Oh, did they moved him back?
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, from the Conservative perspective, this debate is about allowing judges in certain situations to not have to apply the mandatory minimum. This is the biggest problem. This is the issue that Conservative after Conservative after Conservative has stood up to speak to.
Before we tabled this legislation, what did the Conservative member actually have to say about it? He said, “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve”. Members know what a safety valve is, I am sure.
The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola continued, “that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed. This is a perfect middle ground. Why will the minister not accept it?” I think that member, who is held in very high esteem within the Conservative Party, needs to express himself more in the Conservative caucus.
The reason they are in opposition to Bill C-16 is that they are having an allergic reaction to judges having the ability to understand when they should not use a mandatory minimum penalty. We have the debate with respect to mandatory minimum penalties because, as parliamentarians both present and past, we have seen the value of mandatory minimum sentences and that is why we make the law. However, courts, on many occasions, have ruled against mandatory minimum penalties in one area or another, and have actually said that they are not constitutional.
Right away, then, the Conservative Party members are saying, “No problem. That is why we have the notwithstanding clause.”