Public Safety committee  Not yet.

Public Safety committee  So you're saying that the court says the law violates or doesn't violate?

Public Safety committee  If the court decides that it doesn't violate section 6, then obviously there still are legal issues.

Public Safety committee  There's still the Supreme Court of Canada, but ultimately that would be the final....

Public Safety committee  I don't think this bill is amendable. I think it's a complete violation of section 6 and it can't be amended. Leaving aside section 6, I think the current bill already gives the minister too much discretion, and all we would do here is give him more.

Public Safety committee  Yes.

Public Safety committee  That's right. Last month in the Federal Court of Appeal we made the argument that certain parts of the existing act violate section 6 because they require the minister to take into account factors that are irrelevant to whether or not the transfer would endanger public order or n

Public Safety committee  No. No, no, no. On the contrary, I believe the mechanism is vital, it's constitutional, but I believe the scope of the minister's discretion to refuse is very limited. In other words, the act is necessary. It provides a mechanism for Canadians to exercise their right to return, b

Public Safety committee  I'll cede to Mr. Calarco.

Public Safety committee  That's correct. Most of the criteria in section 10 violates section 6, in my opinion.

Public Safety committee  Canadian citizens have a right to enter into Canada. If that right is denied to them, that's a prima facie violation of section 6. Any provision in the legislation that takes into account factors that are not connected to whether or not the transfer would endanger public safety o

Public Safety committee  The first step in every case would be for the foreign state to agree to send the person back. There are instances where states refuse to send people back, and if that's the case, then section 6 is not engaged. It's only engaged at the point where the Canadian citizen has a right

Public Safety committee  When you introduce the minister's opinion into this it becomes a much more discretionary decision and far more difficult to review. That's the first point. Second, when we were in the court of appeal last month and looked at the criteria in the current legislation, it was argued

Public Safety committee  It's going to be much more difficult to appeal if section 6 isn't engaged. If it is, the minister will have to prove...and it'll be on the minister to establish that.

Public Safety committee  As an administrative lawyer, maybe I can try to answer that question. The minister's exercise of discretion is determined by the legislation. Under the current legislation, he must take into account certain factors; he has to. If he doesn't, then the decision can be set aside.