Public Safety committee  I'm not sure that I would agree with that global statement.

Public Safety committee  Right, but I would also point to subclause 3(1) in the bill, for example, and its reference to paragraph 10(1)(a) of the bill, where, yes, in the chapeau, it does say that the “Minister may consider”. But then the test, for example, in paragraph 10(1)(a), is “will constitute a threat to the security of Canada”.

Public Safety committee  As Mr. Laprade has indicated, the minister's decision-making has to take place within the framework of the purpose of the act, so while it's difficult for me to speculate as to what an individual might argue, presumably the argument has to take place within the context and the purpose of the act.

Public Safety committee  Yes, I appreciate-- Mr. Laprade.

Public Safety committee  Yes. We do have statistics over the past decade at least; they vary from year to year. They do go up and down. They did go down somewhat a few years ago, but I would say that at this point the statistics we have in terms of approval rates are showing that around 65% to 70% of the applications are approved.

Public Safety committee  Yes. I would point out that the Correctional Service of Canada puts their annual reports on international transfers on their website, so quite a bit of data is available—

Public Safety committee  That's correct.

Public Safety committee  Yes. Again, I think there's a perennial “may” versus “shall” debate on many issues. I'll perhaps invite Michel to comment on that a bit. Again, the idea was not to be able to ignore certain factors. But there may simply be situations where certain factors are not relevant. For example, with regard to the fact that the offender is incarcerated in a very developed country with comparable standards of prison conditions, the factor simply becomes irrelevant and there are other factors that warrant more attention by the judge.

Public Safety committee  Well, I think that's where some of the direction from the courts comes into play. But I'd invite Mr. Laprade to perhaps comment on that.

Public Safety committee  Well, the act does require the minister, where it's a denial, to give written reasons for the decision, so that's one element of the accountability. Those reasons and the decision are given to the Canadian offender who then of course has access to the courts--

Public Safety committee  --if they wish to challenge it.

Public Safety committee  Yes. The requirement to provide reasons in writing is in the existing act, so the bill is purely an amendment bill, and all the provisions in the act that are untouched by it remain in place--

Public Safety committee  Correct.

Public Safety committee  Thank you. I think you'll appreciate the limits of my role in appearing as a public servant with the kinds of questions that might be better answered by the government. I would say that the bill is intended to reflect the court decisions that have occurred to date, obviously, and the advice of legal services, so that there are parameters placed around the decision-making.

Public Safety committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I am completely delighted to be here. I always am. I did provide some written remarks, and I will go through those, but obviously we want to allow sufficient time for questions about this bill. I will just clarify the roles. As you have indicated, Mr.