Reference re Regulation and Control of Radio Communication

JURISDICTION OF PARLIAMENT TO REGULATE *May 6,7. AND CONTROL RADIO COMMUNICATION. *June 30. In the existing state of radio science and in the light of the knowledge and use of the art as actually understood and worked, radio communication is subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament. Rinfret and Lamont JJ. dissenting.

.-The Dominion Parliament has not jurisdiction to legislate on the subject of radio communication in every respect. This subject falls within the primary legislative jurisdiction of the provinces either under no. (property and civil rights) or under no. (local works and undertakings) of section 92 of the B.N.A. Act, except in cases where the Dominion Parliament has superseding jurisdiction under some of the heads of section 91 and under section 132 (relating to treaties) of the B.N.A. Act. REFERENCE by the Governor General in Council to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration, pursuant to the authority of s. 55 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1927, c. 35.

The facts and questions, as stated in the Order in Council, are as follows:

The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 17th February, 1931, from the Minister of Justice, submitting that His Majesty's Government of the province of Quebec has questioned the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to regulate and control radio communication and has submitted questions to the Court of King's Bench (in appeal) of the province, whether the Radiotelegraph Act (R.S.C., 1927, chapter 195) in whole or in part, is within the jurisdiction of the Dominion to enact and whether a certain legislative scheme projected by the said Government of the Province for the regulation and control of certain radio communication, is within the jurisdiction of the Legislature of the Province to enact.

The Minister apprehends that the Radiotelegraph Act and Regulations made thereunder were enacted by reason of the expediency of making provision for the regulation of a service essentially important in itself as touching closely the national life and interest.

The Minister reports that on the 25th day of November, 1927, an international radiotelegraph convention was signed by the representatives of about eighty countries including the Dominion of Canada. The said convention was ratified by the Government of Canada and the instrument of ratification deposited pursuant to the convention at Washington on the 29th day of October, 1928.

The convention went into effect on January 1, 1929.

Legislation exists and is necessary to make provision for performing the obligations of Canada under the said convention. *PRESENT:-Anglin CJ.C. and Newcombe, Rinfret, Lamont and Smith JJ.

The Minister further reports that a treaty which came into force on the 1st March, 1929, was effected by the exchange of notes between the United States, Canada, Cuba and Newfoundland relative to the division REGUlTION between the countries of channels of communication in that part of the spectrum represented by the range of frequencies from kilocycles to 6000 kilocycles.

'The

Minister further reports that negotiations have taken place between Canada and the United States with the object of dividing between the two countries the total number of channels (96) which exist in that part of the spectrum represented by frequencies of 550 kilocycles to 1,500 kilocycles, appropriated by the International Convention hereinbefore mentioned, to the service of broadcasting.

No agreement has as yet been made, but at present Canada is making use of channels of which 6 are being used exclusively by Canada and of which are being used by both countries.

The Minister further reports that an informal arrangement was made in 1930 between Canada and the United States with reference to the use of radiotelegraphy by aircraft passing between the two countries. The Minister further reports that on the 31st May, 1929, a treaty was entered into between the principal maritime nations of the world relating to the safety of life at sea. Provision was made for the compulsory fitting of wireless apparatus on board certain classes of vessels.

The Minister further reports that at the Imperial Conference 1930, a committee was set up to consider questions relating to imperial communications other than transport, which committee considered a scheme for the establishment of an empire broadcasting service and considered questions relating to the establishment of telephone and telegraph services for the broadcasting of weather maps.

In December, 1928, the Government appointed a royal commission on radio broadcasting to examine into the broadcasting situation in the Dominion of Canada and to make representations to the Government as to the future administration, management, control and financing thereof. On the 11th September, 1929, the said royal commission reported. The Minister further reports that radio provides for various forms of communication which may be classified as follows:- (a) Radiotelegraph, which provides for the transmission of intelligence on the Morse telegraphic code;

(b) Radiotelephone, which provides for the transmission of spoken word, music and sounds of all kinds;

(c) Facsimile, which provides for the transmission of photographs, pictures, printed matter, handwriting, etc., in such a manner that they are reproduced in like form at point of reception; (d) Television, which provides for the transmission of pictures of moving objects.

