Under the Criminal Code, mandatory minimum sentences apply to a range of serious offences. They're designed to set a sentencing floor to create deterrence and denunciation of certain crimes, but in recent years, courts have been striking down mandatory minimum sentences as cruel and unusual. That includes the Supreme Court.
In Bill C-16, which we're looking at, the Attorney General points to Senneville and recent jurisprudence where a mandatory minimum was struck down for possession of child pornography. To address this, the government is creating a safety valve that would allow courts to impose sentences below the mandatory minimum where applying it would be cruel and unusual. Effectively, this would convert a mandatory minimum sentence from a binding floor and allow a judge to disregard it. In practice, this means that mandatory minimum sentences would no longer be mandatory. Is that not correct?