I wouldn't say that there is never a case, but I would make two comments. First, we've drastically increased the number of mandatory minimums from the long time ago when I was in law school when there was first-degree murder and second-degree murder, and now we're adding and adding and adding. I don't know that it's necessarily helping in any sense anywhere.
One of the reasons for that is a term that you used, and I think it's an important one. You said that passing these bills sends a message. One of the questions is, who is the message being sent to and who do you think is receiving it? In some cases, I think the message that is being sent, the intention for the message, is not so much to those people who may be potential offenders, but it's a message being sent to the broader Canadian public that we as a government, whoever the government is, is getting tough on this particular crime. But does the message actually get through to individuals who are committing crime? That's where the data seems to suggest it doesn't.
I don't think people who commit the range of sexual offences that just had minimum sentences in the last Parliament know that they've been increased. In fact, a lot of lawyers don't know they've been increased.
If you increase the minimum sentence to two to four years, one to three, is there going to be a lot of discussion on the street saying, I guess we shouldn't do that now, the sentence has gone up two years? If the thought is that those messages are going to reach the potential lawbreakers and change their minds, I don't think that's likely to happen.