The Minister further reports that radio is used in Canada for the following purposes:- (a) Coast stations are established to provide radio facilities whereby any ship within 500 miles of the Canadian coast can establish instant contact with the shore. Constant watch, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, is maintained at practically all of the stations. The coast stations consist of three chains, one extending from Vancouver to Prince Rupert on the Pacific coast, another from Port Arthur at the head of the Great Lakes to Newfoundland and Labrador, and the third from Port Churchill to the eastern entrance to Hudson Straits. The 60 stations forming this system are owned by the Department of Marine. Of these, 41 ' are operated by the department itself while -the remaining are REFERENCE operated by the Canadian Marconi Company under contract. In addition a long distance station owned and operated by the Canadian Marconi Company is maintained at Louisburg, N.S., for communication with ships at long range. This station can main- R.Ao tain communication with ships at a distance of 2,000 miles.

(b) Direction finding stations to the number of are owned and operated by the Department of Marine on the Atlantic coast. There are 4 on Hudson Bay and Strait and one on the West coast. These stations give bearings upon request to any ship. (c) Radio beacons to the number of 17 are owned and operated by the Department of Marine. There are 9 on the East coast, 5 on the Great Lakes and 3 on the West coast. Any ship fitted with direction finding apparatus can take her own bearings from stations of this class which transmit signals automatically once every hour day or night and continuously during foggy weather. (d) Radiotelephone stations to the number of 8 are owned and operated by the Department of Marine on the Pacific coast for communication with small craft and for life saving purposes.

(e) Special services including weather forecasts, storm warnings and time signals are also transmitted by the above mentioned stations for the benefit of ships at sea.

(f) Ship Stations. There are 319 ships of Canadian registry fitted with radio apparatus. The Radiotelegraph Act calls for the compulsory fitting of certain passenger vessels with such apparatus. (g) Public commercial stations to the number of 46 are licensed, although 9 only are as yet established for operation. These are designed for handling paid traffic between fixed points. The principal ones in operation are those operated by the Canadian Marconi Company for communication with New York, England and Australia.

(h) Private commercial stations to the number of 131 are licensed. These are established for communication with isolated points not reached by telegraph or telephone.

(i) Experimental and amateur experimental stations to the number of 700 are licensed.

(j) The Department of National Defence maintains 104 stations and in addition operates 10 stations in the Northwest Territories on behalf of the Department of the Interior. It also operates 21 stations for airmail and forestry and has 20 aircraft fitted with radio.

(k) Broadcasting stations to the number of 67 physical stations are licensed in Canada having power rating from 50 to 5,000 watts. Owing to the limited number of frequencies or channels available for broadcasting in Canada (6 exclusive and shared with the United States out of a total of 96 as explained above) 2 or 3 stations in the same centre may be required to share time and frequency. In assigning a channel to any station, the matter of geographical separation and power employed have to be considered. It is the practice, for example, not to assign the same frequency or channel to two 50 watt stations which are less than 200 miles apart or to two 500 watt stations which are less than 1,800 miles apart.

(1) Receiving sets to the number of 472,531 were licensed by the Dominion in -the nine months ending December The Minister further reports that the Department of Marine maintains a service to detect and investigate interference with reception throughout Canada. Furthermore inspeotors are maintained throughout Canada to administer and enforce the Radiotelegraph Act and Regulations with regard to compulsory equipment of ships, the licensing of stations and the inspection of stations to see -that they maintain the frequency or channel assigned to them in order that interference may not occur.

The Minister further reports that operators' certificates of proficiency issued by the Minister of Marine are, under reciprocal arrangement with Great Britain and the other dominions and colonies, accepted.

The Minister further reports that during the fiscal year 1929-30 the prosecution of 1,267 persons in various parts of Canada for operating receiving sets without licence was undertaken. In two cases, one at Regina and another at Summerside, where adverse decisions were rendered against the Department on the ground -that the statute did not in terms apply to receiving sets, the decisions were appealed and 'the contention of the department upheld.

The Minister further reports that the revenue collected for licence fees in the fiscal year 1929-30 was $449,010.40 and for 1930-31 (9 months) the revenue was $479,48820.

