Viscount Haldane:-

In this case questions were raised in the province of Manitoba as to the validity of an Act passed by its Legislature and entitled the Initiative and Referendum Act. In consequence, under a statute which enabled him to do so, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council referred to the Court of King's Bench of the province the two questions which follow : 1. Had the Legislative Assembly jurisdiction to enact the said Act, and, if not, in what particular or respect has it exceeded its powers? 2. Had the Legislative Assembly jurisdiction to enact Sections 3, 4, 4-A, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, sub-Section 1 of the said Act, or any of them and, if so, which of them?

On 27th October, 1916, these questions came before Mathers, C. J. By consent there was no argument, and the learned judge, decided that the Legislative Assembly had jurisdiction to pass the Act and the several sections referred to in the second question.

The matter was then brought before the Court of Appeal of the province, and was argued before Howell, C. J., and Richards, Perdue, Cameron and Haggart, JJ. A. On 20th December, 1916, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment, answering the questions submitted in the negative. The answer to the first question was: "No. The particulars in which the Legislative Assembly exceeded its powers are set forth in the several reasons for judgment delivered by members of the Court and forwarded herewith." The answer to the second question was : "As to Sections 3, 4, 4-A, 7, 9 and 11 the answer is 'No.' As to Section 12 and Section 17, sub-Section 1, the answer is, 'Taken with their context, No."

In October, 1918, special leave was granted by His Majesty in Council to the Attorney-General of the province to appeal to the Sovereign in Council and by Order, dated 25th November in the same year leave was granted to the Attorney-General of Canada to intervene.

It would have been a convenient course if, before bringing these questions before the Sovereign in Council, the authorities of the Province had seen their way in the first place to submit them for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is desirable that topics affecting the Constitution of Canada should come before that Court before being brought to London for argument. However, the parties appear to have concurred in asking that special leave for a direct appeal should be granted. Their Lordships desire to observe that it is by no means a matter of course that such leave should be given, for they attach much importance, not only to the position which belongs to the Supreme Court under the Constitution of Canada, but to the value, in the decision of important points such as those before them, of the experience and learning of the judges of that Court. However, the Attorney-General of the province has succeeded in obtaining special leave to bring the case directly before the Judicial Committee, and their Lordships will therefore deal with it. They will only observe further at this stage that they have derived much assistance from the judgments delivered by the members of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba.

The validity of the Initiative and Referendum Act, a statute of a type which is not unknown in parts of the world with constitutions different from that of Canada, of, course depends on whether the Constitution of Canada as defined by the British North America Act of 1867 permitted a Provincial Legislature to pass it into law for the Province. The first step in the consideration of the matter is therefore to ascertain the exact character of the legislation proposed. In substance it is this. The Legislative Assembly seeks to provide that laws for the Province may be made and repealed by the direct vote of the electors, instead of only by the Legislative Assembly whose members they elect. The machinery created for the accomplishment of this end is that first of all a number of the electors, being not less than eight per cent. of the number of votes polled at the last election, may by