Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Maki, I'd like to know your opinion. I see that you have a law degree, but also a philosophy degree, and that your practice has you working with the public on the ground. Let's say, for a moment, that we assume that mandatory minimum sentences are bad.
So I ask myself a question. The message that Parliament sends to the public is of some importance. Don't you think there is reason to be concerned about this?
At present, there are a number of mandatory minimum sentences, including the ones about firearms. Earlier, my colleague, Mr. Morrison, listed a number of offences, including extortion and armed robbery. There is rising firearm violence more or less everywhere, particularly in Quebec, in the Montreal region, and the public is worried.
Should we not be making an effort to find a middle-ground solution while giving the courts some latitude? Should we not avoid giving the impression that we are somewhat indifferent, or somewhat uninterested, not about crimes, but about the public's concern about crimes?
As a middle-ground solution, we could, for certain more serious offences, allow judges to depart from the mandatory minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances.
Do you think that is a way of addressing the situation that is worth considering?