The Minister further reports that, as the use of Hertzian waves for transmission and reception of communications is a development of recent years, he has had prepared by Mr. J. W. Bain, radio engineer, Department of Marine, a memorandum of explanation of the principles underlying radio communication, which memorandum is annexed hereto. The Minister recommends, in view of the fact that the jurisdiction of Parliament has been questioned, that the opinion of the highest judicial authority in Canada be obtained with the least possible delay and that, with this in view, the following questions be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration pursuant to the authority of section 55 of the Supreme Court Act:- 1. Has the Parliament of Canada jurisdiction to regulate and control radio communication, including the transmission and reception of signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds by means of Hertzian waves, and including the right to determine the character, use and location of apparatus employed?

The Committee concur in the foregoing, and advise that the said questions be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration, accordingly.

W. N. Tilley K.C. and J. L. St. Jacques K.C., for the Attorney-General of Canada.

Charles Lanct6t K.C. and Aimg Geoffrion K.C. for the Attorney-General of Quebec.

Joseph Sedgwick for the Attorney-General for Ontario. F. H. Chrysler K.C. for the Attorneys-General for Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

R.

Brunswick.

Brooke Claxton for the Canadian Radio League.

C.J.C.-The Governor General in Council, under the authority of section 55 of the Supreme Court Act, has referred to this court the following questions:

Personally I should have preferred to withhold judgment on the present reference until the determination by the Privy Council of the Aviation Reference now pending before it on appeal from this court, especially in view of the insistence by counsel representing the province of Quebec that light would be thrown on the issues involved in the present reference by that decision. The majority of my colleagues, however, take the view that the public interest demands that judgment should be given during the present term, in order that the Government may be in a position to obtain the views of the Privy Council on the questions involved in this reference in time to enable it to bring down legislation at the next session of the Dominion

Parliament. I somewhat reluctantly defer to that view.

I have had the advantage of reading the carefully prepared opinions of my colleagues.

Dealing with the first question, the most important thing to observe would seem to be its subject matter. It does not concern the rights of property in the instruments used for communication, their ownership, or civil rights in regard to them, but has to do entirely with the effects produced by them. In other words, it is " radio communication " that is dealt with by this question, rather than the instruments employed in making it, which are alluded to merely incidentally.

After giving the matter such consideration as time and circumstances have permitted, I am of the opinion that question no. 1 should be answered generally in the affirmative. My reason for so concluding is largely that overwhelming convenience-under the circumstances amounting to necessity-dictates that answer. In dealing with this reference, however, I desire it to be clearly understood that I do so solely in the-light of the present knowledge of Hertzian waves and radio and upon the facts disclosed in COF the record. I fully accept the following paragraph from the judgment of my brother Newcombe:

Anglin

I interpret the reference as meant to submit the questions for con- C J C.

sideration in the light of the existing situation and the knowledge and use of the art, as practically understood and worked, and, having regard to what is stated in the case, assumed as the basis for the hearing. Therefore I proceed upon the assumption that radio communication in Canada is practically Dominion-wide; that the broadcasting of a message in a province, or in a territory of Canada, has its effect in making the message receivable as such, and is also effective by way of interference, not only within the local political area within which the transmission originates, but beyond, for distances exceeding the limits of a province, and that, consequently, if there is to be harmony or reasonable measure of utility or success in the service, it is desirable, if not essential, that the operations should be subject to prudent regulation and control. Without entering into any lengthy discussion of the constitutional issues involved, it seems to be certain that Hertzian waves and radio were not only unknown to, but undreamt of by, the framers of the British North America Act. It is, therefore, not to be expected that language should be found in that Act explicitly covering the subject matter of the present reference. On the other hand, if the Act is to be viewed, as recently suggested by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Edwards v. Attorney- General of Canada (1).

as a living tree, capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits, and if it should be on all occasions interpreted in a large, liberal and comprehensive spirit, considering the magnitude of the subjects with which it purports to deal in very few words, and bearing in mind that we are concerned with the interpretation of an Imperial Act, but an Imperial Act creating a constitution for a new country, every effort should be made to find in the B.N.A. Act some head of legislative jurisdiction capable of including the subject matter of this reference.

