If you eliminate (l) in the drafting the way it is, technically you can stay with “shall” and the courts will still interpret the legislation as being non-exhaustive. Still, they'll say, it is non-exhaustive and the minister can take any factor he considers relevant insofar as it is in line with the object and purpose of the act. That's what the courts have already said about the legislation as it exists now, so it won't change.
On February 3rd, 2011. See this statement in context.