Bud Sambasivam

Is Canada Discouraging Good Teachers?

2012-12-15T00:15:40-05:00

Imagine this. A three-year-old child is seated in a room with a Smarties box on the table in front of her. When asked what she thinks is in the box, she replies "Smarties", of course. But when she opens the box she finds pencil crayons.

Now picture an adult, John, entering the room. The child is asked, "What do you think John thinks is in the box?" The child answers "pencil crayons."

Why does the girl project her insight onto John? Why does she assume that John sees it the same way? It's known as the curse of knowledge. Once you learn something, it's difficult to imagine how someone might not see things in the same way as you.

A great teacher has the gift of seeing how students still see the Smarties and the patience to show him otherwise. A great teacher can hold a student's hand and take them on a journey of understanding: from Smarties to pencil crayons.

Do you remember your favourite teacher? I bet they found joy in seeing students undergo this transformation. The best teachers see a little miracle happening, every time.

Many university professors are great teachers. Many are not. I'm baffled that those who are great teachers are saddled with research. And those who are great researchers are saddled with teaching. More importantly, why do universities saddle students with these subpar teachers?

Some argue that professors must be able to do both. Yet, professors at Canadian Universities are generally promoted based primarily on their research abilities -- on how many publications they get, and how much research money they bring to the university. Teaching is only superficially acknowledged as important. You can become a full professor if you're a cutting-edge research and a lousy teacher. But the opposite does not hold.

Canadian universities should hire teaching professors and research professors. The teaching professors should not be graduate students hired as lecturers. Rather, teaching professors should be separate tenure-track positions. Equally emphasizing teaching with researching in Canada's publicly-funded university system is what tax payers expect. We want our sons and daughters to learn.

Some say teachers should bring their research into the classroom. This is important in graduate level classes, where the students themselves are conducting research and are on the cutting edge in a given discipline. However, for an undergraduate student learning Chemistry 201, they really need someone who excels at teaching. They don't need someone to bring cutting-edge chemistry research into class. It will only further confuse things.

Some of the weakest professors I had could not understand how I, as a budding engineer, could not comprehend the laws of physics. They did not have the patience to take me on the journey from Smarties to pencil crayons. They did not have the imagination to do it in a creative way. They belonged in a laboratory discovering new things, not in a classroom forced to teach.

At my school of engineering we had two professors who taught the same subject. One brought in millions of dollars to the university from research grants, attracted top graduate students from around the world, and ran a world-class laboratory. He was, however, a horrendous teacher.

The other had a twinkle in his eyes as he explained force, acceleration, and mass to a class of third-year engineering students. He loved to teach and we loved to learn with him. To every class he brought a yard stick and he'd use this simple device in imaginative ways. He'd spin it like a baton while explaining inertia in a fly-wheel or he'd bend it off the desk to explain a cantilever beam. He won several teaching awards. Despite being late in his career, he only ever achieved the level of "associate professor" -- never promoted to full professor because he lacked the research credentials.

What would happen if this associate professor only taught and the researcher spent more time in the lab? Students would learn more, and the university would have more publications and more research money.

If there were teaching professors, then they could be trained as teachers. Under the current system, professors receive no training as teachers. Just because they were once students, they won't necessarily become great teachers. Similarly, just because someone has had a lot of dental work doesn't guarantee he will become a great dentist.

For their part, research professors get excited with discovering pencil crayons in the box. However, once they find the pencils they want to go on to the next discovery. They don't want to explain the pencil crayons a million times to new students.

Teaching professors need to be nurtured, celebrated, and not saddled with research. Just as there are Canadian Research Chairs, so too there should be Canadian Teaching Chairs. Universities and funders need to create teaching professorships.

Hey Taxpayers, Guess Who Foots the Bill For Arctic Oil Spills?

2012-09-12T08:37:49-04:00

Last week the Canadian Government closed biding from oil companies to explore 905,000 hectares in the Arctic Ocean. The area is equivalent to 1.1 million football fields.

After 20 years of inactivity, a new wave of exploration is expected. In the wake of the 2010 BP Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, our government needs to make changes to our outdated liability regime. Currently, the Canadian taxpayer is liable for offshore oil spills in the Arctic. Our government needs to adhere to the polluter pays principle.

