Thank you, Chair.
I think it's a fine idea to require that classifications be reviewed every two years. I think, as in all aspects of society, technology is changing. New kinds of weapons are being developed and hitting the market all the time. How could we not require, when we're talking about something as dangerous as a weapon, that there be some second-guessing every couple of years, that it be required that the government show that it's tracking what's going on in the market?
We've heard a lot during these hearings about dads and moms who want to teach their sons and daughters about longstanding family and community traditions of hunting. Very few people quarrel with that. We all respect that different parts of the country have different traditions. But what we're seeing, Chair, in this day and age is that the demographics of gun ownership are changing.
I would like to quote from an article written by Jeff Davis in the Edmonton Journal of October 26. I'll quote verbatim here:
The consumer tastes of Canadian gun owners are fast changing, as shooters eschew vintage hunting rifles in favour of the latest "tacti-cool" military-style weapons—many of which appear in movies and popular video games, such as Call of Duty. As a new generation of young men become interested in shooting, but not hunting, retailers are trying to meet the growing demand for sleek firearms. Canadian authorities, meanwhile, facing the repeal of the long-gun registry by the federal government, are worried about the trend.
That's what really came to mind when I saw the very useful photographs that Mr. Cullen showed us. These are obviously not gopher guns. They're not meant to protect farms from rodents, including gophers. One can't imagine what these would be used for in the daily conduct of a farming business, Chair.
Now, the demographics are changing. We don't understand the new demographics of gun ownership. Perhaps these individuals are no different in their attitudes and comportment from legitimate hunters and farmers, but we just don't know. We haven't done the research on this.
That's why I think it's important that we review gun classification every couple of years, because those who manufacture guns, those who work on modifying guns, are always a step ahead. It's not just in terms of the gun market; it's in terms of everything. We've seen, for example, that the RCMP changed its mind not long ago. It allowed the Norinco Type 97 rifle to be imported and sold as a non-restricted weapon. About 50 were sold, up until the point where the RCMP discovered that maybe it needed to reclassify this gun, which is what it did. It reclassified the Norinco Type 97 as a prohibited weapon. As a result, the RCMP took the step of sending letters to 50 owners who had bought these guns and asking them to turn the guns in to their local police stations.
If we don't have the registry, I don't know where we're going to send the letters. If retailers aren't required to keep records, I don't know where we're going to send the letters, Chair.
The point I'm trying to make here is that gun classification is not an exact science. I've used this term before. We're not talking about space science here. This is a very crude and inexact science, so gun reclassification can happen, and should happen, from time to time.
If we don't amend the bill to include the NDP's well-motivated amendment, I would suspect that the RCMP would feel discouraged. There would be a disincentive. They'd say that nobody really cares about reclassifying firearms, so why should they go to the trouble of researching the situation, of researching firearms, and reclassifying them? It's not a priority for the government. They don't think they need to ever really reclassify firearms. Besides, we're facing budget constraints because of recession budgets. We should be spending our money on something else rather than looking at reclassifying a firearm.
So I think this amendment is a good one. It would send a signal to the RCMP and to others that reclassification is an ongoing matter and that reclassification will be required in going forward, just as a fact of life.
I applaud the honourable member for bringing this amendment, and I will be voting for it.