We talk a lot about mandatory minimum sentences. No doubt you followed the Supreme Court in Senneville a couple of months ago, which struck down a mandatory minimum sentence in a case involving access to and distribution of child pornography—a horrendous set of facts with horrendous materials in the possession of the two accused. Apparently, a majority of the Supreme Court thought that a mandatory minimum sentence would be unconstitutional here. That would be one year for possession or access. We see nothing on that in Bill C-14.
We now see Bill C-16, which I anticipate will come to this committee at some point as well. In that respect, we see the government watering down the mandatory minimum sentencing provision, in that they propose a safety valve where there would be automatic litigation of the constitutional principle that a punishment cannot be cruel and unusual every single time and would allow a judge discretion not to apply the mandatory minimum. How do you feel about that?