Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If you look at the addition of “whether, in the Minister's opinion”, which is sort of added everywhere--on page 2, it's in proposed paragraphs 10(1)(d) and (e)--there's only one purpose to put that phraseology in. It's to provide extra shielding around a minister's discretion if there's judicial review. That is an attempt to avoid judicial review and to keep judges away from telling the minister that he or she has made a wrong decision, just as they've done, in a number of cases recently, under this government.
So from my perspective, when you look at the purpose of the legislation, which is to “enhance public safety”--that's one of them, at least--it makes no sense to me that.... This is part of what my colleague from the NDP indicated, and he's right. It makes no sense that you're providing further discretion to the minister, in essence allowing the minister to do whatever he or she wishes. If you take out “in the Minister's opinion” in these various clauses, all you're doing here is you're requiring the minister to consider that factor as one of the factors in making the decision.
To take it to a different level, what you're actually doing by adding “in the Minister's opinion” is you're allowing the minister not to consider that factor, which could go against public safety and the best interests of Canadians; secondly, you are taking away and reducing the possibility of judicial review to get around those court decisions that the government doesn't like, based on their previous actions.
So from my perspective, in terms of “a reasonable person”, I don't understand the amendments.
I don't see how in any way it enhances public safety. Secondly, I think it goes against the rule of law.
So I'll be voting against them in terms of the amendments.