That's in reference to charter values. This is an example of something that courts take upon themselves, unfortunately, too often. It's to refer to things not in the text of the law as a basis to inform their judgment. I think that is too often what occurs in the area of criminal law.
Returning to these specific proposals, we commend the government for taking it upon itself to reinstitute the mandatory minimums, but I do have a concern with the nature of the safety valve, in that it still invests a lot of discretion with the judge to—on their own interpretation of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment—basically come up with scenarios that, in their view, constitute cruel and unusual punishment, when in fact many Canadians would disagree—