We actually proposed something like that at a previous hearing. I think there's no question about it. That gives a balance, sends the message out, but it allows a judge to exercise his or her discretion and explain why in the particular circumstances of that case, of that person, of that group, the minimum sentence that otherwise would have been applied is not going to be applied. Reviewable on appeal, of course...but it strikes a remarkably creative balance and it takes rigidity out of a situation that's not rigid.
There's nothing you hear here from the various witnesses that has all the answers. There's nothing rigid, so we have to be able to give parliamentarians the opportunity to say, “Wait a minute, maybe we should change the law in this regard.” You have to give judges an opportunity to say, “Okay, I got the message, but I'm now being asked to look at the protection of society, protection of the community, which may include the protection of this young person's family or the people who are affected by the minimum sentence.”
Let me just say one other thing so that you know this. A minimum sentence in Toronto is very different from a minimum sentence in Pond Inlet, because the community is totally disrupted and that person from Pond Inlet doesn't go to a jail locally. That person gets shipped way out of their community. So the collaborative impact of what happens is lost.
So I think, Monsieur Ménard, that's a fine balance, if I could use that phrase.