2018 FCA 55, 2018 FCA 55

A-105-16 2018 FCA 55 Edgar Schmidt ( Appellant ) v . Attorney General of Canada ( Respondent ) and The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association ( Interveners ) Indexed as: Schmidt v. Canada (Attorney General) Federal Court of Appeal, Stratas, Near and Rennie JJ.A.—Ottawa, February 8, 2017 and March 20, 2018.

Constitutional Law — Examination of bills and regulations — Applicable standard — Appeal from Federal Court decision dismissing appellant’s action for declaratory relief — Appellant seeking declaration concerning meaning of three legislative provisions (examination provisions): two requiring Minister of Justice (Minister) to “ascertain” or “examine” whether proposed legislation is “inconsistent” with Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or Canadian Bill of Rights, as case may be (Canadian Bill of Rights, s. 3; Department of Justice Act ,

section 4.1 ); third applying to proposed regulations and requiring Clerk of Privy Council to examine regulations to ensure, in particular, not inconsistent with purposes, provisions of Charter, Canadian Bill of Rights ( Statutory Instruments Act , s. 3 ) — In certain circumstances, following examination, report of inconsistency must be made to House of Commons or to regulation-making authorities, as case may be — Respondent submitting that report need be made only when no credible argument can be made that proposed legislation meeting these standards; Federal Court agreeing with respondent — Whether Minister’s

interpretation of examination provisions, in particular, threshold at which report of inconsistency must be made, reasonable — Minister’s

interpretation of examination provisions reasonable, in fact, correct — Text of Canadian Bill of Rights, s. 3, Department of Justice Act, s. 4.1 examined — Though French, English versions thereof slightly different, provisions sharing common meaning in that Minister must examine provisions in question, make determination on existing inconsistencies with guaranteed rights, freedoms — Issue having to be determined herein whether statute considered inconsistent with Canadian Bill of Rights, Charter when statute “more-likely- than-not inconsistent” or whether statute inconsistent if no “credible argument” can be made that statute is consistent — Appellant’s submission that Minister must satisfy herself that proposed legislation is more-likely-than-not inconsistent contrary to text of provisions — Context, purpose of examination provisions reviewed — No part of formal job of Minister of Justice, respondent to give legal advice to Parliament regarding whether proposed legislation constitutional — In conclusion, examination provisions requiring Minister to report whenever no credible argument supporting constitutionality of proposed legislation — Minister’s view of what examination provisions requiring acceptable, defensible, correct — Therefore, “credible argument” examination standard used by Department of Justice in review of legislation under Canadian Bill of Rights, s. 3, Department of Justice Act, s. 4.1, Statutory Instruments Act, s. 3 reasonable reading of what legislation requiring — Appeal dismissed.

Construction of Statutes — Canadian Bill of Rights, s. 3, Department of Justice Act , s. 4.1 , Statutory Instruments Act , s. 3 (examination provisions) requiring Minister of Justice, Clerk of Privy Council to examine whether proposed legislation, regulations “inconsistent” with Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or Canadian Bill of Rights — Whether Minister of Justice’s

interpretation of examination provisions, in particular, threshold at which report of inconsistency must be made, reasonable — When reviewing courts review administrative decision-makers’

interpretations of legislative provisions, they must take care not to interpret legislative provisions in definitive way, then use definitive

interpretation as yardstick to measure what administrator has done — Minister’s

interpretation of examination provisions reasonable, in fact, correct — Text of Canadian Bill of Rights, s. 3, Department of Justice Act, s. 4.1 examined — Though French, English versions slightly different, sharing common meaning — Taken together, key words asking Minister of Justice to examine provisions in question, make determination on existing inconsistencies with guaranteed rights, freedoms — Appellant’s submission that Minister must satisfy herself that proposed legislation more-likely-than-not inconsistent contrary to text of provisions — Examination provisions requiring Minister to report whenever finding no credible argument supporting constitutionality of proposed legislation.

This was an appeal from a Federal Court decision dismissing the appellant’s action for declaratory relief. The appellant sought a declaration concerning the meaning of three legislative provisions (examination provisions). Two require the Minister of Justice (Minister) to “ascertain” or “examine” whether proposed legislation is “inconsistent” with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Canadian Bill of Rights , as the case may be ( Canadian Bill of Rights , s. 3, Department of Justice Act ,

section 4.1 ). A third applies to proposed regulations and requires the Clerk of the Privy Council to examine them to ensure that, among other things, they are not inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Charter and the Canadian Bill of Rights ( Statutory Instruments Act , s. 3 ). In certain circumstances, following the examination, a report of inconsistency must be made to the House of Commons or to regulation-making authorities, as the case may be. What had to be determined in this case was the threshold for reporting under these provisions.

In the Federal Court, the appellant submitted that a report must be made when proposed legislation is “‘more likely than not inconsistent’” with these constitutional and quasi-constitutional standards. The respondent submitted that a report need be made only when no credible argument can be made that the proposed legislation meets these standards. The Federal Court agreed with the respondent. The main issue was whether the Minister’s

interpretation of the examination provisions—in particular, the threshold at which a report of inconsistency must be made, was reasonable. Held , the appeal should be dismissed. Principles concerning administrative decision-makers and the

interpretation of legislation were reviewed. When reviewing courts review

administrative decision-makers’

interpretations of legislative provisions, they must take care not to interpret the legislative provisions ina definitive way and then use that definitive

interpretation as a yardstick to measure what the administrator has done. The Minister’s

interpretation of the examination provisions was reasonable and in fact correct. The text of the examination provisions iscarefully drawn and speaks of ascertaining or examining in particular whether proposed legislation is inconsistent with certain standardsand the requirement to report if it is. The text of

section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights and

section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act were examined. The key words inthese sections are: “ascertain whether”/“rechercher si”/“vérifier si” and “are inconsistent”/“est incompatible” and the

definitions of thesewords was reviewed. Though the French and English versions are slightly different, they share a common meaning. Taken together, thekey words ask the Minister to examine the provisions in question and make a determination on existing inconsistencies with guaranteedrights and freedoms. The heart of the disagreement between the appellant and respondent was when is a statute inconsistent with the Canadian Bill of Rightsand the Charter.

It therefore had to be determined whether it is inconsistent when it is “more-likely-than-not inconsistent” or whether it isinconsistent if no “credible argument” can be made that it is consistent. The appellant’s submission that “not inconsistent” means“consistent for the purposes of the law” was rejected. Had Parliament intended to require the Minister to ensure that the draft provisionsare consistent with guaranteed rights, Parliament could have used that word but it did not.

The appellant’s submission that the Ministermust satisfy herself that proposed legislation is more-likely-than-not inconsistent was contrary to the text of the provisions. A review of the context and purpose of the examination provisions was made. It is not part of the formal job of the Minister of Justiceand the respondent to give legal advice to Parliament regarding whether or not proposed legislation is constitutional. Neither are legaladvisors to Parliament.

Put bluntly, the executive is not limited to proposing measures that are certain to be constitutional or likely to beconstitutional but is entitled to put forward proposed legislation that, after a “robust review of the clauses of draft legislation” is“defendable in Court”. In the examination provisions, Parliament must be taken to have imposed an obligation on the Minister that theMinister can practically meet, not one that is impossible to meet. In conclusion, the examination provisions require the Minister to report whenever there is no credible argument supporting theconstitutionality of proposed legislation.

