Delegation of Legislative Power in Canada
Gerard V. La Forest *
Introduction
Delegation of legislative power in Canada, though still a source
of fascination for constitutional scholars, is not today a “live subject”.
This is in sharp contrast to the situation some years ago when it was
a major issue, not only in the courts and with legal commentators,
but also in any serious political discussion of constitutional change.
This difference in attitude results from the development by the
courts and political authorities of greater flexibility in constitutional
interpretation and arrangements. Some of the flexibility has arisen
from the judicial tendency of finding wider areas of concurrent
power and the increased use by governments of their spending
powers and their rights over natural resources to influence, if not
to regulate, activities otherwise falling outside their competence. In
addition, the courts have developed a number of techniques to
achieve the major benefits of delegation while avoiding its more
serious drawbacks. The purpose of this article is to review the
latter development.
B.NA. Act Provisions
The British North America Act, 1867, makes no general provision
for the delegation of legislative power from one level of government
to the other. There are, however, a number of provisions for transfer-
ing power to the federal Parliament from the provincial legislatures.
One is the power given the federal Parliament by the combined effect
of sections 91(29) and 92(10)(c) to declare works wholly situate
within a province to be for the general advantage of Canada or for
the advantage of two or more provinces. The effect of such a declara-
tion is to give the federal Parliament complete jurisdiction over such
works, including the power to revoke the declaration and return
the works to provincial jurisdiction.’
* Gerard V. La Forest, Q.C., full-time Commissioner, Law Reform Commission
of Canada. This article is written in a private capacity.
‘The most comprehensive discussion of this power is that in Andrde Lajoie,
Le pouvoir dclaratoire du Parlement (1969); for a briefer discussion, see
Gerard V. La Forest and Associates, Water Law in Canada –
the Atlantic
Provinces (Ottawa, 1973), 56 et seq.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 21
Again, section 94 provides as follows:
94. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Parliament of Canada may
make Provisions for the Uniformity of all or any of the Laws relative
to Property and Civil Rights in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick,
and of the Procedure of all or any of the Courts in those Three Provinces,
and from and after the passing of any Act in that Behalf the Power of
the Parliament of Canada to make Laws in relation to any Matter com-
prised in any such Act shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, be
unrestricted; but any Act of the Parliament of Canada making provision
for such Uniformity shall not have effect in any Province unless and
until it is adopted and enacted as Law by the Legislature thereof.
While judicial examination has been negligible, a reading of the
section indicates that the steps to be taken to transfer legislative
power over property and civil rights and procedure in provincial
courts to the federal Parliament are simple. The federal Parliament
must first pass a law providing for uniformity of all or any part
of the laws relative to such matters. From that time federal power
over any matter comprised in the Act becomes “unrestricted”.
However, such Act does not become operative in a province until it is
adopted and enacted by the legislature. In view of the extraordinary
character of this power and its virtual desuetude, it seems likely that
courts would demand that the federal, and possibly the provincial
legislation make the intent to exercise it abundantly clear.2 Though
there is some conflict of opinion,3 the probability is that the effect
of the clauses adopting the provisions of the British North America
Act, in the provinces joining the Union after 1867 is to make the
section applicable to all the provinces except Quebec, despite the
reference by name to the other original provinces 4 The transfer of
juridiction under the section may well differ from delegation. Those
who have commented on it have concluded that the transfer is
permanent and cannot be retransferred to the provinces This is a
possibility, although the term “unrestricted” does not exclude re-
transfer and may be limited to giving a wide power of amending the
federal Act.
2For an excellent analysis, see F.R. Scott, Section 94 of the British North
America Act (1942) 20 Can. Bar Rev. 525.
3 See Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations
(Book II, Recommendations, Ottawa, 1940), 73.
4See Attorney-General of British Columbia v. Attorney-General of Canada
(1889) 14 A.C. 295, 304 (per Lord Watson) respecting the similar situation
under s.109 of the B.N.A. Act; In re Reference re Alberta Statutes [1938)
S.C.R. 71 (respecting s.90); see also Scott, supra, f.n.2.
5 See Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations,
supra, fn.3; Scott, ibid.
1975]
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN CANADA
133
So too, by virtue of judicial interpretation, the “Peace, Order
and Good Government” clause in section 91 may effectively operate
to transfer legislative power from the provinces to the federal
Parliament. Matters which in their origin may be local or private
may attain such dimension as to affect the body politic of Canada,
and so come within federal legislative control.0 A common manifest-
ation of this situation is in emergency situations. The power thus
transferred is returned
to the provinces when the emergency
subsides.
