The fact of the matter is that the truth hurts, Madam Secretary of State.
Mr. Speaker, we proposed excluding the most serious offences that Parliament had already identified as deserving MMPs. Every one was rejected. The government rejected every safeguard and every limit. It rejected every attempt to narrow the scope of the safety valve. The result now is that the floodgates would be completely open. Let the litigation begin, and let the charter applications begin. All of those applicants will declare, “Oh, Your Honour, I can't have a mandatory minimum penalty because that would be cruel and unusual punishment.” That would happen each and every time.
My question is simple: If the government trusted its own proposal, why did it refuse every safeguard the Conservatives proposed? If it believed the mechanism would only be used in exceptional cases, why refuse to define exceptional cases? The government's justification rests largely on concerns arising from constitutional litigation surrounding MMPs, yet the Supreme Court itself remains divided on that issue. In the recent Senneville decision, the dissenting judge, Chief Justice Wagner, emphasized that courts must be cautious when relying on hypothetical scenarios to invalidate legislation.
The Supreme Court warned against hypothetical scenarios that are fanciful, unrealistic, speculative, extreme or remotely connected to the actual facts before the court. It reminded us all that there are limits to what can properly be considered as reasonable hypotheticals. We proposed an amendment that would have required courts to focus on the actual offender before them, rather than hypotheticals. Again, Liberals voted against that amendment. Dissenting judges also reminded us that child sexual offences require strong denunciation and deterrence. They reminded us that society's condemnation of offences against children must be reflected consistently and rigorously in sentencing.
Parliament determined that denunciation and deterrence matters. It has determined that public safety matters and that victims matter. The Liberals are now asking Parliament to walk away from these decisions. Conservatives will not do that. It is for that reason that at this time I move an amendment, standing in my name, to delete clause 63 of Bill C-16, the provision that would allow judges to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum penalty in the Criminal Code. This is to be seconded by the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake.