Please do drink some water.
“May” and “shall” or “must” do have differences. The term “may” opens the opportunity to take in far more factors than are enumerated in legislation. You can ask any legislative drafter, and they will tell you that terms like “shall” and “must” constrain you and restrict you to factors that are enumerated. The use of “may”, especially in this context, when you are outlining several factors, as consultations are taking place with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples, would allow for other factors that they may outline which are not enumerated to also be added.
It's in that spirit that I'm suggesting the amendment of “may”. It's not to water it down, but to ensure there is an opportunity by the mechanism of consultation to not miss any of the factors that may not currently be enumerated in this clause.