You're right. It doesn't I think violate the jurisdiction question, which is criterion number one.
Criterion number two relates to violations of the Constitution Acts 1867 and 1982, not just of the charter of rights. My point is that, first of all, I have some concerns about section 16. It hasn't been litigated on in this regard, but section 133 has. The criteria that were applied by the Supreme Court in Blaikie were as to whether this has the effect of the force of law on an individual.
There were actually two Blaikie cases. One dealt with municipalities and whether they were provincially incorporated and so on. The courts ruled that the protections under the large and liberal reading they had given to section 133 did not apply to municipal corporations.
But this is a body of the federal government whose decisions effectively have the effect of court orders. They said not to take a broad reading of all of that. To my mind, this is actually quite a clear violation. It's just this one part of the legislation. I actually think you could correct it, but this one part seems to me to be very clearly in contravention of the Blaikie interpretation of section 133.