Public Safety committee  I'd like to focus on the concept of “shall“ versus “may“ in the context of legislation. As for a criterion and a factor, there is a difference between the two. When certain criteria must be respected, theoretically this leads to a positive, or negative, decision. That's not the case here.

Public Safety committee  The minister would have the discretionary authority to approve, or deny, a transfer. The bill lists a series of factors and we've tried to move away from criteria as such. We've tried not to have a list of criteria that the minister must comply with or select from when deciding to approve or deny a transfer.

Public Safety committee  I'm not telling you what happens now. The bill merely sets out a number of factors that may be considered, and that's why...

Public Safety committee  In any event, when dealing with words like “may“, “shall“ or “will“, we have to...In the decision-making process, the minister will consider a number of factors listed, or other any other factor, for that matter. The amended section 10 clearly states that the minister may consider the following factors.

Public Safety committee  It is the same as always existed since the first Transfer of Offenders Act.

Public Safety committee  It has always been a ministerial decision. The fact is that we help by guiding the minister in taking into account certain factors or considerations. As a matter of fact, when these considerations are laid out in the act, they're not laid out in such a fashion where it is to guide the minister in denying versus approving: they're there to be considered.

Public Safety committee  Subsection 11(2) of the act requires the minister, when he refuses the transfer, to provide reasons. The fact that a clause provides for the minister to consider any other factor relevant cannot be read in isolation from the other provisions of the act, especially the purpose of the act.

Public Safety committee  --has to be related in reality with the purpose and principle of the act.