I imagine that you followed the legislative process. Recently, Bill C‑5 repealed certain minimum sentences, including some for gun related offences.
I do not know them by heart, but I remember the offence where a person discharges a firearm with the intent of causing harm or injuring another person, or something to that effect. That seemed rather odd to me. Honestly, I had a bit of a hard time accepting that.
Do you not find it a bit surprising that if we repeal minimum sentences for gun related offences we might, in the case of parole, reverse the burden of proof and tell an individual that we are putting him in prison unless he can prove that he is not a danger to the public?
All together, are these two principles not a bit paradoxical?