Bill C-18 (Historical)

An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification

This enactment amends the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act to facilitate the implementation of An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act, chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada, 2005. The enactment makes certain technical changes to those Acts. It also
(a) specifies that the provisions in section 487.051 of the Criminal Code relating to orders for the taking of samples of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis apply to persons who are sentenced or are discharged under section 730 of, or are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for, designated offences committed at any time, including before June 30, 2000, and makes similar amendments to the National Defence Act;
(b) allows an order to be made under section 487.051 of the Criminal Code at a hearing whose date is set within 90 days after the day on which a person is sentenced, discharged under section 730 or found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, and makes similar amendments to the National Defence Act;
(c) adds attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered to the offences covered by section 487.055 of the Criminal Code;
(d) permits an application to be made under section 487.055 of the Criminal Code when a person is still serving a sentence of imprisonment for one of the specified offences, rather than requiring that they be serving a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more for that offence;
(e) in certain circumstances, allows a court to require a person who wishes to participate in a hearing relating to an order or authorization under the Criminal Code for the taking of samples of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis to appear by closed-circuit television or a similar means of communication;
(f) allows samples of bodily substances to be taken under the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act at the place, day and time set by an order or a summons or as soon as feasible afterwards;
(g) specifies that it is an offence under the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to fail to comply with such an order or summons;
(h) requires the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to destroy the bodily substances collected under an order or authorization and the information transmitted with them if, in the opinion of the Attorney General or the Director of Military Prosecutions, as the case may be, the offence to which the order or authorization relates is not a designated offence;
(i) enables the Commissioner to communicate internationally the information that may be communicated within Canada under subsection 6(1) of the DNA Identification Act; and
(j) allows the Commissioner to communicate information for the purpose of the investigation of criminal offences, and allows the subsequent communication of that information for the purpose of the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.

Criminal Code

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked for my commitment. I certainly will be supporting this bill and will do anything possible on my part to help pass this legislation.

However, I would also remind the hon. member that if he was in the House the other day, the hon. critic for justice brought in a motion to speed up the legislation that I mentioned: Bill C-18, the DNA identification bill that would help police solve many missing persons cases; Bill C-22, the age of consent bill that would have made our children, our sons and daughters, safer; Bill C-23, the criminal procedures bill, a bill that would help to make our justice system more efficient; and Bill C-35, the reverse onus bill that we are debating today.

In fact, if the hon. member were here, he would have noticed that the House leader on the Conservative side raised a point of order not to support that option that we brought in to speed up not only one of those bills, but four of them.

I was in Surrey last month, where the mayor of Surrey along with all the stakeholders put a crime prevention strategy in place. In six months they are much further ahead of where we are today with the Conservative government delaying and playing politics. So, I would ask the hon. member to ask the House leader and his Conservative colleagues to support and get those bills passed so we can protect our streets.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for North Vancouver.

It is an honour for me to rise in the House here today to discuss Bill C-35. I cannot understand why my Conservative friends on the other side continue to delay this bill becoming law.

I must point out that the Liberal Party has already gone a long way to putting in place laws to make the jobs of our men and women in uniform easier. I think of legislation like the anti-gangster law.

I would also like to point out that during the 13 years of the previous Liberal administration, we saw crime rates drop by more than 20% in some cases. This bill will only enhance those provisions that the Liberal Party has already provided.

Bill C-35 will make the streets safer by keeping criminals who use guns in prison, instead of out on bail to commit more crimes.

This is a bill I am proud to support and I cannot understand why my Conservative colleagues keep on postponing passage of this legislation.

This bill is designed to change the Criminal Code so that reverse onus will be required if an accused is charged of crimes with a gun. This bill will also be used against those charged with gun trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking or gun smuggling.

I would like to remind the House that it was the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard who brought me into this political arena. In the 2006 election he supported the idea of reverse onus bail hearings for gun related offences. I was proud to support this initiative with him then and I am proud to do so now.

The presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied bail without just cause are rights protected under the Charters of Rights and Freedoms. I firmly believe that this bill is in keeping with the spirit of the charter. It enhances our safety while still respecting our basic rights.

When I talk to people such as Chief Superintendent Fraser MacRae of the Surrey RCMP detachment or Chief Constable Jim Cessford of the Delta police department, I know how important is this legislation. I hear it everywhere from my constituents of Newton—North Delta. These voices from my riding of Newton--North Delta must be heard. It is so important that they be part of the process.

