Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have several questions, but I'm only going to ask two of them. That will give Mr. Langlois all the time he needs to answer.
Do you think it would be possible to introduce an amendment in favour of your firearms classification method based on handling and the firing mechanism, even though the Firearms Act itself is based on a weapons classification system whose classes are: prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted? Would it confuse everything? Do you think it's doable? I think it is, but I'm not an expert in that area. That's why I'd like to hear your opinion.
I don't think the definition of a prohibited firearm suggested in amendment G‑4 was entirely bad. It's true that a number of aspects may have been confusing, including the fact that in the French version the term "fusil de chasse semi-automatique" was used.
Do you think that was a problem and that it might cause confusion?
Amendment G‑4 referred to "a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges". There was a lot of disinformation about this, and we thought that it would be better to say "six or more cartridges", to avoid confusion, because there were already five-cartridge magazines.
You can no doubt see where I'm headed, Mr. Langlois. I'll give you some time to comment on this.