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”. So that's a fairly onerous requirement on the minister in making a decision about that particular factor.
On October 20th, 2010. See this statement in context.