We're talking about the mandatory minimums; we're not talking about up to remands. But you did bring up one of the problems that we'll probably be addressing later, and that is the impact of Askov in delays. When you have higher mandatory minimums without the discretion, you're probably going to have more trials. We've been told that from the evidence.
But I have only limited time, so one of the things I want to highlight to you is that under this bill as it's currently drafted...I'm going to give you the example a prosecutor gave to me, and I used it last spring and it still hasn't been adequately answered.
An individual commits robbery, for example, at the corner store, while armed with a fully loaded long gun. This individual has a lengthy record, including numerous prior convictions for other firearms-related offences. Under proposed subparagraph 344(1)(a)(i), this individual faces a mandatory minimum of four years. I'm going to contrast that with another individual who commits a robbery but is armed with an unloaded handgun, not a long gun this time. This individual, unlike the other, is a first-time offender with no criminal record, and under proposed paragraph 344(1)(a), this person now faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. You could take that robbery and switch it in with sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, or extortion, with the same result. We have a discrepancy of a year.
Do you agree with those discrepancies? We're talking about an unloaded handgun, with a first-time offender getting a mandatory minimum of five years, versus a loaded long gun, with the offender, having a lengthy record, getting four years.
Do you see any sense in this?