Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the public servants for so readily making themselves available. Over the past few days and weeks, we have had many conversations that have led us to understand that no one definition will cover all possible scenarios. The Bloc Québécois understands how difficult it is to come up with a definition that meets everyone's criteria. If we were to speak to five different stakeholders, each one would give us a different interpretation or definition specific to their viewpoint; if we were to speak to one hundred stakeholders, we would get one hundred different definitions.
So that is where we are at currently. I did say it at our last meeting, but I would like to commend the government on having the courage to withdraw the last version of the amendment and undertake consultations with various groups. I think that is what should have been done from the get‑go.
Our party has also held consultations and, as I have just explained, it would be fair to say that each person that we consulted gave us a different definition. We understand that it is no easy task, but I do think that we could still try and improve the definition.
I would also like to highlight the withdrawal of the term “fusil de chasse” in the French definition, because even if it seems to be a minor detail, it will reassure many hunters who have better things to do in their lives than to follow the work of our committee. Simplifying the definition will also make communicating with the public easier.
I believe that this definition is acceptable, but as I said earlier, I think we can improve it. I would like the committee to look at possibly improving the definition, based on comments from civil society as well as the public servants who are here today, since the new definition was released last Tuesday.
The victims of the many massacres that have taking place in Canada are following our deliberations, as are as hunters, indigenous peoples and members of civil society; all of them deserve the best definition possible to protect the public and allow hunters to follow their passion unencumbered.
At our last meeting, Mr. Motz asked some good questions on the consequences of the wording used at proposed subparagraph 84(1.1)e)(ii), which talks about a firearm “originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more”.
First of all, the firearm is designed before it is put on the market. This means that “originally” is implicit. I'm not sure that you could suddenly say that a firearm becomes illegal if someone somewhere in Canada decided to sell a magazine with a larger capacity for it.
The way I interpret it, the current wording is about the intent of the manufacturer, which is pretty near impossible to determine. This means that we will consider the firearm as it was originally manufactured, i.e., the magazine that comes with the firearm. In other words, as I said during our last meeting, a manufacturer could sell a firearm with a magazine that takes five cartridges here in Canada and a few days or weeks later, sell a version of this firearm with a 30-cartridge magazine in the United States.
I have a few questions for the representatives from the RCMP.
How can we determine if the intent of the manufacturer wasn't always to sell a firearm with a 30‑cartridge magazine? Do you have access to the documents the engineers used when they designed a firearm, for example, or, given on the definition currently on the table, would you rather base your analysis of the firearm in its current state?
I don't know if my question was clear. Perhaps it would be better answered by Ms. Paquette.