One of the things that I look at as a law and order type of guy or a public safety person is this. If someone is arrested for a drug offence, what I call a serious drug offence--in other words, it's not just one or two joints, there's a significant amount of drugs available--that means that person's fingers or that person's activity in that is more substantial than just recreational use.
We've seen instances where, through our sentencing regime and the way our prisons work, in order not to have these people spend a long time in prison, because it costs a lot of money to keep people in jail, some of them only serve one-sixth of their sentence.
So going along with what you are saying, and to allow the police to use the tool and the crown prosecutors to use the tool of using the lower end of the echelon to get to the top guys, should we as a government and as a country and should Parliament be looking at doing away with some of these serving only one-sixth? Because if you were sentenced to six years because you had x number of ounces of cocaine, crack cocaine, or ecstasy, whatever the case may be, you could go to jail. If it's your first offence, you're only going to probably spend one-sixth of your sentence. So if you got six years--the judge is really tough on you and sent you to jail for six years--you're out in a year, or at least two and a half years.
If we did away with that, but somehow allowed the judicial system and the prosecution and the investigators to do what you want to do, do you think that would be a good idea?