I'd like to make a point on that, then. Oftentimes it is an individual case that captures people's attention, and sometimes it takes that happening to capture people's attention. But if there's a situation where that's preventable.... We've heard testimony about people who are arrested, have a firearm on them, are given bail, are back on the street, and are arrested again with a firearm. That's a problem. It's a problem in Toronto, and it's a problem elsewhere.
I think we all recognize around this table that whatever we do here, whatever we do with this bill, the Criminal Code is going to apply across the country, as far as the provisions dealing with break and enter to steal a firearm go. I'm of the opinion that whether you break into someone's apartment in Toronto and steal a firearm or break into their cabin in rural New Brunswick and steal their firearm, it's still a serious offence. It should be treated differently from how breaking in and stealing someone's guitar is treated. Stealing a firearm puts that legally owned firearm onto the street, and potentially into use to commit a criminal offence.
We realize that this is going to apply to everyone. That's why I think there is a balance to it.
There have been other suggestions that we should have had an across-the-board increase in mandatory minimums. What this bill specifically does is target gang violence and handgun violence. It does have an escalating factor. Through some of the testimony we heard here today, people asked why there should be a greater sentence for the second offence, and greater still for the third. What happens if someone commits three offences at once? Ms. Barnes used the example of someone holding up a store with an unloaded handgun. Chief Blair said that in all of his experience, he's never heard of anyone holding up a store with an unloaded gun.
We can always point to some absurd circumstance or the exception, but generally we feel that those who show a pattern of recidivism have to be treated more seriously. Do you agree with that? If someone shows that they continually reoffend, and even after they've served their time they're back out and offend again, shouldn't they be treated more seriously?