Michael Cooper
St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a supplementary report on behalf of the Conservative members of the committee. The Conservatives would have liked to see additional recommendations with a view toward strengthening the integrity of our elections, including an amendment to the Canada Elections Act to require electors residing abroad to provid…”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since legislation was passed to establish a foreign influence registry. Two years later, the Liberals have missed every deadline to get the registry up and running. On what date will the foreign influence registry finally be fully operational?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-25 , an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, at the third reading stage. As I noted in my speech during the second reading debate, there are a number of measures in this bill that would strengthen the Canada Elections Act, which Conservatives welcome.”
“(2235) I have to say that, ironically, to the degree that third parties would be captured by the general rule versus third parties that would not and would be captured by the exception, or could take advantage of the exception, I expect that in general it would be the smaller, grassroots-oriented third parties that would be subject to the…”
“This is much like how, as a general rule, third parties would be required to use and be limited to contributions from individual Canadians. That is all very good. That is in the bill, and we support that.”
“to eight registered third parties that were involved in, effectively, campaigning against the then Harper Conservative government and various Conservative candidates.”
The complete record
Every one of 343 lines we hold for Michael Cooper, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 7.
“Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since legislation was passed to establish a foreign influence registry. Two years later, the Liberals have missed every deadline to get the registry up and running. On what date will the foreign influence registry finally be fully operational?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a supplementary report on behalf of the Conservative members of the committee. The Conservatives would have liked to see additional recommendations with a view toward strengthening the integrity of our elections, including an amendment to the Canada Elections Act to require electors residing abroad to provide proof of their last place of residence prior to the issuance of a ballot. Currently, there is no requirement of proof of residence. Additionally, the Conservatives oppose the recommendation for earlier candidate nomination deadlines, which was not supported by evidence. We also caution against the use of hybrid ballot delivery systems, including using Canadian diplomatic missions as polling stations, out of concern for ballot integrity and ballot secrecy.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the government works to get its legislation through, we in the official opposition will discharge our responsibility, which is to hold the government to account and to carefully scrutinize legislation before this House.”
“As for informing electors who might be inclined to sign more than one nomination form, there are measures that can be taken and that I believe Elections Canada will undertake, such as providing on the nomination form a reminder that an individual can only sign one candidate's nomination form.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was an important question. The member does raise a good point, insofar as the bill would prohibit someone from signing more than one nomination form. There are arguments counter to that amendment in the bill. However, I would argue that on balance it is a reasonable amendment to the Canada Elections Act, preventing the longest ballot committee and other such bad actors from engaging in such activities in the future. The objective or the purpose of the act is that a candidate must have the endorsement or support of 100 electors, not for 100 electors to flood the ballot with an endless list of candidates. I think, given what we have seen, in terms of the disruption to our elections, this is a reasonable amendment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree. There are many measures in this bill that we support, that we have long called for. We have worked with the government, getting it through second reading stage, over to the procedure and House affairs committee. We brought forward some amendments where I think there was a missed opportunity, however. There was an opportunity to fully close well-identified loopholes with respect to foreign funding to third parties. That is something that is unacceptable that needs to be corrected. Those loopholes do need to be closed.”
“Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I think it underscores the fact that the Prime Minister is AWOL when it comes to this House. It underscores how disconnected he is from the business of this House and how little attention he pays to the business of this House. Perhaps he should consider showing up for once.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would agree. This could have been done sooner. The government did not need to wait a year and a half to do this. Also, I would note that the name change that the member has proposed and that would be changed through this bill would, I believe, restore what had been the name of the riding at one time.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we had proposed was simply to remove the exception and simply to require that all third parties be required to set up an individual bank account and that they only be able to receive contributions from individual Canadians. We believe that would be charter-compliant and that it would, to the greatest extent possible, close loopholes around foreign funding and foreign influence through third parties.”
