The wording that is in the bill I think provides more flexibility around that kind of decision-making. The factors that are currently in section 10 have been interpreted in a way.... Let's take, for example, paragraph 10(1)(a): “a threat to the security of Canada”. Fairly narrow limits have been placed around that phrase by the courts. Similarly, in paragraph 10(2)(a), on whether they likely have committed “a terrorism offence or criminal organization offence”, parameters have been placed around that by the courts. The effort in the bill is obviously to expand that somewhat.
On October 20th, 2010. See this statement in context.