That's perfect. Thank you.
I'd like to pick up on my colleague Mr. Melillo's comment. Coming from a rural riding as well, I don't need to go to a shooting club or hold a gun in my hands to understand how important it can be for some people.
I don't hunt, but I know more and more about firearms. I didn't know much about them until I was given that responsibility. We learn more every day. I don't think you have to be a hunter or a sports shooter to understand that this issue can be very important to a lot of people and that the amendment in question can therefore affect many people in all ridings, in Quebec and in Canada.
I have concerns about this particular amendment. I won't reveal what was said in my private discussions with my Liberal colleagues, but this amendment was presented to me as a provision that would prohibit ghost guns, guns that can be made from parts. They wanted to include some of these parts in the bill or even in the Criminal Code to ensure that this new practice, which seems to be becoming very popular, would be eliminated. I fully agree and find it regrettable that the original wording of the bill didn't already provide for the prohibition of these firearm parts. I agree wholeheartedly that this ban is a good idea.
However, I think that G‑4 went further than what the client was asking for. It really goes very far and proposes a list containing hundreds of firearms that would be banned. However, as I understand it—and I'm having trouble understanding this—some of the weapons on this list would already be prohibited since the coming into force of regulation SOR/2020‑96 of May 1, 2020.
My first question is perhaps easy, since I'd like to know why these weapons are on this list.
Mr. Chair, can I ask questions of the person who moved the amendment and continue my questions once they have answered me?