I want to make the point that when I gave my presentation, I identified a number of offences that I thought were included that I thought could easily...or one could easily imagine a circumstance where a conditional sentence would be appropriate but is excluded by this bill. The other witnesses identified offences that are included as conditions for conditional sentences that they thought should not be. I think that speaks to just how inappropriate it is to use ten years maximum as an arbitrary process. That makes sentencing very arbitrary.
The only maximum sentences developed in the Criminal Code were never developed with this kind of use in mind. That's why the sentencing commission rejected them as a useful tool in the sentencing process.
It seems to me that if we want to have a system that makes sense, we have to let people make the decisions. If we try to do it with an arbitrary rule, we'll always have cases, one way or the other, that seem to be irrational.