"insured services" under the Medical Service Act Regulations, B.C. Reg. 144/68, s. 4.09, as amended, the legislation does not specify the benefits it provides. Section 4.04 of the Regulations does expressly state, however, that certain services, such as those provided solely for legal, industrial or insurance purposes, as well as telephone advice and cosmetic procedures, are not insured. Sign language interpretation is not included. In the usual course, the determination of what constitutes a benefit is left to the discretion of the Medical Services Commission, a ninemember panel composed of representatives from the government, the British Columbia Medical Association and health care consumers. Pursuant to s. 4(1)(j) of the Act, the Commission is authorized to "determine whether a service is a benefit or whether any matter is related to the rendering of a benefit". Conversely, s. 4(1)(c) empowers it to determine the services that are "not benefits under [the] Act". The only limit on the Commission's discretion is set out in s. 4(2), which cautions that its powers must not be exercised "in a manner that does not satisfy the criteria described in section 7 of the Canada Health Act". 29 Assuming that the failure to provide sign language interpreters in medical settings violates s. 15(1) of the Charter in some circumstances, I do not see how the Medical and Health Care Services Act can be interpreted as mandating that result. The legislation simply does not, either expressly or by necessary implication, prohibit the Medical Services Commission from determining that sign language interpretation is a "medically required" service and hence a benefit under the Act. Indeed, the appellants assert in relation to the s. 15(1) issue that sign language interpretation, where it is necessary for effective communication, is integrally related to the provision of general medical services. Their theory, about which I will have more to say later, is that the failure to provide sign language interpreters violates s. 15(1) because it prevents deaf patients from benefiting equally from the provision of medical services in comparison to hearing patients. If this is correct, then the Charter demands that free sign language interpretation be provided as part of any medical service offered to the general public, at least where the service requires a level of communication that only an interpreter can ensure. Under this approach, the legislation must be interpreted to include sign language interpretation as a "medically required service" in these circumstances. It is clear, therefore, that the failure to provide expressly for sign language interpretation in the Medical and Health Care Services Act does not violate s. 15(1) of the Charter. The Act does not list those services that are to be considered benefits; instead, it delegates the power to make that determination to a subordinate authority. It is the decision of authority that is constitutionally suspect, not the statute itself. 30 I pause to emphasize that not every conferral of statutory discretion may be interpreted consistently with the Charter. Some grants of discretion will necessarily infringe Charter rights notwithstanding that they do not expressly authorize that result; see, e.g., Re Ontario Film & Video Appreciation Society and Ontario Board of Censors (1984), 5 D.L.R. (4th) 766 (Ont. C.A.), affirming (1983), 147 D.L.R. (3d) 58 (Ont. Div. Ct.). In such cases it will generally be the statute, and not its application, that attracts Charter scrutiny; see June M. Ross, "Applying the Charter to Discretionary Authority" (1991), 29 Alta. L. Rev. 382. In the present case, however, the discretion accorded to the Medical Services Commission to determine whether a service qualifies as a benefit does not necessarily or typically threaten the equality rights set out in s. 15(1) of the Charter. It is possible, of course, for the Commission to infringe these rights in the course of