First, I'll address the issue of the example that came up with the crop-duster, and then I'll turn things over to Ms. Thomson to address who we're representing today.
I couldn't agree with you more in terms of there being no excuse for that individual who shot down the crop-duster. He was my client. There was no excuse and there was no defence. Therefore, he pleaded guilty. But he pleaded guilty in a framework that both the Crown and defence agreed upon, which would provide for a balanced sentence. I agree that there was no justification, and that's why a guilty plea was entered to this type of offence.
That example is a real example. It illustrates exactly the flexibility that is required in the system for a judge to address an appropriate sentence. It could not have been done but for the crown attorneys exercising their discretion, and it could have been done in the absence of mandatory minimum penalties, with a judge exercising his or her discretion. What you would have had is, at the end of the day, an individual convicted of discharging a firearm with intent, rather than careless use, which is a lesser offence.