Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2015) 469 N.R. 97 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: March 27, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 469 N.R. 97 (SCC);2015 SCC 14;[2015] 1 SCR 693

Que. (A.G.) v. Can. (A.G.) (2015), 469 N.R. 97 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.R. TBEd. MR.017

Attorney General of Quebec (appellant) v. Attorney General of Canada, Commissioner of Firearms and Registrar of Firearms (respondents) and Chief Firearms Officer, Coalition for Gun Control and Canada's National Firearms Association (intervenors)

(35448; 2015 SCC 14; 2015 CSC 14)

Indexed As: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon, JJ.

March 27, 2015.

Summary:

In 1995, the federal Parliament enacted the Firearms Act, which created a constitutionally valid comprehensive scheme that required all gun owners (including long guns) to obtain licences and register their guns. In 2012, Parliament enacted the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act (ELRA), which repealed the requirement to register long guns. Section 29 of the Act provided for the destruction of all data respecting long guns in the Canadian Firearms Registry (CFR). The Province of Quebec, which intended to create its own long gun registry, asked federal authorities to provide it with all data in the CFR respecting Quebec long gun owners. Federal authorities refused. Quebec applied for a declaration that s. 29 of the ELRA was ultra vires Parliament's criminal law powers.

The Quebec Superior Court (2012 QCCS 4202) held that the CFR was the result of cooperative federalism and that the pith and substance of s. 29 was to prevent provincial governments from exercising their legislative competence by precluding them from using the data generated by the partnership. Section 29 violated the principle of cooperative federalism and was ultra vires Parliament. The court ordered federal authorities to transfer the data to Quebec. The federal Attorney General appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal (2013 QCCA 1138) allowed the appeal. Since the creation of the CFR was constitutionally valid, Parliament could also legislate to dismantle it. The principle of cooperative federalism could not be used to supersede the division of powers in the Constitution Act, 1867. Quebec had no legal right to obtain the data. Quebec appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, LeBel, Abella, Wagner and Gascon JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court stated that "The principle of cooperative federalism does not constrain federal legislative competence in this case, Quebec has no legal right to the data, and s. 29 of the [ELRA] is a lawful exercise of Parliament's criminal law legislative power under the Constitution. ... the decision to dismantle the long-gun registry and destroy the data that it contains is a policy choice that Parliament was constitutionally entitled to make.".

Constitutional Law - Topic 8

General principles - Canada as a federation (incl. cooperative federalism) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Cooperative federalism is a concept used to describe the 'network of relationships between the executives of the central and regional governments [through which] mechanisms are developed, especially fiscal mechanisms, which allow a continuous redistribution of powers and resources without recourse to the courts or the amending process' ... From this descriptive concept of cooperative federalism, courts have developed a legal principle that has been invoked to provide flexibility in speration of powers doctrines, such as federal paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity. It is used to facilitate interlocking federal and provincial legislative schemes and to avoid unnecessary constraints on provincial legislative action ... The principle of cooperative federalism ... cannot be seen as imposing limits on the otherwise valid exercise of legislative competence ... Neither this Court's jurisprudence nor the text of the Constitution Act, 1867 supports using that principle to limit the scope of legislative authority or to impose a positive obligation to facilitate cooperation where the constitutional division of powers authorizes unilateral action. To hold otherwise would undermine parliamentary sovereignty and create legal uncertainty whenever one order of government adopted legislation having some impact on the policy objectives of another." - See paragraphs 17, 19, 20.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2950

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - Pith and substance - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The 'pith and substance' analysis involves determining the law's 'dominant purpose or true character' ... The object of the exercise is to determine whether that 'matter' comes within a particular class of subjects for the purpose of determining which order of government can legislate. Both the law's purpose and its legal and practical effects are considered as part of this analysis ... Care must be taken, however, not to confuse the law's purpose with 'the means chosen to achieve it' ... Where the challenge concerns a particular provision which forms part of a larger scheme, the pith and substance analysis begins with the challenged provision ... However, the 'matter' of the provision must be considered in the context of the larger scheme, as its relationship to that scheme may be an important consideration in determining its pith and substance ... Courts must be careful not to endorse a 'colourable' statute, that is, one that in form appears to relate to a matter within the legislative competence of the enacting order of government, but in substance addresses a matter falling outside its competence. ... Once the subject matter has been identified, the next step of the pith and substance analysis consists of classifying the legislation or provision in relation to the division of legislative power in the Constitution. ... If the 'matter' of the legislation comes within the 'subject' of the head of power of the enacting order of government, the legislation is intra vires even if it has incidental effects on the other jurisdiction's legislative competence (subject to federal paramountcy in the case of provincial legislation) ... In classifying legislation that undoes an existing legislative scheme, due regard must be paid to the proper classification of that scheme. " - See paragraphs 29 to 33.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6501

