Yes, it does. It applies in a specific context, in the context of gang activity. What we're trying to focus on here is gang-related activity. A person using a shotgun, for example, in the context of a gang-related activity, would attract these new mandatory minimum penalties, so would using restricted or prohibited firearms. It does not apply to the long guns in the kinds of situations for which Mr. Bagnell wanted to raise the mandatory minimums to eight years. If an aboriginal hunter got into a fight with somebody and used a long gun to wound somebody, that wouldn't trigger the new mandatory minimum penalties. We feel that Mr. Bagnell's approach of the eight years' mandatory for an aboriginal hunter would not be appropriate in that circumstance. You could see that the firearms, whether they're restricted, prohibited, or long gun, are in the context of a gang-related activity. That addresses, then, also, Mr. Easter, the issue of the concern about simply filling up prisons with people who shouldn't be there for as long a period of time. It's very targeted, rather than a blanket mandatory minimum.
On November 7th, 2006. See this statement in context.