Okay. Please let me know. I apologize, colleagues. This has not really happened to me before.
I have a couple of questions or kind of a big question, I suppose, on this amendment. Just to be clear on what our caution is with this.... Liberals, or particularly the minister in his announcement, made it very clear: He is looking to ban what he has dubbed so-called assault-style weapons, a term that the government is trying to establish in this definition. He has said that these are designed for the battlefield and are unsafe for public use, which is what Ms. Damoff alluded to in her remarks as well, making these all sound very scary.
Of course, Conservatives and many firearms owners take issue with this, as we found in G-4 and G-46 that many commonly used firearms used for hunting were encompassed in what they were calling assault-style weapons. That was made very clear. Our caution is that, if this amendment is being brought forward, the definition of what they want to describe now is what they've been calling assault-style. This is now their definition. As I said, if they're so dangerous, why is there this...? It's not grandfathering, but I've been calling it, for lack of a better term, a forward-looking clause. If the Liberals are saying that they're too dangerous for public use—which, of course, we disagree with and firearms owners disagree with—why are they letting people keep them, and why are they having a forward-looking clause?
That's what we're not understanding. That's why we feel like there's something else going on here that we're not clear on, given the arguments that have been made for the last number of months and years by Liberals.
I'm not sure. I feel like that is, perhaps, more of a political question, so I don't mean to put the officials on the spot. However, that is our hesitation here, because of what was established in the last amendments and what the argument continues to be, including this announcement that the minister made yesterday, saying battlefield guns, “assault-style” weapons and all these slogans and words he's been using. Again, if they are so dangerous, why are you letting people keep them?
Perhaps Ms. Damoff can explain, and then perhaps we won't feel so cautious and will understand that this is really what it is, that you're letting everybody keep these. Is that what we're seeing here?
I just have one follow-up, and then I'll be done.