I think I understand Madame Mourani's difficulty with this. I think she's right. I think I can clear this up. The problem with the amendment as we've drafted it is that there is a built-in redundancy. It's because we took language from proposed paragraph 10(1)(j) and put it in proposed paragraph 10(1)(b), which already has the phrase “return to Canada”.
My amendment says: “whether the offender's presence in Canada, after the transfer, while they're serving their sentence”. There is a redundancy. I think all we need to say to properly consider this amendment is that in proposed paragraph 10(1)(b) we would say: “whether, in the Minister's opinion, the offender's return to Canada, while they are serving their sentence”.