Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief comment. I understood the ruling before, that the nature of my amendments are beyond the scope that could be addressed here. My whole point—and it's related to what Mr. Harris has said here—is that I thought subsection 10(1) of clause 136 should really remain as it is. That's why I felt that all the things in the bill that seek to amend it confer what I would call an unduly broad discretion. It's been mentioned they make it constitutionally suspect, and we don't need a constitutional challenge. I speak in particular to the last phrase, which is
any other factor that the Minister considers relevant.
I say this, Mr. Chairman, because I've been dealing with the Minister of Public Security, under the existing legislation, on transfer of offenders. We've had a very good exchange on these matters. Under the present, existing legislation, it has worked well without constitutional challenge, and we've achieved the objectives with respect to rehabilitation of the offender, the protection of the victim, community anchoring, and the like.
I'm just worried that this type of legislation.... Again, I don't question the good faith involved in the proposal of this whole set of criteria. But all the criteria, taken as a whole, particularly the last criterion, are going to invite a constitutional challenge. All I'm saying is that in the interest of the legislation, in the interest of a process that is at times a very difficult and delicate one, but one that has worked well up until now, Mr. Chairman.... I've worked with the Minister of Public Security, and I've had, as I said, the kind of relationship and application of the law that has, for me, validated the existing legislation. That's why I don't see the basis for the amendment.