Why is the minority Conservative government not listening? These men and women, the ones on the street keeping us safe every day, are the ones who best understand what is needed to keep our homes, our families and our children safe. We must do all that we can to support them. That is why I am saddened by the cynical partisan games that the government is playing with such important legislation.

The official opposition has tried more than three times in the last six months to speed up many government bills dealing with justice issues. Each time the Conservative Party has shown that they are more interested in politicking than in actually passing their own legislation and making our families safer.

I would remind the House that it was my hon. colleague, the Liberal justice critic, who tabled a motion that proposed the immediate passing of four bills: Bill C-18, Bill C-22, Bill C-23 and Bill C-35, the very bill we are all here still debating today.

If it were not for this cynical government's obstruction, we could have sent all of this legislation to the Senate and put it on the fast track to becoming law. In one swoop we could have passed more than half of the government's entire justice agenda. We could have taken major steps in protecting our families and our communities, but the Conservative House leader raised a point of order to block the Liberal motion and caused more delays in passing serious anti-crime legislation.

Why will the government not take yes for an answer and pass its own legislation for the sake of our safety? The government knows that a majority of MPs in the House of Commons want to pass these bills and the government will just not stop dragging its feet.

The fact that the government is blocking its own legislation proves that it is not serious about crime. It only wants to use these bills as an election issue, not as a way to make our neighbours and communities safer. The Canadian people deserve better. They deserve a government that will not play politics with the Criminal Code.

The late Pierre Trudeau said, “just watch me”. Well, the Canadian people are watching. The people of the riding of Newton—North Delta are watching. The people are watching the government play politics with the safety of our children and families. Canadians and the good people of my riding of Newton—North Delta deserve better. They deserve a government and a leader who will put the safety of our families ahead of politics.

When I look at the justice platform put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I have hope that the government might also finally get one. The Liberal Party has proposed a new plan, one that would have a major impact on the way we approach safety and justice in our country. It is not enough to simply talk tough on crime and then do nothing as the minority Conservative government has done so far.

We must deal with every aspect of fighting crime on our streets. We must work to prevent crime. We must work to make it easier for our police to catch criminals. When criminals are caught we must work to see them convicted through competent and quick administration. When they are convicted we must work to rehabilitate those criminals, so that when they get out of prison they do not commit more crimes.

I would encourage the government and all members of the Conservative Party to support the legislation and also support the Liberal idea to fast track those bills that I mentioned earlier. I encourage them to support our men and women in uniform who keep our streets safer and to support the official opposition when it has the guts to do what must be done to see this legislation pass to improve our safety and justice system.

We want no more delays, no more partisan politics and tactics, and no more games. Let us get the job done. Canadians are counting on us.

Comments by Government House Leader

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to House business and further to your ruling yesterday, I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification, be deemed to have been amended at the report stage, as proposed in the report stage motion of the Minister of Justice in the notice paper of March 20, 2007, concurred in at the report stage, and read a third time and passed.

Business of Supply--Opposition Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I finished on the point of order and had moved on to the proposition. I believe we had dealt with Bill C-18. The proposal was to go through the four items of legislation that were identified in the motion of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and use the process, which is the accepted practice in the House, and seek unanimous consent for their approval at all stages as appropriate, based on where they are right now.

This is the process that should be followed and I did want to put that to the House at this time.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to question the supply motion that is on notice in the name of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

I want to advise the House that the government agrees with the intention, that is the substance in terms of supporting justice bills that are before the House, but disagrees with the proposal being presented to the House in the manner and the form using the procedure that is being utilized.

Normally, when one seeks to have a motion for consent to have a bill approved outside of the normal process, that is, a government order, it is done by unanimous consent of the House. This is the only way in which that is done.

The core principle is very simple and it can be found in Standing Order 40(2), the rules by which we follow, under the heading “Process of Debate”. It states quite clearly:

Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.

The intention of this supply motion from the Liberals is to take control of the government's agenda, take control of those bills and call them in a fashion and in a process that they are utilizing and that is not open to them. The Liberals are seeking to do so through the mechanism of an opposition motion on a supply day to which I would draw attention to Standing Order 81(2) which states quite clearly, and I will read the reference note on the side:

Business of Supply takes precedence over government business.

The Standing Order reads:

On any day or days appointed for the consideration of any business under the provisions of this Standing Order, that order of business shall have precedence over all other government business in such sitting or sittings.

That, of course, being supply and the opposition motion. However, it is quite clear and implicit that the regular government orders of the day are a different matter. They are a different beast and I will speak a few times to the notion of fish and fowl being different and we cannot cross them over.

