Bill C-26 (Historical)

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
(a) increase mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for certain sexual offences against children;
(b) increase maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders and peace bonds;
(c) clarify and codify the rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences;
(d) require courts to impose, in certain cases, consecutive sentences on offenders who commit sexual offences against children; and
(e) ensure that a court that imposes a sentence must take into consideration evidence that the offence in question was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order or released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence.
It amends the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of the accused are competent and compellable witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases.
It also amends the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to increase the reporting obligations of sex offenders who travel outside Canada.
It enacts the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act to establish a publicly accessible database that contains information — that a police service or other public authority has previously made accessible to the public — with respect to persons who are found guilty of sexual offences against children and who pose a high risk of committing crimes of a sexual nature.
Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague is the father of two young girls, I am the grandfather of three beautiful grandchildren who live not in Mississauga but in Waterloo, and I also want them to feel and be safe. I do not think that any of us here in this chamber would not agree that we want our children and grandchildren to be safe in this country. This is very important.

I mentioned in my speech that the Minister of Justice did a lot of travelling in Canada, organizing and taking part in round tables and getting information from different groups. He came to Mississauga. We had a meeting with the great police force that we have, the Peel Regional Police. They were very supportive of this bill. We also had a great discussion about how to improve the safety of our children, how to protect them, and how to protect our citizens.

I would like to say that this is a truly great police force that works with the community and works for the safety of the community.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Science and Technology; the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, Aboriginal Affairs.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the high risk child sex offender database act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

According to the legislative summary prepared for this piece of legislation, the bill would amend the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with sexual offences committed against children and young persons by increasing the mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for such offences.

Bill C-26 would also make the following changes to the law: it would increase maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds; it would set out rules for the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences; it would require courts to impose consecutive sentences on offenders who commit sexual offences against more than one child; it would amend the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of the accused persons could be called as witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases; it would amend the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to increase the reporting obligations of sex offenders who travel outside Canada; and it would enact the high-risk child sex offender database act to establish a publicly accessible database containing information with respect to persons who are found guilty of sexual offences against children and who pose a high risk of committing crimes of a sexual nature.

It is quite a complicated piece of legislation. The NDP critic for justice, the member for Gatineau, and a number of my other colleagues have risen in the House to indicate that New Democrats will support getting the bill to committee at second reading. As always, we are very concerned that we need to have legislation that truly does protect our children and keep our communities safe.

As we have seen with other pieces of legislation that the Conservatives have presented, the devil is always in the details. Therefore, we think it is very important that there be a comprehensive study at committee, that we hear from witnesses with a variety of points of view, and I was very pleased to hear the member opposite indicate that the government would entertain amendments to this piece of legislation, which from our experience here in the House over the last three years, would be extremely unusual.

New Democrats are so adamant about getting the bill to committee and having a comprehensive study at committee because of these differing points of view. The legislative summary outlines the differences. We will hear that there are people who are strongly in favour and people who have some concerns. Some of these groups are not ones we would ordinarily think would raise concerns.

Under the commentary in the legislative summary it says:

The amendment proposed in Bill C-26 requiring that, in cases with multiple victims, mandatory minimum sentences must be served consecutively has prompted public debate about the “totality principle,” which states that an offender's overall sentence should not be unduly harsh. Lawyer Clayton Ruby, author of the textbook Sentencing, has said that consecutive minimum sentences do not leave room for considering the individual offender and the nature of the offence. However, Sharon Rosenfeldt, spokesperson for Victims of Violence, has stated that reliance on the totality principle allows those individuals who commit crimes against children to repeatedly reoffend.

We can see how important it is we get both perspectives on this before we go forward with a piece of legislation. They also say:

Another subject of debate concerning Bill C-26 has been the proposed creation of a publicly accessible databank containing information about those persons found guilty of sex offences against children who are deemed to be at risk of offending again. The Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec had expressed concern that such a databank will create a false sense of security, as this type of information gives the impression that the danger of a sexual assault comes from strangers, whereas the evidence suggests that the vast majority of sex offences against children are committed by those close to them. The Marie Vincent Foundation has determined that in 85% of the cases of sexual offences committed against those under 12 years of age, the offender was a person known to the victim (father, next of kin, neighbour, friend of the family, etc.).