The Minister’s view of what the examination provisions require was acceptable, defensible andcorrect. Therefore, the “credible argument” examination standard used by the Department in its review of legislation under

section 3 ofthe Canadian Bill of Rights,

section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act and

section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act was a reasonablereading of what this legislation requires. Finally, while the Federal Court chose to make its own declarations about the meaning of theexamination provisions, it could have issued a judgment simply dismissing the appellant’s request for a declaration and letting its reasonsin support of the dismissal speak for themselves. However, the Federal Court did not commit any reversible error. STATUTES AND REGULATIONS CITED

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, S.C.2018, c. 29, s. 73.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Production of Records in Sexual Offence Proceedings), S.C. 1997, c. 30, s. 1. Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44, s. 3. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being

Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982,

Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.)[R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], ss. 1, 7, 10, 11(b), 15, 24(2). Constitution Act, 1982,

Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 52. Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, ss. 278.1 to 278.91. Department of Justice Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-2, ss. 4.1, 5. Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 18, 18.1.

Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21, s. 12. Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13,

Preamble. Statutory Instruments Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-22, s. 3. CASES CITED APPLIED: R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., 2001 SCC 56, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867; Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190;Williams Lake Indian Band v. Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2018 SCC 4, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 83; Delios v.Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 117, 472 N.R. 171. CONSIDERED: Hupacasath First Nation v. Canada (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada), 2015 FCA 4, 379 D.L.R. (4th) 737; Schreiber v.Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 62, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 269; Williams v.

Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017FCA 252, [2018] 4 F.C.R. 174; Canada v. Cheema, 2018 FCA 45, [2018] 4 F.C.R. 328; Edwards, Henrietta Muir v. Attorney-Generalfor Canada, (UK JCPC), [1929] UKPC 86 (BAILII), [1930] A.C. 124, [1930] D.L.R. 98.

REFERRED TO: Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016 SCC 12, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 99; Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid,2005 SCC 30, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667; Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society,2012 SCC 45, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524; Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, (SCC), [1998] 1S.C.R. 626, (1998), 157 D.L.R. (4th) 385; Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36, [2013] 2S.C.R. 559; JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v.

Canada (National Revenue), 2013 FCA 250, [2014] 2 F.C.R. 557, [2014]D.T.C. 5001; Gitxaala Nation v. Canada, 2016 FCA 187, [2016] 4 F.C.R. 418; Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v.Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011 SCC 61, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping CentresLtd., 2016 SCC 47, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 293; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Guérin, 2017 SCC 42, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 3, 412 D.L.R. (4th) 103;Quebec (Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail) v.

Caron, 2018 SCC 3, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 35; Rizzo &Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, (1998), 154 D.L.R. (4th) 193; Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v.Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601; McLean v.British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013 SCC 67, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895; ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy &Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; Ref re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I.; Ref re Independence andImpartiality of Judges of the Prov.

Court of P.E.I., (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3, (1997), 150 D.L.R. (4th) 577; Babcock v.Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 57, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 3; R. v. O’Connor, (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411, (1995), 130D.L.R. (4th) 235; R. v. Mills, (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668, (1999), 180 D.L.R. (4th) 1; Fraser v. P.S.S.R.B., (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 455, (1985), 23 D.L.R. (4th) 122; Osborne v. Canada (Treasury Board), (SCC),[1991] 2 S.C.R. 69, (1991), 82 D.L.R. (4th) 321; Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331; Canada(Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; Law v.

Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497, (1999), 170 D.L.R. (4th) 1; Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 12, [2011] 1S.C.R. 396; Quebec (Attorney General) v. A., 2013 SCC 5, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61; R. v. Stillman, (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R.607, (1997), 144 D.L.R. (4th) 193; R. v. Collins, (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265, (1987), 38 D.L.R. (4th) 508; R. v. Grant,2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; R. v. Cook, (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597, (1998), 164 D.L.R. (4th) 1; R. v. Hape,2007 SCC 26, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292; R. v.

Therens, (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613, (1985), 18 D.L.R. (4th) 655; SlaightCommunications Inc. v. Davidson, (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038, (1989), 59 D.L.R. (4th) 4; Doré v. Barreau du Québec,2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395; Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 613; Société desAcadiens v. Association of Parents, (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549, (1986), 27 D.L.R. (4th) 406; R. v. Beaulac, (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768, (1999), 173 D.L.R. (4th) 193; R. v. Askov, (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199,(1990), 74 D.L.R. (4th) 355; R. v.

Morin, (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, (1992), 71 C.C.C. (3d) 1; R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631; Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519, (1993), 107D.L.R. (4th) 342; Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 1, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 3; Delisle v.Canada (Deputy Attorney General), (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 989, (1999), 176 D.L.R. (4th) 513; SaskatchewanFederation of Labour v.

Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 245; Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, (1987), 38 D.L.R. (4th) 161; Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin; NovaScotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Laseur, 2003 SCC 54, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; Cooper v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854, (1996), 140 D.L.R. (4th) 193; Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2001 SCC 94,[2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016; Native Women’s Assn. of Canada v. Canada, (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627, (1994), 119 D.L.R.(4th) 224; Baier v.

Alberta, 2007 SCC 31, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 673; Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation ofStudents — British Columbia Component, 2009 SCC 31, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 295; Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, (1989), 58 D.L.R. (4th) 577; Walker v. Prince Edward Island, (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R.407, (1995), 124 D.L.R. (4th) 127; Godbout v. Longueuil (City), (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844, (1997), (ON CA), 52 D.L.R. (4th) 577; Canadian Western Bank v.

Alberta, 2007 SCC 22, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3; Rogers Communications Inc. v.Châteauguay (City), 2016 SCC 23, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 467; Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (AttorneyGeneral), 2014 SCC 59, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 31; Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 433; Referencere Bill 30,

An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.), (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, (1987), 40 D.L.R. (4th) 18; Re B.C.Motor Vehicle Act, (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, (1985), 24 D.L.R. (4th) 536; Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada(Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425, (1990),67 D.L.R. (4th) 161; R. v. Rahey, (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588, (1987), 39 D.L.R. (4th) 481; Committee for theCommonwealth of Canada v. Canada, (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139, (1991), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 385; Mackay v. Manitoba, (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357, (1989), 61 D.L.R. (4th) 385.

AUTHORS CITED Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd ed. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 2004, “ascertain”, “inconsistent”, “whether”. Dictionnaire de droit québécois et canadien: avec table des matières et lexique anglais-français, 5th ed. Montréal: Wilson & Lafleur,2015, “incompatible”. Falzon, Frank A.V., Q.C. “Statutory

Interpretation, Deference and the Ambiguous Concept of ‘Ambiguity’ on Judicial Review” (Paperdelivered at the C.L.E. B.C. conference, November 16, 2015). Le Nouveau Petit Robert: dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française, Paris: Le Robert, 2006, “incompatible”,“rechercher”, “si”, “vérifier”. APPEAL from a Federal Court decision (2016 FC 269, [2016] 3 F.C.R. 477) dismissing the appellant’s action for declaratory relief in amatter involving the meaning of three legislative provisions concerning the examination of proposed legislation and regulations. Appealdismissed. APPEARANCES David Yazbeck and Michael Fisher for appellant.