What would happen if this motion were allowed to stand in its current form and the House were prepared to considered it, is in effect a constitutional amendment to this country, to our parliamentary traditions, to the way in which we operate. It would be a move away from our traditions of responsible government to one of congressionalism whereby any member of the House at any time on an opposition day could take control of the government's agenda and effectively legislate in a fashion that is not contemplated.

We have Standing Orders that provide ways in which that can happen through private member's bills, through the government orders, but to do so through an opposition supply day to effectively convert what is an intended motion into effective legislation is a major modification, a change in our process.

I want to return to the question of unanimous consent. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, such motions have been moved frequently by unanimous consent. That is entirely appropriate. It is the only way in which such motions could be moved.

On page 502 of Marleau and Montpetit and citation 19 of Beauchesne's, the case is made that nothing done by unanimous consent constitutes a precedent. I would also reference a Speaker's ruling from Journals May 3, 1977 at page 1030.

That said, the attempt to move several government bills through several stages with an opposition motion on an allotted day is unprecedented. It has not been done. It has not been done before because it is not an acceptable process. It is not in accordance with the rules of this place. It is not in accordance with the practices and traditions of this House.

Before we go down that road and establish this very dramatic precedent, I would like the Speaker to consider a few points.

The motion, as I said, treads on the prerogative of the government to move government business. These bills contained in the member's motion are not in the name of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, but are in the name of the Minister of Justice. We have a distinct process and rubric for business that can be moved by private members and business that can be moved by ministers of the Crown. They are different. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is attempting to indirectly move the minister's and the government's legislation. As you have said many times, Mr. Speaker, you cannot do something indirectly that you are not permitted to do directly.

My second point is that the motion is attempting to circumvent the legislative process in an unprecedented way. Again, I am not referring to unanimous consent motions but rather to this.

The closest examples, or parallels, of motions that set out expedient measures to dispose of government legislation outside of what the Standing Orders allow are motions dealing with back to work legislation. We had an example in this Parliament. When the motion was challenged by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh on February 23, 2007 on the grounds that the motion was attempting “to do all stages from first reading and printing of the bill to be considered in the same sitting and possibly, unless a minister rises to ask for it, without adjournment”, the Speaker gave a comprehensive ruling reinforcing other examples and allowed the motion to stand.

However, we cannot compare the motion that the Speaker referenced dealing with back to work legislation because that motion provided a procedure that still respected the Standing Orders of this House and that still respected separate debates and votes for each stage of the bill. The Standing Orders of this House were not prejudiced and the ability of the government to maintain the initiative was not prejudiced. That is very different from what we are seeing in the motion from member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine here today. It goes far beyond that.

Mr. Speaker, you may well hear that there was some implication that in the past the Speaker has been reluctant to interfere with any motion from the opposition. That reluctance, however, and those rulings relate to an earlier time when the only opposition motions that one was dealing with were ones that dealt with matters of confidence. Obviously it is a dramatically different issue here rather than one that reinforces the confidence of the House.

For that reason I suggest those do not apply.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that to give effect to this motion, to allow it to be in order, would effectively amend the Constitution of our country and the way in which it operates, the way in which this Parliament operates.

It also could potentially have the impact of suppressing the minority in Parliament. We have rules in place that allow certain protections to the minority. When we allow for the rules of the Standing Orders of the House to be overcome, that is by unanimous consent, that is an order to protect the minority. However, should this be allowed as a precedent, there is every possibility that any opposition party could bring a motion together with the government and, through that motion, deny the minority parties or any minority member of the House the opportunity and protections that exist in the Standing Orders for a full debate to proceed, for their ability to address the legislation and for the processes that exist to be respected. In so doing, should this precedent be set, we would be opening the door to future suppression of the minority in the House by any opposition motion.

Being mindful of a House that has had as many as five official parties at one time recognized, this is a very real risk that we have to be cognizant of. Were we only in a two party Parliament, one might think differently, however that risk is a very real risk and the door would be opened if this motion were allowed to stand.

Finally, of course, this would have the effect of amending the Standing Orders through precedent to dramatically change the way things work in a way that contravenes the fundamental principle that government orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.

For those reasons, I would ask that the motion by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, which has been set down for tomorrow's consideration during the opposition supply day, be ruled out of order.

However, I would also suggest that we could give effect to the intent of that motion. I should say that the intent of that motion and the various elements of it have been the subject of discussion among the House leaders regarding the potential for unanimous approval of the bills at all stages. Therefore, I propose to move four motions right now seeking unanimous consent.

