Thank you, Chair.
This is not only about kids already abused, raped and exploited in these pictures and videos. This is about more kids in the future who will be raped because the courts fail to punish these perverts enough and thereby deter future perverts. We have to go hard on this so that we can kill this industry.
I used to lecture on the charter a bit. I want to talk about the charter here. What was the point of the notwithstanding clause? It was to prevent absurdity. Attorney General Jean Chrétien used the notwithstanding clause to seal the deal on the charter. That's how it came about. He specifically used an example for absurdity that the Supreme Court could come up with. He gave a hypothetical: For instance, what if the Supreme Court found that possession of child pornography was protected under the freedom of expression? That's the example he used. I think everyone in this room, even the Liberals, would agree that such a finding would be absurd. That's not the scenario we have, but it's close.
Senneville pleaded guilty to possession and access to over 300 images of children, mostly girls between the ages of three and six, being sexually exploited. Naud pleaded guilty to possession of more than 500 images and more than 250 videos, most of which were children between the ages of five and 10, many being raped and sodomized.
I'm disgusted by this, colleagues. Striking down the mandatory minimum sentence for each of the two counts is exactly the kind of absurdity that the notwithstanding clause was designed to prevent. I say this as a lawyer in good standing in Ontario. This is crazy. This is precisely why section 33 was inserted into the charter.
I'm tired of the use of these hypotheticals every time the court sees an argument of overbreadth. A first-year law student can come up with a hypothetical that would not make sense and render the law overbroad. Do you know what happens when there's a crazy scenario like the court considered to strike down the mandatory minimum sentence? There's common sense. The police don't charge. The Crowns don't prosecute it.
These guys are monsters. I'm proud of my colleagues and I'm proud of the Leader of the Opposition for clearly saying that we're going to invoke the notwithstanding clause when we're in government to protect these children from these monsters, to prevent this absurdity that the Supreme Court has arrived at. Attorney General Fraser is refusing to invoke the notwithstanding clause. He knows it's appropriate under the circumstances, but then he would have to be arguing against himself in court after the factum he submitted last month.
I ask this of my Liberal colleagues on this committee: Do your jobs to safeguard the law and protect children. Call on this government to invoke the notwithstanding clause and lock up these monsters who, through their actions, contribute to the rape and sodomy of children. Please do the right thing.
Thank you, Chair.