Finally, Professor Lederman has suggested that some administra-
tive delegation is called for by the constitution in the criminal law
field, with the federal Parliament enacting criminal law and proce-
dure by virtue of section 91(27), and the provinces administering it
by virtue of their power over the administration of justice under
section 92(14):. The expression “called for” may be somewhat strong.
Some would argue that the delegation to the provincial Attorneys-
General of functions relating to the criminal law is done pursuant to
federal legislation, not by constitutional imperative. Nonetheless, Pro-
fessor Lederman’s general point seems basically sound. The better
view is that the administration of justice includes the administration
of criminal justice, but that the federal Parliament can, in the exer-
cise of its paramount power over criminal law, vest the adminis-
tration of criminal law in persons other than provincial authorities.!
Judicial Decisions Respecting Delegation
It has long been firmly settled that both the federal Parliament
and the provincial legislatures are sovereign within their spheres,
and concomitantly that they can freely delegate to their respective
Governors in Council, municipalities and bodies of their own crea-
tion.9 However, from a very early period, there have been several
0 See, inter alia, Russell v. Reg. (1882) 7 App. Cas. 829; Fort Frances Pulp
and Paper Co. v. Manitoba Free Press Co. [1923] A.C. 695; Toronto Electric
Commissioners v. Snider [1925] A.C. 396; Attorney-General for Ontario v.
Canada Temperance Federation [1946] A.C. 193.
7 W.R. Lederman, Some Forms and Limitations of Co-operative Federalism
(1967) 45 Can. Bar Rev. 409, 425.
8 See The Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons
on the Constitution of Canada (Ottawa, 1972), 75.
9 See, inter alia, Hodge v. Reg. (1883-4) 9 App. Cas. 117; In re George Edwin
Gray (1918) 57 S.C.R. 150; Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board
[1938] A.C. 708; Reference re Regulations (Chemical) under War Measures
Act [1943] S.C.R. 1; Reference re Section 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act 1968-69 [1970] S.C.R. 777.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 21
judicial and academic assertions (the weightiest being a statement
of Lord Watson during the argument in C.P.R. v. Bonsecours0 in
1899) that the federal Parliament could not give legislative jurisdic-
tion to a provincial legislature, and that the provinces laboured under
the converse disability.” But most of these statements could be
explained away by saying that either Parliament or a legislature was
prevented from divesting itself of jurisdiction in favour of the other.
Such divesting can be distinguished from delegation, which may be
defined “as entrusting by a person or body of persons, of the power
residing in that person or body of persons, with complete power of
revocation or amendment remaining in the grantor (or delegator)”.12
In a word, since the delegator may at any time revoke, the power
remains in him, the delegatee being simply an agent. This approach
could be buttressed by the dictum of David J. in Ouimet v. Bazin ‘8
supporting delegation between federal and provincial legislatures.
Serious interest in delegation began developing in the 1920’s and
1930’s when the existence of a divided legislative jurisdiction made
comprehensive regulation of vital areas of the economy extremely
difficult. A prime example was the judicial declaration that several
marketing schemes, both federal’ 4 and provincial, 1 were invalid as
extending into the realm of the other level of government. Satisfacto-
ry results, said the Privy Council, “can only be obtained by co-oper-
ation”. 0 But even where co-operation could be achieved, the careful
manner in which legislation had to be drawn made implementation
difficult. Thus, the federal Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934 “1
was carefully designed to dovetail with provincial statutes, but
10 [1899] A.C. 367.
11 Citizens’ and Queen Insurance Co. v. Parsons (1881) 4 S.C.R. 215, 314, 317
per Taschereau J. and 348 per Gwynne J.; St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber
Co. v. Reg. (1887) 13 S.C.R. 577, 637 per Strong J.; Lefroy, Canada’s Federal
System (1913), 70; Clement, The Law of the Canadian Constitution 3d ed.
(1916), 380, 382.
12 See Raphael Tuck, Delegation – A Way Over the Constitutional Hurdle
(1945) 23 Can. Bar Rev. 79, 89.
13 (1912) 46 S.C.R. 502, 514; see also Reg. v. O’Rourke (1882) 1 O.R. 464, 481.
4 Attorney-General of British Columbia v. Attorney-General of Canada
1
[1937] A.C. 377 (Natural Products Marketing Act reference).
15 Lawson v. Interior Fruit and Vegetable Committee [1931] S.C.R. 357;
Lower Mainland Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Committee v. Crystal Dairy
Ltd. [1933] A.C. 168.
