Typically, we would use section 15 also to complement cruel and unusual punishment. The violation of the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment becomes more acute. And that violation is highlighted when you understand it through the perspective of the section 15 lens.
Mr. Comartin was referencing possible section 1 defences to a section 15 claim or any charter breach. And in the Auton decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, you raised some concerns about section 1 considerations in that case. The Supreme Court of Canada decision in NAPE, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees, is for me the most recent and most interesting Supreme Court declaration on the application of section 1.
In terms of any cost, I'm not sure what the defence would be in terms of mandatory minimum sentence, because mandatory minimums increase costs. But if the federal government were to argue that those cost-saving measures somehow decreased costs, those arguments with the Supreme Court can always be made in situations of acute fiscal crisis.