Let me respond by saying this. Let's just say, for example, that you, as a member of this committee, felt that a bill was wrong; some people suggested you were going to take too much time in fighting this bill, but as a principle, you passionately believed the bill was wrong. You would take the necessary time to defend it.
If we represent accused persons who are facing a mandatory minimum, and we passionately believe that the sentence is wrong, then it is our obligation, as it would be yours, to fight it, and to represent them as best we can. It maybe means more time, but that's our job. That's what you want us to do.
If there are provisions that are not subjectively reflective and don't take into consideration all the circumstances of an offender and an offence, then it's our job to make sure they are contested, so at the end of the day the judges can make the decision after receiving all the help they need. That means more time, more court time, more work, less pleas, and a strain on the system.