Mr. Speaker, frankly, I find that response disturbing. Just to paraphrase, she said that she thought Mr. Cadman would prefer that we took the notion that was in his bill, and we took what we could out of it and we turned it into something else.
I find that quite disturbing because Mr. Cadman was very concerned about these issues. These issues are what motivated him to run for office and come to the House. He wanted real change. What we have coming back is smoke and mirrors. It takes the names of the issues that he addressed but it completely neuters them by providing loopholes big enough that a judge has all kinds of latitude in providing any kind of sentencing.
When we talk about mandatory sentences being lifelong, not mandatory but they could be as long as that, it is meaningless unless there are minimum sentences. Chuck's bill was very specific about having minimum consequences that were real consequences and measurable consequences, not maybe consequences. He called for mandatory minimum sentences. He called for mandatory prohibitions and those prohibitions and consequences got more severe for repeat offenders.
I know Chuck's family is not happy with Chuck's name being attached to this. They are not happy with the substitute that the governing party has put in Mr. Cadman's name. His former campaign manager who knew him very well and knew his heart on these issues has called this a misrepresentation of Chuck's intent on these issues.
I think many of us on this side, who have seen over and over again the failed action on child pornography, the failed action on age of consent and the failed action on the gun registry that purports to take away duck hunters' and recreational hunters' rights instead of clamping down on the criminals who break the law, are upset, as are many other people, and members of Mr. Cadman's family have indicated their displeasure.
I do not know what it is about this issue that our Liberal colleagues do not understand when they take the name of an issue and then come up with a completely different strategy that gives a fuzz to it that is not a specific response. What is it about this that our colleagues fail to understand?