I can answer the question in a slightly different way, perhaps.
Minister Fraser, I think, before this committee and when he appeared the week before last at the status of women committee, indicated that one of the specific concerns the government was trying to address in relation to this specific escape clause was the unintended impact that the increased use of MMPs has had in outlier cases. That, I think, speaks to what you're saying, Mr. Housefather. What we have seen is a proliferation of charter challenges to MMPs that were enacted for very specific reasons that Parliament had deemed appropriate when passing that legislation, but in so doing, there were instances of outlier cases that were of concern.
This escape clause is seeking to address those outlier cases, as Ms. Burt talked about, and maintain the MMPs for the vast majority of cases, remembering that at the end of the day a fit sentence is a fit sentence, and that can be in excess of the mandatory minimum penalty. In exceptional cases, because cruel and unusual really is meant to be exceptional, it may be less.