Federal competence under peace, order and good government sustained for temperance legislation despite provincial liquor laws.

The Canada Temperance Act, as re-enacted in 1927, was treated as materially identical to earlier provisions already upheld as valid Dominion legislation. The Board held that the controlling question was whether the subject-matter was, by its inherent nature, one of federal concern, not whether an emergency existed at the time of re-enactment. It also held that the earlier authority had become settled constitutional law after long acceptance and application, and that a valid Dominion measure could be re-enacted for preventive purposes even where provincial liquor legislation also operated. The Act was therefore constitutionally valid, the earlier decision was not overruled, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Canada Temperance Act, as re-enacted in 1927, was constitutionally valid as legislation within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada, and whether the earlier decision upholding the 1878 Act remained binding.

Analysis: The legislation was treated as materially identical to the earlier enactments that had already been upheld. The governing question was not whether an emergency existed at the time of re-enactment, but whether the subject-matter of the law was, by its inherent nature, one of Dominion concern. The Board held that the prior decision had stood for decades, had been acted upon, and had become settled constitutional law. It further held that a valid Dominion enactment could be re-enacted for preventive purposes even after earlier consolidation or repeal, where the subject-matter remained within federal competence under the peace, order and good government power and did not become invalid merely because provincial liquor legislation also existed.

Conclusion: The Canada Temperance Act was held constitutionally valid, the earlier authority was not overruled, and the appeal failed.

---