I'd like to build on both of your answers.
Citing the recent Supreme Court of Canada case, the majority wrote as follows. This begins at paragraph 35 of R. v. Lloyd:
If Parliament hopes to sustain mandatory minimum penalties for offences that cast a wide net, it should consider narrowing their reach so that they only catch offenders that merit the mandatory minimum sentences.
Another solution would be for Parliament to build a safety valve that would allow judges to exempt outliers for whom the mandatory minimum [sentence] will constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Set aside the last sentence. I guess the first sentence begs the question of whether or not the author of this bill— you take it from the introduction of these MMPs—believes that the current regime does not sufficiently either deter or denounce this particular category of offence, and that the introduction of these MMPs does not offend that principle that I just referred to, namely, that it doesn't cast the net too broadly.
Can you respond to that?