Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just in a generalized sense as we go forward, I, too, share the concern with the word “may”, because it leaves it too open-ended. I think if there's a purpose to the bill--to provide direction to the minister--then what's the point of having a whole list of conditions that the minister should consider if he doesn't have to consider them? The bill might as well say, “Minister, do whatever the heck you want”.
There would be a number of examples, I think, where we have to be more clear in the fact that the provisions of this bill need to be adhered to and followed and that the minister must have some of the reasons that are explicitly mentioned in the bill in order to take action.