When you introduce the minister's opinion into this it becomes a much more discretionary decision and far more difficult to review. That's the first point.
Second, when we were in the court of appeal last month and looked at the criteria in the current legislation, it was argued--and it's my view--that of the criteria that exist now, most are contrary to section 6. Remember, if the issue is whether you can justify refusing the transfer because in some way it will result in a danger to national security or public safety, the criteria that the minister considers have to be directed to answering that question. Most of these criteria are completely irrelevant to any assessment as to whether the transfer will enhance public safety.
The first one in the current legislation--not the proposed bill--says the transfer will enhance the risk to public safety. Then it goes on to ask a series of other questions that are completely irrelevant, in my view. All of these criteria violate section 6.