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?
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.