“If one were to take at face value the charter issues that have been, and again I underscore the word “vaguely”, cited, I would question how this exception would satisfy them. If these charter issues are so real and so pressing, then why is it that with this legislation, the Liberals would be requiring that, as a general rule, third parties set up an individual bank account that accepts only contributions from individual Canadians. If that infringes upon—”
“The position we took is to get rid of the exception, create an equal playing field for all third parties and require every third party to set up an individual bank account. Our position was to require that all third parties, without exception, could only accept contributions from individual Canadians. That would be simple, it would be fair, it would be transparent and from an administrative and enforcement standpoint, it would be far better and far easier than the complicated framework or scheme set up by this legislation in respect of setting a threshold of contributions that constitutes 10% or less of the third party's revenue and that the period be in the year prior to the pre-election period.”
“It is a vague argument notwithstanding, by the way, that when this issue was presented at committee, a number of witnesses, including an esteemed constitutional lawyer, including Professor Lori Turnbull and including Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch, said that, yes, this loophole, this exception, would result in foreign funding and that, given the very serious issues around foreign interference, this loophole would be taken advantage of by foreign actors, including hostile foreign states like the Beijing-based Communist regime. As I noted, it has been taken advantage of by other groups in not necessarily hostile foreign states, but in other states such as the United States, like through the Tides Foundation.”
“I can see that point, but I respectfully disagree, and I have made it clear to the Chief Electoral Officer that I disagree with his position. I have challenged him on his position on a number of occasions. The argument that he has put is that there are charter issues around freedom of speech. However, there is no case authority that the Chief Electoral Officer has cited. The best he has offered and the best the Liberals have offered is this vague argument.”
“(2235) I have to say that, ironically, to the degree that third parties would be captured by the general rule versus third parties that would not and would be captured by the exception, or could take advantage of the exception, I expect that in general it would be the smaller, grassroots-oriented third parties that would be subject to the general rule of having to set up individual bank accounts and relying exclusively on the contributions of individual Canadians, whereas some of the bigger, more influential third parties would continue to be able to get away with using their own funds, including possibly and likely foreign funds in some cases. It is true that the Chief Electoral Officer has supported this type of an exception, and in that respect, the government has adopted what the Chief Electoral Officer recommended.”
“As a result, the bill would close loopholes with respect to the use of foreign funds, but then create a new loophole. If it does not create a completely new loophole, it would continue the loophole around the melding or commingling of funds, including foreign funds. The Liberals will say this is an exception, not the rule, and it would only apply if contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue, meaning that it should not apply to very many third parties. However, who is to say this is so, and who is to say 10% or less of a third party's revenues, being contributions, is an insignificant amount of money? There are many third parties that have tens of millions of dollars, so 10% could amount to millions of dollars of foreign funds.”
“That is not my interpretation. When I posed a question to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Perrault, and asked him how this exception would work and exactly what funds third parties would be able to use, he said in his answer, “They would be contributions coming from their own revenue, whatever that source may be, and those would commingle with other funds.” If a third party can use contributions coming from its own revenue, whatever the source, and such funds are commingled, then it follows that commingled funds could be foreign funds. When I raised that issue with the Chief Electoral Officer, he conceded that “the practical challenge is true there as well.” The Chief Electoral Officer acknowledged that, yes, effectively, where this exception applies, third parties would be able to use foreign funds.”
“This is much like how, as a general rule, third parties would be required to use and be limited to contributions from individual Canadians. That is all very good. That is in the bill, and we support that. If that is good, it begs the question, “What is problematic?” It is problematic that this would be a general rule, but there is a big exception contained in the bill, which is that third parties may continue to use their own funds and their own general revenue. In other words, they would not have to set up an individual bank account and they would not be limited to individual contributions, provided that the contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue in the year prior to the pre-election period. In such a case, funds used by the third party would be treated as commingled, whatever the source.”
“It would require third parties to set up a separate bank account, and the funds going into it can come only from individual Canadians. This would be a positive measure. It is one that we have long called for. It would address issues around foreign interference and foreign influence insofar as the funds would be from individual Canadians. (2230) The bill would provide much needed transparency. We would be able to more easily track and see exactly who is donating to third parties that, in turn, seek to influence Canadians in the lead-up to and during elections. It would also treat third parties on par, more or less, with political parties insofar as political parties can use contributions only from individual Canadians.”
