That's the problem, Minister. You have not touched mandatory minimum penalties that have been challenged and upheld as constitutionally valid. Those are still in place, but you've actually weakened every single one of those mandatory minimum penalties by giving an escape hatch to accused and their counsel, by making an argument that this would constitute an infraction under section 12 of the charter.
I'll give you an example, Minister. I know you've never practised criminal law. You've never been, I don't think, in a criminal forum before, whether it be trial court or plea court or bail court. Name one accused facing his second, third or fourth driving conviction who would not make an argument that a mandatory minimum penalty of 60 days or 90 days would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, particularly if they were the breadwinner of the family. You have now opened up an argument to allow judges to undercut those mandatory minimum penalties that have consistently been upheld by the courts as being constitutionally sound. You've now given them an excuse to go below that and, if necessary, impose a one-day jail sentence.
Why on earth would you be weakening our current sentencing regime, particularly in the area of drinking and driving, which is generally the number one or number two leading cause of death in this country? Why on earth would this government, which claims to care about public safety and community safety and the rights of victims, do that?