The position of criminal law authority reversed the earlier decision in the case of Industrial Acceptance Corp. v. The Queen  2 S.C.R. 273, in which the court had agreed that the Narcotic Control Act was constitutional under criminal power. The proceeding of the case in R. V. Hauser focused on challenging the restrictions to the jurisdiction of federal criminal law. This commentary examines the federal parliamentary legislation and provincial power on criminal laws in Canada and the validity of Narcotic Control Act as discussed in the case of R. V. Hauser.
The federal criminal code 1959 empowered the provincial attorneys through provincial court to powers to petition the attorney general or his agent to institute prosecution against the offenders (Roman, 2007). However, the amendment delegated the federal state powers to prosecute offenses under Narcotic Control Act thus causing conflicts concerning the federal and provincial attorneys’ power to prosecute offenders. S.91 (27) defines the federal powers in administration of criminal matters and enforcing criminal law. The constitution does not impose any prohibitions on “federal for a provincial prosecutor in narcotic offenses” (Laskin, 1980, p 564). In R. V. Hauser, the respondent was accused of being in possession of cannabis resin and cannabis (marijuana) for the purpose of trading contrary to the Narcotic Control Act s. 4(2). The summons signed by the agent of Attorney General of Canada. The respondent moved the prohibitions by challenging the legitimacy of the constitution in the definition Attorney General” as stipulated in the in s.2 of the Criminal Code (Roach et al., 2004). The case was terminated in the first hearing, but it gained support under majority decision in the court of appeal in Supreme Court of Alberta. In the appeal issue raised was to challenge the legitimacy of parliament of Canada to make legislations that empower Attorney