With respect, I disagree fundamentally with your characterization of the position we've taken. I will not accept your invitation to start naming a single accused who may have had cases before the court. I think that would be poor form for someone in my position. With respect to driving under the influence, I'd also remind you that one of the bills that's going through the parliamentary process restores as a potential penalty a prohibition on driving for those who have been convicted of driving drunk, for example.
On the fundamental point behind your question, you've suggested that this represents a weakening of Canada's criminal laws. I could not more fundamentally disagree. What you neglected to mention during your questioning was the constitutional vulnerability of many provisions that were in the code that now will be protected with the residual discretion that we put in place and that members of your party, the Bloc, and Liberals have all supported in the past.
I know that during a previous session, Mr. Baber in particular raised concern around the use of reasonable hypotheticals by the court. We've taken that out of the equation to a large degree by saying that you now have to look at the specific facts of an individual case to determine whether the penalty would be grossly disproportionate and constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe this represents a strengthening of the code, a restoration of mandatory minimums and a protection of the constitutional validity of those that remain in place today.