Yes, and I wanted to get to that actually. So the training, screening, and licensing are the cornerstones of it, but as a police officer, wouldn't you be concerned about the proliferation of firearms? Wouldn't you be concerned about the smuggling of firearms? Wouldn't you be concerned about all sorts of firearms in use throughout the country? Wouldn't that be a cornerstone of public safety when it comes to firearms?
Training is for those who seek it. Licensing and public education are also for those who seek it. These are useful, but if you're saying you'd ignore the other aspects of enforcement and proliferation, the present legislation--and I assume that you read it--says that a person may transfer a firearm that's neither prohibited nor restricted if the transferee holds a licence. There's no mechanism for enforcement. In fact, if one actually voluntarily goes to the registrar to see whether there's any particular issues with respect to the proposed licensee, there's a provision that says that “neither the Registrar or his or her delegate nor a designated person shall retain any record of a request made under subsection (1)”.
So it seems that this legislation is designed to ensure that firearms can be transferred without being traced, without being tracked. They can go anywhere. Even though there's a voluntary requirement here, there's no mechanism to enforce it, and we're talking about this ability with regard to unrestricted and not prohibited firearms, including semi-automatics and sawed-off shotguns that are manufactured as sawed-off shotguns. In other words, they're not manufactured big and cut short.
These can proliferate without any restriction whatsoever. In your opinion, that's okay because licensing, training, and public education are really all that's necessary.