I have a question on the amendment and whatever happens on the motion as well. But on the amendment, given what Mr. Norlock said, that this may already be covered under the Criminal Code, is there any problem with having the amendment in place that makes it absolutely clear in terms of what's being requested here? Does it jeopardize in any way anything by stating in this bill as well that this is the requirement?
On April 1st, 2014. See this statement in context.