I hear my friend from Montreal saying, “Thank goodness.” I wish he would say, “Thank goodness,” in response to my amendment, which looks to protect these children. I wish he'd say thank goodness that this amendment allows this committee to take a necessary crack at this disgusting industry.
Of course we waive the rights of the accused. Can we for a second waive the rights of the 250 children who were raped in the videos that Naud was holding? The notwithstanding clause was inserted for a reason. I submit that this is the precise reason.
I would now like to go to the officials and seek clarification on something.
Let's take the Supreme Court in Senneville. The Supreme Court strikes down the mandatory minimum penalty. We heard reference to the Attorney General saying that what this bill might do is restore some of those minimums. We heard the member from Winnipeg, the deputy to the government House leader, suggest that Bill C-16 resurrect some of those mandatory minimum penalties. I would like to understand the legal framework from the officials.
Do you understand that the mandatory minimum penalty for accessing or possessing child pornography is now in effect, or has it been struck down by the Supreme Court? What would hypothetically happen if such a case were to be brought to trial next week?