Well, I am reminded of the old adage that one can ask three lawyers and get 10 different opinions. I think it's a healthy discussion we're having, and I think there's some validity to everybody's points.
I want to reassure Mr. Laprade—this is my amendment—there is nothing whatsoever in my amendment that is intended, by changing “may” to “shall”, to try to direct a particular outcome. So I was a little bit puzzled by your opening comments that responded to that, because that's certainly not what anybody on this side of the table is saying.
The bare question is a bare legal one, which is, do we as legislators want to draft legislation that requires a minister to address their mind to certain factors or leave it open to their discretion about whether they address their mind to certain factors? That's it.
I've been dealing with “shall” and “may” for 20 years in my legal career, and that is an absolutely legitimate question and one that is very well substantiated in law. Again, I want to emphasize Mr. Kania's point, again expressing that requiring someone to consider a factor doesn't mean that they can be overturned for anything unless they don't address their mind to that factor. It's just that the courts would be reviewing to make sure that the minister did in fact address their mind in good faith to the factors listed. It doesn't mean that the factors are present; it just means they addressed their mind to it.
I just want to say as well, because you have brought up the connection between “shall” and (l)...the first thing I want to tell you is the NDP does have an amendment to eliminate (l). Number two, the thing about (l) is—and here is one of my positions, which I won't go into too much detail—