I can add commentary before I get to my question.
—this broad-brush approach to confuse those in Canada who think the Liberals are actually doing something for public safety. If they were doing something for public safety, with all the money they've poured into this over the last number of years, since they came to power—seven years—we wouldn't have had 174 additional violent homicide offences in the last year over the year before. We have a problem in this country, and it isn't the lawful gun owners. This bill does nothing but target law-abiding Canadians—nothing.
Where in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) do we talk about ensuring that criminals are the focus of this? Are you going to make all these changes to definitions in subsection 84(1), trying to add parts to firearms prohibition orders or update the definition of a prohibited firearm by taking out “or”? We're talking about including prohibitive firearms that have a muzzle energy exceeding 1,000 joules, which is like big-game hunting in Africa. All the stuff we're talking about...a bore diameter greater than 20 millimetres.
Where is the evidence that says these firearms...? What's happening, right here, in this list of firearms.... Does everything about this in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) actually improve public safety?
You've been asked to make this legislation, and it's obviously based on something—some evidence, somewhere, that says we have a problem in this country and we have to identify these firearms because they are a danger to the public. Can you tell us what evidence there is to support this legislation, please?