I think that would be my second choice, and there may be other options I haven't thought of. I haven't spent as much time studying this bill as members of the committee, but the reason that's a better alternative is, yes, a judge will be exercising discretion and taking into account a range of factors. But, of course, at the end of the day the sentence will be tailored to the severity of the crime, and since that's what we're trying to do with this bill—acknowledge that not all criminal offences are equal and not all criminal convictions are equal and that sometimes one can be convicted of a crime in circumstances that may not be particularly serious and may not have any kind of close connection to parliamentary responsibilities—those seem to me to be the two key factors: the severity of the crime and how strongly connected it is to a member's parliamentary responsibilities or activities.
I trust members of the House or the Senate to evaluate those factors more effectively than anyone else, and after that, if that first choice isn't available, I think the second-best choice would be to defer to judges who are taking into account all the circumstances of a particular case when setting a sentence. I think to rely on the maximum sentence available for an offence is not the right approach, and I think it could easily be amended.