Much of hunters' concern stems from this confusion, which could have been avoided if this amendment had been incorporated into the original version of the bill, if press releases and fact sheets had been made available, and if consultations and the like had been held.
As my colleagues would say, having the legislative summary and fact sheet of a bill goes a long way toward helping us put the right questions to the experts who appear before the committee. In this case, we don't have a fact sheet or a summary of the process related to amendment G‑4. This makes it a little difficult to ask our questions. Plus, it makes it more complicated to explain all of this to the general public, the average person.
I think it's a bit of a shame that the government is relying on us to resolve the current impasse on amendment G‑4. Until the parliamentarians on the committee have the tools to clearly explain, in less than 15 seconds, what this amendment is doing, I don't think we will ever agree.
To add to all of this, the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister have hinted in the last few days that some firearms reasonably used for hunting are on this list. Whether there is one or a thousand, how do we find it or list it? We are obviously not experts on this subject, although we are learning more and more about it. How is the public supposed to identify them?
In my opinion, the solution is to establish a clear definition of the assault weapons that are going to be prohibited. Instead of proceeding by list, we could say that, if such a weapon meets the criteria provided or the definition, it is prohibited. If necessary, a list of exceptions could be included. I understand that there are currently hundreds, if not thousands, of models of firearms and it is difficult to navigate.
But it is equally difficult to navigate when lists are used. Through the answers provided by the officials, I am gaining a better understanding of the reason for choosing to do it this way. However, in my opinion, it may not have been the best way to proceed.
If amendment G‑4 is adopted in its current form, including the reference to the schedule contained in item (i), are we to understand that the Criminal Code is going to have to be amended every time a new model of gun comes on the market? How will this work going forward?