Madam Speaker, first, I take issue with the characterization of not providing adequate opportunity for debate. I warned the member and his colleagues on the justice committee that their shenanigans and filibustering for months on a separate bill, which tied up work, would delay our work on bail reform, sentencing reform and protections for victims of gender-based violence. Here we are, months down the road. They spent hours upon hours debating whether they prefer puppies or kittens, rather than how we can protect victims of crime. We are now facing a potential delay over the summer, due specifically to the wasted time at the justice committee, including the member's repeated interventions that were designed to chew up the clock, rather than advance protections for Canadians. I disagree with him on his threshold question.
On the substance, we examined a range of different options for how to address the fallout of the Senneville decision to restore mandatory minimums in cases involving child pornography, as well as mandatory minimums that were previously struck down or were constitutionally vulnerable. One of the reasons his proposal would result in weaker protections for victims is the temporary nature of the notwithstanding clause. There is a five‑year term, which would expire when we have the same constitutional challenges that would—