We should all strive for a certain standard as parliamentarians, and that standard is statutory clarity.
I couldn't agree more with Mr. Baber. The whole spirit of this section of Bill C-16 is to avoid the rampant misuse of reasonable hypotheticals as a means to strike down mandatory minimum penalties. I believe that justice officials confirmed this throughout the two days of clause-by-clause consideration and maybe simply addressed this recently with Mr. Baber.
There is nothing in Bill C-16 specifically precluding judges from looking at reasonable hypotheticals. There's no language, no direction. Is that correct? Is my interpretation of this bill correct?