But that would be under the old legislation. This legislation would say “any other factor that the Minister considers relevant". We don't have a court interpretation on that, because this would be the minister's determination of what's relevant.
Here's my question to you. You're saying that the problem with “may” and “shall”, in terms of the first proposed subsection, is because of this last paragraph, 10(1)(l). In circumstances where I don't know anybody who's identified this as a problem, I don't know anybody who says we need this paragraph, I would suggest to you that we can solve the problem in terms of “may” and “shall” quite easily, by simply deleting proposed paragraph 10(1)(l). Then you would really have no problems with keeping it as “shall”, would you?