Thank you very much.
That answer alone clarifies a lot of things. We see people up in arms against certain points in amendment G‑4, but that is because the government never took the time to present its amendment properly, and to explain and clarify what it was doing.
That is the Bloc Québécois’s chief criticism at this point: that the government did everything backwards and made things confusing for everybody. It is very difficult to make sense of a binder like this and to explain what it means to the public. I am grateful the experts are here to answer our questions, as the Liberal Party is clearly unable to explain its own approach. We have so many questions that we don’t know where to start.
Going back to amendment G‑4 to Bill C‑21, we understand that it fulfills the Liberal Party’s promise. I understand that the government wants to ban assault weapons, and we at the Bloc Québécois agree. I even promised witnesses during hearings on Bill C‑21 that the Bloc Québécois would table an amendment to ban assault weapons if the government did not keep its promise to do so.
That is exactly what we did with amendment BQ‑1, which was defeated in a heartbeat when all parties voted against it. We were proposing that the definition of a prohibited firearm in the Criminal Code be amended to “a prescribed military‑style assault weapon.”
What we were proposing was quite simple: allow experts to define what an assault weapon is, and in particular to differentiate an assault weapon from a weapon reasonably used for hunting. We never wanted to go after hunters or prevent them from hunting. That was never our intent. I want that to be quite clear.
I think providing a definition rather than a list would have been much clearer for everybody, unlike what item (i) in amendment G‑4 does, which is propose that all firearms listed “in the schedule” be prohibited. This schedule is something else that is not clear in the government’s approach. The Liberals have never taken the time to explain what it would contain.
It is therefore difficult to look at amendment G‑4 without talking about the schedule. I would in particular like to know what criteria were used in creating this schedule. Since things become clearer as we ask questions, I will now take this opportunity to ask two questions of the experts who are with us.
I understand that the first portion of the schedule refers to models of firearms that are already prohibited. Is this correct?