Thank you.
We've essentially come to the end of our time. Before we close, I have just one question.
As you know, the representatives from the Criminal Lawyers' Association made it very clear that they oppose mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offences against children, and they've made it very clear that they're confident that the discretion of the trial courts is sufficient to deal with sentencing. My colleague Mr. Woodworth earlier referred to the case of Regina v. Arcand, which was a case of the Court of Appeal in Alberta, in which the chief justice, no less, articulated serious concerns about the inconsistency in sentencing at the trial court level.
I just wanted to quote her comment. It was a long obiter dictum, but here's one part of it. She says that Parliament may then conclude in light of public concerns that it must further curtail the court's discretion in sentencing. It may impose minimum sentences or restrict sentencing options.
I put this question to our witnesses from the Criminal Lawyers' Association. The Court of Appeal of Alberta obviously disagrees with your position on mandatory minimum sentencing. I'm just wondering how you would respond.