Under current law, the company is responsible for damages up to $40 million of absolute liability, regardless of fault or negligence. Beyond the $40 million, it is either Canadian taxpayers or the company paying, depending on fault.

Why are we providing public insurance -- and in the process, creating a moral hazard -- for oil companies? We do not provide public insurance for homeowners in the case of a fire, or car owners in the case of a motor vehicle accident. Individual Canadians buy insurance for these events.

The liability cap is paltry when compared to the $40 billion in damages caused by BP after the Gulf of Mexico disaster in April 2010. The damages are 1,000 times the current Canadian liability cap for offshore drilling under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act (COGOA).

"If a company with less financial means than BP had caused the Gulf of Mexico spill, the company would likely have declared bankruptcy long before paying anything close to the damages caused, regardless of fault," explains Will Amos, Director of the Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Ottawa. Amos says the situation in Canada is identical.

The auctioned leases are in the relatively shallow waters, most less than 500 metres, in the Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta, along the Yukon-Alaska border. The BP Horizon well was in 1,500 metres of water. The depth contributed to the agonizing 87 days it took to cap the well.

Although the Canadian parcels are relatively shallow, drilling in the arctic presents different challenges than the Gulf of Mexico. The Arctic is extremely cold, has long seasons of darkness, experiences hurricane-strength storms, and is regularly fog covered. Further, the remote location is thousands of kilometres from equipment and technical expertise. It took 87 days in the Gulf of Mexico, how long would it take in the Arctic?

These harsh conditions and the barely-existent offshore spill response infrastructure make a potential spill prolonged and costly to the underwriters -- the Canadian taxpayer.

Only one offshore well has been drilled in the Canadian Arctic in the past 20 years. While over 400 wells have been drilled and 65 fields discovered, drilling has been dormant since the 1980s, except for Devon's Paktoa C-60 well, drilled in the winter of 2005. The past is not necessarily indicative of the future, especially with the recent mineral auction.

On his annual trip to the Canadian Arctic in August, Prime Minister Harper rightly emphasized the importance of the region's economic development. He should also promote appropriate regulations to protect the Canadian taxpayer.

In an effort to encourage efficiency the federal government has streamlined environmental regulations, in favour of often duplicative provincial ones. But offshore drilling in the Canadian arctic is overseen exclusively by the federal government.

In the absence of provincial or territorial oversight, federal bodies need to take a leadership role. Thankfully they have. In December 2011 the NEB upheld the "same season relief well policy" despite pressure from industry. This policy is relevant for the Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta explorations leases, which are covered by some degrees of ice for eight to nine months each year. If needed, drilling a relief well must be possible before freeze-up occurs.

Upholding this rule is a good first step in lowering the risk of a prolonged sub-surface gusher, but by itself is inadequate in eliminating the liability placed on Canadian taxpayers. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) has been quietly considering liability reform for two years. NRCan needs to take action now and raise the absolute liability cap above $40 million.

The U.K. has raised their strict liability cap from $125 million to $250 million after the BP Horizon spill.

U.S. Congressional and Senate proposals have floated absolute liability caps between $300 million and $10 billion. The debate in the U.S. is not simply whether the absolute cap in the U.S. of $75 million should be raised, but if there should even be a limit.

There are concerns that this might exclude smaller independent firms from drilling offshore, and dampen competition and economic development. Finding a balance is important, but Canada needs to raise our cap above $40 million.

The federal government should also consider establishing a rainy day fund. After the Exxon Valdez spill U.S. President George H. W. Bush established the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is paid for by an excise tax on the oil industry, currently set at $0.08 per barrel. The fund can contribute up to $1 billion for any one incident.

Raising the cap and establishing a rainy day fund creates incentives for companies to reduce the risk of the drilling activity by paying closer attention to safety. These proposals eliminating the moral hazard by guaranteeing sufficient money is in place to cover damages caused by a potential blowout without forcing the taxpayer to shoulder the burden while.

The polluter pays is a principle of Canadian law. However, it is not enshrined in the existing offshore drilling regulations. As new exploration in the Canadian Arctic begins, the government must let industry bear the full risk of their activity by removing the public provision of insurance for oil spill liability.