A number of comments concerning Bill C-26 have mentioned the possibility of vigilantism rising from a publicly accessible database of sex offenders. Detective Constable Stephen Canton, the police officer in charge of the Niagara Regional Police sex offender registry, is also concerned that “[w]hen you start to identify offenders, you start to get less compliance and it pushes them underground.”

Victims' rights groups have expressed support for the changes proposed in Bill C-26, however. Gatineau Police Chief Mario Harel, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, has also said that the information-sharing provision is important, as is the ability to compel spouses to testify in child pornography cases. He welcomed Bill C-26, suggesting stiffer penalties could have a deterrent effect.

There is a wide variety of opinions that have been expressed in some of the input gathered in advance of the bill. Therefore, it is important that there is an opportunity not only for the committee to reconcile those different points of view, but also to keep in mind that the ultimate goal is truly the protection of children and communities.

Some of my New Democratic colleagues have referenced the fact that one of the things that has to happen is that we need to put in place programs that assist in preventing reoffences. I want to reference the Circles of Support and Accountability program.

This is a quote from Steven Sullivan, a former federal ombudsman for victims of crime. He said:

...the federal government recently announced it was cutting the measly $650,000 in funding Corrections Canada offers. CoSA also receives funding from the National Crime Prevention Centre; that's also set to end this fall. In total the program costs $2.2 million a year....

Like most community-based victim services, CoSA is a fairly cheap program. It has 700 volunteers across the country; they meet with offenders after their release, help them find jobs and places to live, meet with them regularly for coffee. They support offenders as they start to live normal lives, ones that don't involve new victims. They hold them accountable.

I want to talk a little about the CoSA, Circles of Support and Accountability. This is a snapshot that was provided in the Ottawa Citizen. It says:

The program pairs newly released sex offenders--known as core members--with three to five volunteers. For at least one year, the volunteers pledge to have daily contact with the core member, helping with such basic needs as finding employment and housing, attending medical appointments and shopping. They also undertake to hold him accountable if he shows signs of slipping.

It goes on to say:

In return, the sex offender pledges to honour any conditions imposed by the court, steer clear of high-risk behaviour and communicate honestly with circle members.

How are the core members selected?

Most are high-risk sex offenders, the worst of the worst. They must want to participate, and are screened and evaluated by CoSA groups before they are accepted.

Some criticism has been raised, including the comment:

Doesn't this amount to coddling people who should be shunned? Not at all, says...a member of the Ottawa CoSA's board. "What we're doing is promoting community safety by engaging with them." It's when sex offenders are isolated or marginalized that they are most likely to reoffend, he says.

He went on to say: “Our motto is 'no more victims'.”

That is an important point. The point of programs like this is to prevent offenders from reoffending, to keep our communities and children safe.

I want to turn for a moment to a publication from back in March 2013, put out by the John Howard Society. It talks about the impact of public notification and says:

When making a decision as to whether a public notification should be issued, the justice system must balance the need for community safety against the offender's right to reintegrate into society. Public notifications are used in hopes of increasing public safety. The threat of a public notification may work to deter the offender from breaching any conditions and to encourage him to participate in treatment. Public awareness may also encourage community members to be aware and to report suspicious behaviour, which may potentially reduce criminal behaviour. Also, they may increase collaboration between all areas of the justice system, like probation, corrections, law enforcement, prosecutors and victims, which may lead to more support for the offender.

It is probably not surprising that there is a caveat here. It states:

However, Public Notifications may discourage offenders from making post-release plans for treatment or from finding housing because they fear that by doing so they will simply identify the potential destination. Once the offender is released, the publicity may lead to job loss, threats, harassment, and housing instability - all which may force the offender in to hiding, which detracts from community safety and may elevate risk.