Alain Préfontaine, Elizabeth Kikuchi and Sarah Sherhols for respondent. Gillian Hnatiw, Cara Faith Zwibel and Daniel Sheppard for interveners Canadian Civil Liberties Association and British Columbia CivilLiberties Association. SOLICITORS OF RECORD Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP, Ottawa, for appellant. Deputy Attorney General of Canada for respondent. Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Toronto, for intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Goldblatt Partners LLP, Toronto, for intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

The following are the reasons for judgment rendered in English by [1] Stratas J.A.: This is an appeal from the judgment dated March 2, 2016 of the Federal Court (per Noël J.): 2016 FC 269, [2016] 3F.C.R. 477. The Federal Court dismissed the appellant’s action for declaratory relief. [2] The appellant sought a declaration concerning the meaning of three legislative provisions.

Two require the Minister to“ascertain” or “examine” whether proposed legislation is “inconsistent” with the Charter [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms] orthe Canadian Bill of Rights, as the case may be: Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44,

section 3; Department of Justice Act, R.S.C.,1985, c. J-2,

section 4.1. A third applies to proposed regulations, and requires the Clerk of the Privy Council (in consultation with theDeputy Minister) to “examine [them] … to ensure” that, among other things, they do “not trespass unduly on existing rights andfreedoms and [are not], in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms andthe Canadian Bill of Rights”: Statutory Instruments Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-22,

section 3. [3] In certain circumstances, following the examination, a report of inconsistency must be made to the House of Commons or toregulation-making authorities, as the case may be. But what is the threshold for reporting under these provisions? [4] In the Federal Court, the appellant submitted that a report must be made when proposed legislation is “‘more likely than notinconsistent’” with these constitutional and quasi-constitutional standards. The respondent submitted that a report need be made onlywhen no credible argument can be made that the proposed legislation meets these standards.

The Federal Court agreed with therespondent. [5] In my view, the Federal Court did not err. In fact, I agree substantially with its reasons, though I have additional reasons insupport of the judgment it gave. Therefore, I would dismiss the appeal. A. A preliminary objection [6] In her memorandum, the respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed because the appellant has failed to meet theconditions necessary for the granting of declaratory relief set out in Daniels v.

Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016SCC 12, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 99, at paragraph 11. [7] The respondent adds that to the extent the appellant asks the Court to declare when the Minister ought to report an inconsistencyto the House of Commons, Parliament is to decide that. It is Parliament’s job to determine, as a matter of privilege, whether the Ministeris performing her duty to the House as it expects: Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, 2005 SCC 30, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667. [8] I reject the respondent’s submissions.

As a former examiner of proposed legislation under the examination provisions, theappellant had a sufficient interest to bring this challenge in the Federal Court and to seek the declarations. Were a declaration granted,there would be a real, practical effect: under the examination provisions, the reporting threshold would change. [9] To find that the appellant does not have the standing to seek the declarations is to render the examination provisions immunefrom challenge.

On these facts, were it necessary to do so, I would grant the appellant public interest standing to seek the declarations:Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524. [10] I also reject the respondent’s characterization of this matter as a matter of Parliamentary privilege. [11] We are dealing with legislation that imposes obligations on the Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council (in consultation withthe Deputy Minister) to perform some action.

The question before us is whether these public officials are complying with theirlegislative obligations. The answer turns on how we interpret the legislation. [12] This is the normal stuff of judicial determination. This is especially so for the Federal Courts who are generally responsible forthe policing and supervision of the exercise of legislative powers by the federal executive: Canada (Human Rights Commission) v.Canadian Liberty Net, (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626, (1998), 157 D.L.R. (4th) 385, at paragraph 24; Federal Courts Act,R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, sections 18 and 18.1. B.

The legislative provisions in issue [13]

Section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights provides as follows: Duties of Minister of Justice 3

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor in

Council, examine every regulation transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity. Exception

(2) A regulation need not be examined in accordance with subsection (1) if prior to being made it was examined as a proposed regulation in accordance with

section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act to ensure that it was not inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part. [ 14 ]

Section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act provides as follows: Examination of Bills and regulations 4.1

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, examine every regulation transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Minister shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity. Exception

(2) A regulation need not be examined in accordance with subsection (1) if prior to being made it was examined as a proposed regulation in accordance with

section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act to ensure that it was not inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . [ 15 ]

Section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act provides as follows: Proposed regulations sent to Clerk of Privy Council 3

(1) Subject to any regulations made pursuant to paragraph 20(a), where a regulation-making authority proposes to make a regulation, it shall cause to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council three copies of the proposed regulation in both official languages. Examination

(2) On receipt by the Clerk of the Privy Council of copies of a proposed regulation pursuant to subsection (1), the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, shall examine the proposed regulation to ensure that (

a) it is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be made; (

b) it does not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which it is to be made; (

c) it does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights ; and (

d) the form and draftsmanship of the proposed regulation are in accordance with established standards. Advise regulation-making authority

(3) When a proposed regulation has been examined as required by subsection (2), the Clerk of the Privy Council shall advise the regulation-making authority that the proposed regulation has been so examined and shall indicate any matter referred to in paragraph (2) (a), (b), (

c) or (

d) to which, in the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, based on that examination, the attention of the regulation- making authority should be drawn. Application (4) Paragraph (2)(

d) does not apply to any proposed rule, order or regulation governing the practice or procedure in proceedings before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada or the Court Martial Appeal Court. [ 16 ] Though the legislation differs in minor ways, for the purposes of this case they may be dealt with together. This is in keeping with the “principle of [statutory]

interpretation that presumes a harmony, coherence, and consistency between statutes dealing with the same subject matter”: R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd ., 2001 SCC 56 , [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867, at paragraph 52 . For the remainder of these reasons, I shall refer to this legislation as the “examination provisions”. C. Is there a standard of review to be applied? [ 17 ] In an appeal from a judgment on an application for judicial review in the Federal Court, we must assess whether that Court chose the correct standard of review and whether it applied it properly: Agraira v.

Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2013 SCC 36 , [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559, at paragraphs 45–47 . [ 18 ] In doing this, first we must assess the true or real nature or the essential character of the appellant’s application: JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue) , 2013 FCA 250 , [2014] 2 F.C.R. 557, [2014] D.T.C. 5001, at paragraph 50 ; Gitxaala Nation v. Canada , 2016 FCA 187 , [2016] 4 F.C.R. 418, at paragraph 137 . The form of the pleading takes a back-seat to its

substance: JP Morgan, at paragraphs 49–50. [19] In this case, the appellant does not challenge any specific administrative decision. Rather, he seeks declaratory relief. Theappellant says that the Minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Deputy Minister have been misinterpreting and misapplying theexamination provisions by adopting too high a reporting threshold. [20] The Federal Court observed (at paragraph 40) that, despite being framed as an action for a declaratory judgment, the proceedingwas in effect a judicial review of the

interpretation of the examination provisions by the Minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council and theDeputy Minister. I agree. [21] This Court adopted this approach in Hupacasath First Nation v. Canada (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada), 2015FCA 4, 379 D.L.R. (4th) 737. In that case, a First Nation sought a declaration that it was entitled to be consulted before the Governmentof Canada entered to an international agreement. In substance, the request for a declaration arose in the context of an administrativedecision made by the Government of Canada.

The Government of Canada decided—implicitly or explicitly in the face of the FirstNation’s stated position—that it could bring the international agreement into effect without consulting with the First Nation or otherIndigenous peoples. Through the use of a declaration, the First Nation sought to set aside the administrative decision. Given this was thesubstance of the matter, this Court went on to determine the standard of review, as it does whenever it is asked to review administrativedecision-making.

