In the coming days, and not very many, is my answer to when we will introduce changes to C-24.
In terms of the interim federal health program, we really had no choice but to repeal it. I'm glad the Conservatives have found a new commitment to the charter, but their own interim federal health program was entirely inconsistent with the charter when the judge said that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment and was, therefore, unconstitutional and contrary to the charter.
We had no choice but to get rid of it for that reason, but we wanted to anyway because we think it's only right that refugees receive health care. It was economically ridiculous for the federal government to save some money only for the provincial governments to have to spend more money. So net, it cost taxpayers money. It was unconstitutional, and it's certainly the right thing to do to provide health care.
Finally, on the subject of the charter, clearly the interim federal health program was unconstitutional. We now have concern that the designated countries of origin—the discrimination between refugees in terms of what kind of appeal they may have—which the Conservatives set up, may also be unconstitutional, and there have been some court cases. As a result of that charter uncertainty, we are actually reconsidering whether to keep the designated countries of origin at all.
In the election we committed to setting up an independent panel to determine which countries should be on that list, but now, in light of court challenges to the constitutionality of designated countries of origin in the first place, we may even remove them, in which case we would not need any outside body to advise on which countries, because we wouldn't have any designated countries of origin.
This is something that is charter related—and we've been talking about charters, so I raise it—on which we have not yet come to a decision. But the whole issue of designated countries of origin clearly does raise charter issues that we are reviewing now.