Spanking Iran Won't Get Canada Far

2012-06-27T08:26:09-04:00

In advance of discussions in Moscow to dissuade Iran's nuclear ambitions, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird convened ambassadors in Ottawa from countries negotiating with Iran. In an ironic display of diplomatic wrangling, the Minister pressed for an aggressive stance against Iran.

The Moscow talks involve the P5+1 group: the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China -- plus Germany. On one side of the table we have the world's largest nuclear arsenals -- with 19,000 nuclear weapons -- telling Iran to stop its attempts to make one weapon.

The West's threat of military intervention in Iran is akin to spanking your child while yelling, "Don't hit others!" Instead of this "do what we say" patriarchal hypocrisy, Canada needs to influence its allies, including Israel, in a "do what we do" approach.

Canada began arming its weapons systems with nuclear warheads during the 1960s. The warheads were never in our sole possession as we had a dual-key agreement with the U.S. Nevertheless, by 1984 our military was again free of the atom. Then Prime Minster Trudeau declared that Canada was "the first nuclear-armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons."

What Minster Baird failed to do is hold up a mirror to our Western allies and press them to curtail their own nuclear programs. At the same time that these big boys are slapping Tehran with sanctions and threats of military intervention they are simultaneously planning on being armed for the indefinite future and modernizing their own nuclear capabilities (except for Germany, which remains unarmed).

How then can the P5+1 negotiate with Iran in good faith?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferations Treaty (NPT) has been the backbone of peace and security in the nuclear age. The countries represented in Moscow are all party to the NPT, which has three pillars: (1) nuclear states "cannot in any way assist, encourage, or induce" other states to acquire the weapon; (2) peaceful use of nuclear energy is guaranteed to signatories for civil nuclear purposes, and; (3) all states with the weapon are bound to fully disarm.

While the P5 have committed to complete disarmament, it is unlikely that the world will "go to zero" as it is hard to put the genie back in the lantern. Nonetheless, coming as close to this goal as possible is a noble pursuit and directionally correct.

Renewed every five years, the NPT has witnessed several undeniable wins. The bomb has not been used in over 65 years and there are several instances of countries which have dismantled their nuclear programs altogether, including: Canada, South Africa, Libya, Brazil, Argentina, and the Ukraine.

Ratified by 189 countries, the NPT is one of the most widely endorsed agreements in history. There are four notable and nuclear non-signatories of the NPT, including Israel.

Israel, led by hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu, has a clandestine nuclear arsenal of its own. The country has a policy of opacity with regards to its nuclear weaponry, but the best estimates peg the store between 100 and 200 warheads.

How can the West demand inspections of Iranian facilities and at the same be silent on Israel's secret stash?

Prime Minister Netanyahu has called for preemptive strikes against Iran, a threat in line with Israel's history of unilateral aggression toward Middle Eastern nations attempting to acquire nuclear weapons (i.e. Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007). Will Iran be struck next?

Iranian President Ahmadinejad insists his country is not pursuing nuclear weapons. It seems clear, however, that the country intends to be the 10th member of the atomic club and is using talks like the ones in Moscow to stall as it develops its nuclear capacity.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has warned that Iran has the required expertise and materials to build a bomb. It suspects that the country's nuclear program is for military purposes as Iran has not allowed inspectors into the country's primary research facilities, including Parchin and Fordow. Nor has Iran provided a satisfactory explanation as to why it needs highly enriched uranium (up to 20 per cent) when civil nuclear purposes require much lower concentrations (5 per cent range).

There is no doubt that Iran has to chart a new course on the heels of the Moscow talks. But Western leaders have their bit to do too.

Minister Baird: Canada -- as a non-nuclear state -- is in a unique position to help ease tensions by pressing for the great forgotten goal of a generation. Be bold. Ask for more from our allies, especially Israel. Lead our allies in a "do what we do" approach, and don't fixate solely on the actions of Iran.

Are Women More Ready Than Men to be Parents?

2012-05-28T08:03:31-04:00

"Are you ready for fatherhood?" my friend emailed me. "Feel free to answer yes, but then I will know you are either a fool or a liar!"

I read my friend's email to my wife, covering my soon-to-be-father nervousness with a chuckle. It's not like I shouldn't have seen it coming. Sarah is eight months pregnant.

But in that moment it hit me like a tonne of dirty diapers: Am I ready to be a father?

