As a matter of consistency with what we've been doing thus far, when we take it and change the word “must” to “may”, because we don't want to give definitive direction to the minister, it has no teeth to enforce it. The same situation arises here. There's no means of enforcing this “must”. There's no means to be able to provide any meaningful impact for the word “must”.
I don't think legislation in this House has often been used to give direction to a minister of the crown, and not so definitively.
I think we should stick with the wording we used before, which was “may”, and then the minister can decide.