Sorry, I've tried to jump in, and perhaps rudely so.
We've talked about the consent a number of times as if it's a saving. I'm a lawyer, so like other lawyers I figure like a carpenter I can fix every problem with a hammer and nails.
The consent is a red herring, in my respectful view. If you were to read Chief Justice Dickson's majority decision in Keegstra, there isn't a word about what they call the attorney general's fiat that's used to save the legislation. The attorney general's consent, whether in section 13 or section 319, is irrelevant. We had advocated for years getting rid of the attorney general's consent because there seemed to be no constitutional dimension to it. That won't save it.