inflicted on the victims at the low to mid range described in
D. (D.). He says it was isolated, it did not involve full intercourse
and it did not include violence or threats of violence. He submits
the sentence should have taken this into account.
 This is the opposite of totality, focusing on isolated features
of some of the sexual interference offences. It ignores the fact
that the appellant committed a breach of trust, and that the victims were two infants and a toddler. It ignores the sexual assault
with a weapon. It ignores the fact that at least some of the abuse
was committed in the course of making child pornography. It
ignores the distribution and the perpetuation of the abuse on the
Internet. It ignores possession of not only the pornography the
appellant created, but also of the sadistic, degrading and intrusive
pornography he obtained from other sources. It ignores his activities as a “producer” and his exhortation of others to do the same.
 In my view, the sentencing judge properly applied the
totality principle and considered these matters and others.
Lack of remorse
 The appellant says that the sentencing judge erred in considering lack of remorse as an aggravating factor. The respondent
acknowledges that, to the extent the sentencing judge did so, it
was an error. But the respondent submits that this error was
inconsequential because it did not impact the sentence and therefore does not require this court to open up the sentencing and
re-sentence the appellant based on first principles. For the reasons that follow, I agree with the respondent.
 To put this issue in context, it is important to consider the
several sources of evidence that were before the sentencing judge
concerning the appellant’s appreciation of the significance of his
acts and their impact on his victims. There was evidence of the
investigating police officer, the author of a pre-sentence report,
the appellant’s own statement prior to sentencing and victim
impact statements from the children’s mother and grandparent.
 First, the pre-sentence report. The author of the report
considered the appellant at high risk to re-offend due to his lack
of insight and lack of remorse, among other things. The trial
judge summarized this evidence as follows:
The author of the pre-sentence report indicated that while the appellant admit-
ted the offences, he lacked insight into the offences: “he did not feel he hurt the
children” stating that “he loves the [oldest] child, he would never hurt her.” He
made no reference to the other two children. At one point in the interview the
appellant blames his brother and sister-in-law [the children’s parents] for being
bad parents and permitting the older child to wander around the house naked
after a bath. The appellant also made contradictory statements about the bene-
fits of counselling. The report continues that one of the investigating officers