Evidence shows that programs that assist and support individuals re-integrating in to the community are much more effective than shaming in preventing reoffending. When used in conjunction with effective re-integration strategies, notifications can build community involvement, promote rehabilitation, and prevent the offender from re-offending.

However, public notifications with no community involvement do little to support the community or the offender. The public must be educated not only in what risks these individuals pose, but what can be done to prevent them from re-offending.

I believe there is probably agreement across the House that what is important is that any legislation that comes forward truly does what it purportedly aims to do, that is to protect children and keep our communities safe. It is clear that if we just do it with harsher sentences and removing supports for reintegration into community, we are not going to achieve those aims.

Again, I will support this bill going to committee at second reading. I am optimistic that the Conservatives will actually consider amendments to Bill C-26.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a very strong presentation this afternoon. I agree with many of the points she has made.

Before I was elected to this place, for many years I was the chair of Safe City Mississauga, a crime prevention organization. I do echo some of the member's thoughts about how we can prevent these things and how we should invest in doing so. In fact, the government has invested in a huge way in crime prevention, supporting organizations that make sure that crimes do not start in the first place.

Today we are debating Bill C-26 and its amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada aimed at ensuring that when people are found guilty of being child predators, they will face stiff sentences that match the crimes they have perpetrated.

It is great to say on one side that we should invest in justice issues and crime prevention, and that is part of it. I completely agree with that. However, I never hear from the NDP why it does not support tough sentences for terrible repeat serial offenders, such as this bill will address. Why does it not support those kinds of sentences?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that in my summary I wrapped up our position on this.

What we have consistently called for as New Democrats is a comprehensive program that looks not just at the appropriate sentences for crimes committed. As I said earlier, we absolutely support legislation and programs that keep our communities safe and that protect our children. I am a mother and a grandmother and would not support something that would put my children and grandchildren at risk.

However, what we often end up dealing with in this place is a piece of legislation that has a very narrow perspective dealing with particular sets of offences, particular crimes. What we do not do a good job of is taking a step back and looking at a comprehensive approach.

The member for Winnipeg Centre rightly pointed out the fact that we could learn a great deal from states like California and Texas, where they have had to revisit their tough-on-crime agenda. It looks at crime in a very narrow way. What Texas in particular has done is that it has recognized that not only must it have appropriate sentences but also that when people are found guilty, there is a need for rehabilitation programs inside and methods to integrate them back into the community.

I would urge the Conservatives to take that more comprehensive approach.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that some of the most despicable crimes in our society are committed by sex offenders.

The government speaks a great deal about victims' rights being extremely important, and we agree. I would like to ask my colleague whether she has identified within this proposed bill any explicit provisions addressing victims' rights.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that some of the cuts outlined by the former ombudsperson for victims highlight the fact that perhaps we are not serving victims well with some of these pieces of legislation. When we do things like cut programs that try to prevent offenders from reoffending, we are not actually supporting potential future victims.

Again, it does speak to the need for a more holisitic approach looking at the prevention of crime to begin with, making sure that we are addressing educational needs, poverty, housing, and drug and alcohol addiction. There are many things that we need to look at in terms of prevention.

We then need a justice system that responds appropriately and has the resources, so that police forces can investigate and so that there are not backlogs in the criminal justice system that would stop us from dealing with crime expeditiously.

We then need a prison system where people are housed appropriately so that they are kept inside when they need to be, but also have rehabilitation and drug and alcohol treatment programs within the prison system.

Then, when offenders are eventually released, we need those systems on the street to help them reintegrate so that they do not re-offend.

If we had legislation that looked at all four of those aspects, I think we would probably find much broader party support in the House for the legislation that comes forward that is purportedly tough on crime.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak on such a serious issue as the subject of Bill C-26.

This bill is a perfectly clear manifestation of the Conservatives' law and order ideology. It also demonstrates the Conservatives' failure to provide the law and order they talk so much about, since sexual offences against children have increased by 6% in the last two years.

