I understand the point, Mr. Chair, and I wouldn't begin to denigrate the horrible impact that sexual offences can, and usually do, have on victims. The case I was positing involved a 21-year-old person at the time who committed the offence on boys who were 14 and 13 years old, and it was sexual touching, which no society in its right mind should tolerate. The question ultimately, though is, after the passage of all of that time, what type of reaction is the appropriate reaction, and what are we going to ultimately get out of doing it?
The point I made earlier is I don't think we can assume that if we abolish conditional sentencing for sexual assault, we're going to produce a deterrent effect. The question ultimately that has to be grappled with is whether we feel there are no circumstances under which offences falling in that or any of the other many categories that were listed would warrant a conditional sentence. You've picked one of the most reprehensible offences and one of the most offensible examples of why you wouldn't want conditional sentencing, but the bill that's currently being put forward by the government includes a whole range of offences that don't come close to sexual offence. As I say, it is a blunt tool, but even in the context of sexual offences, I would urge the government to bear in mind that while there are cases like that, where victim impact statements can put forward the context within which the offence occurred, and where presumption against a conditional sentence could provide courts with an opportunity to interfere in a case where the community would rightfully be outraged, let's not assume that there's only one appropriate response in every sentencing circumstance. That's the problem, in my respectful submission, with the bill. It is simply too generalized.