A point of order, Mr. Chair.
I wasn't sure if Mr. Harris recognizes that this is actually a technical amendment, in that if the board receives information late--for instance, an hour before the board is to convene or three days before the board is to convene--and the information is such that it's too late in receiving it to be able to go over it and assess it properly, the board, which is seized with the opportunity to adjourn the proceedings, would actually have to convene and adjourn the proceedings.
Instead, now the board is able to delegate that authority to someone, probably the clerk, as we do here, and that clerk can make that decision based upon the lateness of those documents or whatever that evidence might be. So really it's a technical amendment to assign the ability of the board to someone else, to save taxpayers' money and also for the accused to be able to answer completely the new information that is brought forward. So really it's a technical amendment only.
I was very happy to see that Mr. Harris and the NDP supported clause 96 for the rights of victims at parole hearings. I just wanted to clarify with him that this is actually a technical amendment.