I wonder whether these amendments are actually in order. The bill has received second reading; therefore, amendments must be within the scope of the bill. The House has approved the principle that the minister should have discretion by approving the words “in the Minister's opinion” throughout the bill, and both amendments remove those statements.
It is legitimate to canvass issues related to factors that should be given as amendments, but I would argue that the removal of the discretion is beyond the scope of the bill. If you look at the amendments, the minister, to make positive findings of certain outcomes and to grant the transfer of those findings are not made...the problem is that these cases are not adversarial. Only one party is heard from in these cases, and that is the applicant. Therefore, there is no one to test the applicant's case and no one who has an interest in presenting contradictory facts.
Under the amendments, an applicant would be returned to Canada based upon a bare-bones application, because the minister does not have the basis to make a finding that something will happen, and requiring that would take some tests.
In addition, Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if we could hear from the officials at the table about how the process works, in fact, about the mechanics of the process. That might be enlightening to all of us in regard to when applications are made to the minister.