There are major repercussions arising out of the poor cohesion in the definitions and the lists, and we quickly saw how incompatible these definitions were and the poor information that went into developing this infamous list.
The problem in these definitions and lists, at least in the state they were in before being abandoned, was the number of weapons. There were thousands of them. I don't think the definition for the five or more cartridge magazine that I mentioned to correct the existing information was something the committee was familiar with, given Mr. Mendicino's response. Several of the unknown, unwritten and confused criteria used in the definitions on the list included a very large number of hunting guns.
I will let Ms. Nadeau-Mercier comment on the impact of these amendments afterwards.
In our hunting and fishing activities, as ecosystem stakeholders, we are involved in a number of government management programs. This seriously restricts access to weapons that could be described as "accessible weapons" in the marketplace, given what's excluded. We' re talking about lengthy lists, including common weapons that are widely used.
I'll give you an example. If a single parent mother participated in the buyback program for a weapon she had inherited from her father or grandfather, and which is unfortunately excluded by the system, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that she'd have a great deal of trouble acquiring a new weapon. We've seen a summary of the suggested amounts to be used in the buyback programs, for what remains available under the definitions and lists. At the moment, Canada has a major firearms and ammunition supply problem. Owing to the amount of money it would cost to acquire a new weapon, the person in question would probably give up hunting venison for her family.