The amendment is relatively straightforward. It proposes to remove the mandatory minimum penalty scheme. How that would fit more broadly in the Criminal Code is that it would create somewhat of a disconnect with what currently exists.
As Monsieur Lemay already pointed out, there are a number of offences involving the use of firearms where mandatory minimums apply; for example, attempted murder, sexual assault with a weapon, etc. By removing the mandatory minimum, as the amendment proposes, you would have a serious offence involving a firearm that doesn't have a mandatory minimum. If you juxtapose that with the existing Criminal Code offences that do have mandatory minimums, there is somewhat of an inconsistency in its application and perhaps most clearly when one compares it to section 244, the existing offence, which this offence is modelled on.
Section 244, as I've already said, requires proof that a person intentionally discharged their firearm with the specific intent to cause bodily harm. That's the highest level of proof that's required, evidence that's required, of an investigator. This offence is somewhat slightly below that, where you can't prove that specific intent where the person consciously appreciates the fact that what they're about to do is going to put somebody's life at risk and they go ahead and do it anyway. It's slightly less onerous, or perhaps not onerous but slightly less standard from a mens rea requirement, and so you'd have on the one hand an offence with a mandatory minimum and on the other hand an offence without one.