Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, S.C. 1972, Farm Products Marketing Act, R.S.O. 1970, Re, (1978) 19 N.R. 361 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 1978
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1978), 19 N.R. 361 (SCC);1978 CanLII 10 (SCC);[1978] SCJ No 58 (QL);19 NR 361;84 DLR (3d) 257;[1978] 2 SCR 1198;[1978] ACS no 58

Agricultural Prod. Marketing Act, Re (1978), 19 N.R. 361 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Re Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, S.C. 1972, Farm Products Marketing Act, R.S.O. 1970

Indexed As: Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, S.C. 1972, Farm Products Marketing Act, R.S.O. 1970, Re

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

January 19, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of a reference to the Ontario Court of Appeal pursuant to the Ontario Constitutional Questions Act. The reference concerned the validity of a nation wide marketing scheme for eggs and the validity of two federal statutes and orders made thereunder and an Ontario statute and orders made thereunder.

See paragraph 24 and paragraph 158 for the questions referred and the answers given by the Ontario Court of Appeal and also the questions on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and the answers of the Supreme Court of Canada.

See also the topics and issues referred to in the topic headings below.

Constitutional Law - Topic 612

Powers of Parliament and the legislatures - Delegation of power - Delegation of administrative power - Section 2(1) of the federal Agricultural Products Marketing Act authorized the delegation, to a provincial agricultural marketing agency, of the power to regulate the marketing of agricultural products in interprovincial and export trade - The powers delegated were described as "like the powers exercisable by such [provincial] board or agency in relation to the marketing of such agricultural product locally within the province" - The Supreme Court of Canada held valid such a delegation of administrative power - See paragraphs 3 and 39 to 47.

Evidence - Topic 2239

Judicial notice - Parliamentary procedure - The Supreme Court of Canada took judicial notice of parliamentary procedure, and particularly, the procedure by which money bills are introduced in the Canadian House of Commons - See paragraph 51.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5574

Enumeration in s. 91 of the British North America Act - Amendment of the constitution - Indirect amendment - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that Parliament could indirectly amend s. 53 and 54 of the British North America Act (imposition of taxes) by providing "for a levy and appropriation of taxes in such a manner as it sees fit, by delegation or otherwise" - See paragraph 6.

Constitutional Law - Topic 605

Powers of Parliament and the legislatures - Delegation of power - Delegation of taxing powers - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that Parliament could impose taxes "in such manner as it sees fit, by delegation or otherwise" - See paragraph 6.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5763

Enumeration in s. 91 of the British North America Act - Taxation - What constitutes a tax - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that adjustment levies on producers of agricultural products, pursuant to marketing legislation, did not constitute taxes - See paragraphs 6 and 52.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7284

Enumeration in s. 92 of the British North America Act - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Regulation of intraprovincial trade - S. 2(2)(a) of the federal Agricultural Products Marketing Act authorized provincial boards to impose levies in respect to the intraprovincial marketing of agricultural products - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 2(2)(a) was ultra vires the Parliament of Canada - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that adjustment levies, arising out of intraprovincial marketing schemes for agricultural products, are an exclusive provincial matter - See paragraphs 7 and 48 to 87.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5672

Enumeration in s. 91 of the British North America Act - Regulation of trade and commerce - Interprovincial trade - Federal marketing legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada declared valid the federal Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act - However, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that in the absence of a proper federal purpose, a federal agency cannot be empowered by the Parliament of Canada "to purchase in any market and to dispose of its purchases as an ordinary trader" - See paragraphs 9 and 93 to 108.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7284

Enumeration in s. 92 of the British North America Act - Property and civil rights - Intraprovincial trade - Provincial marketing legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to some of the considerations in testing the constitutional validity of a provincial marketing statute - See paragraphs 121 to 139.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7508

Enumeration in s. 92 of the British North America Act - Matters of a local or private nature, s. 92(10) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that egg farms are local undertakings subject to provincial authority, irrespective of the destination of their output - See paragraph 15.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7512

Enumeration in s. 92 of the British North America Act - Matters of a local or private nature, s. 92(10) - Production controls or quotas - The Supreme Court of Canada declared valid Ontario egg producer quota regulations - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that control of production, whether agricultural or industrial, is prima facie a local matter, a matter of provincial jurisdiction - See paragraphs 12 to 18 and 140 to 150.

Constitutional Law - Topic 15

General principles - Effect of federal-provincial agreements - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that if a power asserted is not found in the constitution it cannot be given by a federal-provincial agreement - See paragraph 56.

Statutes - Topic 5503

Operation - Delegated legislation - Orders-in-council - Authority to enact orders-in-council - Whether the order was authorized by the empowering statute - The Supreme Court of Canada held valid an order of the Governor-in-council which authorized a provincial marketing board to impose levies on egg producers - See paragraphs 8 and 88 to 92.

Words and Phrases

Implement - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "implement" as found in the federal Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, S.C. 1972, c. 65 - See paragraph 112.

Cases Noticed:

Willis case, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 392, folld. [para. 3]; refd to. [paras. 41, 65].

Quebec Magistrates' Court, Re, [1965] S.C.R. 772, folld. [para. 5].

Attorney General for Saskatchewan v. Attorney General for Canada, [1949] A.C. 110, folld. [para. 7].

Madden v. Nelson and Fort Shefford Ry. Co., [1899] A.C. 626, folld. [para. 7].

