Revisiting the Use of Legislative History in Statutory Interpretation

Abstract

This article re-evaluates the place of legislative history in Canada’s modern interpretive method. It frames the debate around enduring tensions among text, purpose, and legislative intent. Tracing the shift from exclusion to cautious inclusion of legislative history and other extrinsic materials, it exposes the methodological uncertainty shaping judicial interpretation. The article shows how errors arise when courts conflate parliamentary evidence with executive commentary or treat incomplete records as authoritative. Finally, it proposes a structured, text-centred methodology that assigns legislative history a restrained, principled, and confirmatory role. This approach promotes interpretive coherence, transparency, and fidelity to constitutional principles and the separation of powers.