Let's be specific about it. When we were first looking at the bill and balancing some of these rights, we weren't planning on including, from the outset, some of the measures that impacted mandatory minimums, but in the middle of the bill's formulation, the Senneville decision from the Supreme Court of Canada landed in the public conversation. Obviously, it drew significant attention to the issue of mandatory minimums, and we saw yet another one struck down. What we've seen over the course of Canada's history is that governments of different persuasions will periodically seek to advance a political priority. Courts will say that's outside the authorities that citizens have given unto you as a government; therefore, we will remove that law from the books, effectively.
If you don't engage in the exercise of making sure you respect Canadians' constitutionally protected rights, you end up with a bunch of laws that exist on paper but have no impact in communities. If we can't breathe life into the laws that exist on the books, into the communities where people live, then those laws are not worth the paper on which they are written. We need to ensure that we insist on the protection of Canadians' rights to the extent where, if a court determines that we fall outside the bounds of what's applicable, we have the opportunity to appeal. At the end of the day, when it comes to interpreting Canada's laws, we will respect decisions taken particularly by the Supreme Court of Canada.
In my view, the good news is that public safety and the protection of rights are not mutually exclusive. When Canadians know that they will have an opportunity to have their rights respected, and you combine that with adequate policing resources and criminal laws that will help to advance public safety, you can create a country and a society where people can live freely and live safely. I think that is what we should all aim to promote.