Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, we are in favour of the amendment, simply because “peut tenir compte” leaves room for arbitrary and subjective decisions, and all kinds of “environmental” circumstances. I've given you some examples. We have discussed this in committee.
I would go even further. It may even open the door to corruption. We assume that everyone is well-intentioned. However, supposing someone incarcerated abroad applies for a transfer and his family happens to make large donations to a political party. Could that be a factor? No, but things like all the items listed in the bill could be used—for example, the ability to consider human rights. Just about anything could be used to justify that person's transfer to Canada, even though there are actually other goals.
And finally, the verb “pouvoir”, in the phrase pouvoir tenir compte”, already introduces an element of arbitrariness, subjectivity and “human nature”, so to speak.
Mr. Chairman, I want to state clearly that we intend to vote in favour of the amendment. My colleague, Ms. Mendes, is absolutely right. The French translation should be “doit tenir compte”.