I appreciate that explanation by Ms. Duncan. I just have a question. Am I to understand, then, that subclause (4) is somehow superfluous, because it's already the case in common law?
On February 1st, 2011. See this statement in context.
On February 1st, 2011. See this statement in context.
February 1st, 2011 / 9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I appreciate that explanation by Ms. Duncan. I just have a question. Am I to understand, then, that subclause (4) is somehow superfluous, because it's already the case in common law?
See context to find out what was said next.