Shannon case, [1938] A.C. 708, folld. [para. 9]; refd to. [para. 61].

Carnation case, [1968] S.C.R. 238, folld. [para. 12]; refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co., [1925] S.C.R. 434, folld. [paras. 13, 14].

Jorgenson v. Attorney General of Canada, [1971] S.C.R. 725, refd to. [para. 13].

C.N.R. v. Nor-Min Supplies, 7 N.R. 603; [1977] 1 S.C.R. 332, folld. [para. 13].

Farm Products Marketing Act of Ontario, Reference re, [1957] S.C.R. 198, folld. [paras. 14, 64]; refd to. [paras. 39, 68].

Reference Case, [1912] A.C. 571, folld. [para. 16].

Natural Products Marketing Act case, [1936] S.C.R. 398; [1937] A.C. 377, folld. [para. 16]; refd to. [paras. 37, 56, 136].

Brant Dairy Co. v. Milk Marketing Commission of Ontario, [1973] S.C.R. 131, refd to. [paras. 38, 88].

Lower Mainland Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Committee v. Crystal Dairy Limited, [1933] A.C. 168, refd to. [para. 39].

Coughlin v. Ontario Highway Transport Board, [1968] S.C.R. 569, refd to. [para. 41].

Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1951] S.C.R. 31, refd to. [para. 41].

Attorney General of Ontario v. Reciprocal Insurers, [1924] A.C. 328, refd to. [para. 44].

Regulations (Chemicals) under the War Measures Act, Reference re, [1943] S.C.R. 1, folld. [para. 46].

Murphy v. C.P.R., [1958] S.C.R. 626, refd to. [paras. 58, 107].

Caron v. The King, [1924] A.C. 999, refd to. [para. 58].

Employment and Social Insurance Act reference, [1937] A.C. 355, folld. [para. 58].

Lawson v. Interior Tree Fruit and Vegetable Committee of Direction, [1931] S.C.R. 357, refd to. [para. 61].

Ontario Boys' Wear Ltd. v. Advisory Committee, [1944] S.C.R. 349, refd to. [para. 65].

Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board v. Turner's Dairy Ltd., [1941] S.C.R. 573, refd to. [para. 67].

Crawford and Hillside Farm Dairy Ltd. v. Attorney General of British Columbia, [1960] S.C.R. 346, refd to. [para. 77].

Binus v. The Queen, [1967] S.C.R. 594, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Hill (No. 2), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 827; 7 N.R. 373, refd to. [para. 86].

Paquette v. The Queen, 11 N.R. 451; [1977] 2 S.C.R. 189, refd to. [para. 86].

McNamara Construction (Western) Ltd. v. The Queen (1977), 9 N.R. 114; 75 D.L.R.(3d) 273, refd to. [para. 86].

Atlantic Smoke Shops Ltd. v. Conlon, [1943] A.C. 550, refd to. [para. 106].

Gold Seal Ltd. v. Dominion Express Co. (1921), 62 S.C.R. 424, refd to. [para. 107].

Attorney General of Manitoba v. Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association, [1971] S.C.R. 689, refd to. [paras. 128, 131].

Burns Foods Ltd. v. Attorney General of Manitoba, 1 N.R. 147; [1975] 1 S.C.R. 494, refd to. [para. 131].

Attorney General of British Columbia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1937] A.C. 377, refd to. [para. 136].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 53, sect. 54 [paras. 6, 49]; sect. 92(10) [para. 12]; sect. 92(13), sect. 121 [para. 94].

Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. A-7, sect. 2, sect. 3 [para. 39].

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, S.C. 1972, c. 65.

Farm Products Marketing Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 162.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Corry, Difficulties of Divided Jurisdiction; Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission Study, Appendix 7, (1939), page 11 [para. 99].

Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 3rd Ed., reprint (1947), page 967 [para. 112].

Counsel:

Herman Turkstra, Peter Hogg and Joseph Nadel, for Ontario Egg Producers and other interested parties;

R.W. Cosman, for interested egg producers;

Marcel Trudeau, Q.C. and Yves Sylvestre, for the Attorney General for the Province of Quebec;

Pierre Paradis and Gerald A. Beaudoin, Q.C., for l'Association des producteurs d'oeufs québecois' V.L. Freidin and J. McMurchy, for Attorney General for Ontario and Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board;

T.B. Smith, Q.C. and D.M. Low, for Attorney General of Canada;

Francois Lemieux and Scott McLean, for Canadian Egg Marketing Agency;

J.J. Robinette, Q.C. and H.E. Harris, Q.C., for Ontario Egg Producers Marketing Board;

Pierre Blain, Q.C., for la Fédération des producteurs d'oeufs de consommation du Québec' Martin E. Herschorn, for Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

N.D. Shende and J.R. MacInnes, for Attorney General of Manitoba;

Wm. Henkel, Q.C., for Attorney General of Alberta.

This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, JUDSON, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ and de GRANDPRE, JJ., at Ottawa, Ontario on June 21, 22, 23 and 24, 1977.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered on January 19, 1978 and the following opinions were filed:

PIGEON, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 19.

LASKIN, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 20 to 158.

MARTLAND, RITCHIE, BEETZ and de GRANDPRE, JJ. concurred with PIGEON, J.

JUDSON, SPENCE, and DICKSON, JJ. concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C.