I won't personally challenge you on that, sir, if that's the ruling, but I will say this. We were told by Mr. Butler that in the interpretation of “may” it would almost be an automatic “shall”. But the reality is that in every single one of these clauses, the minister may or may not do something. That's the problem with the new Veterans Charter. This is at the nub of the problem.
Mr. Butler, you may reiterate exactly what you said for the record, if you don't mind, but the reality is there's the word “may”.
I again go back to the committee. I realize it's not going to change, but the word “may” is very weak. The minister may do something or the minister may not do something. This is the problem.
We heard that it will be interpreted to mean “shall”. No, it's not interpreted to mean “shall”. With great respect, Mr. Butler, it is not interpreted to mean “shall”. This is the problem.
The department still has the overriding objective at the very end to say yes to a veteran or no to a veteran, even with concrete medical evidence indicating that's the concern.
But I respect your ruling and I'll abide by it.