16 AttorneyGeneral of British Columbia v. Attorney-General of Canada,
supra, f.n.14, 389.
lOn 24-25 George V, S.C. 1934, c.57,
19753
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN CANADA
135
foundered on the shoals of rigid constitutional interpretation.17 Not
unnaturally, numerous commentators looked to delegation as a way
of avoiding these difficulties.-8
Such an attempt arose in 1935 before the Saskatchewan Court of
Appeal in R. v. Zaslavsky. 9 There the federal Parliament had enacted
the Live Stock and Live Stock Product Act 19a with a view to regulating
marketing in live stock and live stock products. Since there was
doubt about the validity of this Act, Saskatchewan passed an Act of
the same name 9b under which it was provided that if the federal
Act and the regulations under it were within provincial competence,
the provisions should have the force of law in the province and,
unless otherwise enacted by the province, continue in force until
repealed by Parliament or the Governor-General
it
further provided that amendments of the federal legislation might
be brought into force by provincial proclamation. The Court first
held the federal Act ultra vires as dealing with a provincial matter.
Turning to the provincial Act, the Court found it void as an attempt
by the province to vest in the federal Parliament powers not
conferred by the British North America Act. The case was followed
in R. v. Brodsky and R. v. Thorsby Traders2 by the Manitoba
and Alberta Courts of Appeal.
in Council;
The issue was squarely raised before the Supreme Court of
Canada in 1951 in Attorney-General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney-
General of Canada.22 This was an appeal from the Supreme Court
of Nova Scotia on a reference regarding the validity of the De-
legation of Legislative Jurisdiction Act, a proposed Act of that pro-
vince which, inter alia, empowered the province:
17Supra, fn.16. For accounts of this see SA. Corry, Difficulties of Divided
Jurisdiction, ch. 1 (Appendix 7 to the Report of the Royal Commission on
Dominion-Provincial Relations, supra, frn.3); Doulll. (diss.) in Re Bill 136
in the Nova Scotia Legislature [1948] 4 D.L.R. 1 (N.S.S.C.).
18R.W. Shannon, Delegated Legislation (1928) 6 Can. Bar Rev. 245; Raphael
Tuck, supra, fn.12; Corry, ibid.; Scott, Case and Comment (1948) 26 Can. Bar
Rev. 984; Ballem, Case and Comment (1954) 32 Can. Bar Rev. 788; Ballem,
Case and Comment (1951) 29 Can. Bar Rev. 79; Laskin, Case and Comment
(1956) 34 Can. Bar Rev. 215.
19 [1935] 3 D.L.R. 788.
loa R.S.C. 1927, c.120.
lDb R.S.S. 1930, c.151.
20 [1936] 1 D.L.R. 578 (Man. CA.).
2- [1936] 1 D.L.R. 592 (Alta. S.C. (App. Div.)).
22 [1951] S.C.R. 31.
23Re Bill 136 in the Nova Scotia Legislature [1948] 4 D.L.R. 1.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 21
(a) to delegate to the federal Parliament authority to make laws
relating to employment in industries falling within provincial
jurisdiction;
(b) to apply provincial laws relating to unemployment to indus-
tries within federal jurisdiction if the federal Parliament
delegated authority to the province to do so; and
(c) to impose an indirect retail sales tax if the federal Parliament
should delegate authority to the province to do so.
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, by a majority, held the statute
ultra vires, and the decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of
Canada.
The decision rests largely on an appeal to authority and arguments
of a textual nature. Rinfret C.J. and Kerwin and Kellock J. thought
that if a power of delegation had been intended, it would have been
expressly given. Rinfret C.I. and Taschereau and Fauteux JJ. stressed
that legislative powers under sections 91 and 92 are given “ex-
clusively” to the appropriate legislature. Kerwin and Fauteux JJ.
also noted that it had been thought necessary to insert section 94
to provide for Parliament’s jurisdiction to make uniform laws in
certain circumstances. Finally, Rand, Estey and Fauteux JJ. ques-
tioned the ability of the federal Parliament or the provinces to accept
delegation in view of their status; each was sovereign within its
sphere, but delegation involves subordination to the delegator.
These textual arguments could, if desired, be turned around as
Doull J. did in his dissenting judgment in the Nova Scotia Supreme
Court. The federal Parliament or a legislature does not lose its
exclusive control by delegating for it retains its power of revocation.
No express power is required to authorize delegation because Parlia-
ment and the legislatures are sovereign, and that this is not inimical
to the structure of the constitution is evident from section 94.
Parliament or the legislatures were not giving up their sovereign
powers by accepting a subordinate position in relation to matters
not assigned to them by the constitution. In a word, the governing
considerations were differing philosophies of Canadian federalism.
In Doull J.’s judgment, it was imperative to find a way out of the
rigid watertight compartments.
