Then, going to the five-seven-ten rule, you have these sorts of calculations, in our view: that there is not much use in appearing in front of the judge, that the data could be input into a computer and it would spit out the results. But that's not our system.
In the example I gave, you have a situation where a farmer shoots down a crop-duster and is facing the mandatory minimum of four years. If that is the second offence, we're going to come up with a calculation. What I am saying is that if we have faith in the judiciary--and our section and the CBA do have faith in the judiciary--there is nothing stopping the judiciary from imposing a seven-year sentence.
I'll give you one example, in a case where there are no mandatory minimums: an assault proceeding by indictment, a very real case called Ganton, out of Manitoba. It was an attack on a bus driver. What the Crown did was present all the statistics of that particular bus route, showing it was the second most violent in Winnipeg, and aside from that, showing that in the last five years there had been an escalation in attacks on bus drivers. With all of that information put before the courts, and with an accused with a related but relatively minor record, the accused received 26 months on a simple assault, a mischief, and a breach.