Mr. Chairman, I'm satisfied by the arguments. I'm also thinking out loud. Not all men are angels. We want a balanced act. In other words, just as the minister must not be at the mercy of a system, the system must not be at the mercy of a minister. I'm not asking you to make any comments; this is political.
There may be a necessity, since this is a first. You confirmed that this previously didn't exist and that we won't be talking about safe countries but rather designated countries. I want to make sure that things ultimately work properly. I don't know whether we should consider a clause that would require revision in five years. While a three-year period is a bit short, a five-year period affords the time to determine whether things have worked properly.
I don't like us introducing a concept that affects a system, a specific value. I'm willing to believe that, from now on, all cases will be individual and that, under the regulations, matters will go more quickly. That's fine. Mr. Chairman, I would like us to be able to discuss matters. I am prepared to give my support for this clause if we first consider the possibility of requesting a review of clause 12 in five years. That's called a review provision.
We could do it, unless provision is already made for it in the transitional measures of the act. I believe we would be improving this bill if we gave ourselves the opportunity to say that we agree with all that, but that we'll review everything in five years to see whether it really has worked properly. There is one fact: The planet is changing enormously. Cases may arise that we haven't considered. We have to give ourselves a way out. Perhaps we may even renew this provision. If we give ourselves a way out, if we decide that, in five years, we'll see that the designated country concept has worked well, I believe this would serve everyone.
