Right. Exactly.
Going back to where I was when I was cut off, Mr. Conroy, to this case of Getkate, going back a little more in time, the court found that the minister had disregarded the evidence, and specifically indicated that since the reasons articulated by the minister were “contrary to the evidence and to the assessment and recommendations by his own Department”, it was thus referred back to the minister.
I'll repeat what I said before. I'm looking at this and I see the change of the requirement from “must” to “may” in terms of the factors. Adding the factor that I noted just now—“any other factor that the Minister considers relevant”—I see as a clear attempt to get around the jurisprudence, which is clearly out there and which has in essence reprimanded the government for not following, and being fair in terms of following, the statute. I see this as their attempt to allow themselves to do whatever they want without getting any form of judicial review. Does that sound about right to you?