Thank you very much.
To the OFAH, in fact to all of you but particularly to the OFAH, I represent an urban-based riding but it's surrounded—London, Ontario, is—by rural communities. I know you've done a lot to promote hunting in Ontario. It's a prized tradition, as is target shooting. Yes, I represent a city, but I really respect the work you have done, although we do disagree on certain points.
The argument with respect to classification is where I want to go. It assumes, your argument does, that you'll find a sympathetic hearing when it comes to any classification controversy. In your brief you say here that you would prefer for the law, on matters of classification, to open a door for parliamentarians to weigh in, Canadians at large to weigh in. I can tell you—I know my constituency best here, so I'll speak for London North Centre—there's great concern when it comes to guns. Any opportunity that there is to strengthen public safety, particularly on background checks but in other ways, I think Canadians can get behind that.
Let's look at parliamentarians. There are 338 members of Parliament. Some of us are gun experts, apparently. Mr. Calkins has spoken at length about his expertise in the area of guns, and I have no information to doubt that. Do you think that parliamentarians are best suited to deal with these sorts of concerns?