On the first one I believe, based on the discussions, that you will find unanimous consent. I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification, be deemed to have been amended at report stage, as proposed in the report stage motion in the name of the Minister of Justice on the Notice Paper of Tuesday of March 20, 2007, concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed.

We have been advised by other House leaders in earlier discussions that it is appropriate and would receive the support of the House.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you so much for being here today, Minister, and thank you for your presentation.

As you know from the speeches the Liberals made at second reading of this bill, Bill C-22, and from our Liberal justice strategy, which we announced in October 2006, Bill C-22 is in fact one of the bills the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus supports. And back in 2006 we offered to fast-track it for the government, to work with the government to see that it was fast-tracked.

I'm pleased to hear in your response to my colleague Brian Murphy that you're delighted that the Liberals are supporting C-22 and that you want to see it come into effect and be enacted as quickly as possible.

So you have obviously been made cognizant of the Liberal opposition day motion, which will be debated tomorrow as part of the supply day for opposition, which makes an offer, for the third time, to this Conservative government that we are prepared to work with the government to have Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification; Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act—on which you're appearing before us right now—Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments); and Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences) deemed to have been considered by the House of Commons at all stages.

Should the government agree to vote in that way, this bill, C-22, Bill C-18, Bill C-23, and Bill C-35 will have been deemed to have gone through the House of Commons at all stages.

So I would hope that, given your delight in hearing that we're prepared to support Bill C-22.... You're not learning of this for the first time, because that was announced back in October 2006. The offer was made back then. Unfortunately, the government only took us up on three bills: C-9, conditional sentencing; Bill C-19, street racing; and Bill C-26, payday loans. But Bills C-18, C-22, and C-23 were part of that offer. You and your government, in its wisdom, decided not to take us up on it in October. The offer was again made when we came back after the Christmas break. The government decided not to take us up on it.

We're now making it for a third time, this time in writing, as part of an actual motion on which you and your colleagues will be called on to vote. I'm hopeful, and I'm asking if you will be prepared to recommend to your Prime Minister, to your colleagues, that they vote in favour of the Liberal opposition day motion, which would deem Bills C-18, DNA identification; C-22, age of protection; C-23, criminal procedures; and C-35, reverse onus for bail hearings, to have been considered by the House at all stages and adopted.

Justice and Human Rights

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 4, 2006, your committee has considered Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification and agreed, on Thursday, March 1, 2007, to report it without amendment.

[Greg Yost]

The scope of Bill C-13 has been broadened to add to the list murder and one of the sexual offences. For example, all persons having dangerous offender status are included in this list. Manslaughter has also been added.

The bill also adds to the list attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Under the current act, the person must be serving a two-year sentence for the offence in question. The legislation only says that the person must be in the process of serving the sentence. These sentences are only rarely handed down, in fact, there are only about twenty cases. Overall, the offender may be serving a 15-year sentence for kidnapping or some other crime, and three sexual assaults. However, the judge will only add one year to the sentence for each sexual assault. This individual will now be subject to the new regime.

With BillC-18, approximately 200 more people will now be subject to the retroactive provisions of Bill C-13, which is already in effect and which targeted 4,000 individuals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'd like to call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 4, 2006, regarding Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification.

We'll be going through clause-by-clause as a committee this morning. We have witnesses on standby: Mr. Bird, senior legal counsel for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and from the Department of Justice, Mr. Greg Yost.

I believe everyone has the agenda before them as well as any explanations dealing with many of the clauses. I see there was an additional information form passed around on Bill C-13 and Bill C-18, as to how they are connected to one another, should anyone have any further questions.

I'm not sure if there are any questions or comments on the bill, but to date, no amendments have been received by the chair.

I would ask if the committee members wish to vote on all clauses at once, given the fact that there are no amendments.

Mr. Ménard.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

We could have a debate on this, and I don't think now is the time.

I do reject, though, the premise of some of Mr. Ménard's comments that somehow we can pigeonhole police officers into one category of ideological thought or persuasion. Just as there are lawyers on these judicial advisory committees--do we say that lawyers are of one ideological persuasion? I do not believe you would suggest that. In the same way, the police officer representative on the judicial advisory committee should not be put into one box. So I think that was an unfair thing to say.

