No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934. I. Constitutional Validity1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
Extract
In the interpretation of the British North America Act the question which seems of paramount importance to the lay mind—and sometimes to the legal one—is “what was the intention of the Fathers of Confederation when the sections under consideration were enacted?” If it were not apparent before, it should have become apparent as a result of the Aviation Case and the Radio Case that any such test must be entirely fallacious. The Fathers of Confederation could not have anticipated the development of the methods of communication which were under review in these cases. Still less could they have anticipated the problems of modern business. They could not have thought that the Dominion government would require the power to protect majorities engaged in business against the reckless acts of uncontrolled minorities. The thought was rather of the necessity for the protection of minorities against the oppressive combination of majorities, and the gradual concentration of business in the hands of the few. We have, then, in the questions which arise in connection with the Natural Products Marketing Act, in a broad sense, a new constitutional question. With reference to the questions of aviation and radio new questions also arose, but the basic principles governing communications were the same as formerly. The personal and psychological factor which enters into the development of modern business was absent. The judgments in the Aviation and Radio Cases, indicating as they do some of the principles justifying the enactment of the Natural Products Marketing Act as Dominion legislation, demonstrate the difficulty which arises in suggesting any amendment to the constitution which would obviate possible contention on the question of jurisdiction. While our federal scheme exists and business affairs develop, that which to-day is a matter of provincial concern may to-morrow be a matter affecting the Dominion as a whole or affecting interprovincial relations.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , August 1935 , pp. 465 - 475
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1935
Footnotes
1
The provisions of this Act were described by J. E. Lattimer in this Journal, Feb., 1935, pp. 101-4.
References
2 [1931] 3 W.W.R. 625; [1932] A.C. 54.
3 [1932] 1 W.W.R. 563; [1932] A.C. 304.
4 A.G. Ont. v. A.G. Can., [1896] A.C. 348, at p. 361.
5 Union Colliery Co. of B.C. v. Bryden, [1899] A.C. 580, at p. 587.
6 [1931] S.C.R. 357.
7 [1931] 2 W.W.R. 146.
8 [1932] 3 W.W.R. 639.
9 [1925] S.C.R. 434.
10 [1935] 2 W.W.R. 34.
11 (1921) 62 S.C.R. 424.
12 Supra, at pp. 372-3.
13 A. G. Man. v. Manitoba Licence Holders Assoc., [1902] A.C. 73, at p. 79.
14 Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. A.G. Can., [1931] 1 W.W.R. 552; [1931] A.C. 310. At page 326 Lord Atkin said: “The view that their Lordships have expressed makes it unnecessary to discuss the further ground upon which the legislation has been supported by reason of the power to legislate under s. 91, head 2, for ‘The regulation of trade and commerce.’ Their Lordships merely propose to disassociate themselves from the construction suggested in argument of a passage in the judgment in the Board of Commerce Case under which it was contended that the power to regulate trade and commerce could be invoked only in furtherance of a general power which Parliament possessed independently of it. No such restriction is properly to be inferred from that judgment. The words of the statute must receive their proper construction where they stand as giving an independent authority to Parliament over the particular subject matter. But … their Lordships in the present case forbear from defining the extent of that authority. They desire, however, to guard themselves from being supposed to lay down that the present legislation could not be supported on that ground.” (This quotation has been added by the editors.)