Thank you.
I would dispute any poll or any survey that says a majority of Canadians favour this long-gun registry. But I think that really misses the point. We heard a whole pile of surveys last week. One of the members says that long guns are the most frequently used weapon when police officers are murdered, and Mr. MacKenzie disputes that. Another member from that side says that long guns are the most frequently used weapon of choice in domestic violence, and Mrs. Glover disputes that. Mr. Comartin says that 66% or 65% or 63%--I can't remember, it was in the sixties--of Canadians favour the long-gun registry, and the chair says 75% of Canadians don't.
I must say, the only person who really made sense last week on the other side of the table was Mr. Kania, who wants to come to this issue with an open mind. But an open mind is premised on listening to the debate. We obviously have different data. We have all these surveys. They all have different results. Nobody knows the methodology, how many people were asked.
As a result, we need to get to the bottom of this issue. We need to have a full, fair, and balanced debate. And a full, fair, and balanced debate, ladies and gentlemen, means two things: number one, there's equity in the witness list, but more importantly, one side doesn't get to dictate who the other side's witnesses are.
Mr. Comartin and I know each other reasonably well; we work together on another committee. And I was absolutely shocked and chagrined by one of his comments last Thursday. He said that because almost two-thirds of the people of Canada support the long-gun registry, two-thirds of the witnesses ought to come from that side of the table. Keeping the veracity of his survey aside, because I don't know where he was quoting from, or if he was making it up, but that aside--