Also, on the issue of teachers, journalists, and firefighters, there is the ability to appoint anybody to the judicial advisory committees. There's a spot, as we know, for a representative from the province; a representative from the bar association; and at-large representatives such as teachers, journalists, or anybody else. But we did create a spot just for police officers, because police officers play a part in the judicial system, just as lawyers play a part in the judicial system.

You may disagree with that, and I take it that you do, but I do think it's unfair to suggest that all of the police officer appointees would come with one set of value systems or one set of ideological thought.

Now, as to the motion of Ms. Jennings, I put forward something we could support. Obviously we do not support the preamble, so we will not support the motion.

We're trying to be constructive, so I agree with Mr. Ménard that we should have a study. I agree with him now, as Ms. Jennings has amended his motion, that it should not interfere with what has come from the House, with what this committee is invested with from the House, and that's the responsibility for Bill C-18 and Bill C-22.

So we could have unanimous agreement on this motion, but not if we leave in the preamble or paragraph 1 of the motion.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I've listened to what Mr. Petit said, and I think he was referring to extra sessions if we have a broader consultation, and I think that's called for.

Earlier I was asking why one year. I question Mr. Ménard on that, because as you know, the judicial advisory committees have been in place since 1988 and they've been changed a number of times. To say it is something earth-shattering that the composition of the judicial advisory committees would be changed—in my opinion a positive change, but that's a matter for debate.... We're all entitled to our opinions on it, but why would we just look at the last year? I think we should look at more than the last year concerning the judicial advisory committees.

Now, if we're discussing just Ms. Jennings' motions and amendments to her motions, I would be prepared to support a motion--if you want unanimous support; if not, it doesn't matter. But if you wanted unanimous support, I would be prepared to support a motion that did not have such a torqued preamble, as we have already discussed—I'm certainly not going to support your preamble—and that calls for the committee to devote two sessions...and carrying on with the rest, as long as it doesn't interfere, as you said, with our priority to deal with Bill C-22.

I'm fine with point 2, with the amendment to change the “three” to “a minimum of two”.

Then finally, in point 3, I would say: “That these additional sessions be dedicated to hearing witnesses who will inform the Committee of the consequences the government's proposed changes will have on the...legal system.”

I think it's presupposing the outcome of the testimony to say "the integrity of the legal system", as if there would be some negative impact on the integrity. We'll draw our conclusions perhaps from the testimony we hear from witnesses, but I'm not prepared to support a motion that's calling for the study of changes that we've made to the judicial advisory committee. I'm fine with studying it, and I've made that clear, but not with a motion that seems to already have drawn its conclusion. I would like to hear the testimony, and then we can all draw our conclusions.

If the opposition members want to genuinely study it, then I would suggest we talk about making those few amendments that leave in place the main goal of studying the judicial advisory committees for a couple of days, at times that do not take away from Bill C-18 or Bill C-22.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'll call the meeting back to order.

Quickly, on the second point that Monsieur Ménard brought forward on his point of order in reference to the provisions in the Criminal Code that would be amended by Bill C-18, there is a list here already. I think it's been submitted to the entire committee, including the definitions.

Do you not have a copy of that?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to make sure that we will get the binder for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18. Since we will be dealing with this on Thursday, I want to make sure that we will be receiving this binder by Wednesday at the latest, so that we can read it.

In addition, could we ask the research staff to draw up the list of current designated offences and a list of those that will be added to the bill? I'm referring to a table, a quick summary.

Mr. Chairman, my second point of order pertains to my motion. I don't want it to be sent to the steering committee. I want us to be able to debate it. Given that I gave the requisite advance notice, this is my prerogative under the standing orders. I would repeat to the government that I am prepared to accept Ms. Jennings' analysis calling for an additional meeting per week. The motion comes from the steering committee and it therefore was subject to debate.

In my opinion, we should vote on the matter now. I can accept the fact that the government may not be in favour of the idea; that is its prerogative. I am acting in good faith. The last time, Mr. Moore asked me whether I would agree to have another meeting added to discuss the judicial selection process. I wasn't entirely convinced that this was necessary, but I said to myself that, after all, it was important to work in a collegial atmosphere.

[J. Bowen, Acting Director, Biology Project, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

The biology project is dealing with the expansion of the biology services. First of all, we're creating a separate directorate, known as biology services.

We're looking at creating a third site for analysis in Edmonton, as well as hiring a number of individuals—which would result from Bill C-18 and other initiatives—so that we can train them, bring them on site, and have them available to do case work within a reasonable amount of time.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

At 10:55 I would like to raise a point of order regarding the way that Bill C-18 will work. I will let you ask your questions.