We in the NDP have zero tolerance for sexual offences against children, while respecting jurisprudential principles and basic law, an area where the government too often expresses its disdain for judges by reducing their freedom of decision-making and imposing minimum sentences.

I would remind the House that we offered to speed the passage of the parts of former omnibus Bill C-10 that dealt with sexual offences against children. In those parts, the mandatory minimum sentences were more severe. However, today we are debating a bill that would increase the existing mandatory minimums and the maximum sentences for certain sexual offences against children.

This provision gives the impression that the Conservative government is trying to make up for its failures, but I would like the government to tell me how these new mandatory minimum and maximum sentences can succeed when they have failed in the past.

Like the other members of Parliament, I have read the statistics. The number of crimes committed has risen exponentially. As the mother of three children, I find the following figures rather frightening: in 2008, 54 people were charged with luring children by means of the Internet; in 2012 that number was 127; in 2008, 241 people were charged with sexual interference; in 2012 there were 916.

I wonder whether the problem lies with the sentences or with the services provided.

We know that our communities need more resources to combat the sexual abuse of children. The NDP has supported the program called Circles of Support and Accountability or CoSA.

The former federal ombudsman for victims of crime has revealed that funding for this program will end this fall. That is very sad because, like most community services for victims, the CoSA program is not very expensive. Its 700 volunteers across Canada meet with offenders after their release, help them find work and housing, and meet with them regularly over coffee. The former ombudsman said they were helping offenders remake their lives, avoid reoffending and take responsibility.

Harsher prison terms will probably not be enough.

I would like to raise another point I think is dicey in this bill: the creation of a publicly accessible database containing information with respect to persons who are found guilty of sexual offences against children.

A number of elements that need to be clarified come to mind when I read this bill. This database is likely to lead to a false sense of security, as it gives the impression that the threat comes only from strangers, from those sex offenders walking around in our communities and on our streets, even though the vast majority of child molesters are close to the family. The Fondation Marie-Vincent has determined that in 85% of cases of sexual abuse of children under the age of 12, the abuser is a person the child knows.

I am not saying that establishing this kind of database is a bad thing. I am saying that care must be taken and that the database should not be the only tool for making people safer. It has a role to play, of course, but it is not the main way to make our neighbourhoods safer.

There is another point that bothers me: this kind of registry has already been established in the United States, and we can see that the results are not very good. The Chicago-based Journal of Law and Economics conducted a study in 2011 that showed that the highest rates of sex crimes in the United States come from sex offenders who are listed in registries that are available to the public, simply because the offenders whose names are on these public lists have a tendency to hide and comply less with the law. They tend to live in secrecy. They will take longer to reintegrate into society and be rehabilitated. In other words, they will not be monitored as other offenders are by assistance services and they will be more likely to reoffend. I think this is something that should be examined in greater depth, and I am sure that my colleagues will try to raise all of these sensitive issues in committee.

Since 2006, the Conservative government has taken measures that it says are meant to protect children better. We have taken note of this, but considering that the numbers of sex offences against children continue to rise, the government’s repressive measures are clearly not sufficient.

We would like to see measures that will protect children in a tangible way and make our communities safer, not measures that are just intended to make the Conservatives look good in press conferences. We must also examine in depth whether certain of these measures—such as the high-risk child sex offender database, evidence from spouses of accused persons in child pornography cases and the imposition of consecutive sentences on offenders who have committed sexual offences against children—are in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Finally, it is easy to see that the unilateral and essentially repressive approach by the Conservatives is unlikely to be enough in and of itself and that this strategy must be urgently reviewed in order to fight effectively against child sexual molestation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have all wrestled with these issues in a sincere attempt to do the right thing for our children. The issue of sentencing keeps coming up, and Conservative members asked some questions of NDP members about why we do not support longer sentences all the time in every situation, as if that always makes things better.

