CHAP, 1] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 665 
§ 4. THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE DOMINION 
AND THE PROVINCES 
It appears to have been the intention of the framers of 
the Constitution of the Federation? to devise a plan in which 
there should be no overlapping of authorities : that is, at 
least, a conclusion which has been derived from the fact that, 
Save as regards education and immigration and agriculture, 
they seem to have thought that conflicts were impossible, 
and so made no provision regarding them. The distribution 
of legislative power is set out in detail in the following 
sections of the British North America Act. 1867 + 2 
VI.—DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS 
Powers of the Parliament 
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice 
and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make 
Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, 
In relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of 
Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures 
of the Provinces ; and for greater Certainty, but not so as 
to restrict the Genmerality of the foregoing Terms of this 
Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything 
In this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parlia- 
ment of Canada extends to all matters coming within the 
Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated ? ; that is 
0 Say. — 
' See Sir J. Macdonald, Confederation Debates (1865), p. 32. 
* The classical commentaries on the Act are still Wheeler, Confederation 
Law, and Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, but both works are prac- 
tically fifteen years old. The leading cases up to 1896 are printed in 
Cartwright, Cases on the British North America Act (5 vols.). 
? See Canada Revised Statutes, 1906. Divorce is the chief subject on 
which no legislation has been passed. 
The term ‘exclusive ’ merely applies to exclusion of provincial authority. 
This is now definitely decided, though at one time doubted ; see Draper 
C.J, in Reg. v. Taylor, 36 U. C. Q. B. 183; Chauveau J., in Holmes v. 
Temple, (1882) 8 Q. L. R. 351. The Royal, 9 Q. L. R. 148, is also cited in 
this sense, but this is an error, for the Canadian Act, 36 & 37 Vict. ¢. 129, 
which altered s. 189 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, was legalized by the permission 
to alter that Act civen in s. 547 of the Act itself as regards registered vessels,