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Criminal law - Firearms - The federal Parliament enacted the Firearms Act, which created a constitutionally valid comprehensive scheme that required all gun owners (including long guns) to obtain licences and register their guns - In 2012, Parliament enacted the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act (ELRA), which repealed the requirement to register long guns - Section 29 of the Act provided for the destruction of all data respecting long guns in the Canadian Firearms Registry (CFR) - The Province of Quebec, which intended to create its own long gun registry, asked federal authorities to provide it with all data in the CFR respecting Quebec long gun owners - Federal authorities refused - Quebec applied for a declaration that s. 29 of the ELRA was ultra vires Parliament's criminal law powers - The trial judge held that the CFR was the result of cooperative federalism and that the pith and substance of s. 29 was to prevent provincial governments from exercising their legislative competence by precluding them from using the data generated by the partnership - Section 29 violated the principle of cooperative federalism and was ultra vires Parliament - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision reversing the decision - The court stated that "The principle of cooperative federalism does not constrain federal legislative competence in this case, Quebec has no legal right to the data, and s. 29 of the [ELRA] is a lawful exercise of Parliament's criminal law legislative power under the Constitution. ... the decision to dismantle the long-gun registry and destroy the data that it contains is a policy choice that Parliament was constitutionally entitled to make." - Section 29 simply prevented Quebec from using the data obtained in establishing a provincial registry - It did not, in substance or form, limit Quebec's legislative authority to create a provincial long gun registry - The court stated that "If a law establishing a scheme requiring collection of data is legislation 'in relation' to criminal law, then legislation providing for the destruction of that data on the repeal of the scheme must also be legislation 'in relation' to criminal law. That is the case here." - See paragraphs 3 and 34 to 46.

Cases Noticed:

Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 2000 SCC 31, refd to. [paras. 5, 58].

Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3; 362 N.R. 111; 409 A.R. 207; 402 W.A.C. 207; 2007 SCC 22, refd to. [paras. 17, 138].

Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, Re, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198; 19 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 17].

Fédération des producteurs volailles du Québec et al. v. Pelland, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 292; 332 N.R. 201; 2005 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 17].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 536; 407 N.R. 102; 2010 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 17].

PHS Community Services Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134; 421 N.R. 1; 310 B.C.A.C. 1; 526 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 44, refd to. [paras. 17, 147].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [paras. 18, 144].

Anti-Inflation Act, Re, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; 9 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 19].

Reference Re Securities Act, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 837; 519 A.R. 63; 539 W.A.C. 63; 2011 SCC 66, refd to. [paras. 19, 136].

Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 25, 157].

Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.) - see Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.).

Wells v. Newfoundland and Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 199; 245 N.R. 275; 180 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 548 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 25].

Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 40; 306 N.R. 335; 175 O.A.C. 363; 2003 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 25].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 453; 407 N.R. 1; 2010 SCC 38, refd to. [paras. 29, 136].

Kitkatla Indian Band et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146; 286 N.R. 131; 165 B.C.A.C. 1; 270 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 31, refd to. [paras. 29, 136].

Ward v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 569; 283 N.R. 201; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 633 A.P.R. 125; 2002 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 29].

Kirkbi AG et al. v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 302; 341 N.R. 234; 2005 SCC 65, refd to. [paras. 30, 136].

Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re; Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General) et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; 53 N.R. 268; 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 139 A.P.R. 125, refd to. [paras. 31, 87].

Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1912] A.C. 571 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Ontario, [1937] A.C. 326 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698; 328 N.R. 1; 2004 SCC 79, refd to. [paras. 44, 137].

Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec ltée et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289; 161 N.R. 81; 37 B.C.A.C. 161; 60 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 44].

City National Leasing Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, refd to. [para. 80].

Reference Re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 457; 410 N.R. 199; 2010 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 137].

Attorney-General for Ontario v. Reciprocal Insurers, [1924] A.C. 328 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 2; 77 N.R. 321; 23 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 147].