Would my colleague care to comment on the lack of evidence proving that longer sentences make safer streets or that longer sentences will solve the problem of child sexual molestation?

The medical community agrees that pedophilia is a psychological condition and that reason and logic do not always enter into the mind of the type of predator that preys on children for sexual gratification. The sentence might be a 50-year sentence, but that person might not have the rational capability to weigh the risk of the action he or she is about to take.

Could the member point out the flaw to this notion? Could she point out the lack of evidence that longer sentences in and of themselves, without the necessary treatment, necessarily lead to safer streets or safer children?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

As I mentioned in my speech, I think that repressive measures in and of themselves have never been a solution. We must also allow these offenders to be rehabilitated and to be monitored, because repression alone will not make our communities safer. We must look into prevention and allow these people to be monitored, something that goes beyond punishment.

I will try to say this using a medical metaphor: instead of trying to put ointment on a sore and stop the oozing, it would be better to get to the root of the problem and prevent it from happening. Of course there have to be penalties. However, they must go hand in hand with prevention, reintegration and rehabilitation.

It is therefore important that the agencies providing assistance to these people have stable funding in order to help them.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments that the member made about penalties not being the whole answer. We agree with her that prevention and preventive programs need to be put in place. We agree those are needed, but there is another side to the issue.

The bill clearly states that there would be longer periods of incarceration. There are the mandatory minimum sentences that the government seems to love. There is the issue of programming within the prison system, which at the moment is in disarray. There is also the issue of support for organizations that assist sex offenders when they come out. The one I am thinking of is called Circles of Support and Accountability. That program has been cut. It had an over 90% success rate in ensuring that sex offenders do not reoffend when they come out.

Is that not part of the programming as well? Should the government, beyond increasing the sentencing, not also be increasing the funding and support for those programs that—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The time has expired, but we will give the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert 40 seconds to respond.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for asking such a relevant question.

I made that point in my speech when I said that the government should be supporting community organizations that help these people turn things around instead of just punishing the guilty. I therefore already answered his question about what the NDP is advocating.

When it comes to Conservative bills, the devil is always in the details. That is why we want experts to talk about how effective these proposed changes would be.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely pleased to be rising in the House today. It is not because of you, Mr. Speaker. It is always nice to discuss bills in your presence. However, I have a keen interest in this bill. Why? Because it deals with one of the most despicable kinds of crime, namely sexual abuse, and even worse, sexual abuse involving children.

To ensure that the people at home, who are civic-minded enough to watch CPAC, can follow my speech, I would like to specify that I am speaking to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

We are currently at second reading stage of this bill. It was introduced by the government and will be supported by the NDP. I believe the Liberals will also be supporting it. It seems pretty clear, then, that this bill will be supported by an overwhelming majority of members in the House at second reading. Again for the people at home, this means that the bill will be sent to committee, where it can be analyzed, and hopefully, perhaps even improved, if there is any good faith on the part of the governing party, which has a majority.

Before I talk about all kinds of considerations, I want to be very clear: the NDP has zero tolerance for sex offences, and especially for sex offences involving minors. I want to be crystal clear on that, as we have been somewhat frustrated in the past regarding the level of debate on these issues on the part of our colleagues across the aisle.

I will give a brief overview of a few of the points in Bill C-26, just to make sure we all understand what we are dealing with here. The bill increases existing mandatory minimum penalties and the maximum penalties for sexual offences against children. It also increases maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders and peace bonds.

Obviously, the main point of this bill is to increase sentences. Now I am going to take a critical look at the bill. Again, it is very important. I am the father of young children, including a five-year-old little girl. I want all Canadians and my colleagues opposite to understand that if anyone were to hurt my little girl, I would turn into an angry bear, as any father in the country would. Nonetheless, we live in a society governed by the rule of law, and even faced with this obligation to legislate on sentencing for sexual offences against children, we must be able to have an intelligent debate.

