Perhaps I can clarify this. Some of the sentiments I would express are similar to those that Mr. Trudell suggested earlier. We don't take issue, necessarily, with Parliament setting guidelines for things. What we do take issue with is absolutism and Parliament doing that. And we do take issue with any situation where there is mandatory minimum sentencing, including 25 years to life for first-degree murder. It's the mandatory, absolutist nature. That may be a very appropriate sentence in 99.9% of possible, imaginable cases, but we do take issue with the notion of absolutism.
We would prefer a system where there's always an opportunity for a judge to diverge from a recommended sentence and, in an unexpected set of circumstances, give a sentence that may be less than the mandatory minimum.
I realize that it's a bit of a technical point, and it's made a lot better in the context of drug crimes and murder and that type of thing, but that is our position across the board.