Lord Thankerton:-

This appeal by special leave challenges the constitutional validity of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, which was enacted by the Dominion Parliament as Chap. 53 of the Statutes of Canada, 1934. The following question was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Governor-General in Council on 18th November 1935, namely :

Is the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, as amended by the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act Amendment Act 1935, or any of the provisions thereof, and in what particular or particulars or to what extent, ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada ?

Before the Supreme Court, the argument was presented by counsel on behalf of the Attorney-General of Canada and on behalf of the Attorneys-General of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. On 17th June 1936, the judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered, and in the formal order the opinion of the Court is expressed as follows :

The Chief Justice, Rinfret, Crocket, Davis and Kerwin, JJ. are of the opinion that the statute is intra vires; Cannon, J. is of the opinion that the statute, except S. 17, is ultra vires and that S. 17 is intra vires.

The Attorney-General of British Columbia now appeals against that judgment, and is supported by the respondent, the Attorney-General of Ontario; the Attorney-General of Canada defends the judgment. The appellant raises no question as to S. 17 of the Act, which relates to interest and falls under head 19 of S. 91, British North America Act of 1867, but he maintains that the rest of the Act, does not truly form legislation relating to 'bankruptcy and insolvency', but is an invasion of the sphere of the Provincial Legislatures in relation to 'property and civil rights in the province' or 'matters of a merely local or private nature in the province,' which is secured to them by heads 13 and 16 of the British North America Act.

The appellant submitted that the fundamental characteristic of legislation in relation to bankruptcy and insolvency is that it is conceived in the interests of the creditors as a class, and provides for distribution of the debtor's assets among them, and he maintained that the Act here in question is not only lacking in such a characteristic, but is inconsistent therewith, and he gave 12 reasons, which may be compendiously stated as follows : The Act is mainly designed to keep the debtor farmer on the land at the expense of his creditors; it deals with a stage prior to bankruptcy and insolvency and is designed to prevent bankruptcy by means of a composition which is compulsory on creditors and defeats their interests; it deals with assets belonging to creditors for the benefit of the debtor; the references to bankruptcy are merely ancillary to the main design; and the Act has no general relation to bankruptcy and insolvency, as it refers to farmers only and may refer to certain provinces only. The long title of the Act of 1934 is 'an Act to facilitate compromises and arrangements between farmers and their creditors'. The relevant sections of the Act of 1934, as amended by the Act of 1935, may now be referred to. The provisions and rules of the Bankruptcy Act are made applicable by sub-ss. 2 and 3 of S. 2 of the Act, which provide :

(2) Unless it is otherwise provided or the context otherwise requires, expressions contained in this Act shall have the same meaning as in the Bankruptcy Act, and this Act shall be read and construed as one with the Bankruptcy Act, but shall have full force and effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Bankruptcy Act, and the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act and Bankruptcy Rules shall, except as in this Act otherwise provided, apply mutatis mutandis in the case of proceedings hereunder including meetings of creditors.

(3) In any ease where the affairs of a farmer have been arranged by a proposal approved by the Court or confirmed by the Board, as hereinafter provided, Part 1, Bankruptcy Act, shall notwi