I wish I could give this answer in a minute and a half.
I'll tell you that I have the sincere dishonour of having lost this case at the Supreme Court of Canada. It was Her Majesty, as she was then, and Christopher Dunn, and it defined firearms in the context of airsoft and pellet guns. It's an area that I'm far too familiar with. I'd be happy to give you my background materials on it.
To me, the issue is pinning down a definition of, first, “readily adaptable”. A firearm—not the replica firearm—definition itself has a clause that defines firearms and then anything that's readily adaptable to be a firearm, which is a grey area.
I hear what Inspector Rowe is saying, which is that these devices can be converted. If they can be readily adaptable, they are already illegal and they're already firearms.
What “readily adaptable” means is a real grey area. The Americans and the ATF use 80% finished. They talk about certain tools and procedures that are used to complete firearms. That's one place to focus.
The second place is—