Some of the judges advanced more fundamental arguments for
their position. Rand J. thought that, responsibility for a particular
area of jurisdiction having been vested in a particular body, it was
intended that it should deliberate upon it and ultimately be res-
ponsible for the discharge of that function to the electorate. Tasche-
reau T, made a similar point, and Estey and Fauteux JJ. also noted
1975]
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN CANADA
137
that delegation would divest one level of government of responsibility
and give it to the other. Rand J. also referred to the fundamental
distinction between delegation to a subordinate body when a detailed
scheme is considered and a broad delegation to another legislative
body. He said:
In the generality of actual delegation to its own agencies, Parliament,
recognizing the need of the legislation, lays down the broad scheme and
indicates the principles, purposes and scope of the subsidiary details to
be supplied by the delegate: under the mode of enactment now being
considered, the real and substantial analysis and weighing of the political
considerations which would decide ;the actual provisions adopted, would
be given by persons chosen to represent local interests.2 4
He also underlined the danger that once a power was delegated, there
would be a tendency for the power to remain with the delegatee.
Taschereau J. seemed to think there was a danger that general de-
legation could lead to a unitary state and, on the other hand, that
different laws might be enacted in the various provinces on matters
in which the framers of the constitution thought uniformity im-
perative. An appraisal of these various arguments will be made
later.
Other Devices
Interdelegation between the federal Parliament and provincial
legislatures, therefore, appears impossible. However, other legislative
devices have been used to achieve flexibility. These are:
(1) conditional legislation;
(2) incorporation by reference (or adoption); and
(3) conjoint schemes with administrative cooperation.
Conditional Legislation
A conditional statute is one whose operation is determined by a
condition, for example, the existence of a state of fact or the action
of an individual or body. Thus, the common provision that an Act
shall come into force on proclamation is conditional legislation. The
issue is the extent to which the federal Parliament or the provinces
may employ one another to decide upon an action on which a statute
is conditional. Here the courts have found no constitutional limit-
ation. This can be demonstrated by Lord’s Day Alliance of Canada v.
24 Attorney-General for Nova Scotia v. Attorney-General for Canada, supra,
f.n.22, 49.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 21
Attorney-General for Manitoba.25 There the federal Lord’s Day Act
made it an offence to conduct or run Sunday excursions “except as
provided by any provincial Act or law now or hereafter in force”.2
1a
Manitoba subsequently passed an Act providing that it was lawful
to run or conduct excursions on Sunday. Though a provincial prohi-
bition of such activities would have been ultra vires, a permission
of this kind was in the view of the Privy Council either legislation
respecting property and civil rights or a local or private matter, and
so valid. It was, the Board decided, within the competence of Parlia-
ment to leave open to the provinces a liberty to legislate in an area
they already possessed, even though a complete prohibition would
have ousted provincial responsibility. This the Board saw as very
different from delegation, where the federal Parliament intends to
give effect to ultra vires provincial legislation. As the Supreme Court
of Canada underlined in the similar case of Lord’s Day Alliance of
Canada v. Attorney-General for British Columbia,26 Parliament can
limit the operation of its own Act to an event or condition, but it
cannot extend the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures by
delegation.
Considerable use has been made in recent years of this device,
under which provinces were permitted to “opt out” of social service
schemes devised by the federal authorities and to instead accept
tax credits permitting them to devise their own schemes.
Incorporation or Adoption
A legislature may choose to employ the device of incorporating by
reference (or adopting) another statute rather than repeat the
whole of its provisions. Since the incorporated or adopted provi-
sions derive their authority from the incorporating or adopting
legislature, and that legislature has considered them, there seems
no logical ground (other than ease in finding the material) for
invalidating such legislation even though the incorporated material
appears in a statute of another legislature. The courts have long
upheld statutes incorporating existing legislation of another legis-
lature, but a different problem is raised where a legislature purports
to adopt the law of another legislature as it exists or is amended
from time to
is
adopted is the one exercising discretion in respect of change, not the
adopting legislature. The situation is clearly quite similar to de-
then the legislature whose
time:
legislation
25 [19251 A.C. 384.
2r, R.S.C. 1906, c.153, s.8.
26 [1959] S.C.R. 497.
1975]
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN CANADA
139
legation, and could have been so characterized;2 7 indeed, in order
to avoid the problem the Ontario Court of Appeal in Reg. v. Fialka8
interpreted a provision of the Ontario Summary Convictions Act,”u
adopting certain provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada “as
amended and re-enacted from time to time”, as referring to those
provisions as amended and re-enacted before the Ontario Act was
passed.
