Viscount Haldane .- Of the questions before the Board in this appeal some have already been disposed of by the judgments already delivered in the cases of John Deere Plow Co. v. Wharton [1915] A.C. 330 — (1914) L.J.P.C. 64, Bonanza Creek Gold Mining Co. v. The King [1916] A.C. 566 — (1916) 85 L.J. 115, and the Insurance Act reference Att.-Gen. for Canada v. Att-Gen. for Albert [1916] A.C. 588 — (1916) L.J. 124. In the first of these cases, in which the judgments in the Supreme Court of Canada in the present- reference were brought to their notice, their Lordships indicated that the task of answering the questions on the interpretation of the British North America Act, 1867, imposed on the learned judges in the Court below was one which it was, in their own opinion, impossible to satisfactorily accomplish. They gave reasons for thinking that the abstract and general character of the questions put rendered it unsafe in the interests of justice to future suitors to attempt to answer them completely. Their Lordships are desirous of rendering all the assistance they can to the Governments of the Dominion and the provinces in the work, which is often difficult, of securing adequate assistance in the interpretation of the constitution of Canada and the consequent framing of legislation. But, for reasons several times assigned in earlier judgments of the Judicial Committee, they feel the paramount importance of abstaining as far as possible from deciding questions such as those now stated until they come up in actual litigation about concrete disputes rather than on references of abstract propositions. However, it so happens that on the present occasion most of the questions raised have been disposed of in the judgments in the three cases already referred to, and their Lordships will shortly indicate how far they consider this to have been done. Questions 1 and 2 are answered as sufficiently as is expedient in the judgment given in Bonanza Creek Gold Mining Co. v. The King (2). Questions 3 and 4 are sufficiently disposed of by the judgments in the Bonanza Case (2) and the Insurance Act reference Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-general for Alberta (3). As to question 5, their Lordships think it unnecessary to add to what they have said at length in the judgment in the Bonanza Case (2). v. The King (2). Questions 3 and 4 are sufficiently disposed of by the judgments in the Bonanza Case (2) and the Insurance Act reference Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-general for Alberta (3). As to question 5, their Lordships think it unnecessary to add to what they have said at length in the judgment in the Bonanza Case (2). As to questions 6 and 7, their Lordships have endeavoured in the case of the John Deere Plow Co. v. Wharton (1) to give as much assistance as is practicable in answering these questions. The questions are, however, in some of their developments of a highly abstract character, and the Board is of opinion that it is not prudent to go further than was done in the judgment in that case. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the answers to the questions brought before them on this appeal should be to the effect above indicated. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.