Thank you, Chair.
I move amendment CPC-23 to accomplish what Bill C-16 is meant to accomplish according to the government. It is to eliminate the use of reasonable hypotheticals when courts consider whether punishments are cruel and unusual. We heard from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General that this is a concern.
To explain this to the viewers at home, an accused shows up before a judge for sentencing and pleads that a sentence, a minimum mandatory sentence, is cruel and unusual, not because of their individual circumstances and not because of the circumstances of their offence or the circumstances of their life, but because what defence lawyers do is come up with a reasonable hypothetical that would render the minimum mandatory penalty absurd.
This is what happened in the Senneville decision that struck down mandatory minimum sentences for access and possession of child pornography. The accused in that appeal, Senneville and Naud, did not plead that they should not receive the mandatory minimum of one year—no. One of them possessed 300 images. One of them possessed 250 videos of children being raped.
The Supreme Court considered a reasonable hypothetical. One teenager sends a picture that's not too modest to another teenager and that would lead to absurdity, and because of that, the mandatory minimum penalty was struck down. We've been sitting here, working in good faith on this bill, trying to strengthen our sentencing system, and the Liberals have come up with the safety valve, saying that the safety valve will now enable the court to look at the individual circumstances of whether a sentence is cruel and unusual, without looking at reasonable hypotheticals.
I take my Liberal friends at their word. If that is the purpose of the bill, if that is the linchpin of this bill, Bill C-16, then let's eliminate the ability of judges to refer to reasonable hypotheticals on sentencing when they decide a minimum mandatory is cruel and unusual and is therefore contrary to the charter. Let's eliminate this practice where judges do not look at the case before them, but look at a completely different case that is not before them to strike down mandatory minimum penalties.
If the Liberals are serious about the intent of the safety valve, they will vote for this amendment, and in connection with the same, we'd like to sharpen up some language. I'll yield to Mr. Brock.