Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the witnesses for being here today. We thank them very much. This is an important bill, and all viewpoints are important to us.
I want to let the witnesses know that they can listen to my comments through the interpretation. I'll be speaking in French, so I hope my questions will be understood.
Mr. Davis, I'm interested in your views, and you said something at the end of your comments that caught my attention. According to you, the way Bill C‑5 is drafted right now could give victims of crime the impression that they are being left out in the cold to some extent. That struck me.
In general, I have confidence in our legal system. I think judges have sound judgment—if not all the time, in 99.9% of cases—and they hand down the appropriate sentences. What's more, when necessary, decisions can be appealed. I have quite a bit of confidence in the legal system, but the perception that society has of the legal system worries me. I think it's important for people to feel that they are heard and that they be aware that lawmakers are concerned about their point of view. That's our job.
I would like to know whether I've understood your remarks correctly and whether I'm interpreting them correctly. For example, judges could be given some flexibility. Mandatory minimum sentences could be maintained for crimes committed with a firearm, and judges could be given the possibility of waving the maximum minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances.
In your opinion, could that meet the requirements regarding the public perception, or do we really need to take a hard line and maintain mandatory minimum sentences?