I think, Mr. Petit, you've made a very good point. The distinction between violent and non-violent is very difficult to make in practice, because, yes, in certain cases where you have someone getting hit over the head with a baseball ball, that's a violent crime. But the situation that you pointed out, drug peddling, for example, then leads to some young man or young woman being addicted and then having to steal or rob in order to support that habit. So the violence leads from the one crime. These are all interconnected, so it's very difficult to say we can only deal with violent crimes, but property crimes aren't really significant. I think we have to look at it from the point of view of the victim.
I want to commend you for bringing that perspective here so that we balance the criminal justice system, because it's not all about rehabilitating an offender. It's also about protecting victims and keeping young children out of a life of crime. The intent was to ensure that where there are serious or violent crimes, these conditional sentences are no longer applied. I recognize in some cases there would be a suspended sentence and probation orders, and again, as I have said, I have a preference for those kinds of orders for a number of very practical reasons.
We chose that ten-year or more criteria as being indicative of a crime that Parliament considered to be very serious. Mr. Lee has pointed out that in downtown Toronto cattle rustling is not that serious. It may well be, though, that in Mr. Thompson's riding or in my riding it is a significant issue. When farmers are struggling to make a life and somebody is stealing their livelihood, it is a serious issue, and one that needs to be punished very appropriately. In some cases maybe a probation order is acceptable, but quite frankly, if Parliament determined that ten years or more was a serious offence--and I consider ten years or more to be a serious offence--we've chosen that.
Are there issues that Mr. Ignatieff or Mr. Bagnell or Mr. Lee have raised? Is it too inclusive because of that too general a rule? I'm willing to deal with that, but I would urge the committee in its dealings not simply to think about the perpetrator of the offence, but also the victim, and I'm pleased to see that there will be consideration to that end because of the comments that you have made, Mr. Petit.