I thought he was talking to me as a judge. This does not justify a sentence of a year or more. I thought there would have been modest sentences in the cases Mr. Woodworth was talking about. Surely the impression he gave was that somehow or other these people should go free without the mandatory minimums that are here. I would be inclined to think that any judge hearing that submission to sentence would be very much inclined to treat these matters very seriously indeed, particularly where the offences call for life in prison.
Without going back into the rhetoric that might be called for, I'd like to suggest, Mr. Chair, that you go through some of the amendments and call them so we can deal with them.
There are only six or seven clauses here, and we have a number of amendments. My approach will be to explain the amendments. Most of them are in the context of the minimum sentences and seeking to make some changes there. We're not anticipating that any of them will pass, given the comments we've heard from the other side. Some of them are dependent on fall-back positions if one or the other doesn't pass. It will be relatively easy to explain as we go through what the effect of a particular amendment will be.
There are a couple that we would like to make some comments on, as to why an amendment would go. But for the most part we will be seeking to put the amendment forward and have it voted on relatively quickly