Thank you for that question.
As I'm sure this committee is aware, the CBA has long opposed mandatory minimum sentences for a number of reasons. They fetter judicial discretion. They do not deter crime. They have a disproportionate impact on indigenous persons and racialized persons. They can thwart plea negotiations, but they can also impact plea negotiations in that they can result in outcomes or, shall we say, pleas to charges that are not necessarily appropriate.
With respect to the framework that's been proposed in Bill C-16 to insert a safety valve to the mandatory minimum sentences in the code, we recognize that this is an attempt to do that. What we have a problem or a concern with is that this still requires a minimum term of imprisonment, so that still limits the range of options available to a sentencing judge. To be clear, I'm sure that in the vast majority of cases of offences that carry mandatory minimum sentences, those offenders will be sentenced to prison time, but sentencing is very much an individual's exercise. There are always exceptional circumstances.
I appreciate that the wording of this proposed safety valve says that a court shall impose a shorter term of imprisonment if, in the circumstances, the minimum punishment “would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender”.
However, there may be circumstances where, for example, a conditional sentence order may be appropriate and, to be clear, it would be in rare and exceptional circumstances. Nonetheless, it's our view that this option should remain on the table to allow for those very rare and exceptional circumstances.