Margarine Reference facts for kids

Quick facts for kids Margarine Reference
Court	Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case name	The Canadian Federation of Agriculture v The Attorney-General of Quebec and others
Decided	16 October 1950
Citation(s)	[1950] UKPC 31, [1951] AC 179
Court membership
Judges sitting	Lord Porter, Lord Simonds, Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord MacDermott, Lord Radcliffe
Case opinions
Decision by	Lord Morton of Henryton

The Margarine Reference was an important court case in Canada. It helped decide if a law made by the Parliament of Canada was allowed under its power to create criminal laws. The case was also known as Canadian Federation of Agriculture v Quebec (AG).

In this case, the courts looked at a law that tried to ban margarine. They decided that Parliament had gone beyond its powers. Even though the law had punishments, it wasn't truly about protecting the public.

This decision was first made by the Supreme Court of Canada. Then, it was confirmed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This was one of the last appeals to the Privy Council before Canada stopped sending cases there in 1949. The case is still used today when courts discuss how power is shared in Canada.

Why This Case Was Important

The Power to Make Laws

In Canada, the Constitution divides power between the federal government and the provinces. Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the federal Parliament the special power to make criminal laws.

But what exactly counts as a "criminal law"? This question has been debated many times. Earlier court cases had different ideas about it. Some thought criminal laws could only ban things that were considered crimes way back in 1867. Later, courts decided that Parliament could ban any act that came with a punishment.

This wider view meant Parliament could potentially make laws about many things. This led to the Margarine Reference case.

The Margarine Ban

The main question for the courts was:

Is Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act allowed for the Parliament of Canada, or is it beyond its power?

Parliament had made a law against making and selling margarine. This law was first created in 1886. The idea was to help dairy businesses by stopping margarine from competing with butter.

The law claimed that margarine was "injurious to health" (bad for health). If this were true, banning it could be seen as a valid criminal law. However, the federal government later admitted in court that this health claim was not true.

The Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada looked at the law banning margarine. They made a few key decisions:

• The part of the law that stopped margarine from being brought into Canada was allowed. The Court said this was about foreign trade, which is a federal power.
• But the part of the law that banned making, selling, or having margarine in Canada was not allowed. The Court said this was about property, which is a provincial power.

Justice Ivan Rand agreed with the majority. He said that banning the making of margarine was not a valid criminal law. But he agreed that banning its import was fine under federal trade powers.

What Makes a Law "Criminal"?

Justice Rand explained a test to figure out if a law truly counts as a criminal law. He said two main things must be true:

1. The law must forbid something and have a punishment for breaking it.
2. The law must be for a public purpose. It must aim to stop something bad or protect a public interest.

Justice Rand gave examples of public purposes that would make a law criminal. These included protecting public peace, order, security, health, or morality.

The government appealed this ruling to the Privy Council. They argued the law was valid under several federal powers, including trade, criminal law, and "peace, order and good government."

The Privy Council's Decision

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agreed with the Supreme Court's decision. They upheld the ruling that the ban on making and selling margarine was not allowed.

They explained that the federal power over trade does not cover every single type of trade within a province. They also agreed with Justice Rand that the criminal law power is not unlimited.

The Privy Council noted that the real reason for the margarine ban was about trade and economics. It was not truly about a public safety issue. They said that if the federal government could ban products just to help one industry over another, it would be taking too much power from the provinces.

They also said that the issue of making and selling margarine fell under the provincial power over "property and civil rights." This power generally covers business and property rules within a province. Finally, they confirmed that the law did not directly affect farming operations, so it wasn't valid under the agriculture power either.