I was struck by looking at the government's backgrounder paper and this bill. From my reading of it, I was shocked the bill was introduced, because it seemed to suggest that the evidence in this country, the evidence and experience in other countries, does not support mandatory minimums. I don't know why it would be put in the backgrounder, and then you move ahead with the bill. There it is, it's out there to be gathered.
I understand that even in some other countries where there are mandatory minimums, there are exception clauses, so judges can do the jobs we ask them to do, and that is to use their discretion to reflect the protection and needs of the individual community. This is one of our concerns. People with the expertise and knowledge and background of Ms. Beare, to people with the knowledge and background of Tony Doob, etc., this is out there. We were shocked that's the type of consultation process that doesn't take place, because it all seems to point to it doesn't work. And if you come to the conclusion that it just doesn't work, whether you're part of the Conservative government or not, it's like the government saying we're going to pass this bill and you've got a mandatory minimum time to consult it. You would say no, that the job of parliamentarians was to gather the information.
From our review, we see all kinds of material out there that will help you, and it may suggest that this bill and these types of provisions don't do what optically some suggest they do.