But the courts later upheld legislation of one level of government
adopting future legislation of another. In Reg. v. Glibbery29 the
Ontario Court of Appeal construed section 6(1) of the federal
Government Property Traffic Regulations, 29a which prohibited vehi-
cles from operating on a highway on federal property except “in
accordance with the laws of the province”, as referring to those
laws as existing from time to time and upheld the section as valid.
Some time before, the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney-General
of Ontario v. Scott” had upheld the validity of the Ontario Reciprocal
Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act,3Oa which incorporated
defences available to maintenance orders made in reciprocating
countries. Reg. v. Glibbery was later expressly approved by the
Supreme Court of Canada in Coughlin v. Ontario Highway Trans-
port Board et al.31 in 1968. The matter is, therefore, settled. One
point, however, should be emphasized. This device does not extend
the legislative sphere of the adopting legislature; it can only adopt
legislation that it would have been able to enact itself.
The device has raised some minor problems relating to such
matters as the manner of charging an individual with an offence,32
the reconciliation of provisions where a matter is dealt with under
both the adopting and adopted legislation (for example, where
penalties are provided under both) ,
and the exercise of powers in
relation to interprovincial undertakings in a manner different from
27See Laskin, Case and Comment, supra, f.n.18, discussed below.
28 [1953] 4 D.L.R. 440.
28aR.S.O. 1950, c.379, s3(1).
29 [1963] 1 O.R. 232; see also Reg. v. Brinklow [1953] O.W.N. 325; Reg. v.
Hughes (1958) 29 C.R. 111; Reg. v. Johns (1962) 39 W.W.R. (n.s.) 49 (Sask. CA.).
20a [1952] S.O.R. 894, P.C. 4076, of 17 Sept. 1952, in S.O.R. Cons. 1955, v.2,
p.1838 .
30 [1956] S.C.R. 137.
30a R.S.O. 1950, c.334.
31 [1968] S.C.R. 569.
32See Reg. v. Johns, supra, fm.n29; Registrar of Motor Vehicles v. Canadian
American Transfer Ltd. [1972] S.C.R. 811.
3 See Reg. v. Hughes, supra, fUn.29.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 21
their exercise in relation to intraprovincial undertakings.” But these
are the types of problems that will vanish as more familiarity with
the technique develops.
Conjoint Schemes
Finally, much can be done to avoid the restraints on inter-
delegation by administrative cooperation and conjoint schemes. The
simplest form of this device is where an official is given power to
enforce or administer both federal and provincial laws in relation
to one subject matter. For example, the federal government may
assign to a provincial fishery officer the task of enforcing fishery
laws; such delegation of administrative responsibility may also take
place in the reverse.
Cooperation may similarly be effected by parallel legislation
intended to secure a common end, through employing independent
or combined administrative structures. Problems respecting parallel
legislation arise at three levels:
(a) in securing initial federal-provincial cooperation;
(b) in drafting legislation that truly meshes without overstep-
ping the legislative bounds of either legislature; and
in securing efficient and continuing cooperation of adminis-
trative officers. 5
(c)
So far as the latter is concerned, it is obvious that if parallel
administrative structures are employed, duplication is likely to result.
Moreover, administrative officers responsible to different bodies will
almost inevitably have differences of view. These problems can be
avoided by a single administration, but even here the maintenance
of continuing cooperation cannot be effected if the government that
hires the administrative officers concerned seeks to follow policies
adverse to those of the other government. But most of the other
problems have in fairly recent years been overcome by one level
of government delegating executive and administrative authority
(including the power to make regulations) to administrative agen-
cies created by the other. The validity of this device had earlier been
doubted because the language of the major cases on delegation
could be interpreted as restricting delegation to bodies subordinate
to the particular legislature. However, it was approved by the Su-
preme Court of Canada in 1952 in P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board v.
34See The Queen v. Smith [1972] S.C.R. 359.
35 For a discussion of these problems, see Corry, supra, f.n.17, ch. 1.
1975]
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN CANADA
141
H.B. Willis Inc.36 There the Agricultural Products Marketing (Prince
Edward Island) Act oa delegated to the Lieutenant-Governor power to
establish marketing schemes within the province of any natural
products and to constitute boards to administer the schemes. Pur-
suant thereto the Lieutenant-Governor appointed the P.E.I. Potato
Marketing Board and delegated to it power to regulate the market-
ing of potatoes in the province. The federal Agricultural Products
Marketing Act3ob authorized the Governor in Council to delegate to
marketing boards established under provincial legislation like powers
respecting interprovincial marketing. Under this Act the Governor
in Council delegated to the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board powers
relating to interprovincial and export trade similar to those given to
it by the province with respect to intraprovincial trade. The Board
then made several orders imposing licence fees and levies based
on the amounts of shipments, and establishing a minimum price. The
Supreme Court of Canada upheld the validity of the scheme.
