Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Karygiannis.
Minister, you can congratulate and thank the official opposition, but what you are saying, through barely veiled threats, is that if this does not work, there will be no legislation.
We have heard many things that we support. We agree that the timeframes have to be changed. We also agree that the process will lead to the creation of an appeal division. However, we are confronted with the fact that each case is unique. If we are to establish a list of safe countries, that would mean that each country would be labelled from now on. This is a regulatory matter. You can always change the regulations. Even if we establish a committee that were to decide—and you can always say that it would be apolitical—the fact remains that we would agree to a principle that would remove the specific or unique character of each case.
I have asked your colleague some questions. There are people I know who do remarkable work, including Mr. MacDougall. I asked him a question to which I kind of knew the answer. He indicated that we need to impose visas if we are to streamline the flow of people who are intent on abusing the system. That is something you have already done in the case of Mexico.
Let us say that we are in favour of all elements, except one. That at least is my case. Personally, I do not approve the imposition of a list of safe countries. Am I to understand that, if we were to strike subclause 109.1 of the bill, but are in favour of all the rest, you would withdraw the bill? I am not proposing amendments that would change things. I am in favour of most of the amendments. We have discussed them, and they reflect what witnesses have told us. You are saying that if we withdraw subclause 109.1 of the bill, which provides for the creation of a list of safe countries, you are ready to scrap the entire piece of legislation and not move forward? Is that so?