It applied the reasonableness standard. [22] The thrust of this proceeding is an attack against the Minister’s longstanding administrative conduct in relation to theexamination provisions, and specifically her longstanding conduct in failing to make a report of inconsistency when one allegedly shouldbe made. The core of this proceeding is the Minister’s

interpretation of the meaning of the examination provisions. This Court is asked inessence to quash that

interpretation. As in Hupacasath and as the Federal Court noted, the standard of review must be considered. D. What is the standard of review? [23] In the case before us, the Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council (in consultation with the Deputy Minister) are charged withthe responsibility of examining proposed legislation. They are “interpreting [their] own statute or statutes closely connected to [their]function, with which [they] will have particular familiarity”: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, atparagraph 54.

Thus, the presumptive standard of review in this circumstance is reasonableness: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at paragraph 54. This has been reaffirmed in many other cases: see, e.g., Alberta (Information and PrivacyCommissioner) v. Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011 SCC 61, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654, at paragraph 34; and, most recently, see Edmonton(City) v. Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd., 2016 SCC 47, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 293; Quebec (Attorney General) v.

Guérin,2017 SCC 42, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 3, 412 D.L.R. (4th) 103; and Quebec (Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité dutravail) v. Caron, 2018 SCC 3, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 35. E. Principles concerning administrative decision-makers and the

interpretation of legislation [24] The Supreme Court has given much guidance on how courts should interpret legislative provisions. However, it has neverdefinitively and explicitly told us how administrative decision-makers should interpret legislative provisions. Implicitly, though, it has.Without exception, when the Supreme Court has conducted reasonableness review of administrative decision-makers’

interpretations oflegislative provisions, it assesses their

interpretations using the methodology it has told courts to use. [25] What is that methodology? Legislative provisions are to be interpreted in accordance with their text, context and purpose: Rizzo& Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, (1998), 154 D.L.R. (4th) 193; Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnershipv. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601. [26] In undertaking the interpretive task we must also be mindful that these provisions are to be given “such fair, large and liberalconstruction and

interpretation as best ensures the attainment of [their] objects”:

Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21,

section 12. Andboth the English and French versions of each statute are equally authoritative statements: Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002SCC 62, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 269, at paragraph 54. [27] We analyze the text, context and purpose with a view to discerning “what the legislation authentically means”: Williams v.Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 FCA 252, [2018] 4 F.C.R. 174, at paragraph 48; Canada v.

Cheema, 2018FCA 45, [2018] 4 F.C.R. 328, at paragraph 80. [28] This must be done objectively and dispassionately without regard to extraneous considerations such as personal policies orpolitical preferences. We must not drive for results we personally prefer, fasten onto what we like and ignore what we don’t, or drawupon what we think is best for Canadians or Canadian society.

Common to these practices is an improper focus on what we want thelegislation to mean rather than on what the legislation authentically means: Williams, at paragraph 48. [29] Put another way, “the proper focus when interpreting legislation is, and must always be, on what the legislator actually said, noton what one might wish or pretend it to have said”: Williams Lake Indian Band v.

Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and NorthernDevelopment), 2018 SCC 4, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 83, at paragraph 202 (per Brown J., McLachlin C.J. [as she then was] concurring, the otherJustices not disagreeing with the statement). [30] This Court recently put this same idea as follows: Judges are only lawyers who happen to hold a judicial commission. Just like the people they serve, judges are unelected and are boundby legislation.

What, then, is the right of judges to avert their eyes from the authentic meaning of legislation enacted by the elected and,instead, to choose a meaning that accords with their own particular views … (Cheema, at paragraph 79; see also Williams, at paragraph 49.)

[31] On a similar note, this Court also put it this way: Absent a successful argument that legislation is inconsistent with the Constitution, judges—like everyone else—are bound by thelegislation. They must take it as it is. They must not insert into it the meaning they want. They must discern and apply its authenticmeaning, nothing else. How do we go about this? As the authorities suggest, we are to investigate the text, context and purpose of the legislation as objectivelyand fairly as we can. On this, especially when investigating the purpose, we have assistance: the

Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21,canons of statutory construction known to both legislative drafters and courts, and other legitimate aids to

interpretation such as—incertain circumstances and with appropriate caution—extraneous, contemporaneous materials (e.g., regulatory impact or officialexplanatory statements), legislative debates, and legislative history. (Williams, at paragraphs 50–51.) [32] In interpreting legislation, one can assess the likely effects or results of rival

interpretations to see which accords mostharmoniously with text, context and purpose. This is appropriate: …. The judge is assessing effects or results not to identify an outcome that accords with personal policies or political preferences. Ratherthe judge is assessing them against the standard, accepted markers of text, context and purpose in order to discern the authentic meaningof the legislation. For example, if the effect of one

interpretation offends the legislative purpose but the effect of another

interpretationdoes not, the latter may be preferable to the former. (Williams, at paragraph 52.) [33] The legislation at issue in this case bears upon the Charter. In a case like this, the danger of personal policies or politicalpreferences illegitimately injecting themselves into the interpretive process is high—the Charter arouses strong views and passions insome. [34] Many take the view that the Charter is part of a living tree that should grow and expand.

Thus, any measure that relates to theCharter, such as the legislation before us, should be interpreted in order to promote the greatest possible advancement of Charter rightsand freedoms generally.

By way of example, the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, urges that the reporting thresholdfor reports of inconsistency with the Charter should be lowered significantly so that more reports are made and a more intenseconsideration of Charter issues takes place during the legislative process, perhaps eliminating the burdens of Charter litigation forwould-be Charter claimants. [35] On this subject, we are dealing with legislative provisions that, among other things, require the vetting of proposed legislation forinconsistency with the Charter.

In interpreting these provisions, we must be on guard not to adopt a one-sided view of the Charter at thebehest of any party. The Charter is a document suffused with balances. Take the opening

section as an example. It tells us that theCharter guarantees rights and freedoms. But it also tells us that this is subject “to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can bedemonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” [section 1]. And the Constitution of which it is a part—our supreme law undersection 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982—is not just a “living tree capable of growth and expansion”, but also one whose “growth andexpansion [is] within its natural limits”: Edwards, Henrietta Muir v.

Attorney-General for Canada, (UK JCPC), [1929]UKPC 86 (BAILII), [1930] A.C. 124, [1930] D.L.R. 98, at pages 106–107 D.L.R. F. Conducting reasonableness review [36] How should one conduct reasonableness review of an administrative decision-maker’s

interpretation of legislative provisions?On this, the Supreme Court has given us a little guidance. [37] Legislative provisions come in all types, for many purposes. Some are very exact in their wording and possess little or noambiguity in their meaning. For those, we would expect there to be very few permissible acceptable and defensible interpretive optionsavailable to the administrative decision-maker—perhaps even just one: see McLean v.

British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013SCC 67, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895, at paragraph 38. [38] Others are more loosely worded, with ambiguity, using phrases such as “in its opinion,” “in its discretion”, “in the publicinterest”, and “when reasonable”, and, thus, many more permissible, acceptable and defensible options are available to the administrativedecision-maker: Frank A.V. Falzon, Q.C., “Statutory

Interpretation, Deference and the Ambiguous Concept of ‘Ambiguity’ on JudicialReview,” C.L.E. B.C. conference, November 16, 2015. Because of the breadth and ambiguity of these sorts of phrases, the administrativedecision-maker trying to discern their meaning will have much regard to context and purpose. And some administrative decision-makersare very well placed to appreciate context and purpose due to their specialization, experience and expertise. [39] It must be remembered that reasonableness is a deferential standard: Dunsmuir, at paragraph 47.

