Thank you.
Just as a comment, I've been struck by the number of times individuals—witnesses, the Minister of Justice, others around the table—have used judicial interim release scenarios following a serious crime as a reason why we should have mandatory minimums. It doesn't compute, and it came up just earlier.
I'm going to leave three questions—no more rhetoric, I promise.
We're forced to look at so many of these things through a rear-view mirror. It's tougher to look ahead. I'll ask this to Mr. Trudell. Just as there are, from time to time, exceptional cases where a sentence is either too light or too long, as seen through the rear-view mirror, would this bill, in your view, create similar types of flotsam and jetsam and disproportionate sentencing? Once we have a chance to look through the rear-view mirror and see the application of a mandatory minimum, how likely is it, do you think, that we would see a whole lot more disproportionate inappropriate sentencing as a result of the application of the mandatory minimums?
Secondly, and I'll ask this to Mr. Rady, do you think a prosecutor would have the same view as you, a defence counsel? Do you think, if we had a prosecutor here as a witness, the prosecutors would have the same view as the Ontario attorney general or the chief of police? Or just what do you think?
And thirdly, to Mr. Trudell or Ms. Beare, do you think the seven- and ten-year minimums that are imported by this new legislation might encounter heavy water in terms of a charter challenge, through the rear-view mirror of previous charter challenges and the Supreme Court decisions?