Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to thank all of you for appearing and injecting what I think is some sanity, rationality, and logic into a discussion that until now has been highly politicized. We've beaten to death the arbitrariness that is unmistakable in this act, so I won't belabour it.
But I do want to point out and get your opinion on the following. Opinions can be a little ironic here.
Right now under the act there are four criteria that are mandatory. The proposed act would not only change the mandatory directive to one that is completely directory--“shall” to “may”--but in five of the criteria that are added it injects the words “in the Minister's opinion”. This isn't just a question of mandatory directory that he or she may take into account; it actually imports into the act a test of “in the Minister's opinion”.
To those of you who have spent time in the appellate courts and doing appeals, particularly in administrative law, I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about what concerns you may have about a test, particularly on appeals, and how you'd appeal a test like that.