We must be on guard not to dowhat some call “disguised correctness review”. This Court explained this concept as follows: Under the reasonableness standard, we do not develop our own view of the matter and then apply it to the administrator’s decision,finding any inconsistency to be unreasonable. In other words, as reviewing judges, we do not make our own yardstick and then use thatyardstick to measure what the administrator did, finding any inconsistency to be unreasonable. That is nothing more than the courtdeveloping, asserting and enforcing its own view of the matter—correctness review. (Delios v.

Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 117, 472 N.R. 171, at paragraph 28.) [40] Thus, when reviewing courts review administrative decision-makers’

interpretations of legislative provisions, they must takecare not to interpret the legislative provisions in a definitive way and then use that definitive

interpretation as a yardstick to measure whatthe administrator has done.

G. Analysis [ 41 ] Overall, I conclude that the Minister’s

interpretation of the examination provisions—in particular, the threshold at which a report of inconsistency must be made, is reasonable. In fact, I consider the Minister’s

interpretation to be correct.

(1) The legislative text [ 42 ] The text of the examination provisions is carefully drawn. It does not obligate the Minister to make a general report concerning the consistency of the proposed legislation with particular standards. Nor does it require a general report to be made on the potential effects of the proposed legislation on particular standards. It is drawn far more narrowly. [ 43 ] This is to be contrasted with the breadth of proposed, new examination provisions that are currently before Parliament: Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act , S.C. 2018, c. 29,

section 73 (requiring the Minister in every case to give to Parliament a statement on the “potential effects” of proposed legislation on Charter rights and freedoms). [ 44 ] The examination provisions speak of ascertaining or examining whether proposed legislation is inconsistent with certain standards or “ensuring” that proposed legislation is not inconsistent with certain standards, and, if the proposed legislation is inconsistent, to report. [ 45 ] Implicit in this is the idea that a positive finding must be made, to some degree of certitude, that the legislation is inconsistent before a report can be made.

The shared meaning of the words “ascertain” and “ensure” and “ rechercher ” and “ vérifier si ” require a person to be satisfied that a state of affairs exists. Thus, under the examination provisions, either the Minister is satisfied that a provision is “inconsistent” or she is not. [ 46 ] The examination provisions do not require the Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council (in consultation with the Deputy Minister) to go so far as to confirm that the legislation is consistent with standards.

I agree with the following submission in the respondent’s memorandum (at paragraph 59): Despite the appellant’s affirmation to the contrary, ascertaining inconsistency (“ incompatibilité ”) is not the same thing as ascertaining “consistency” (“compatibilité”). By choosing not to ask the Minister to ascertain “consistency”, Parliament signals that it expects the Minister to offer her assurance that the bill is defensible; the credible argument standard matches this expectation. [ 47 ] I wish to offer more detailed analysis of the text of the examination provisions. – I – [ 48 ] First, the text of

section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights and

section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act . As noted by the Federal Court at paragraphs 113 and 114, the key words in these sections are: “ascertain whether”/“ rechercher si ”/“ vérifier si ” and “are inconsistent”/“ est incompatible ”. [ 49 ] The word “ascertain” is defined by the Canadian Oxford Dictionary , (2nd ed. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 2004), as “find out as a definite fact”.

Therefore, the plain text of both English versions directs the Minister to find out whether the provisions that she is examining are inconsistent with guaranteed rights and freedoms. [ 50 ] Le Nouveau Petit Robert : dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française , Paris: Le Robert (2006) defines “ rechercher ” (French version of the Canadian Bill of Rights ) as “1. chercher de façon consciente, méthodique ; 2. chercher à connaître, à découvrir , “ déterminer ” is listed as a word of shared meaning; 3. reprendre ; 4. tenter d’obtenir par une recherche ; 5. tenter, essayer de connaître ”. [ 51 ] Le Nouveau Petit Robert defines “ vérifier ” (French version of the Department of Justice Act ) as “1. examiner la valeur de … par une confrontation avec les faits, ou par un contrôle de la cohérence interne , “ examiner ” and “ contrôler ” are listed as words of shared meaning; 2. examiner (une chose) ; 3.

Reconnaître ou faire reconnaître pour vrai par l’examen ”. [ 52 ] Both French words require some sort of examination and conclusion. “ Rechercher ” requires the Minister to look into the matter in a methodical manner in order to make a determination. “ Vérifier ” speaks to the same duty, requiring the Minister to examine the provisions. Both of these words are entirely consistent with the English word “ascertain”.

All three words require the Minister of Justice to undertake an examination and come to a conclusion. [ 53 ] “Ascertain”, “ rechercher ” and “ vérifier ” cannot be divorced from the words that follow: “whether” and “ si ”. The words “whether” and “ si ” colour the preceding words. [ 54 ] Le Nouveau Petit Robert defines “ si ” as “ introduit soit une condition (à laquelle correspond une conséquence dans la principale), soit une simple supposition ou éventualité .” That is, the word introduces a conditional clause with a corresponding consequence.

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines “whether” as “1 introducing an indirect question; 2 introducing an indirect question, simple inquiry, or opinion, in which the second alternative is implied only.” The French word “ si ” is closer in meaning to the English word “if” than the word “whether”. However, this difference is not material in interpreting these provisions. [ 55 ] Though the French and English versions are slightly different they do share a common meaning. Taken together the key words ask the Minister to examine the provisions in question and make a determination.

The Minister must answer the question “are these provisions inconsistent with guaranteed rights and freedoms”. If the Minister determines that they are, the Minister is to report to the House of Commons. [ 56 ] The appellant submits at paragraphs 46–50 of his memorandum that the use of the word “whether” calls for a balanced opinion

or judgment, “not certainty on one side and faint possibility on the other”. The appellant submits that as a result the Minister must come to both a conclusion on “consistency” with guaranteed rights and freedoms and also a conclusion on “inconsistency”. [ 57 ] I disagree. [ 58 ] This argument cannot be reconciled with the express wording of both Acts, which only use the term “inconsistent”, thereby requiring the Minister to undertake only one type of inquiry. Further, this argument cannot be reconciled with the French versions which use the word “ si ”.

The Minister is to act only if she determines that a provision is inconsistent. The conditional clause is the finding of inconsistency and the consequence is a report to the House of Commons. The language of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Department of Justice Act cannot support an

interpretation that requires the Minister to make two determinations, one about consistency and one to inconsistency, and then “determine which of the two possible views is better”: appellant’s memorandum, at paragraph 49. [ 59 ] To that end, we come to the heart of the disagreement between the appellant and respondent: when is a statute inconsistent with the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter ? Is it inconsistent when it is “more-likely-than-not inconsistent”?

Or is it inconsistent if no “credible argument” can be made that it is consistent? [ 60 ] The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines “inconsistent”, in part, as “2 (often foll. by with) not in keeping; discordant; at variance. 3 not staying the same throughout; having self-contradictory elements.” [ 61 ] Le Nouveau Petit Robert defines “ incompatible ” as “[q]ui ne peut coexister, être associé, réuni avec (une autre chose)”; “contraire”, “inconciliable” and “opposé” are listed as words of shared meaning. “ Incompatible ” is defined in the Dictionnaire de droit québécois et canadien: avec table des matières et lexique anglais-français , 5th ed.

