I've actually had the debate with some of those who have testified before you, and I respectfully disagree with them. For me, in an age where resources are very scarce in communities and we see children not getting the services they need, I think if you're concerned about victims of crime, you're better off spending money on serving them than on punishing offenders. If there were evidence that these mandatory minimums worked for a broad scope of offenders—and here I would say I don't oppose mandatory minimum penalties completely for any offence—I'd be standing with those victims. If there were evidence that they reduced revictimization and recidivism, if they actually helped someone begin the healing process, I would stand with them.
In my experience, mandatory minimums don't do those things. I would rather see more services. We're going to spend $10 million over two years on these penalties for sex offenders, to punish sex offenders. Some of those penalties may be warranted. Some sex offenders may deserve that kind of punishment, but we're using a blanket approach. The government is only spending $1 million a year for five years for child advocacy centres. To me those priorities are mixed up. If you really care about helping the children, then help the children.