William v. British Columbia et al., [2014] 2 S.C.R. 256; 459 N.R. 287; 356 B.C.A.C. 1; 610 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 148].

Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia - see William v. British Columbia et al.

Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Communications Workers of Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115; 28 N.R. 107, refd to. [para. 184].

Clark v. Canadian National Railway Co. and New Brunswick, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 680; 89 N.R. 81; 89 N.B.R.(2d) 116; 226 A.P.R. 116, refd to. [para. 184].

Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada and Thomas Fuller Construction Co. (1958) Ltd., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 695; 30 N.R. 249, refd to. [para. 184].

R. v. Thomas Fuller Construction Co. (1958) Ltd. - see Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada and Thomas Fuller Construction Co. (1958) Ltd.

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 2003 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 194].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 199].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 199].

Reference Re Public Schools Act (Man.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 839; 149 N.R. 241; 83 Man.R.(2d) 241; 36 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 199].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Abel, Albert S., The Neglected Logic of 91 and 92 (1969), 19 U.T.L.J. 487, p. 494 [para. 31].

Brown, R. Blake, Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada (2012), pp. 167 to 203 [para. 53].

Brun, Henri, Tremblay, Guy and Brouillet, Eugénie, Droit constitutionnel (6th Ed. 2014), pp. 463 [para. 136]; 464 [para. 31].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, No. 012, Sess. 1, 41 Parliament (November 17, 2011), pp. 1, 2 [para. 67].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 133, No. 134, Sess. 1, 35 Parliament (November 30, 1994), p. 8476 [para. 55].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 133, No. 154, Sess. 1, 35 Parliament (February 16, 1995), p. 9709 [para. 55].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 133, No. 216, Sess. 1, 35 Parliament (June 12, 1995), p. 13631 [paras. 56, 57].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, Vol. 146, No. 036, Sess. 1, 41 Parliament (October 25, 2011), p. 2437 [para. 65].

Canada, Review of the Personal Information Handling Practices of the Canadian Firearms Program (August 29, 2001), p. 14 [para. 108].

Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Report on the Administration of the Firearms Act to the Solicitor General by the Registrar: Canadian Firearms Registry (1999), p. 4 [para. 117].

Daley, Paul, Dismantling Regulatory Structures: Canada's Long-Gun Registry as Case Study (2014), 33 N.J.C.L. 169, pp. 178 to 180 [para. 39].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (2007 Looseleaf Supp.) (2014 Update, Release 1), pp. 5-46 [para. 17]; 12-8, 12-9 [para. 25]; 15-5 to 15-7 [para. 136]; 15-19 [para. 31]; 15-20 [para. 31]; 17-1, 17-2 [para. 44]; 18-21 [para. 43].

Lederman, W.R., Some Forms and Limitations of Co-Operative Federalism in Continuing Canadian Constitutional Dilemmas (1981), p. 314 [para. 17].

Quebec, National Assembly, Journal des débates, vol. 34, No. 49, Sess. 1, 35 Legislature (May 23, 1995), p. 14:40 [para. 57].

Quebec, National Assembly, Votes and Proceedings, No. 57, Sess. 2, 39 Legislature (November 2, 2011), pp. 693, 694 [para. 66].

Quebec, National Assembly, Votes and Proceedings, No. 72, Sess. 2, 39 Legislature (December 6, 2011), p. 848 [para. 68].

Counsel:

Éric Dufour, Hugo Jean and Suzanne-L. Gauthier, for the appellant;

Claude Joyal, Q.C., and Ian Demers, for the respondents;

Frédérick Langlois and Alain M. Gaulin, for the intervenor, the Coalition for Gun Control;

Guy Lavergne, for the intervenor, Canada's National Firearms Association;

No one appearing for the intervenor, the Chief Firearms Officer.

Solicitors of Record:

Bernard, Roy & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondents;

Juripop, Saint-Constant, Quebec; Deveau, Bourgeois, Gagné, Hébert & associés, Gatineau, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Coalition for Gun Control;

Guy Lavergne, Saint-Lazare, Quebec, for the intervenor, Canada's National Firearms Association.

This appeal was heard on October 8, 2014, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 27, 2015, the judgment of the Court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Cromwell and Karakatsanis, JJ. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Rothstein and Moldaver, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 46;

LeBel, Wagner and Gascon, JJ. (Abella, J., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 47 to 203.