Montréal: Wilson & Lafleur, 2015, as “1. Se dit certains textes juridiques qui s’opposent ou qui ne peuvent s’appliquer simultanément . (Angl. Inconsistent)”. [ 62 ] Both the French “ incompatible ” and English “inconsistent” have the same meaning: things are inconsistent when they cannot stand together; they are opposite of one another; they are repugnant. [ 63 ] The appellant, at paragraphs 30–31 of his memorandum, submits that “ not inconsistent” (emphasis in the original) means “consistent for the purposes of the law”. No authority was cited to support this conclusion. To support this

interpretation the appellant points to subsection 4.1(2) of the Department of Justice Act and subsection 3(2) of the Canadian Bill of Rights , the provisions that exempt the Minister of Justice from examining draft regulations if that task was already done by the Clerk of the Privy Council under the Statutory Instruments Act . The appellant points out that while the English version uses the words “not inconsistent” the French version uses “ à vérifier sa compatibilité ”.

The appellant argues that in this way “Parliament has confirmed that it understands and intends “not inconsistent” to be the same as “ compatible ” (i.e., consistent)”. [ 64 ] This submission is not compelling. [ 65 ] Had Parliament intended to require the Minister to ensure that the draft provisions are consistent with guaranteed rights, Parliament could have used that word. It did not. Both subsection 3(1) of the Canadian Bill of Rights and subsection 4.1(1) of the Department of Justice Act use the word “inconsistent”. The plain meaning of these provisions is not changed by the French version of a subsequent

section which exempts the Minister from examining draft regulations if that job was already done by the Clerk of the Privy Council. [ 66 ] The credible argument standard employed by the Minister of Justice allows the Minister of Justice to fulfill her obligations under the examination provisions.

If the Minister of Justice believes that there is a bona fide argument based on the current state of the law that a court will accept that the proposed legislation passes muster—that it is arguably compliant with both the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter—she cannot come to the conclusion that the proposed legislation is inconsistent with guaranteed rights. The Minister will not be required to report. The credible argument standard allows the Minister to answer the only question asked of her . [ 67 ] The Minister is not asked to perform a balancing exercise. This

interpretation is bolstered by the use of the words “are” and “ est ” in the provisions. This language requires certainty as to the inconsistency. [ 68 ] The appellant’s submission that the Minister must satisfy herself that proposed legislation is more-likely-than-not inconsistent is contrary to the text of the provisions.

Textually, the provisions do not require a report if the proposed legislation “may be inconsistent”, “could be inconsistent” or “is/are likely to be inconsistent”. – II – [ 69 ] Now, some additional observations concerning the text of subsection 3(2) of the Statutory Instruments Act . [ 70 ] This provision requires the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, to “examine” a proposed regulation to “ensure” that it does not “trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms” and “is not, in any case, inconsistent” with the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter . [ 71 ] As noted by the Federal Court at paragraph 129, the French and English versions are worded differently.

The English version states that the Clerk of the Privy Council “‘shall examine’” the regulations “‘to ensure that’” whereas the French version simply requires the Clerk to “‘ procède […] à l’examen ’”. The French version does not contain a provision requiring the Clerk to “ensure” any result. In this case then the English version may have a broader meaning than the French version. [ 72 ] In interpreting bilingual provisions, “where one of the two versions is broader than the other, the common meaning [favours] the more restricted or limited meaning”: Schreiber , above, at paragraph 56 .

What, then, is the common meaning? [ 73 ] In this case the French version does not contain a corresponding obligation to ensure any result; the only obligation imposed by the French version is to undertake an examination. Therefore, the shared common meaning requires the Clerk of the Privy Council to

undertake an examination, but does not require the Clerk to ensure any result. [74] As with the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Department of Justice Act, the Clerk of the Privy Council is called into action ifhe/she, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, finds an inconsistency. However, the wording of

section 3 of the StatutoryInstruments Act is slightly different: the Clerk must examine to see if the proposed regulations “trespass unduly” and are “not …inconsistent” with guaranteed rights. Does this mean that the Clerk of the Privy Council is required to undertake a different analysis withregards to regulations than the Minister of Justice would? I think not.

If the regulations are not examined by the Clerk of the PrivyCouncil under the Statutory Instruments Act, then subsections 3(2) of the Canadian Bill of Rights and 4.1(2) of the Department of JusticeAct are not engaged and the job falls to the Minister of Justice. As set out above, the Minister is required to examine draft bills andregulations and issue a report if there is an inconsistency with guaranteed rights. Since all three statutes deal with the same subject matterand impose complimentary obligations, the

interpretation of each statute must be consistent and harmonious with the

interpretation of theother statutes: Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., above. The job of the Clerk of the Privy Council, when examining regulations, cannot beinterpreted in a different way than the job of the Minister of Justice.

(2) Context and purpose [75] The examination provisions do not tell us expressly the threshold at which an officer should report an inconsistency. At this pointwe have only the textual clues that the respondent’s view of the examination provisions is correct. [76] We must proceed, as we always must, to a review of the context and purpose of the examination provisions: ATCO Gas &Pipelines Ltd. v.

Alberta (Energy & Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140, at paragraph 48. [77] In the record before us, we see no analysis by the Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council themselves concerning the contextand purpose of the examination provisions. However, there is plenty of evidence that assists us in understanding the context of theseprovisions and their overall role. I refer to some of this evidence below. [78] Part of the surrounding context is what the House of Commons has adopted for itself when vetting private members’ bills, whichare not subject to the examination provisions.

The House will only pass bills that clearly do not violate the Charter: see the affidavitevidence in the appeal book, Vol. 2, at pages 457–458 and 927–928. If the appellant’s

interpretation of the examination provisions iscorrect, it would seem perverse that the House would adopt a laxer standard than the examination provisions require for governmentbills. More likely is that the House adopted a standard commensurate with the one in the examination provisions. [79] Another important element of context is found in legislative history. In 1960, Parliament enacted the examination provision foundin

section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights. From 1960 to 1985, consistent with the high threshold for reporting an inconsistency to theHouse of Commons, only one report under this examination provision was made. In 1985, Parliament amended the Department of JusticeAct to include the examination provision now found in

section 4.1. If Parliament believed that the reporting threshold in

section 3 of theCanadian Bill of Rights was too high, it could have enacted a different threshold in

section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act. It didnot. It used wording that is virtually identical to that in

section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights. [80] An important part of the context that affects the

interpretation of the examination provisions is the relationship between theexecutive, Parliament, and the judiciary—in other words, the separation of powers, a fundamental part of our constitutionalarrangements: Ref re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I.; Ref re Independence and Impartiality of Judges of the Prov.Court of P.E.I., (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3, (1997), 150 D.L.R. (4th) 577; Babcock v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002SCC 57, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 3, at paragraph 54.

The examination provisions were enacted against this backdrop and must be interpreted in amanner consistent with it. [81] I agree with the Federal Court’s description of this backdrop (at paragraphs 277–278): To each his own obligation: the Executive governs and introduces bills to Parliament; Parliament examines and debates government billsand, if they are acceptable to Parliament, enacts them into law; the Judiciary, following litigation or a reference, determines whether ornot legislation is compliant with guaranteed rights.

Each branch of our democratic system is responsible for its respective role and shouldnot count on the others to assume its responsibilities. As Deputy Minister of Justice Pentney said in his affidavit at paragraph 84 and during his testimony before the Court: The examination standard must therefore reflect the role of Parliament in our constitution. Elected governments shape policy andintroduce legislation as they think best, while remaining mindful of the outer boundaries set by the Constitution and by guaranteedrights.

