Yes, I can briefly speak to that.
When the sentencing principles were introduced in 1995, at that point, there were a lot of common-law decisions that these principles had relied on, but they had never been codified in the legislation. It was a result of much research and of the Canadian Sentencing Commission recommendations.
The primary, overarching purpose of sentencing is declared to be proportionality. There has to be a just and proportionate sentence. It means taking into account all aggravating factors and mitigating factors.
There are other principles. There's the promotion of deterrence, incapacitation, the protection of society, and rehabilitation. There's the principle that we would use the least restrictive measures consistent with public safety and, specifically, that imprisonment would be a last resort. This was after much study and much evidence when looking at what was working and what was not working in the criminal justice system.
Our co-presenter commented about crime prevention strategies and other strategies that we as a society need to be doing along with the sentencing process.
Our main concern is specifically around proportionality and that we're very much moving away from that. When you say there's a mandatory sentence, at least for the sentences in which there are significant mitigating factors, it's impossible to have a proportionate sentence in every case, unless you accept the proposition that it's only ever going to be proportionate to have at least five to six years in jail, or whatever it is, no matter what the circumstances are. It's a major concern we have.
Then, of course, with the great human and fiscal costs of imprisonment, we're moving away from the principle of using imprisonment as a last resort.