To react to what the other witnesses said, we are asking for somewhat the same thing, that is to say that sentences be proportional to the crime that was committed, which is not the case currently. When you condemn someone to 90 days in prison, I don't think that is proportional to the crime. That is the first thing we are asking for.
The second is the minimum sentence. What is the advantage of that? In Quebec, people are in favour of rehabilitation. I have nothing against those who are in favour of rehabilitation, but the courts tend to impose sentences that are much less severe, and to put offenders back into circulation more rapidly.
Many people are in favour of rehabilitation, but I don't know too many people who have taken in a recidivist pedophile. Personally, I would not be willing to do so. I say yes to rehabilitation. It is very important, but I think that by imposing minimum sentences we will send a signal to victims that we take the crime that was committed against them into account and that we don't simply want to ignore it, as is the case at the present time.