Before I return to the amendment, I'd like to respectfully express my concern to the officials, specifically to Ms. Burt. As lawyers, we operate in a very uncertain environment. I used to say, as a litigator, that there was no such thing as a slam-dunk case. I used to say that if you thought you had a slam-dunk case in commercial or civil litigation, it was probably 70%. Then you had to split success. Then you had to factor in the costs. Then you walked away. Hopefully, you did better than you thought you might.
I am not convinced, Ms. Burt—I say this with the greatest respect to both you and Mr. Taylor—because I do not see how the mandatory minimum sentences are restored by virtue of the safety valve. You may wish that they're restored. You may wish that judges will now say, “I have a safety valve, and therefore I'll consider the safety valve”, but that applies directly to the case before the justice. It does not apply to the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum penalty. I'm not sure it does. I think we'll have to be cautious.
None of this is political. With the greatest respect to Ms. Khalid, my colleague from Mississauga, she said that eliminating judicial discretion will not help victims. I hope I'm quoting her correctly. I have to very respectfully and very strongly disagree with this.
I refer her to the basic principles of sentencing. There are two primary principles behind sentencing. The first is denunciation. We condemn the conduct. We express that as a society by condemning aggravated sexual assault. The second principle, which in my view is the most important principle of sentencing, is deterrence. Deter this specific offender and other and future offenders from committing aggravated sexual assault. That's what a stiff sentence will do. That still can account for the individual circumstances.
If you stand by your legislation and introduce a safety valve, and you have some sort of absurdity in a situation where a person is convicted of an aggravated sexual assault, then we will put our faith in the court to have an off-ramp, which is what the safety valve is really about. However, let's not get to the point where we're claiming the absurdity that deterrence by imposing a stiff sentence will not help future or other victims.
Thank you.