Parliament debates and enacts legislation, including giving consideration to its consistency with the Constitution and the Bill ofRights; Courts have the ultimate responsibility to decide whether legislation is constitutional. The credible argument standard is intendedto allow each Branch of Government to perform its appropriate role in ensuring that guaranteed rights are respected. This system is referred to as “checks and balances”.

The actions of each branch, when they assume their respective roles, create multiplechecks and balances, all of which aim to ensure that our laws are compliant with the rights guaranteed by the Charter and the Bill ofRights. As Professor emeritus Peter W.

Hogg was referred to saying previously [Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th ed., vol.2 (Scarborough: Carswell, 2007), referred to at paragraph 189 of the Federal Court’s reasons], the main safeguards of civil liberties inCanada are the democratic character of Canadian political institutions, the independence of the judiciary, and a legal tradition of respectfor civil liberties.

Each component has a vital role to play in ensuring our laws are properly enacted and respect our rights. [82] It is not part of the formal job of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada to give legal advice to Parliamentregarding whether or not proposed legislation is constitutional. Neither the Minister of Justice nor the Attorney General of Canada arelegal advisors to Parliament. [83] This is seen in sections 4 and 5 of the Department of Justice Act. These sections read as follows:

Powers, duties and function of Minister 4 The Minister is the official legal adviser of the Governor General and the legal member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada andshall (

a) see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with law; (

b) have the superintendence of all matters connected with the administration of justice in Canada, not within the jurisdiction of thegovernments of the provinces; (

c) advise on the legislative Acts and proceedings of each of the legislatures of the provinces, and generally advise the Crown on allmatters of law referred to the Minister by the Crown; and (

d) carry out such other duties as are assigned by the Governor in Council to the Minister. … Powers, duties and functions of Attorney General 5 The Attorney General of Canada (

a) is entrusted with the powers and charged with the duties that belong to the office of the Attorney General of England by law or usage,in so far as those powers and duties are applicable to Canada, and also with the powers and duties that, by the laws of the severalprovinces, belonged to the office of attorney general of each province up to the time when the Constitution Act, 1867, came into effect, inso far as those laws under the provisions of the said Act are to be administered and carried into effect by the Government of Canada; (

b) shall advise the heads of the several departments of the Government on all matters of law connected with such departments; (

c) is charged with the settlement and approval of all instruments issued under the Great Seal; (

d) shall have the regulation and conduct of all litigation for or against the Crown or any department, in respect of any subject within theauthority or jurisdiction of Canada; and (

e) shall carry out such other duties as are assigned by the Governor in Council to the Attorney General of Canada. [84] Parliamentarians may ask the Minister and the Attorney General for their views on the constitutionality of proposed legislationand the Minister and the Attorney General may choose to answer. But Parliamentarians have access to legal advice and support fromLaw Clerks and other sources: see the affidavit evidence at appeal book, Vol. 1, at pages 399–421.

It is not as if Parliamentarians arebereft of access to legal advice and so the examination provisions were enacted to give them that access. [85] Under our system of government, the executive is accountable to the elected members of Parliament and, should legalproceedings be later brought, to the judiciary. The executive has the power to propose policies to Parliament in the form of bills forParliament’s consideration. It is entitled to propose bills that may violate Charter rights and freedoms but which pursue pressing andsubstantial objectives and, thus, may be saved under

section 1. [86] A good example of this is seen by

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Production of Records in Sexual Offence Proceedings),S.C. 1997, c. 30, which amended the Criminal Code [R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46] to include sections 278.1 to 278.91, which deal with theproduction of records in sexual offence proceedings. Before this Act was enacted, it was known as Bill C-46. In broad measure, Bill C-46implemented the dissenting reasons—not the majority reasons—of the Supreme Court in its Charter decision in R. v. O’Connor, (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411, (1995), 130 D.L.R. (4th) 235. Thus, it ran the substantial risk of being found to beunconstitutional.

But Bill C-46 was found to be constitutional: R. v. Mills, (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668, (1999), 180D.L.R. (4th) 1. [87] Put bluntly, the executive is not limited to proposing measures that are certain to be constitutional or likely to be constitutional.Rather, as a constitutional matter, in the words of the Federal Court (at paragraph 177), it is entitled to put forward proposed legislationthat, after a “robust review of the clauses of draft legislation” is “defendable in Court”. As Mills demonstrates, this is not a standpointunfriendly to constitutional standards.

Again, as mentioned at paragraph 36 above, the Charter is a document suffused with balances—not unequivocal, unqualified guarantees of rights and freedoms. And it is a standpoint that recognizes that after proposed legislation isplaced before Parliament, there is considerable scope for investigation, questioning and debate in Parliament as to how it may be viewedagainst guaranteed rights and freedoms; in particular, we see this in the proceedings and often rich deliberations of ParliamentaryCommittees on proposed legislation.

And in the end result, courts have their constitutional role to play too. [88] The Federal Court put it well when it stated that under our system of government, consistency with guaranteed rights is not thesole responsibility of the Executive, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. Rather (at paragraph 279), “it is an idealto be strived for collectively and attained through the concerted efforts of the three branches of government working towards a commongoal.” [89] Another contextual factor supporting the respondent’s

interpretation of the examination provisions is the nature of the publicservice and the conventions surrounding it. To administer and implement laws and to prepare legislative proposals that ministers wish toput to Parliament, the executive relies on the public service: Fraser v. P.S.S.R.B., (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 455, (1985),23 D.L.R. (4th) 122, at page 470 S.C.R. In Canada, public servants are subject to a convention of political neutrality: Osborne v. Canada(Treasury Board), (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69, (1991), 82 D.L.R. (4th) 321, at page 86 S.C.R.;

preamble to the PublicService Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13. This neutrality supports the threshold for reporting that the respondent urges uponus: one that supports the Minister in performing her duties and not one that purports to dictate how she should exercise her powers: see

the evidence at appeal book, Vol. 3, at pages 1128–1129. [90] In my view, the respondent’s view of the examination provisions is also supported by the nature of constitutional law and thegiving of advice concerning it. Constitutional law is a variable, debatable and frequently uncertain thing. [91] Constitutional authorities are not necessarily good precedent in later cases. Courts can now depart more readily from earlierconstitutional precedents: Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331; Canada (Attorney General) v.Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101. [92] The constitutional law can change. A few examples will suffice to show this. In

section 15 of the Charter, compare Law v.Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497, (1999), 170 D.L.R. (4th) 1 withWithler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 12, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 396 and Quebec (Attorney General) v. A., 2013 SCC 5, [2013] 1S.C.R. 61, at paragraph 346. On subsection 24(2) [of the Charter] and the exclusion of evidence, compare R. v. Stillman, (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607, (1997), 144 D.L.R. (4th) 193 and R. v. Collins, (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265, (1987), 38D.L.R. (4th) 508 with R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353.

