The option of presumptive sentences would involve Parliament giving some sort of guidance to judges with respect to the types of sentences they would like to see imposed. For example, I won't suggest that this is the case, but if Parliament determines that sentences are not hard enough in a particular area of crime, they could suggest that, absent overriding mitigating factors, courts should be imposing sentences of, say, one year or two years.
However, if the court determines that the conduct was the result of an addiction or can look at any other mitigating factors and determine that maybe this isn't an appropriate case for that sentence to be imposed, they would be able to diverge from that sentence.
For us, one of the biggest problems with mandatory minimum sentences is that they're absolute sentences. They don't take into account those cases that may not warrant the sentence imposed by the legislation. A presumptive sentence could accomplish an expression by Parliament of the need for stricter sentences without incurring the same degree of injustice that a mandatory sentence would.