Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the first question is obviously yes, that this approach to the overall bill, but that clause that I keep repeating, giving the absolute discretion to the minister of anything that is relevant to be determined by the minister, is clearly an arbitrary measure way beyond the scope of what we normally pass as laws in this country and certainly in this legislature.
The second question is a bit more difficult. I do not think there is any way we can leave in that particular wording about the minister considering relevant any factor. I do not see any way we can put constraints on that.
With respect to the other seven criteria, some of which I do not agree with, the wording could be changed, although I think some of it would have to be removed.
We are, in effect, doing the same as we have with judges in the Criminal Code. Over the years, we have given them sentencing principles that guide them but constrain their discretion. We could be doing the same. I do not see this bill being amended. It needs to be redrafted and, in that redrafting, those constraints could be built in.