On the territorial scope of the Charter, compare R. v. Cook, (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597, (1998), 164 D.L.R. (4th) 1, at paragraphs 25 and 46–48 with R. v. Hape, 2007 SCC 26, [2007] 2S.C.R. 292, at paragraphs 103–113. On the meaning of “detention” under

section 10 [of the Charter], compare R. v. Therens, (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613, (1985), 18 D.L.R. (4th) 655 with Grant, above. On the use of Charter values, compare SlaightCommunications Inc. v. Davidson, (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038, (1989), 59 D.L.R. (4th) 416 with Doré v. Barreau duQuébec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395 and with Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12, [2015] 1 S.C.R.613. On the scope of language rights, compare Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents, (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R.549, (1986), 27 D.L.R. (4th) 406 with R. v. Beaulac, (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768, (1999), 173 D.L.R. (4th) 193. Onparagraph 11(

b) of the Charter, compare R. v. Askov, (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199, (1990), 74 D.L.R. (4th) 355 with R.v. Morin, (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, (1992), 71 C.C.C. (3d) 1 with R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631.Many more examples can be cited. [93] Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that the Supreme Court sometimes overrules its own constitutional authorities. Recentexamples include Carter, above (effectively overruling Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), (SCC),[1993] 3 S.C.R. 519, (1993), 107 D.L.R. (4th) 342); Mounted Police Association of Ontario v.

Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 1,[2015] 1 S.C.R. 3 (overruling Delisle v. Canada (Deputy Attorney General), (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 989, (1999), 176D.L.R. (4th) 513); Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 245 (overruling Reference RePublic Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, (1987), 38 D.L.R. (4th) 161); Nova Scotia(Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Laseur, 2003 SCC 54, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504(overruling Cooper v.

Canada (Human Rights Commission), (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854, (1996), 140 D.L.R. (4th)193). [94] Sometimes, the methodology of analyzing a constitutional issue can change drastically or a different outcome is reached bycharacterizing the problem differently: for example, compare the analysis of so-called “positive rights” in Dunmore v. Ontario (AttorneyGeneral), 2001 SCC 94, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016; Native Women’s Assn. of Canada v. Canada, (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R.627, (1994), 119 D.L.R. (4th) 224; Baier v. Alberta, 2007 SCC 31, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 673 and Greater Vancouver Transportation Authorityv.

Canadian Federation of Students — British Columbia Component, 2009 SCC 31, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 295. While

section 7 of the Charterdoes not protect economic rights or a right to a job (Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R.927, (1989), 58 D.L.R. (4th) 577; Walker v. Prince Edward Island, (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 407, (1995), 124 D.L.R.(4th) 127), sometimes

section 7 can have the effect of allowing a person to keep her job and the economic interests associated with it(Godbout v. Longueuil (City), (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844, (1997), 152 D.L.R. (4th) 577). [95] Sometimes definitive constitutional statements end up being not so definitive. In 2007, we all thought that the doctrine ofinterjurisdictional immunity could not apply to new situations and was restricted to those already covered by precedent: CanadianWestern Bank v. Alberta, 2007 SCC 22, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3. But in a few short years, we were proven to be wrong: RogersCommunications Inc. v.

Châteauguay (City), 2016 SCC 23, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 467. [96] Sometimes, despite decades of silence in the case law, constitutional rights, statuses and entitlements—never before imagined—simply pop up with little advance warning: see, e.g., Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (AttorneyGeneral), 2014 SCC 59, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 31; Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 433.Sometimes rights are given exactly the meaning their framers intended: see, e.g., Reference re Bill 30,

An Act to Amend the EducationAct (Ont.), (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, (1987), 40 D.L.R. (4th) 18. But sometimes not: see, e.g., Re B.C. MotorVehicle Act, (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, (1985), 24 D.L.R. (4th) 536. [97] And sometimes there is a stalemate on points of constitutional law: see Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director ofInvestigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425, (1990), 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161 where the Court split 1-1-1-1-1; R. v.

Rahey, (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588, (1987), 39 D.L.R. (4th) 481, wherethe Court split 2-2-2-2; Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139, (1991),77 D.L.R. (4th) 385, where six separate reasons were written by seven Justices. [98] And so far, only for convenience, I have restricted myself to Supreme Court jurisprudence, the jurisprudence at the top of thejudicial apex. Much more fodder can be found in the jurisprudence of courts of appeal, to say nothing of first-instance courts. They alsofrequently revise, adjust and tweak their jurisprudence.

And conflicts in their jurisprudence frequently arise and remain unresolved. Thisadds to the uncertain terrain the Minister must explore when she assesses proposed legislation under the examination provisions. [99] Parliament must be taken to have drafted the examination provisions knowing the practical nature of the Minister’s task.

Underthe examination provisions, the Minister has to assess proposed legislation against the case law of many different jurisdictions: fourfederal courts, thirteen jurisdictions’ courts of appeal, superior courts and provincial/territorial courts all supervising the vast and variableterrains of federal, provincial, and territorial law. Obviously, the law may not be the same across Canada. In the absence of guidance

from the Supreme Court on a point, courts of appeal may differ. Even where there is a controlling authority from the Supreme Court ofCanada, courts of appeal may interpret and implement the authority differently. The outcome of a constitutional case may well dependon where the constitutional challenge is brought, something that simply cannot be predicted. [100] It also must be appreciated that under the examination provisions the Minister is assessing only proposed legislation. She does notknow the nature of a constitutional challenge that might be brought against a provision with any degree of certainty.

As is well-known,the outcome of constitutional litigation often turns on the facts of the case (Mackay v. Manitoba, (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R.357, (1989), 61 D.L.R. (4th) 385) but at the time she assesses proposed legislation, the Minister does not know the facts that may beoffered in support of a challenge. She can only imagine possible challenges and speculate.

This is a very difficult environment in which tomake constitutional assessments with any certainty and to give any estimates of the probability of a finding of unconstitutionality. [101] One thing, however, is perfectly clear: even in this difficult, uncertain, speculative environment, some proposed legislation maybe so deficient that the Minister can conclude with confidence that no credible arguments can be made to support it. [102] In the examination provisions, Parliament must be taken to have imposed an obligation on the Minister that the Minister canpractically meet, not one that is impossible to meet. [103] So in conclusion, I ask this question: given the nature of constitutional law and litigation and the practical obstacles facing theDepartment of Justice, what is more likely?

That the examination provisions require the Minister to reach a definitive view, settle uponprobability assessments and report when she concludes that proposed legislation is “likely” unconstitutional? Or that the examinationprovisions require the Minister to report whenever there is no credible argument supporting the constitutionality of proposed legislation? [104] I would suggest the latter.

Given the uncertain, difficult jurisprudential terrain of constitutional law and the time when theMinister is expected to assess proposed legislation, the only responsible, reliable report that could be given under the examinationprovisions is when proposed legislation is so constitutionally deficient, it cannot be credibly defended. I consider the Minister’s view ofwhat the examination provisions require to be acceptable and defensible.

Indeed, as I have said earlier, I consider the Minister’s view tobe correct. [105] As mentioned at the outset of these reasons, in support of this conclusion I also agree substantially with the reasons of the FederalCourt. H. Conclusion [106] Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the “credible argument” examination standard used by the Department in itsreview of legislation under

section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights,

section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, and

section 3 of theStatutory Instruments Act is a reasonable reading of what this legislation requires. [107] In its formal judgment, the Federal Court chose to make its own declarations about the meaning of the examination provisions. Asa matter of remedial discretion, I would have issued a judgment simply dismissing the appellant’s request for a declaration and let myreasons in support of the dismissal speak for themselves. However, in this respect I cannot say that the Federal Court committedreversible error. I. Proposed disposition [108] Therefore, I would dismiss the appeal.

Given the novel nature of the issues raised by the appellant in this proceeding, I wouldmake no order as to costs. Near, J.A.: I agree. Rennie, J.A.: I agree.