Last week I was a grad student living with roommates in Boston. This morning I woke up beside my pregnant wife in Toronto. We've been doing long-distance through the pregnancy. Now that we're finally reunited she seems a lot more pregnant. Little Peanut will come at some point in the distant future, I kept saying to myself.

The future is now, and Little Peanut is growing. Soon she'll be off to college. They grow up so quickly, I'm told.

When I moved back to Toronto and into our condo it was crawling with baby gear: pink onesies, cute little skirts, pampers, knitted tops and matching booties.

Standing in our bedroom, holding a breast-pump I wondered how this all happened so quickly. As a mechanical engineer, I also wondered how the gadget worked. Pumping the handle and feeling a gentle suction against my chin our relationship flashed before my eyes.

* * *

We met in Mr. Holm's biology class in high school. We went to prom together. Except for two dating sabbaticals in university, we have been co-pilots ever since Gr. 12 (14 years ago). She's my girl. And I'm her guy.

As undergrads we had a brush with babyhood.

"I'm late," Sarah said on the phone during final exams period. "What do you mean you're late? You're a metronome. How late?" I asked. "About a week," she replied after a guilty pause. I spent the final days of my final exams fretting. How could this have happened? How am I going to support a baby? I'm screwed. After our last exam we met in the university common area where she gave me a big hug, whispering "I've got my period. I must have been late because of exam stress."

Are you ever ready to be a parent? Is there ever an ideal time to start a family?

In that parallel life, Little Peanut would be a 10-year-old. Surely as a 31-year-old I'm more prepared now to be a dad than when I was 21, but for some reason, I feel as ill-equipped.

Like many of our DINKS (dual-income-no-kids) peers, we put off having babies through our 20s. We were too busy having fun: travelling, moving cities, changing careers, and exploring together. We retired before we retired -- freedom 25.

On two occasions during this time we had written-off kids altogether. The first time was sipping care-free margaritas in hammocks somewhere tropical. Kids would certainly cramp our lifestyle, we thought. The second time was somewhere in a developing country where we concluded that humanity is unjust, overpopulated, and has already seen its best days. Why bring a kid into this crazy world?

Eventually, these feelings faded and we got more excited about being hypothetical parents and shifting from a couple to a hypothetical family.

Sarah's ovaries joined our Saturday morning lattés when she hit 30. Lacking in vocabulary, but clear in message, they cried one word, "BABY!" I took notice and wondered if women were naturally more ready to be parents than their male partners, or did they just feel more pressure because of the incessant tick-tock of their biological clock?

Sarah's talking ovaries and ticking-clock solicited my understanding. She works at a medical information center and brought home a stack of peer-reviewed medical literature on talking ovaries, from which I learned four things.

First, the average Canadian woman gives birth to her first born when she is 29 years old, which is older than I anticipated. Second, because of Western medicine, the risk to a pregnant woman in her mid-30s is only somewhat increased. Third, the health risks to the child increases if the mom is beyond her mid-30s. Finally, a woman's fertility rates decline beyond her mid-30s.

We "pulled the goalie" last August hoping to be pregnant soon...with one catch. I moved to Boston to start grad school and Sarah kept her trendy lifestyle in Toronto. We planned our visits around her fertility cycle and on her second conjugal visit to Boston we scored a goal!

Feeling Little Peanut's first kicks was like watching a meteor shower or the northern lights. I was never sure if there'd be more action, but each flash was magical, and put a smile on our faces. So did the 150 beats per minute of her little heart that we heard through the fetal Doppler. Despite the long-distance, it's been absolutely magical!

I'd be a fool and a liar to say that I'm ready for Little Peanut, but is anyone ever ready for parenthood, really? I'm confident that my co-pilot and I will manage fine with our new passenger. But it would be helpful to have some tips from the veteran pilots out there!

This Climate's Not Changing Fast Enough for Us to Care

2012-05-08T17:00:52-04:00

"Although the federal government has begun to lower greenhouse gas emissions, right now the reductions are not happening fast enough to meet the 2020 target," Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan said in a report tabled in the House of Commons, according to the Canadian Press.

Shortly after Minister of the Environment Peter Kent announced that Canada was abandoning our goals under the Kyoto Protocol, he told us that Canada is "absolutely" behind the "Copenhagen commitment of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020" despite leaving behind the more aggressive Kyoto target.

