My question was around this definition. We're talking about this definition. “Military-style assault rifles” is not this definition. This is redefining what a prohibited firearm is.
The definition specifically speaks to what was discussed and brought forward under G-4, which is now withdrawn and rightfully so. We now have a new definition for prohibited firearms, based on what the minister announced yesterday and these amendments that were moved today by you.
I'm just asking for the consultation because that's exactly what you stated. That's fine. We don't have it. I just sort of wanted to get that clarified.
Specifically, I'll go back to the officials. If I heard correctly, from the understanding from the officials perspective, there were no manufacturers.... They are the ones that are directly impacted by this because this is a new definition in an amendment going forward for future firearms, not historical firearms. Therefore, I'm just trying to understand whether or not they were consulted because they're the ones who ultimately....
We have firearms manufactures and, again, they're not bad people. They're just producing a tool for hunters and sport shooters, etc. I'm just trying to seek the clarity on whether or not they were involved at all in the consultation process of coming up with this definition.