“In fact, they benefited from these loopholes. They benefited from the use of foreign money, just as the Liberals benefited from Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, and have, up until now, refused to take action. Before I say what this bill would do, I would just add that the loopholes I am speaking about are ones that have been recognized by the Chief Electoral Officer. I raised these loopholes multiple times with the Chief Electoral Officer when he appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee. He also acknowledged these precise loopholes in his report on the 2019 and 2021 elections, and he called for those loopholes to be closed. This bill purports to close those loopholes, and it would do so with a general requirement.”
“to eight registered third parties that were involved in, effectively, campaigning against the then Harper Conservative government and various Conservative candidates. The commissioner of Canada elections, in response to my complaint, advised that there were no contraventions of the act, or at least no contraventions that could be made out, and the reason for that is this loophole that presently exists. I have to say, I think Canadians would be alarmed that it is, in fact, that easy for foreign interests and foreign governments, with witting third parties, frankly, to use foreign funds to influence how Canadians vote and what issues are brought to their attention in the lead-up to and during an election. It is completely unacceptable that the Liberals have been aware of these loopholes for 10 years now.”
“The other loophole is one whereby foreign funds are treated as Canadian funds to third parties. In that regard, I would note that if, for example, foreign entity A transfers funds to Canadian entity B, and Canadian entity B transfers those funds to a third party, at present, those funds are treated as funds coming from Canadian entity B, even though the true source of those funds is foreign. This loophole is not a hypothetical loophole. In 2017, I brought forward a complaint to the commissioner of Canada elections with respect to $700,000 U.S. that was funnelled from the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation to a British Columbia entity. That entity then disbursed the $700,000 U.S.”
“I also have significant concerns about the failure of the Liberals to close well-recognized loopholes with respect to foreign money flowing into third parties to influence voters at election time. Fundamental to our democracy is how elections must be decided by Canadians, and Canadians alone. Unfortunately, what we have in this country, which we have had for years, are foreign interests and foreign governments that have used third parties to influence our elections. (2225) There are two well-recognized loopholes. One is a melding loophole, wherein certain contributions, including foreign contributions, are treated as part of the general revenue of a third party that can in turn then be used for regulated activities during the pre-election and election periods.”
“In that regard, given the dual-track enforcement option available to the commissioner, if, in fact, a contravention reached the level of imposing a $100,000 fine, it would seem to me that in the circumstances, the better course would be for the commissioner to refer the matter to the director of public prosecutions to proceed by way of criminal prosecution. While there are measures in this bill that the Conservatives broadly support, it is far from a perfect bill. There are measures that could have been included in this bill that would have gone a lot further toward strengthening the Canada Elections Act, strengthening the integrity of our voting process and safeguarding our elections, which the Liberals unfortunately did not include.”
“I would observe, however, that I have some concerns with respect to the powers that are being given to the commissioner insofar as the commissioner would have the power to compel evidence without judicial authorization. I would also note that when one looks at those powers, combined with the powers to impose administrative penalties of up to $100,000 for organizations and entities, it begs the question of whether there is, in fact too, much discretion being afforded to the commissioner of Canada elections.”