A question comes to mind right away when we talk about increasing sentences. The debate has been public for a few days. I wonder what the repercussions will be for our provincial partners, who will end up with larger prison populations. Across Canada, provincial prisons have seen increases of 10%, 12% or 15% in the number of prisoners, and that is because of all the increased minimum sentences imposed by the current government.

Never mind determining which minimum sentences were logical and justified and which ones were not. As a matter of principle, we think that the provincial partners should not be left to deal with the problems caused by federal legislation. That is a problem in and of itself. At third reading—the stage that makes the bill—even if everyone agrees, this type of problem will one day have to be taken into consideration by this Parliament, and above all by the party that is in power, at least for another 10 months or so.

I noted another point in Bill C-26. It seeks to ensure that a court that imposes a sentence must take into consideration evidence that the offence in question was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order or released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence.

Too many cases of potential reoffenders have been documented fairly regularly in television reports. These were people who had served fairly long sentences and failed to meet requirements such as staying away from children’s playgrounds. That is an example of a fundamental aspect of the bill. We have to think about it and see if we can improve the situation.

Bill C-26 is based almost totally on a repressive approach. Unfortunately, that is not enough. We also have to ask ourselves how we can contribute to the much broader aspect of prevention, which is essential and an absolute priority.

The Minister of Justice himself admitted that there has been an increase, estimated at 6% over the last two years, in sex offences specifically against children. If I rely on the figures, and if I correctly understand the proportions, that means that dozens of families—parents, fathers, mothers and children—have had their lives affected and terribly damaged by the behaviour of a pedophile predator.

Suppose an individual has abused a six-year-old girl. Admittedly, being able to tell the girl’s mother that he will go to prison not for seven years, but for nine, because of the changes made by the government, may be a form of consolation. However, the only true consolation that should exist in such a horrific scenario is to be able to tell the parents that the person was going to act out against their child, but the resources put in place prevented him from acting out and their child was not abused. That is the only scenario in which we should invest a maximum of resources as a priority, because that is the only scenario for the population of Canada as a whole. I hope I am making myself understood.

I am therefore not opposed to every form of minimum sentence. In some cases, if competent people believe that harsher sentences are required, then I agree. The only thing that counts, however, is to take early action and have a maximum of resources available in the field so that we can tell parents that the worst thing that could happen to their child did not occur. When the worst has happened, it is not a true consolation to families experiencing such trauma to tell them that now that the worst has happened, the offender will spend 12 months longer in prison than if he had been sentenced two years ago.

This leads me to discuss the near-failure of the policies of the last six years, which have followed a tough-on-crime approach in greatly increasing sentences. We are therefore facing two problems: there is nonetheless an increase in the number of children being abused and in the number of people serving long prison sentences, and our provincial partners are going to be short of funding to manage it all.

In committee, our colleagues across the aisle will have to convince us that the path we are on will not add to our social problems, but help decrease such problems. For example, legislative measures have been used in the past six years to increase surveillance. However, we cannot discuss surveillance unless we can ensure that the RCMP and other police forces have the resources they need to do their work.

The government should not take $650,000 away from Correctional Service Canada as it has done, because CSC has been getting results, although they are imperfect. However, these situations are completely imperfect, involving criminals and sick people who commit the most awful acts. Still, if the resources provided make it possible to prevent just five offenders from reoffending, that is a step forward. I do not sympathize with those who reoffend. As a father I have trouble feeling sympathy for someone who committed a revolting act 15, 20 or 30 years ago, even if he has served his time.

No, I am thinking of the victims. If five offenders do not reoffend, there are five fewer victims.

Minimum sentences are not the only thing for us to consider in this debate. We must also think about the essential resources needed to decrease the number of victims.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a little naive for the Conservatives to imagine that criminals are more or less normal people who do a cost-benefit analysis of their actions and consider the severity of the sentence they could face.

Obviously, when a human being gets to the point of committing such monstrous acts, he certainly is not thinking about the consequences. We could put him in prison for 100 years and he would still be just as crazy at the end of the sentence. It will change absolutely nothing.