Now, I wasn't a member of the committee in the last Parliament, but I am a member of the Justice Committee in this Parliament. One of the things that has been highlighted by many of the speakers on our side of the House this evening is that once you remove what really was one of the fundamental proposals in the member's bill—which was mandatory sentencing—it really doesn't leave much to achieve in terms of this. Why is that? The other side would have you believe that we don't want to support our first responders at all—right? But we actually already have legislative provisions to be able to weigh that into the consideration of sentencing, and the appropriate people to do that are the judges. They already have the ability to do that; they do not need this piece of legislation to give them the power and the ability to do that. That already exists. When you take one of the main proposals out of the member's bill—which was around mandatory sentencing, which the other side also doesn't support—then it really doesn't leave much else. 