“It took the government quite some time to finally move forward with legislation to address those gaps and those loopholes that were taken advantage of by the longest ballot committee, but this bill does that, and we welcome those measures. Additionally, we welcome measures in the bill to establish new offences and to extend other offences to leadership races and nomination races to counter foreign interference. The bill would also provide needed new powers to the commissioner of Canada elections and increase administrative monetary penalties to give those penalties some teeth with respect to contraventions of the act by individuals and organizations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-25 , an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, at the third reading stage. As I noted in my speech during the second reading debate, there are a number of measures in this bill that would strengthen the Canada Elections Act, which Conservatives welcome. Among them are measures to counter the undemocratic activities of the so-called longest ballot committee, which caused significant disruption in a number of ridings in the last election and in several by-elections by effectively flooding the ballot with fake candidates. This was all for the purpose of sowing confusion, making it more difficult for Elections Canada to administer elections and tabulate the vote, and undermining general public confidence in the voting process. This bill contains measures the Conservatives called for quite some time ago.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government had an opportunity with this bill to close significant loopholes with respect to foreign money flowing into registered third parties. The bill would fail to close those loopholes. Why did the government refuse to close those loopholes? Why would this bill, if it goes forward, allow for foreign money to continue to be funnelled into third parties to influence Canadian elections?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals say that it is an investment, it is indeed an investment. It is an investment in Liberal insiders, and Mr. Jacob made off like a bandit in a matter of weeks upon the Liberals entering this lease. Why Maritime Launch Services? That is the central question. Only the Liberals could manage to spend $20 million a year on land that is already owned by taxpayers, but that is what we have with this lease. There is a lot of smoke, and where there is smoke there usually is fire. Instead of providing answers and clarity, we have seen nothing but obfuscation. That is why the amendment brought forward by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes is necessary, to put a halt on directing more taxpayer dollars to this questionable company until those questions are answered.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand the issue the member has raised. It underscores what a debacle and poorly thought-out policy the carbon tax was from start to finish that the Liberal government kept in place for years, which Conservatives called on it to abolish. Of course, it technically has scrapped the consumer carbon tax, but has maintained a hidden industrial carbon tax that is increasing the cost of everything. Therefore, yes, I agree that it underscores total Liberal incompetence and mismanagement.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look at what has happened since the lease was entered into. There has been no rocket launch and no construction. All there is is a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot. However, someone got rich, and it happens to be Mr. Jacob, who sold three million shares, walking away with $1.8 million. Why did the Liberals not, for example, insist upon a lock-up agreement, which would be the standard practice, instead of allowing the chair of a nearly bankrupt company to walk away with $1.8 million?”
“The chair of the board, Mr. Jacob, immediately turned around and sold $3 million of previously worthless shares, pocketing a cool $1.8 million. It must be nice to be Mr. Jacob. It must be nice to be a Liberal insider. It sounds like one big pump and dump scheme to me. Given the questions and the cloud that hangs over Maritime Launch Services, and the Liberals' complete lack of transparency, it is important that $20 million of hard-earned tax dollars do not go to Maritime Launch Services until those basic questions are answered and the air—”
“There is the chief lobbyist for Maritime Launch Services, who is none other than a former senior staffer to the Minister of Justice , whose riding happens to be situated next to the launch site. Perhaps that explains how Maritime Launch Services got this sweetheart lease. The lease is not about developing Canada's first sovereign spaceport. It is about Liberal insiders getting rich while taxpayers foot the bill. That is precisely what has happened up until now. I say that because another question is that the subject lease, even though it was entered into on April 1 of this year, was backdated to April 1, 2025. Why was the lease backdated to 2025? The effect of backdating was for the Liberals to then immediately funnel $20 million to Maritime Launch Services, to bail out the nearly bankrupt company. Guess what happened?”
“It really begs the question: How is it possible that a company that has six employees, that has not launched anything into space, that has a chair of the board with securities infractions and that was on the verge of bankruptcy managed to land a $200-million lease with the federal government on land that they do not even own and which consists of a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot? The answer to that, of course, with the Liberals, is that Maritime Launch Services is comfortably associated with none other than Liberal insiders. The chair of the board who I referenced, Mr. Jacob, is associated with major Liberal insider Gerald Butts. There is then Stephen McNeil, the former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia, who conveniently sits on the advisory board of Maritime Launch Services.”
“Given that the scope of the business of Maritime Launch Services involves collaborating with university model rocket clubs, it is no surprise, perhaps, that Maritime Launch Services has not exactly been the most successful company and not the most successful business. In fact, their 2025 financial statements report a massive loss of $47 million and revenue under $15,000. In fact, the independent auditor's report stated that “material uncertainty [exists] that may cast significant doubt as to whether the Company will have the ability to continue as a going concern.” In other words, Maritime Launch Services was on the verge of bankruptcy, that is, until the Liberals bailed it out with this sweetheart $200-million 10-year lease on land that Maritime Launch Services does not even own.”