In a comment on this case, Professor Laskin (now Laskin C.J.)
suggested that it could be interpreted as permitting interdelegation
between the federal Parliament and provincial legislatures in relation
to matters on which the delegated body is independently competent 7
This statement must not, however, be read too widely. On the one
hand, Laskin was not arguing against the type of administrative
delegation there involved, i.e., a delegation to a provincial adminis-
trative body of authority –
over interprovincial and international
trade –
that the province did not possess. On the other hand, it
seems equally clear that he was not advocating a wholesale break-
down of the ordinary division of legislative authority. 8 What Laskin
was proposing was the principle (discussed in the preceding section
but not then established) that a province acting within its legislative
competence (e.g., respecting property and civil rights) could adopt
by reference federal legislation (e.g., criminal law) not only when it
was already in existence, but also future amendments.
In truth this amounts, for practical purposes, to a limited form
of legislative delegation, for it permits a legislature other than that
giving the law ultimate power to exercise effective discretion. But
this is an oblique and highly convenient transgression against the
principle prohibiting interdelegation. It permits uninterrupted uni-
36 [1952] 2 S.C.R. 392.
36a S.P.E.I. 1940, c.40.
36b 13 George VI, S.C. 1941 (1st Sess.), c.16.
37 Laskin, Case and Comment, supra, fn.18.
38 See C.B. Bourne, Correspondence (1956) 34 Can, Bar Rev. 500.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 21
fortuity of laws as regards a scheme the general structure of which
has been considered by the adopting legislature. In a word, the
technique does not substantially offend against the underlying
reasons for the rule against delegation and the gains in flexibility
are extensive. That Laskin clearly perceived the practical result of
the techniques (particularly when used in combination) can be seen
from the case of Coughlin v. Ontario Highway Transport Board,80
which involved federal delegation of administrative power to a
provincial administrative board, coupled with incorporation by
reference of provincial legislation. The Supreme Court of Canada
there upheld the federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act-oa under which
extraprovincial transport undertakings were prohibited to operate
unless licensed, and the power to grant, such licences was vested in
provincial transport boards upon like terms and conditions as if the
undertaking were local.
It may be well to add that the Supreme Court of Canada has at
its disposal a weapon against a delegation of administrative power
or an adoption of future legislation so broad as to amount in
substance to a grant of legislative power: it could declare such a
device void as being a colourable attempt to escape the restraints
imposed by the Nova Scotia delegation case.40
A word should also be added about delegation of taxing power.
Although the Privy Council once described the levying by the
federal Parliament of taxes for provincial purposes as improbable,41
there has been one instance where Parliament has vested in a pro-
vincial board the power to levy indirect taxation.42 This, as Laskin
has pointed out, seems incongruous, having regard to the provisions
of sections 54 and 90 of the B.N.A. Act providing that provincial
revenue measures be initiated by the Lieutenant-Governor .(in reality
the provincial government) .4 Still, federal-provincial fiscal arrange-
ments largely undermined the reality of this argument. There is also
the argument that the provinces were limited to direct taxation
“within the province” to prevent them from creating interprovincial
39 [1968] S.C.R. 569; for a comment, see K. Lysyk in (1969) 47 Can. Bar
Rev. 271.
39a S.C. 1953-54, c.3(1)(2).
4o See Lederman, supra, fLn.7, 427-28.
41 Caron v. The King [1924] A.C. 999, 1004.
42 An Act to amend the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, 5 & 6 Eliz. II,
S.C. 1956-57, c.15.
43 Laskin, Provincial Marketing Levies: Indirect Taxation and Federal Power
(1959-60) 13 U. of T. L.. 1, 9.
1975]
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN CANADA
143
tariff walls and from in effect taxing persons in other provinces.”
But the argument is met by the fact that the tax is in fact imposed
by the federal Parliament, which has the constitutional discretion
to do so. However, care may have to be taken in appropriate cases
not to offend against the requirements of section 121, which requires
articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any province
to be admitted free into the other provinces.
Previous Official Proposals for Delegation
Delegation has on several occasions been considered at the
official level as a possible device for giving some flexibility to the
constitution. Thus the Rowell-Sirois Commission recommended a
general power of delegation between the federal and provincial
legislature applying to the whole field of legislative power, subject
to the consent of the delegatee 45 The delegation proposed could have
been made permanent or for a short or long term, and could have
included any or all the provinces because it was thought that this
flexibility would take into account the different situations of the
provinces.
