Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to continue with you, Mr. Ryckman.
You are probably aware that after the amendments were introduced by the government, members from all parties received hundreds and hundreds of communications in the form of emails, letters or calls from people who were angry of felt they were not understood.
Obviously, people talked to us about this at official dinners in our ridings, and over meals with family and friends. Everyone has an opinion about it, and that's fine.
I was surprised to see, speaking of hunters, that they sometimes reacted like this: if the firearms they use for hunting is banned tomorrow morning, they will just buy a different one.
We understand that not all hunters reacted that way, and that's also fine. It's also quite reasonable that hunters be able to make themselves heard. I understand that the government didn't consult hunters before introducing these amendments and so it's quite legitimate for them to make themselves heard.
Do you think that the fact that hunters feel they have to do something and they don't know what the next steps will be may have fuelled the discontent?
Hunters don't know what will happen the day after the bill is passed, particularly if these amendments were adopted and included firearms commonly used for hunting. Are they going to get arrested by the police because they have a banned item in their home? Is there going to be a buy-back program or not? Are they going to be able to sell their firearms back to the government? Are the police going to enter their house to search for their firearm?
There were no answers for them when the amendments were introduced.
Do you think that may have added to the discontent, somewhat legitimately, I would say, among hunters?