“To be kind to Maritime Launch Services, in the span of two years, it has had two suborbital rocket launches, one of which was a model rocket from York University's model rocket club. Again, it was a model rocket from a university's model rocket club. This is the company the Liberals are entrusting to develop Canada's first sovereign spaceport. They have to be kidding. (2035) The chair of the board is Sasha Jacob. He has a history, and it is not a pretty history, of securities infractions. Indeed, he has the dubious distinction of being fined $100,000 for securities infractions and securities irregularities. That is not good, to say the least. It begs the question: Why are the Liberals doing business with and handing $200 million to a company whose chair was fined $100,000 for securities infractions?”
“It leases the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year and then flips it to Ottawa at a 1,300% profit. It must be nice to be Maritime Launch Services. It is not so nice for everyday taxpayers. One might say Maritime Launch Services brings a certain level of sophistication and a certain level of expertise in developing Canada's supposedly first sovereign spaceport, but then the question becomes, “What is Maritime Launch Services?” It turns out that Maritime Launch Services is nothing more than a two-bit, six-person company. Despite its name, Maritime Launch Services does not have a history of launching much of anything. It has been in business for 10 years now and it has launched precisely nothing, zilch, into space.”
“They are questions that the Liberals have refused to be transparent about. In fact, the Liberals, at virtually every turn, have obstructed and refused to answer the most basic of questions. It is not only that. They have hidden the lease from Canadians. They do not want Canadians to know where 200 million tax dollars are going. What sorts of questions are there in relation to this $200-million lease? To begin with, the government could acquire land for the site of the spaceport in the Canso area for approximately $2.5 million, but instead, the government is leasing land for $20 million a year at a cost of 200 million tax dollars over the span of 10 years. How does that make sense? For Maritime Launch Services, it is a pretty good deal. Guess why. It does not own the land.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas . I rise in strong support of the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes to stop the payment of 20 million tax dollars that would otherwise flow to Maritime Launch Services, pursuant to the government's main estimates. These 20 million tax dollars are part of the 10-year, $200-million lease the Liberals entered into with Maritime Launch Services to lease land that consists of a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot. “Do not worry,” say the Liberals. “It is not just any gravel parking lot. It is not just any concrete slab. It is the site of Canada's new sovereign spaceport.” Needless to say, there are all sorts of questions surrounding this $200-million lease.”
“Madam Speaker, here are the facts: There were 25,000 net jobs lost this year, and productivity, business capital investment and GDP are down. Today's numbers show that wage growth is down, with Canadian workers taking home less. If this is the Prime Minister 's idea of a strong economy, what would a weak economy look like?”
“Madam Speaker, despite today's headline numbers, Canada is in a recession. The Prime Minister promised the strongest economy in the G7. Instead, he has delivered the only shrinking economy not only in the G7, but also across the entire G20. That is three out of four quarters of negative growth. Will the Liberals simply acknowledge that Canada's economy is weaker after one year of the Prime Minister ?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government has chosen a path. I think it is a flawed path, but it is a path nonetheless, and that is to provide for an escape valve. The question becomes, if this is an exceptional valve, in exceptional circumstances, why not define what those circumstances are? Why leave it completely—”
“In short, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. For example, there was an opportunity to fix section 810 orders at committee. I believe there were amendments brought forward that would have done that. What did the Liberals do? They voted against those amendments, just like they voted against every amendment to put in place robust guardrails around this escape valve with respect to mandatory minimum penalties.”
“Mr. Speaker, extortion has increased significantly. I believe extortion is up more than 80%. The member is quite right that the Liberals removed mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences including armed extortion, robbery with a firearm and weapons trafficking. It was not because the courts instructed the government to do so or because they were found to be unconstitutional but because the Liberals ideologically opposed mandatory minimum penalties. Over these past 10 years, they have a record of being soft on crime time and time again, and this bill is another example of it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the solution is not to impose a blanket escape valve and leave it to judges to, at their discretion, disregard or bypass what Parliament has judged to be a minimum sentencing floor related to the seriousness of the offence. That is what the Liberals have done. The Liberals have completely surrendered Parliament's law-making power as it relates to mandatory minimum penalties. They had many options, including the notwithstanding clause and including bringing in new mandatory minimums. At the very least, as we said, if the Liberals are insistent upon an escape valve, then there needs to be robust safeguards. We brought forward robust safeguards. They voted them down every step of the way at committee.”