Delegation was also conceived as affording a way out of the
rigidities of the amending formula in the Fulton-Favreau proposals,
but the delegation procedure there suggested was much more
restricted So far as delegation from the provinces was concerned,
it was limited to the powers under section 92(6) (reformatories),
(10) (local works and undertakings), (13) (property and civil rights),
and (16) (local or private matters). On
the other hand, any
federal legislative power could be delegated to the provinces. A
second limitation was that the scheme did not envisage general
delegation. Rather, power was given to Parliament (or a legislature)
to make laws on the above matters, but no statute so enacted was
valid in a province unless the province (or Parliament) had con-
sented to the statute. In short, the scheme was limited to particular
statutes. Moreover, when Parliament so legislated, four provinces
had to consent to the operation of such statutes in those provinces,
unless Parliament declared that the federal government had con-
sulted all provinces and less than four were concerned, and all of
those concerned consented to its operation. Provincial laws so
enacted were valid only where three other provinces did so. The
4See La Forest, The Allocation of Taxing Power under the Canadian Consti-
tution (1967), 53.
45 Supra, f.n.3.
46 Guy Favreau, The Amendment of the Constitution of Canada (1965), 113-15.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 21
scheme of delegation was, therefore, in its practical effect, more
restricted than the delegation possible under existing powers. Pro-
vision was made, however, for any province revoking a scheme
without affecting it in other provinces.
During the recent constitutional exercise, delegation of legislative
power played a relatively minor role. It was not mentioned in the
Victoria Charter, although some provinces had earlier referred to
it. The Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Com-
mons on the Constitution did not recommend it except in specified
areas of the criminal law, such as, for example, in relation to off-
track betting, lotteries and gaming 47 The decreasing importance
attached to the subject in successive projects for constitutional
review would seem to indicate that the practical problems sought
to be resolved by delegation have been taken care of by other means.
Even the relatively minor proposals of the Special Joint Committee
can easily be effected by the judicial devices previously described.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Delegation
The major advantage of delegation of legislative power is that
it gives flexibility to a federal system by making it possible to over-
come the difficulties of a water tight division of legislative power.
This is particularly so where constitutional amendment is difficult. It
can permit one level of government, rather than the other, to deal
with a particular matter where experience or circumstances dictate
that this is wiser. There may be situations where one level of
government is not equipped or prepared to deal with a problem. This
was one of the reasons given for empowering provincial boards to
deal with extraprovincial motor transport.8 Again, the different
situations of the various provinces may make it desirable to have
delegation to or from some but not all provinces with respect to
certain matters. In this way delegation may achieve another type
of flexibility.
Delegation may also make legislative action easier where a single
activity, looked at from a functional point of view, could be
regulated in its entirety by different levels of government because
the entire activity falls under several constitutional rubrics. Dele-
gation can avoid duplication of effort, both at the legislative and
levels, and prevent the confusion that inevitably
administrative
results even when there is cooperation. As already mentioned,
47Supra, fmn.8, 4445, 74-75.
48See Ballem, Case and Comment, supra, f.n.18, 797-98.
19751
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN CANADA
145
without some kind of delegation, difficulties in cooperation arise
at three different levels:
(a) at the political level, where agreement may be difficult;
(b) at the legislative level, where the legislation must be made
workable while avoiding passage into a forbidden legislative
sphere; and
(c) at the administrative level, where cooperation has to be
maintained over a long period, with the dangers of different
approaches being developed by political and administrative
authorities of both levels of government.
There are, however, important disadvantages to interdelegation.
On the one hand, it may be argued that delegation may destroy the
federation because the abandonment of powers by the provinces
may create a virtually all-powerful federal Parliament. On the other
hand, the federation could be reduced to a loose confederacy were
the federal Parliament to delegate too many of its powers to the
provinces. It is true that delegation in its proper sense involves the
power to take back jurisdiction, but this is always difficult, particu-
larly where administrative machinery has been developed.
The mere existence of a power of interdelegation may give rise
to difficulties. It may lead to pressures by one level of government
on the other to transfer powers, and give rise to friction when there
is refusal, and possible unproductive work in deciding whether
delegation is wise or unwise whenever such pressures exist.
