I understand.
There was a sense that the statute should be forcing the court to either make a variance or an order that took the material change into account.
I'm a little uncomfortable with it, in the sense that if the court didn't really want to make a change, but was still forced under the wording of the statute to make an order, the court would be going through this unnecessary exercise of a judge saying, well, I have to make an order, but I'm only going to vary one word, like varying a note in a piece of music.
If we were to change the proposed change to say “may make”, do you feel that would detract from the intent of the mover of the bill?