I guess it's striking a balance, Monsieur Ménard. I'm of the opinion--and I appreciate that you disagree with me--that when people lure children into the business of sexual assault or commit arson for fraudulent purposes, these are very serious offences for which they should be ineligible for conditional sentences. They should not be sent home after their convictions.
I appreciate that you and perhaps others disagree with that, and we'll have to agree to disagree. But some of these matters are very serious. It hurts the administration of justice--people lose confidence in criminal justice if they agree that these are very serious offences--if people see these individuals being sent home.
Having said that, I agree that there should be as wide a range as possible in discretion concerning probation. I indicated in my opening remarks my support for conditional sentences for less serious offences. I understand that. I understand our role in giving guidance to the court. For instance, we have maximum sentences right across the board. In a sense we're giving guidance. We're making that decision as parliamentarians about the seriousness with which we view certain criminal activities, and we act accordingly.
Again, I appreciate that not everybody agrees with that.