However, several studies indicate that this goal will not be met either. Canada 2020, a non-partisan Ottawa based organization, recently published a report stating that "there is almost no possibility of meeting the 2020 target without significant supplementary action."

It's clear that national leadership in GHG regulation, harmonizing the patchwork of provincial efforts, is required.

Several provinces have implemented policies to internalize the cost of GHGs. Alberta was the first to price carbon and focus on large industrial emitters that either trade emission permits above their allocation or pay $15 / tonne of CO2 into a technology fund to spur innovation.

More recently, British Columbia has implemented a carbon tax on fuels, equivalent to $30 / tonne and plans to recycle the revenues by reducing taxes for low income people and small business. Quebec, Ontario and other provinces are proposing similar policy instruments with the goal of internalizing the lifecycle cost of pollutants into goods.

Joseph Aldy, an environmental economist and professor at Harvard who worked on climate policy in the White House, believes these provincial efforts are positive developments, allowing Canada to test various policy instruments which may eventually lead to the development of a national approach.

He points out, however, that the fragmented provincial approach complicates international cooperation with other countries or regions, such as the U.S. or the EU. Although some Canadian provinces and U.S. states have been cooperating -- Quebec and California intend to link cap-and-trade systems -- country level bilateral agreements required federal leadership. Take Europe, for example, where 27 countries all coordinate under one cap-and-trade system called the European Union Emission Trading Scheme.

Aldy believes that if a country pulls out of one international agreement like Kyoto, only to make a commitment in another (like Copenhagen/Cancun), and does not have a credible plan for reaching the latter commitment, then it could face some domestic and international pressure.

U.S. President George Bush faced a similar situation in 2001 when he decided not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Instead the administration announced less aggressive targets to be achieved through a GHG registry and tax credits to incentivize clean-technology such as carbon capture and low emission vehicles.

Minister Kent has his own plan involving industry-by-industry abatement efforts rather than a Canada-wide approach. The most significant reductions from his plan originate in the electric utilities sector where Minister Kent plans on slowly phasing out dirty coal plants.

The current federal plan, even when combined with the provincial efforts, is sadly short of Minister Kent's Copenhagen goal. And he knows it but still espouses commitment to the goal.

Provincial climate legislation is economically inefficient when compared to a unified federal approach. The patchwork of provincial regulation creates barriers to investing in the most cost-effective national portfolio of GHG abatement projects.

The provinces -- each with different marginal cost of GHG abatement -- naturally focus on opportunities at home, even if it might be cheaper to abate a tonne of carbon in a neighboring province.

As a result, Canadians are paying more than they have to reduce emissions. National leadership creates the cheapest approach to climate change.

Provincial climate regulation produces duplicative staff in local ministries and is administratively more expensive and burdensome to implement than a coordinated effort. Therefore, the federal government should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction over the environment to increase administrative efficiency.

The patchwork approach is also more onerous on companies that have to report emissions, manage credits or pay taxes, and be abreast on emission regulations in every Canadian jurisdiction where they operate. These administrative burdens disappear with harmonized federal leadership.

Also, the disparity across provinces may cause industry to relocate to provinces with the most relaxed pollution regulation, causing a race to the bottom and concentrating polluting industries.

While Minister Kent has a strong incentive to coordinate a national approach, he may lack the political and public support. Climate change lacks urgency. Everyday Canadians are not threatened by the negative impacts of climate change in the same way that baby boomers are immediately concerned with old age pension. At its core, climate change is a problem beyond the next election cycle and involves not just Canadians, but people around the world. This is precisely why leadership is needed.

Minister Kent has been quick to downplay Canada's role in global climate change, saying he regularly reminds Canadians that the country "contributes less than two percent annually of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions." In the same breath he should have mentioned that we are also the third largest polluter per capita and a top-ten polluter in absolute numbers.

It's unlikely that Kent will be the Minister of the Environment in 2020, when his Copenhagen commitment will best be judged. However, knowing that the current federal and provincial efforts are insufficient, we can safely evaluate his performance today by his willingness to coordinate a national approach to climate regulation during his tenure.

