In simple terms, we don't classify anything as an impact weapon. It's not a term that is helpful. It's not a term that is in our policy. With the greatest of respect, based on our current policies, it is a misnomer or a red herring. I think the question honourable members should be seized with is whether our policies and practices are appropriate or not. On general principle I would suggest that defining an implement as a prohibited firearm is a more serious definition than the term “impact weapon”.
I don't know what else to say in answer to the honourable member's question. As I understand the thrust of the recommendation, we should further restrict the use of the weapon, and we have done so.