(4) The s. 1 issue
(a) The Pham sentencing judge’s reasons
 In relation to all of ss. 7(2)(b)( v), 7(2)(b)( vi) and 7(3)(c), the
Pham sentencing judge concluded that the violations of s. 12 of
the Charter could not be saved by s. 1.
 Concerning ss. 7(2)(b)( vi) and 7(3)(c), he adopted the reasoning of the Vu sentencing judge who found that the provisions
were not minimally impairing nor proportional because the
mandatory minimum would apply to persons who have no culpability in relation to the s. 7(3)(c) aggravating factor.
 Concerning s. 7(2)(b)( v), relying on Nur and Lloyd, he
found the violation was neither minimally impairing nor proportional. Parliament could have provided a safety valve to allow
judges to exempt offenders from the mandatory minimums in
exceptional cases but failed to do so.
(b) The Crown’s position on the s. 1 issue
 While acknowledging that it will be difficult to demonstrate that a sentence found to be grossly disproportionate is
proportionate as between the deleterious and salutary effects of
the law, the Crown asserts the two and three-year mandatory
minimums prescribed under ss. 7(2)(b)( v), 7(2)(b)( vi) and 7(3)(c)
are reasonable limits that are demonstrably justified in a free
and democratic society.
 In particular, the Crown argues that the mandatory minimums at issue reflect the gravity of the offence and level of culpability of the offenders, taking into account the scale of the grow
operations (more than 500 plants) and, in some instances, the
presence of a statutory aggravating factor (potential public safety
hazard in a residential area). Unlike the mandatory minimums
considered in Nur and Lloyd, any offender subject to the two and
three-year mandatory minimums has committed a serious criminal offence that involves more than minimal blameworthiness,
which, in some instances, also involves a real risk of harm.
 Taking account of the serious harm caused by illicit large-scale marijuana production and the moral blameworthiness of
any offenders caught by the mandatory minimums at issue, the
benefits of the mandatory minimums outweigh any deleterious
 I do not accept these submissions. With respect to
ss. 7(2)(b)( vi) and 7(3)(c), they ignore the fundamental finding