What is the effect of a Minister’s administrative practice on the meaning of a statutory definition of a specific language?

40 At the outset, I note that I do not find the arguments based on the Minister’s administrative practice to be helpful in the present case. The fact is that there are two administrative practices — one corresponding to each of the proposed interpretations. The shift in the Minister’s practice is reflective of the ambiguity that inheres in the statute itself and cannot be relied upon as an interpretive tool except to support the view that the statutory definition falls short of being clear, precise and unambiguous. Although administrative practice can be an “important factor” in case of doubt about the meaning of legislation, it is not determinative: Nowegijick v. The Queen, 1983 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29, at p. 37. In a case such as the present one where a statutory provision admits of more than one possible meaning, the Minister, having decided that its former interpretation was incorrect, is not precluded from changing its practice.