Thank you very much for the question.
To make sure my answer is clear and coherent, I will answer in English.
I'm glad you asked this question. I heard you ask this question of another witness earlier, and I thought it was a very important one.
You address the issue of bail hearings being very much case by case. Different facts will impact the outcome. I think the abolition of mandatory minimum penalties has focused each sentence on the case-by-case issues.
To briefly answer your question, no, it has not been my experience that removing mandatory minimums has led to less harsh sentences or to judges treating certain crimes as less serious. The common law already explains that the way judges must treat this is by examining the maximum sentence. Removing mandatory minimums does not, in my sense, send any messages that certain crimes are not as serious as they were before. It recognizes only that a different array of circumstances can lead to the commission of an offence.
To use the example of possession of a prohibited firearm, it is very unusual to see any sentences well below the previous three-year mandatory minimum. That still, in effect, is being treated, at least in B.C., as a de facto mandatory minimum.