Yes, it's a complicated question. But in a nutshell, what Proulx did was give trial court some direction as to how the sentence should be constructed and how breach should be responded to—and the message from Proulx is tough.
So if you breached without a lawful excuse, there was a presumption on admission to custody for the balance of time remaining on the order. Proulx said there should be a presumption of house arrest, and so on. And you see in the statistics over the period since Proulx, which was in 2000, courts responding to that, with conditional sentences getting longer and tougher.
Proulx stopped short of saying there are some offences that should never attract a conditional sentence. But as a result of Proulx and other decisions of the courts of appeal across the country, we've basically arrived at what I would call judicial presumptions that there are some offences appearing before the courts in which there's a clear judicial presumption against the conditional sentence.