Thank you, Chair.
To make a general comment, I find it really ironic and somewhat troubling, quite frankly, that we're having to seek carve-outs—in this case for a federally regulated space, and justifiably so—that would allow for firearms to be purchased. It's troubling that the government seems to be carving out these things.
Of course, I know that we in this place all appreciate very much the security personnel and peace officers who work diligently on our streets. I know of the tragedy that struck one of them earlier today.
There are a whole host of concerns. We're telling Canadians that they cannot use firearms or handguns, but we're anticipating and even carving out areas of society where we expect them to protect us. The irony is rich and, I think, very unfortunate. It speaks to some of the flawed logic and ideology that is driving this legislation. It certainly leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many of my constituents and, I would suggest, many across the country, including in many Liberal ridings as well. It's surprising, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for these folks.
Ironically, when I get an email from somebody in Toronto asking me to fight on their behalf because their MP won't return their emails or calls, man, it's quite a situation. It's because they're a sport shooter or a collector, or it's because they fall within this designated category of which the Liberals have said it's no longer acceptable to be able to practise their sport—whatever the case is. I think that's really very unfortunate.
Mr. Chair, I would ask the question in relation to the constitutional provisions that designate the responsibility for firearms to provinces.
I'm wondering whether our folks from the nuclear commission, and maybe our departmental officials as well, can comment as to where this overlap between provincial licensing and the carve-out for nuclear facilities and designated peace officers would be.