Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. We are very grateful for their willingness to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
Here you are again, even though you've already said several times just how important it is to legislate on firearms in general, and on handguns and assault weapons in particular
You're here once again because I suggested to my committee colleagues that we should rehear witnesses following the introduction of the amendments tabled by the government in its firearms legislation.
The committee was not necessarily making any progress after these amendments were tabled, because they had changed the bill in all kinds of ways. As you know, at the outset, Bill C‑21 had mainly been about handguns. The government proposed new amendments in November, after the bill had been tabled in May, with substantial amendments applicable to assault weapons added on.
You are in favour of a ban on assault weapons. So is the Bloc Québecois, and we've said so repeatedly. But here we are in what amounts to a deadlock. That's why we proposed hearing other witnesses. In the meantime, the government withdrew amendments G‑4 and G‑46 a few days ago, saying that it had not sufficiently consulted the groups involved and the population.
My understanding is that when the bill was tabled, there was media coverage. The government appeared to have promised certain groups that it would include the assault weapons ban in the act. The government had approximately five months to put together a well-structured bill, but unfortunately, that's not what we got in the end.
I have a question for the witnesses from PolySeSouvient, and then for Mr. Benabdallah.
Given that the government had promised to prohibit assault weapons, do you see the withdrawal of amendments G‑4 and G‑6 as a broken promise?