I'm just trying to bridge the gap and I'm trying to understand why there is no consensus in this committee on how we should apply the safety valve. This is a very technical bill. I don't think we're having political disagreements. If we're having a legal disagreement, then let's have a conversation. Let's ask the officials again. Let's get a second opinion. We all want to arrive at the right result.
An aggravated sexual assault contemplated in Mr. Gill's amendment is now subjected to a safety valve, according to this legislation, where a judge can disregard the mandatory minimum if he or she finds that it's cruel and unusual. I'm saying we're looking at the sentencing stage. In other words, the accused has already been found guilty of an aggravated sexual assault. Either the safety valve is good enough to be excluded for murder and treason, but it's not good enough to be excluded from an aggravated sexual assault.... I don't understand that.
If all of this is lost in translation because people have a different idea about how judges might apply the law, let's not rush it and let's hammer it out. We have an intimate partner violence epidemic and emergency in Peel region, where Mr. Gill comes from. Let's bind judges to impose the mandatory minimum on aggravated sexual assault. It's so grotesque.
I think there's legitimate disagreement about what's happening with the safety valve and whether the mandatory minimums are going to be restored. Respectfully, I'm not sure that I share the legal opinion of the panel and of the officials. If we're missing each other because we're not certain about how the law will work here, let's work it out.
Thank you.