Division of Powers: POGG, Trade and Commerce, and Criminal Law Powers for NCA Exams

Pith and Substance: The Starting Point for Every Division of Powers Question

Before you can determine whether a law falls under federal or provincial jurisdiction, you must first characterize the law. This is the pith and substance analysis. You ask: what is the dominant purpose and effect of this law? What is it really about?

The analysis has two components. First, examine the purpose of the law -- what did the enacting legislature intend? Look at the legislative history, the preamble, the Hansard debates, and the structure of the statute. Second, examine the legal and practical effects of the law -- what does it actually do? A law may have incidental effects on matters outside the enacting legislature's jurisdiction, and that is permissible. What matters is the dominant characteristic.

For example, a federal law that prohibits certain environmental contaminants might incidentally affect provincial property rights. If the pith and substance of the law is environmental protection of national concern, it falls under federal jurisdiction despite the incidental provincial effects. This principle is sometimes called the ancillary powers doctrine or the doctrine of necessarily incidental effects.

POGG: Peace, Order, and Good Government

Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 grants Parliament the power to make laws for the "Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada" in relation to matters not exclusively assigned to the provinces. POGG is a residual federal power, but it has developed three distinct branches, each with its own test.

Branch 1: The Gap Branch

The gap branch covers matters that genuinely do not fall within any of the enumerated heads of power in either section 91 or section 92. If a subject matter is truly new and was not contemplated by the framers of Confederation, it may fall under POGG as a gap. Aeronautics is the classic example -- it did not exist in 1867 and was held to fall under federal jurisdiction via the gap branch.

Branch 2: The National Concern Branch

This is the most frequently tested POGG branch on the NCA exam. The leading case is R v Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd, [1988] 1 SCR 401. The national concern branch applies when a matter has attained a degree of singleness, distinctiveness, and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern. The key test is the provincial inability test: would the failure of one province to deal effectively with the matter have adverse effects on residents of other provinces?

If the answer is yes -- if provincial inaction would harm other provinces -- then the matter is of national concern and falls under federal jurisdiction. Marine pollution was the subject in Crown Zellerbach. The Court held that ocean pollution could not be effectively addressed by individual provinces acting alone because pollutants cross provincial boundaries.

Branch 3: The Emergency Branch

The emergency branch allows Parliament to legislate on matters that would normally fall under provincial jurisdiction when there is a genuine national emergency. The key feature is that the emergency power is temporary. Once the emergency ends, the federal legislation ceases to be constitutionally valid. The Anti-Inflation Reference, [1976] 2 SCR 373 is the leading case. The Court held that Parliament could enact wage and price controls during an economic emergency, even though wages and prices are normally matters of provincial jurisdiction.

Trade and Commerce: The General Motors Test

Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 grants Parliament jurisdiction over "the Regulation of Trade and Commerce." This power has two dimensions. The first is the regulation of interprovincial and international trade -- trade that crosses provincial or national boundaries. This dimension is relatively straightforward and rarely contested.

The second and more complex dimension is the general regulation of trade affecting the whole dominion. The leading case is General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing, [1989] 1 SCR 641, which established a five-part test:

1. The law must be part of a general regulatory scheme. It cannot be an isolated provision -- it must be part of a comprehensive legislative framework.
2. The scheme must be monitored by a regulatory agency. There must be an ongoing oversight mechanism, not just a one-time prohibition.
3. The legislation must be concerned with trade as a whole, not a particular industry. Industry-specific regulation is more likely provincial.
4. The legislation must be of a nature that provinces jointly or severally would be constitutionally incapable of enacting. This is analogous to the provincial inability test under POGG.
5. The failure to include one or more provinces would jeopardize the successful operation of the scheme in other parts of the country.

Not all five criteria need to be met in every case, but the presence of all five strongly supports federal jurisdiction. On the NCA exam, if a question presents a federal regulatory scheme governing trade across multiple provinces, work through the General Motors criteria systematically.

The Criminal Law Power

Section 91(27) grants Parliament exclusive jurisdiction over "the Criminal Law." The leading test for what constitutes valid criminal law comes from the Margarine Reference (Reference re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act, [1949] SCR 1). Valid criminal law requires three elements:

1. A prohibition -- the law must prohibit conduct ("no person shall...")
2. A penalty -- the law must attach a sanction for breach (fine, imprisonment, etc.)
3. A criminal law purpose -- the law must serve a public purpose such as public peace, order, security, health, or morality

The criminal law purpose requirement is what prevents Parliament from using s. 91(27) to regulate matters that are really provincial. A law that prohibits conduct and attaches a penalty but serves no genuine criminal law purpose -- for example, a law that effectively regulates a local industry under the guise of a prohibition -- is ultra vires Parliament. The courts look at the pith and substance to determine whether the true purpose is criminal or regulatory.

The criminal law power is broad. The Supreme Court has accepted public health (RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada, [1995] 3 SCR 199 -- tobacco advertising), environmental protection (R v Hydro-Quebec, [1997] 3 SCR 213 -- toxic substances), and morality as valid criminal law purposes. But the power is not unlimited. A federal law that is really about regulating a provincial matter -- like labour relations or property -- cannot be saved by adding a prohibition and a penalty.

How Division of Powers Questions Appear on the NCA Exam

A typical exam question will present a statute -- either federal or provincial -- and ask you to determine whether it is constitutionally valid. Follow this structure:

1. Pith and substance: Characterize the law. What is its dominant purpose and effect?
2. Classification: Which head of power does the law fall under? Identify the specific section (91 or 92) and the specific head of power.
3. Validity: Apply the relevant test. For POGG national concern, apply Crown Zellerbach. For Trade and Commerce, apply General Motors. For Criminal Law, apply the Margarine Reference three-part test.
4. Incidental effects: If the law has effects on matters outside the enacting legislature's jurisdiction, explain why these are merely incidental and do not change the pith and substance characterization.

The key to a strong division of powers answer is precision. Name the specific head of power, cite the leading case, apply the test to the facts, and reach a clear conclusion. For the companion framework on Charter limitations of legislation, see our guide to the Oakes test.

---

← Back to all articles