With this particular motion, I'm thinking especially of my constituent offices, located right across the street from Kodiak Lake firearms store. I see that Mr. Calkins also referenced the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association.
The owner is Kevin. Some of these weird things happen because his business owns firearms, and he as an individual owns firearms. There are things that happen when the lines get a little blurry. On this particular bill, he came and had a chat with me. He said, “Arnold, always make sure that the business part is always put in place.”
I'm not 100% sure if this amendment is necessary—I can ask the officials we have here—but I think that we should be adding the word “business” so that it would say:
(9) An individual or business is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the possession of prohibited firearms of a prescribed class if the individual or business
I'm not exactly sure whether it's necessary or whether that's implied.
Would you like me to read it in?