On the MMP question, I think the objective of the change, of the proposal, is to allow judicial discretion in the case before a judge—that is, the case they're hearing. In that situation, the mandatory minimum penalty would be unconstitutional. It would amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
What's happening now is that often the case before the courts would not fall under that situation, but when the court does its section 12 analysis, it looks to a reasonable hypothetical. That is a case that often falls at the lower end of the moral blameworthiness spectrum, for which an MMP might not be appropriate or for which it would be cruel and unusual. On that basis, they strike it down.
The proposed approach in the bill is intended to focus the analysis on the offender before the court and protect the MMP by moving the analysis to the specific offender.