Thank you, sir.
I did note that the United Kingdom has had mandatory minimum penalties for firearm offences for quite a while. Their mandatory minimum penalties are, in fact, more severe and strict than what Canada is proposing, but they have been successfully upheld in courts. They have been successful in using this idea of a safety valve or legislative clause. I believe there is precedent for it to be applied and to function well in the courts.
As I mentioned in my statement, the other benefit is that it would allow the individual offenders and offences to be examined, rather than having to rely on the reasonable hypothetical or imagined offender, in order to challenge compliance with current mandatory minimum penalties against the charter.