Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To begin, I'd like to say that I'm happy to see that the witnesses in the group here today are francophones. Personally, I find that very refreshing and very pleasant. I am also pleased that my anglophone colleagues are getting a chance to hear a bit of French at this committee.
With that said, I thought the testimony was interesting on a number of points. Ms. Samson brought a very different perspective from Ms. Desrosiers', Mr. Cotonnec's and Mr. Henry's. It will certainly give us something to think about.
Ms. Desrosiers, my first question is for you.
Based on all the testimony, that is, the testimony we have heard today and from the witnesses who appeared earlier, there are many people who have major concerns.
As well, if we read the papers, we realize that the public as a whole has concerns about the increase in the number of crimes committed with firearms. Personally, I'm very worried about this increase.
I agree that instituting minimum sentences or increasing minimum prison terms is not the way to solve the problem; the opposite is true. I tend to agree with certain witnesses that it could even complicate things.
However, we are not here to judge; we are here as legislators. We have a responsibility to meet the public's needs.
Ms. Samson, a former mayor of the borough of Villeray—Saint-Michel—Parc-Extension in Montreal, shared her concerns about young people handling firearms and even being able to buy them on Instagram. It is also absolutely unbelievable that five-year-old children are mixed up in drug trafficking in schoolyards.
Yes, minimum sentences don't apply to them, but if we decide to abolish minimum sentences for certain offences, that sends the public a message that may not be the message we want to send.
In my opinion, no member wants to tell the public that handling firearms is no big deal. Everybody believes it's serious, particularly in the case of prohibited firearms.
Are there no alternatives?
Are we not a bit too locked into the reasoning that you have to be either for minimum sentences or against?
Is there no solution that would allow us to reassure the public, or at least confirm that we aren't indifferent and we are concerned about these types of offences, while allowing the courts the latitude they need to make the appropriate decisions?