“Could it be that the bill is not as advertised but that, despite the protestations of the Minister of Justice that it is about saving mandatory minimum penalties, the true intent of the bill is to eviscerate them? Make no mistake about it; mandatory minimum penalties would be eviscerated. They would have no meaning. The floodgates of litigation would be opened. It begs the question, what good are mandatory minimum penalties if they can be disregarded on an ad hoc basis? For that reason, I and my Conservative colleagues cannot support this soft-on-crime bill from the soft-on-crime Liberals.”
“If in fact this is a modest safeguard and would apply only in exceptional cases and circumstances, then why is it that the Liberals were so reticent to define what those exceptional circumstances would be? Could it be because this is the same Liberal government that has the dubious record of being the only government in Canadian history to bring in legislation, Bill C-5 , that repealed mandatory minimum penalties, by choice, involving serious crimes, including serious gun crimes and drug offences? I am not talking about minor possession; I am talking about trafficking and producing schedule I drugs, such as fentanyl, that have killed tens of thousands of Canadians over the past 10 years. Could that be the reason why they were so reticent, so opposed to defining safeguards or guardrails around the escape valve?”
“Guardrails are completely missing from the legislation. There is no direction to the courts, no exceptional circumstances clause, no direction on how Parliament would demand or assert that the courts apply mandatory minimum penalties, and no direction with respect to the circumstances in which the escape valve could be used. Conservatives brought forward at the justice committee multiple amendments to provide guardrails, including a guardrail that could apply only when the accused does not have a prior criminal record, a guardrail that the mandatory minimum penalty could be cut only by half, a guardrail that the escape valve would not apply in cases of child sexual offences, and a guardrail that the crime not include weapons trafficking, armed extortion or aggravated sexual assault. The Liberals voted against all those guardrails.”
“(1725) Seeing that the Liberals have absolutely no appetite to ever invoke the notwithstanding clause, there is another path, which is to introduce legislation to bring in new mandatory minimum penalties that would clarify and narrow the application of the offence as the mandatory minimum would apply to. However, that would take hard work, and the Liberals have not availed themselves of doing that. Instead what they offer is the broad escape valve. The Liberals have characterized it as a modest safeguard. They have claimed that it would, in effect, apply only in exceptional circumstances. If that is the case, if it is not about totally eviscerating mandatory minimum penalties, which the Liberals are on the record as consistently opposing, by the way, over the past 10 years, then at the very least what is required is reasonable guardrails.”
“In the face of a decision that constitutes, frankly, naked judicial activism, the only appropriate course of action for the government to take is to use the constitutional tool it has at its disposal, which is to invoke the notwithstanding clause to reassert parliamentary supremacy and Parliament's law-making powers, but the Liberals did not do that. Instead, they accepted the Senneville decision. Not only did they accept the Senneville decision, but they used the Senneville decision as a pretext to bring the so-called safety valve, which is an escape valve, into the bill. What about the Nur decision and the cases that have followed? I say that, yes, it is an issue, but this is not the solution. The solution, when faced with decisions such as Senneville and Bissonnette, I restate, is to invoke the notwithstanding clause.”
“The facts in the Senneville case were grotesque. It involved two offenders: violent, sadistic sexual predators who had in their possession hundreds of images of child sexual abuse and torture. The court applied a completely remote hypothetical, that of a 17-year-old boy who received a sexually explicit image from his 17-year-old girlfriend, which he then passed on to his 18-year-old friend. It is a completely remote hypothetical, but the court said that because it hypothetically could apply, the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment and violated section 12 of the charter, no matter how far removed that hypothetical was from reality and from the facts in the case.”