That would be very helpful.
Could I go back to your comments about the specificity of the bill and about trying to effectively dictate to judges and the judicial process what shall be presented, what shall be decided? I put a question to officials here earlier about whether there was any evidence to substantiate, for example, that mandatory minimums actually work in any jurisdiction for environmental enforcement. I didn't really get an answer. I heard about reports, some analysis, and so on. I'd like to ask you, first of all, to just hold that thought. Give the committee some insight on your view on that.
Secondly, I think it's no secret that the government, this particular party, has had an aversion to judicial discretion since its arrival and way before its arrival, through its leader. They believe the judiciary should be clamped down upon. In your experience as a prosecutor--and you said you've done some defence work--could you help us understand the risks with that kind of approach that are inherent in this bill?