Notwithstanding, Senneville pleaded guilty, co-operated with the authorities and had no previous criminal record and no outstanding charges.
The sentencing judge—and this reflects the problem we have with a lack of consistency across this country at all levels of court in every province and territory when it comes to the appropriate sentencing provisions for this type of filth—imposed a sentence on Senneville for the possession count of 90 days of imprisonment. Get this. They were not to be served consecutively but intermittently. He got a weekend sentence for possessing this vile filth. On the count of accessing, there was another 90-day sentence of imprisonment to be served intermittently, and the two sentences were to be served concurrently.
This animal got the benefit of a weekend sentence for this filth, followed by two years of probation. It is no small wonder that the Crown of jurisdiction decided to appeal it.
We all know that the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision that found that the possession and accessing penalties of one year were contrary to section 12. It was a five-four split. That dissenting opinion was shared by Chief Justice Wagner, Justice Côté, Justice Rowe and Justice O'Bonsawin.
I want to read into the record various passages of that dissent. It reads:
Child pornography has unquestionably become a scourge both nationally and internationally. It destroys countless innocent lives. Each pornographic photograph, video or audio recording that involves a child is an act of exploitation that will leave the child with deep and lasting scars.
Whether it depicts real or fictional children, child pornography normalizes the exploitation of minors and trivializes their objectification. By promoting the dissemination and acceptance of sexualized representations of children, the consumption of child pornography—in all its forms—encourages attitudes and behaviour that lead to irreversible harm.
The message sent by this Court’s decision in R. v. Friesen...could not be any clearer: the sentencing process must convey the profound wrongfulness and harmfulness of offences against children.
On Sheppard, again from the Supreme Court of Canada, they said:
The censure of society and the law must be reflected consistently and rigorously in the sentences imposed on offenders who are guilty of sexual offences against minors...A fit and proportionate sentence is one that is consistent with the teachings of Friesen and that gives effect to Parliament’s intention that sexual offences against children be punished more heavily.
I wanted to bring that to everyone's attention because, to Mr. Baber's point and the use of hypotheticals, I want to hear from one of the Justice officials about whether or not they agree with one of the principles espoused in the dissent that talked about the use of hypotheticals. I'll quote this passage, and I'd like to know what the position of the Department of Justice is. It reads:
When a constitutional challenge under s. 12 is based on a hypothetical scenario, as here, the hypothetical scenario chosen must still be “reasonable”.
This is reference to the Supreme Court's decision in Goltz from 1991. Although it is a dissenting opinion, is that a position that is shared by Canada's Department of Justice?