Exactly. And I think this was the concern I had with the NDP proposal for the mandatory minimum of four years, without concern about what type of firearm offence it was, and the Liberal mandatory minimum of eight years. In my opinion, that ran into some serious proportionality problems. So what we have done is targeted very specifically eight serious use offences.
As you will recall in the Smith case, the potential was that a person could bring one joint of marijuana across the border and therefore be subjected to seven years. It wasn't that importing a pound of marijuana wouldn't attract seven years in an appropriate fashion. It was the potential for the one joint to give seven years, and there was no proportionality in that, much like the Liberal approach of just saying eight years. So what we've done is to say on a first offence, five years, because that is consistent with I think the Supreme Court of Canada decisions regarding mandatory minimum prison sentences for serious use offences--again, very specific crimes--and some of the other mandatory minimums, a one-year mandatory minimum for the break and enter and the stealing of the firearm. With respect to the non-use in trafficking or smuggling, it would be three years. Again, it's proportionate to the type of crime we're dealing with.
So the legal analysis in this case I think is quite solid, whereas the Liberal approach of simply saying whoever you are, you're getting eight years for a firearms offence, would have been struck down quite quickly on the basis of the Smith case. But in this kind of situation, the department has done the analysis of the existing case law to ensure that the response is proportionate to the initial crime and then built on that.