Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to come back to what my colleague Ms. Bendayan was saying. I thank her for her kind words.
To be honest with her, if my colleague wants the NDP or the Bloc Québécois to support what the government is going to present, it would have to present something else. At the moment, we are taking four meetings to hear the witnesses again, and that leaves very little time for the government to rework anything. I am concerned about that, even if our intention is the same, that being to ban assault weapons.
Ms. Rathjen and Ms. Provost, you certainly recall that when you testified the first time, I told you that if the government did not keep its promise, the Bloc Québécois would do it by introducing an amendment to ban assault weapons.
I consulted legislative counsel and she told me that it would be out of order because it went beyond the scope of Bill C‑21, that the bill dealt with handguns, and that it would be extremely surprising if the chair of the committee brought it forward. Ultimately, the chair did bring it forward. My amendment was rejected, but there was the Liberals' amendment.
This is all to say that I believe that behind the fact that the government has withdrawn its amendments there is a fear that the Speaker of the House of Commons would then decide that the amendments were out of order. That fear is still present.
How should we do this, do you think?
Should the government propose something different in a bill separate from Bill C‑21? Should it do it directly in Bill C‑21?
You talked about a definition, and I agree that we should have a good definition that includes weapons before, during and after.
We should therefore not do it by using a list. The lists that were in the orders in council showed that there were holes and that it didn't work. The definition should therefore take in all of the weapons, including future weapons.
What do you propose? What should the government do, going forward, considering that the committee only has a few weeks before resuming clause by clause study of the bill?