Thank you, Minister, for being here.
When Mr. Baber was asking you about the notwithstanding clause, you said something I felt was quite interesting. You didn't think it was productive to engage in hypotheticals, yet the Senneville decision was the Supreme Court doing that very thing. It was the Supreme Court inventing a case that was not before it and using that to strike down mandatory minimum sentences that applied to the very heinous people who were at issue in that case, Mr. Senneville and Mr. Naud.
I'll begin there. Do you think it is reasonable for courts, for unelected judges, to use reasonable hypotheticals to override laws that parliamentarians have put in place?