Mr. Rainville's case is interesting because he only spent a few months in prison for having tried to import approximately 250 replica Glock 17s. He was released from prison in July of this year.
My opinion hasn't changed: punishment is not the best way to discourage people from committing crimes. That said, we cannot soften our stance when it comes to people who import firearms or other dangerous goods that are a threat to public safety.
The increased maximum sentences are not necessarily a bad thing, but we have to wage a war on two fronts.
We should increase surveillance at the border in cooperation with the American authorities. That's what I'm currently working on. We have to work on both sides of the border to prevent firearms trafficking. We should improve surveillance by bringing in more human resources and increase sentences for firearms trafficking.
We also have to tackle the root causes of violence, as Dr. Langmann reminded us. Why are young men in our big Canadian cities getting guns? We could target these causes to reduce gun violence generally.
I'm now going to make a link with the question you asked me earlier.
It seems that in this forum, as well as in the media and in public discourse, we have imported the American way of discussing the issue of firearms. According to this way of looking at the issue, either we ban firearms, or we have a policy of intervention on the ground. But I say that we should do both; they are inextricably linked. We have to tackle the problem by repression and fight the root causes of firearm violence by working on prevention with those at risk of falling into a life of violence. We have to help the communities that need more resources. We could set up numerous programs.
So I think we need both, and not just one or the other. Obviously, there are budgetary considerations, but I...