Lord Atkin.—

This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference by the Governor in Council under S. 55, Supreme Court Act. The questions submitted to the Court were :

(a) Is the Combines Investigation Act R. S. C. 1927, c. 26, ultra vires the Parliament of Canada either in whole or in part, and if so, in what particular or particulars or to what extent ?

(b) Is S. 498, Criminal Code, ultra vires the Parliament of Canada, and if so, in what particular or particulars or to what extent ?

The Supreme Court answered both questions in the negative.

The appellants are the Proprietary Articles Trade Association, who had been found by a commission appointed under the Combines Investigation Act to have been party to a combine as defined in the Act, and had been admitted to be heard on the reference under S. 55, sub-S. 4, Supreme Court Act. The other appellants are the Attorney-General for the Province of Quebec and the Attorney-General for the Province of Ontario. The reference involved important questions of constitutional law within the Dominion, and their Lordships have had the assistance of full and able argument in which all numerous relevant authorities were brought to their notice. After careful consideration of the arguments and the authorities their Lordships are of opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court is right.

In determining judicially the distribution of legislative powers between the Dominion and the Provinces made by the two famous Ss. 91 and 92, British North America Act, two principles have to be observed. First, the accepted canon of construction as to the general effect of the sections must be maintained. This is that the general powers of legislation for the peace, order and good government of Canada are committed to the Dominion Parliament, though they are subject to the exclusive powers of legislation committed to the Provincial legislatures and enumerated in S. 92. But the Provincial powers are themselves qualified in respect of the classes of subjects enumerated in S. 91, as particular instances of the general powers assigned to the Dominion. Any matter coming within any of those particular classes of subjects is not to be deemed to come within the classes of matters assigned to the Provincial legislatures. This almost reproduces the express words of the sections, and this rule is well settled.

The second principle to be observed judicially was expressed by the Board in 1881:

"It will be wise to decide each case which arises as best they can without entering more largely upon an interpretation of the statute than is necessary for the decision of the particular question in hand: Citizens Assurance Company v. Parsons, [1882] 7 AC 96 = 51 LJ PC 11 = 45 LT 721 at p. 109."

It was restated in 1914 :

The structure of Ss. 91 and 92 and the degree to which the connotation of the expressions used overlap render it in their Lordships' opinion unwise on this or any other occasion to attempt exhaustive definitions of the meaning and scope of these expressions. Such definitions, in the case of language used under the conditions in which a constitution such as that under consideration was framed, must almost certainly miscarry: John Deere Plow Co. v. Wharton, [1915] AC 330= 84 LJ PC 64 = 31 TLR 35=112 LT 183 at p. 338.

The object is as far as possible to prevent too rigid declarations of the Courts from interfering with such elasticity as is given in the written constitution.

With these two principles in mind the present task must be approached.

The claim of the Dominion is that the Combines Act and S. 498, Criminal Code can be supposed as falling within two of the enumerated classes in S. 91, viz, [1915] AC 330= 84 LJ PC 64 = 31 TLR 35=112 LT 183. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce, and (27). The Criminal law except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters. Reliance is also placed on (3) The Raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation (22). Patents