Finance committee  It is standard practice in introducing any new legislation by the government to engage in a process of consultation and analysis with the Department of Justice once the policy intent is established and indeed confirm with the Department of Justice that the law being brought forwa

Finance committee  My primary area of responsibility is policing policy and firearms policy, so I would have no direct knowledge of other acts in other areas that might have involved these provisions. My colleague may wish to comment.

Finance committee  Yes, that would have been the case. That would have been part of the legal analysis. But I would say that this is a unique situation in which retroactivity is required to realize the core objective of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act and to destroy that data and ensure that n

Finance committee  I can't speak to the perspectives of parliamentarians at that time. What I can assure the members here today is that there was the recognition of an omission. Hindsight is always 20/20. The original intent in 2011 in drafting this bill was very clearly to ensure that no other a

Finance committee  There were two key moments, as I believe you are aware. There was the introduction of the bill in October 2011 by the government. That indicated the government's intent. Then when it came into force in April 2012, it expressed the will of Parliament.

Finance committee  Thank you for the question. As I believe Mr. Brison knows, I was the one who made those comments on that date.

Finance committee  I wouldn't speak specifically to that particular investigation. I think the intent of this set of amendments is very clear, to comprehensively address the second core objective of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, which is to ensure its destruction in the privacy interests

Finance committee  The intent there was to be entirely transparent with parliamentarians and to share with them the exact reasons as to why this omission had been identified, and that it was in respect of an access to information request and that was conveyed to parliamentarians on that day.

Finance committee  I think it is for the courts to make their own decisions as to when they review the laws in place at any time to determine whether a process should continue or not.

Finance committee  Thank you. Generally speaking, our role is to advise the government. That advice is confidential. It is a typical part of our role to provide that frank and honest advice to the minister, and we do that in confidence. In terms of this bill, I would say, as I stated earlier, the

Finance committee  That is correct.

Finance committee  Exactly. This is a unique situation where you're actually ending a program, the registration of long guns, and it flows from that, that you would not have any legitimate purpose to keep the data. To fully achieve that objective, you do need in this case to address that gap, putti

Finance committee  Under normal circumstances, it's not appropriate to do that. But the clear objective of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act was to destroy the data, so that was the clear will of Parliament.

Finance committee  Exactly. Hindsight is 20/20 and this was clearly an omission, and this gap is now being addressed through these amendments.

Finance committee  No, I think this is a unique situation where there was a specific requirement and a specific provision to destroy the data.