In terms of your first question, the minister was very generous in his remarks. I really don't know everything.
I do know and can tell you that when you do look at the mandatory minimum penalties that may be imposed for different offences in other countries, you will see differences. In the United States, it's not a secret that there are definitely higher mandatory minimum penalties and higher maximum penalties for many offences.
Let's take one offence—child pornography, for example, because I believe the comments by the witness were to do with that. If we look at the United Kingdom's approach to child pornography, their maximum penalty generally is ten years, with no mandatory minimum penalty. In France you have a range of maximum penalties as well, but no minimum penalties. In Australia, you have a range of penalties as well. Ten years is the common mark for many of them, but there are no minimum penalties. If you look at the United States, at the federal level, where they can deal with interstate criminal law powers, it's true that they have some offences that provide for—for example, in pornography using the mails—a mandatory minimum penalty of five years and a maximum of twenty years.
So there is a different approach for all the countries. The approach that you see reflected in the bill, as the minister has said, reflects the Canadian context and the intention to bring some consistency across the board to all of the offences in which a child is a victim.
I believe the second part was really more of a commentary, rather than asking me to comment on a reordering of the code.
Was there a question that you...?