If I might endeavour to respond to that, Mr. Stoffer, this is a classic example, I would argue, where it would be inappropriate to have the word “shall”. Why? Because this section is simply saying that the minister may on application provide rehabilitation services and vocational assistance to a member or veteran survivor, but you then have to go to other sections of the act in terms of defining what the rehabilitation programming provides, what the vocational benefits are. If you said “shall” here, arguably you may have a situation where the minister is being mandated. He “shall”, but yet they may not meet the other requirements of those programs.
You have to read this in the context of the act as a whole. You could read into it that the minister “may” if the individual meets the other requirements of the legislation. If the individual does, the minister “shall”. That is how you would read that here. This is not to be interpreted in any way as saying that the minister may or may not at his discretion simply decide one day he's going to give this benefit to one individual and not to another.
I would suggest to members that if you read it in the context of the act as a whole, it might be a little clearer as to why it is more appropriate in this section that you have “may” rather than “shall”.