Why Jailing my Sex Abuser Won't Help

2012-05-01T07:39:45-04:00

I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. From the time I was 11 until 16 years old, a family friend trapped me in prolonged abuse. Over the last 15 years I have disclosed the abuse to my family and friends, sought many hours of counseling, and this past Christmas Eve reported the assaults to the police, who are currently investigating.

UPDATE: The police have finished their investigation. Last week my perpetrator was charged with five counts of sexual assault and appeared in a Saskatoon courtroom.

Last month, Graham James was convicted of sexually assaulting Theoren Fleury and Todd Holt in the 1980s and 1990s when they played for him in the Western Hockey League. The two-year sentence handed to James by the provincial court is being appealed by the Manitoba Department of Justice.

These events have sparked a heated debate in our country, toward which I have mixed feelings. James' publicity helps shine a light on how we can overcome this social ill, but that these debates are largely fueled by retribution saddens me.

There is too much emphasis on the need for tough sentences, and not enough focus on two equally important areas: victim services and offender rehabilitation.

"There is no sentence this court can impose that will give back to Holt and Fleury that which was taken by James," said Judge Catherine Carlson said during sentencing. She is right.

Three weeks ago I submitted my victim impact statement to the police and shared it with my friends and family. One friend wrote "I suspect my instinct to tar, feather, and execute may not be the most helpful response." He is also right.

An eye for an eye leaves victims without services and offenders without rehabilitation. Let's shift our attention.

Imagine a group of 100 kids who were abused as children. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, it's estimated that at best 10 of these kids will report their abuser to the police, and that five will see their abuser tried and convicted in court. What about the 90 kids who never report? Or the 95 kids who never see a conviction? Justice or not, all victims need access to services.

Depending on the province there are varying levels of support for victims. In Ontario, an individual who is actively bringing a case against an abuser or has obtained a conviction can use the Ontario Victims Services Secretariat. But this leaves 90 of 100 kids without help. By contrast, the Saskatchewan Association of Sexual Assault Services has a network of organizations that offer services to all victims in the province.

I have paid thousands of dollars for professional help. My counselor in Toronto charges $150 per session. I am fortunate to have private insurance to cover some of the cost and an income to pay for the rest, but many are not as fortunate.

It's essential that all survivors, regardless of where they live, have access to the professional help they need to live a full and healthy life.

Unless abusers die in prison, they will eventually be released. Locking them up forever is one solution, but it's unrealistic. According to Canada's Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview it costs $110,000 per year to keep a male inmate locked up in a Federal Penitentiary. That's $220,000 for Graham James' most recent conviction.

How much are we spending on his rehabilitation?

During James' 1997 prison spell -- 18 months for abusing former NHLer Sheldon Kennedy -- he received 32 hours of rehabilitation. If his treatment costs $150 per hour, then we spent only $4,800 for his rehabilitation. This is paltry when compared to the costs of his incarceration.

While convicted abusers are likely to reoffend (based on academic papers and interviews I've conducted with criminal lawyers and counselors, the average abuser has between 30 and 150 victims), we know that ongoing professional rehabilitation is the key to lowering the risk of re-offence.

The Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, also known as Bill C-54, proposes modifications to the Criminal Code of Canada. If passed, the bill will increase the current mandatory minimum sentences (MMS) for child abusers.

Supporters argue that increased MMS will help communicate social disapproval, deter offenders, and prevent future crime from occurring by removing the convicted offender from society. Unless we are going to find and jail every child molester for life, I suggest we start pressing our government for a serious rehabilitation program for convicted abusers.

Given the choice, I would rather see my abuser serve the current MMS of 45 days, freeing up tens of thousands of dollars otherwise spent on his incarceration on his rehabilitation (both in prison and after release), over simply serving the proposed increased MMS of one year and being released without any rehab.

Bill C-54 does not go far enough. It does absolutely nothing to provide help for those suffering in silence with the pain of past abuse nor does it impose minimum rehabilitation standards for abusers. It's a rare occasion when politicians listen. But listening they are. The public has been calling for mandatory minimum sentences for child molesters and the politicians have responded accordingly.

Normally I would say this is a good thing. However, in this case we've hit the bullseye on one target and left two other important targets untouched.

Next time you catch yourself ranting about the absurdly low penalties for childhood sexual abusers, be sure to heap some scorn on the lack of victim support and offender rehabilitation. While you're at it, contact your MP about the short-comings of Bill C-54.