Thank you.
I have just one other small point. I have not a concern but a thought regarding constitutional challenge.
I can recall that in minimum mandatories, when they were discussed in previous legislation and/or issues that have come forward, the Supreme Court ruled that a particular punishment might be unconstitutional if it was deemed to be too severe. As an example, there was a minimum mandatory sought for possession of narcotics and they were seeking ten years, and the court deemed it to be not acceptable because it went beyond what was expected; in other words, the crime wouldn't have matched the punishment. However, here there's a solid recognition that we are not dealing with misdemeanours, we are not dealing with common assault, we are not dealing with the summary conviction offences; we are dealing with the most serious, heinous crimes within our Criminal Code: rape, robbery, murder, manslaughter, extortion, kidnapping, etc. But the legislation as proposed still will come under intense scrutiny at the upper level, and justice delayed can be justice denied.
So how confident are you that the legislation as proposed will withstand, to the best possible degree, any constitutional challenge?