I don't think there's a problem with our judiciary, and I actually think it works very well in this country. Judges have to deal with the laws that are before them, they have to deal with the decisions that are made by appeal courts, and they look for the guidance that is the proper role of the legislative branch. That is what we do. I guess in every piece of legislation we have maximum penalties. In a number of cases we have minimum penalties. We give specific judicial discretion, as we do here in this particular legislation. I think it works. I've had people ask me why we are putting minimum sentences here and why we are pointing out to the judges, and I've said we do it for maximum sentences, and we've always done that.
I was recently looking at a chart that showed I was a part of 35 legislative committees on pieces of legislation. I remember one of my colleagues coming to me and asking, “Why are you only putting a five-year maximum sentence on this? Let the judge decide. Why don't you just have a ten-year sentence?” “Just a second,” I said, “We're putting a five-year maximum because we think it fits in with other like-minded sections.” That's our role, to put the five years in. Somebody may argue, as I've had colleagues say, that maybe it should be ten years or it should be greater than that. But again, we make that call. That's what we do as legislators. Just as we make a call at the maximum end, it's within our rights and our responsibilities to call at the minimum end, if that's what we deem appropriate. Then the judiciary takes that and they deal with it, with the guidelines that have been given to them by Parliament.
It's a system that has worked well, and again, I believe it's one of the hallmarks of a successful society, and ours is certainly a successful society.