sexual exploitation....” The reason that is fundamentally different is that, with all due respect to Ms. Lattanzio, it is not specific in terms of what we are calling for that will directly respond to and address the Supreme Court ruling that prompted this discussion.
I go back to the comments that I made in my initial intervention on Mr. Brock's motion, which is that the reason mandatory minimum exists is, as in the cases that led to the Supreme Court decision, the trial judges give the bare minimum and even then find ways to go below that for these heinous offenders who had hundreds of images and videos of young children being abused in unspeakable ways. This amendment cannot be supported because the amendment allows the government to do something—to table some legislation—that skirts around the edges of this issue without dealing with the crux of it. What we are trying to actually have an answer for is how we ensure that judges do not have the ability to let people who have engaged in these horrific crimes slide and go without due sentencing.
This is not something where I believe we can afford to be imprecise in what we're seeking to do, so I will be voting against this amendment. The amendment neutralizes and neuters the very essence of what we're trying to do, which is to make a very strong, deliberate and specific call to action from the government.
I still reiterate my hope that our original motion can be passed with all-party support at this committee, because this is something where the health and lives of children can be materially improved by sending a strong message to child abusers, Mr. Chair.