Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hate going back to the past, but Mr. O'Toole raised a question and said we were overplaying our concerns. Being a pharmacist, I want to allay some of his concerns through you.
During the negotiations of 2012-13, there were certain key red lines in the U.S. negotiations. Some of the red lines were as follows:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There will be no dilution or diminishing of of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
Senator John Kerry made a comment, as follows:
This treaty reaffirms the sovereign right of each country to decide for itself, consistent with its own constitutional and legal requirements, how to deal with the conventional arms that are exclusively used within its borders.
On top of that, if you look at the Arms Trade Treaty in article 2, which goes with the scope, you'll see that it says, “This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories”. One of the principles is as follows: “Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State in accordance with Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations”.
Just out of curiosity, is that enough information to satisfy that domestic arms regulations in this country will not be affected?