Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to agree with what my colleague Mr. Lloyd said. I think this is an important point, and it underlines the urban-rural divide sometimes in the firearms debate.
Understandably, there are people in urban centres who are, of course, firearms owners and involved in sport shooting and things, but in rural areas, in parts of my riding, this is a matter of necessary tools. Telling people they cannot have the tools they need to do their jobs—to keep them safe in the context of their jobs—or making this a complex regulatory process for them doesn't make a lot of sense.
You have people from a different reality. They don't understand or connect with that rural reality. They say, “Well, our association with these tools is that they're used for one purpose”, without understanding or being empathetic at all towards the experience of other people. I find that troubling. What we should be trying to do as legislators is bridge these divides and understand that an aspect of one person's experience might not be the same aspect of someone else's experience. They may have different immediate needs or uses for these kinds of products.
I think that was well explained, with particulars, by Mr. Lloyd.
When I was younger, I spent some time tree planting in areas that were.... I know that's hard for some of my colleagues to believe, but there was a time when I did physical labour and planted trees. It was a different—