CHAP. 1] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 717
(WY Dominion and Provincial Delegation
The Provincial Legislatures, as has been seen above, are
not delegates of the Dominion Parliament or of the Imperial
Parliament, and they can freely delegate their authority to
the extent indicated in H odge v. The Queen? So in Attorney-
General of British Columbia v. Milne? it was laid down that
the Health Act of British Columbia, which permitted the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations regard-
ing Boards of Health, was intra vires the legislature. It
is not, however, clear how far such delegation can proceed :
could a Provincial Legislature set up another body with the
Same powers by enacting that its regulations on the topics
in s. 92 should be law ? That would probably be ultra vires 4 :
the legislature can change its constitution, but not create
two legislatures, hence the matter must rest on hypothesis.
Again, the Dominion Parliament can make its laws dependent
on action by the Provincial Parliaments. Thus in Reg. v.
O'Rourke ® was upheld the validity of the Dominion Act,
32 & 33 Viet. c. 29, s. 44, which permitted the qualifications
of jurors to be decided by provincial Acts, although the
qualification of jurors is essentially a Dominion power.” So
8. 308 of the Dominion Railway Act of 1888 (51 Vict. c. 29)
allowed the Governor-General to confirm Acts of the Pro-
vincial Legislature which had been passed before 1888 to
regulate railways declared by Canadian Act to be for the
public benefit of Canada, and thus falling under the sole
control of the Canadian Parliament.
Such delegation by legislatures to municipal bodies is
clearly legal, despite the fact that it really deprives the Crown
See Part IIT, chap. i. * 9 App. Cas. 117.
* (1892) 2 B. C. (Hunter) 196.
* CL. The Queen v. Burah, 3 App. Cas. 889, at p. 905 ; Begbie C.J. in the
Thrasher case, 1 B. C. (Irving), at p. 175.
* Cf. Mr. H. Davey’s argument in Hodge v. The Queen, Canada Sess. Pap.,
1884, No. 30, p. 10; Lefroy, op. cit., pp. 689-700.
° (1882) 32 U. C. 0. P. 388; 10. R. 464. So held also in Req. v. Prevost,
1885) 29 L, C. J. 253.
" Provincial Legislation, p. 1125 (Sir J. Thompson on British Columbia
Act, 1891. c. 14)
