I think I can respond to that by suggesting that we're not opposed to Parliament providing some sort of guidance to courts as to the sentences that they see most fit. But on the idea that a predetermined sentence can fit perfectly every crime that's to come of that, to us that flies in the face of the logic that underpins judicial discretion, which is that each case has to be looked at on its own. There very well may be a standard sentence that fits most cases, but there are always going to be exceptions to that. We've provided some samples of that in our brief.
There's a case from the Ontario Court of Appeal where the court somewhat reticently approved constitutionally of a mandatory minimum sentence. But in imposing the sentence, they said that although they viewed it as “unduly excessive”--I believe those were the words they used--they were required to do it nonetheless.
There are other cases like this. There was, famously, the Robert Latimer case. The courts all the way up felt that on the specifics of that case, the sentence that was required by the legislation was excessively harsh.
There's also a case set out in our brief of a police officer who shot an individual in the process of investigating a crime. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The laws have changed since then. Currently under the law he would be required to go to prison for four years.
So there are exceptions to rules. Human reality is very complex. Those complex realities, in our view, are best dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than in a system where, as you've described it, one size fits all when you get a certain conviction.