Thank you for being here today as a witness. We appreciate it.
We heard some testimony that a good number of the firearms that are used in offences in Ontario, specifically Toronto, are smuggled, so we know there's work to be done there. A good number of them are stolen.
Referring to what Mr. Comartin said, this bill does strike a good balance in that the government feels that if someone breaks into someone's cottage in a rural area and steals their hunting rifle, that is also a serious offence. I think this strikes a good balance between Canada's urban and rural realities.
There are two new provisions, robbery where a firearm is stolen and breaking and entering and stealing or intending to steal a firearm. We've heard evidence that this is a problem. Could you talk a bit about that aspect of the bill? To be clear, we've dealt with minimum sentences before. We have minimum sentences in the code. It was raised by Ms. Barnes that in the last election all parties represented here were calling for increased minimum sentences. We've introduced those sentences. They're proportional, we feel. They increase on subsequent offences.
I would like you to comment on those two offences. I'd like to hear how you feel for Ontario. I mean, whether it is rural Saskatchewan or Ontario, the Criminal Code applies everywhere, including Ontario. Breaking into anyone's home and stealing a firearm is I think equally serious whether you're in rural Canada or in urban Canada. I'd like your comment on that, but also on the proportionality that we feel we've built into this bill by increasing sentences on subsequent offences. As Chief Blair testified, there's a certain relatively small number of people who are committing these offences. When you focus on those individuals and you take them off the streets, there is a corresponding decrease in the crime that's committed in that area.
Would you comment on those two things, the incremental aspect and also the new provisions?