Also weighing against delegation is the consideration (so well
expressed by Rand J. in the passage quoted earlier) that the consti-
tution obviously intended that discretion and financial responsibility
respecting certain matters be given to one level of government,
rather than the other. This applies more strongly where general
powers are delegated as in the Nova Scotia delegation case than
where delegation is restricted to a particular scheme. Not only is
responsibility dispersed in a manner that may be difficult to define,
but so are the financial implications. The argument is fortified by
the fact that what is delegated may be related to other powers which
should be considered in a generalized scheme. For example, in
devising general policies respecting interprovincial transport, inter-
provincial motor transport must be considered; yet the fact that
this is currently administered by provincial boards may well inhibit
the formulation of policy.
A further dimension to this argument is that the giving of power
to one level of government may have been done to prevent the other
from having that power. Thus, one of the reasons for not granting
indirect taxation to the provinces is that this may have the effect
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 21
of creating tariff walls and imposing the primary burden of taxation
on non-residents of a province. In other words, the grant of power
may not only be looked upon as a positive vesting of power in the
federal Parliament but as an implied prohibition against the pro-
vinces.
Flowing from the argument that a particular legislature is in-
tended by the constitution to exercise discretion in a particular
area is the more fundamental one that that legislature is looked upon
by the electorate as having responsibility in the area. Though one
must not exaggerate the degree of sophistication of the electorate
(particularly where a constitution has many overlapping areas),
there is a good measure of truth in the argument.
Another argument against delegation relates to situations where
there is delegation to or from one or several, but not all, provinces.
This, it may be argued, would create a constitutional “hodge podge”,49
a result the Fulton-Favreau formula tried to minimize by requiring
at least four provinces to participate in a scheme. In truth, however,
the many administrative federal-provincial arrangements may al-
ready have resulted in a hodge podge. Thus, the federal Department
of Insurance acts as a delegate for some provinces in certain matters
but not for others. This diversity may indeed be the best way to
cope with many situations where wide differences exist among the
provinces. In one respect, however, the argument has special cogency.
Delegation could be used as a means of giving special status to a
province, which could undermine the influence and responsibilities
of the Parliamentary representatives from the province given such
status. A hodge podge could also occur where all the provinces
delegated power to the federal Parliament, but later one withdrew.
This could result in the dismantling of complicated and expensive
programmes.
Summary and Appraisal
As can be seen, there are weighty arguments for and against
delegation. Not surprisingly, the first reaction of the courts both
here and in other federations (for example, the” United States) ” is to
attempt to protect the general structure of the constitution by
finding a constitutional bar to delegation. Even where there is a
general clause under which a general transfer of power could be
49 See Lederman, supra, fLn.7, 426.
50 See Horace E. Read, Is Referential Legislation Worth While? (1940) 18
Can. Bar Rev. 415, 434 et seq.
19751
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN CANADA
147
made, as is the case under the Australian Constitution5 and to a
more limited extent under section 94 of the B.N.A. Act, such clause
tends to become a dead letter because of the felt need to maintain
the integrity of the federation.
Yet a division of legislative responsibility effected in one era
cannot be expected to foresee all future problems, and overlap of
authority in relation to emerging social problems is bound to
occur. Changing conditions may make it desirable that different
levels of government should deal with a problem at different periods.
Moreover, the needs of one province may not coincide with those of
another at all times, and some accommodation must be made.
Accordingly, devices are invented to permit some transfer of func-
tions. This has been true not only in Canada but also in other
federations, such as the United States 52 and Australia.5 3
The practical result achieved by the courts may well be as
good as we are likely to get. Transfer of functions between federal
and provincial authorities is necessary, but the equilibrium of the
federation must be preserved. The legislature given a power by
the constitution should exercise a measure of discretion in the
various schemes it transfers. This is, in effect, what the courts
have achieved, and consequently constitutional tinkering in this
area is not recommended.
However, if in future constitutional discussions it is thought
advisable to provide expressly for delegation, the best balance
between the advantages and disadvantages would be to permit one
level of government to make laws within the legislative competence
of the other if that other consents to the particular statute. In other
words, we could have a scheme similar to that in the Fulton-Favreau
formula without requiring the consent of four provinces. This re-
quirement for consent would make for a certain uniformity and
help to avoid the creation of a special status for any province, 5
but it would tend to limit seriously the use of the express delegation
power and make it more restrictive than the techniques to transfer
authority now available under the constitution. A scheme for
delegation should also provide that a province cannot revoke
delegated power for a certain period. Otherwise it could, in some
cases, effectively dismantle a national scheme constructed at con-
siderable expense.
51 See C.K. Comans, Case and Comment (1953) 31 Can. Bar Rev. 814.
52See Read, supra, fmn.50.
53 See Comans, supra, fLn.51.
54 See Lederman, supra, f.n.7; Louis Philippe Pigeon, Le sens de la forrmule
Fulton-Favreau (1966) 12 McGill LJ. 403, 413.
