My understanding, Ms. Sgro, is that by protocol and convention, legislative drafting has basically evolved such that the word “may” is used and interpreted as “shall” in circumstances where the context dictates.
So as I understand it, this is not a major departure from use of language in legislative enactments, and there's certainly, as I understand it, precedent for it. From our perspective, we don't see it as a major issue. Where an individual qualifies for benefits under the act, the term “may” would simply be interpreted as “shall”. It is not there to in any way limit the responsibility and obligation of the minister to award benefits where eligibility is established.