Mr. Chairman, I would also like the parliamentary secretary to address the issue of the symbolism of the law as to its educative role in the community for general deterrence to operate.
The potential sentence that can arise or if it be a consequence of an offence is directly related to how serious the community should look at that offence.
For example, for breaking and entering a dwelling house, the maximum is life in jail. We know that life in jail is not very often given for breaking and entering a dwelling house. However it is a symbol of how serious that charge is to be taken.
Regular theft, which is so pervasive in the justice system, is one of the most common offences before the courts. We think that to change the boundary sends the wrong message and undermines the operation of general deterrence.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to address that larger issue rather than the technical issues of looking at the offender and whether they will be able to elect or not to go to the higher court, but to first of all justify what is the problem that he is trying to solve with this provision and how is that going to undermine the operation of general deterrence.