I have already provided all my arguments on this, but, in my opinion, it applies perfectly. You are not thinking about all the accessories there can be in cases like this. Some of them do not even deserve prison. It is the odious nature…
Perhaps you can eventually consider what all Commonwealth countries do, I think. They allow judges to not apply minimum sentences in exceptional circumstances, but they require them to explain their reasons in writing. The minimum sentence that you have set is really very low in terms of what is usually imposed, and upheld in courts of appeal. With thousands of cases being decided every day in Canada, we can always find some that do not seem to be fair. But to assess that, we first need to know the facts on which the judges based the decision. Then, recourse in the face of bad decisions is first sought in a court of appeal. As legislators, we must become involved only when we do not agree with the principles issued by the courts of appeal.
Of course, we will vote against this provision for the same reason. Minimum sentences are rarely justified. I accept them in the case of murder, that is, when we are faced with the most serious acts. I accept them when they are not very severe, such as when we are dealing with repeat offences committed by ordinary people, like drunk driving. After all, when they are convicted the first time, they are warned that there will be a minimum sentence if they offend again.
But I am sure that this is going to result in injustices. If you believe the opposite, it is because you feel that the police or the prosecutors will not be rash enough to proceed with cases. I will not be voting for a bill if I think that it is so bad that neither police nor prosecutors will want to apply it.