If, however, it should be found impossible to assign that subject matter to any specifically enumerated head of legislative jurisdiction, either in section 91 or in section 92 of the B.N.A. Act, it would seem to be one of the subjects of residuary power (1) [19301 A.C. 124.

under the general jurisdiction conferred on the Dominion by the opening paragraph of section 91.

It is also obvious that, for certain purposes and within certain limitations, there are several specific heads of legislative jurisdiction in section 91 broad enough to cover, in part at least, the subject of radio communication and that, in so far as the subject matter falls within those several heads, Dominion legislative jurisdiction as to it is exclusive.

I refer to

It seems to me that, under this last head, which really brings the exceptions set out in subsection 10 of section 92 into section 91, as distinctive heads of Dominion legislative jurisdiction (City of Toronto v. Bell Telephone Co.

(1) ), more particularly under the word " telegraphs " in clause (a) thereof, giving to that word a reasonably broad construction of which it is susceptible (ibid and Attorney- General v. Edison Telegraphs of London (2)-we find a sound basis for holding that " radio communication " is subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the

Dominion Parliament.

Reading through the various subsections of section 92, no one of them do I find broad enough to cover the subject matter of radio communication. The two subsections of section 92 relied on by counsel for the provinces were nos. 13 and 16. No doubt, in some aspects, radio communication has to do with " property and civil rights in the province "; but so have many other subjects which have been held to fall within some one of the enumerated heads of section 91, and as to which the concluding paragraph of that section establishes the exclusiveness of Dominion legislative jurisdiction over them. (The Fisheries

Case (3); Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider (4) ).

Radio communication in this respect does not differ from.

any of such other subjects.

Bearing in mind what Lord Watson said in Attorney- General of Ontario v. Attorney-General of Canada (1), that legislation by the Dominion and that it is not competent to the Dominion to make laws I fail to find anything of a " local or private " nature in radio communication such as would exclude Dominion jurisdiction over it. I agree with Mr. Justice Newcombe that

Of course, it may some day become so, should radio science develop to such an extent that it will be possible so to control the effects of Hertzian waves, that those effects may be confined within the limits of a province, both as to their use and interference by them.

Subject to such possible further scientific development, I am, for the foregoing reasons, of the opinion that question no. 1 should be presently answered in the affirmative. It is, therefore, unnecessary to answer question no. 2, which is based on the assumption of a negative answer to no. 1. My formal answers to the questions are,

Question no. 1. In view of the present state of radio science as submitted, Yes.

Question no. 2. No answer.

J.-My trouble with this case is to know the facts. Although the narrative of the order of reference and the printed statement of principles were not at the hearing seriously disputed, one is apt to suspect that the knowledge of the art of radio, which we have derived from the submissions and what was said in the course of argument, is still incomplete and, perhaps, in some particulars, not free from error; that some accepted theories are still experimental or tentative, and that there may be possibilities of development and use, not only in the Dominion but also in a provincial field, which have not yet been fully ascertained or tested.

A difficulty also arises from the fact that the questions propounded do not apply themselves to actual legislation, but seek generally the definition of Dominion authority to regulate and control radio communication," in, perhaps, its widest sense.

In these conditions, it is expedient to proceed with great care and certainty, or caution, and, in affirming or denying a legislative power, wisely to say nothing which may be construed to express or imply an intention to extend a ruling upon the assumed or hypothetical case submitted to a state of actual facts that may prove to be materially different, and which, though at present no more than imaginary, may yet be realized.

I interpret the reference as meant to submit the questions for consideration in the light of the existing situation and the knowledge and use of the art, as practically understood and worked, and, having regard to what is stated in the case, assumed as the basis for the hearing. Therefore

I must proceed upon the assumption that radio communication in Canada is practically Dominion-wide; that the broadcasting of a message in a province, or in a territory of Canada, has its effect in making the message receivable as such, and is also effective by way of interference, not only in the local political area within which the transmission originates, but beyond, for distances exceeding the limits of a province, and that, consequently, if there is to be harmony or reasonable measure of utility or success in the service, it is desirable, if not essential, that the operations should be subject to prudent regulation and control.

Now, the power of the Dominion to regulate or control is denied, upon two grounds, by the province of Quebec and other provinces which have associated themselves with the argument of Quebec; they say that the exercise of the power, as broadly suggested by the first question, would offend against the provincial enumeration of " Property and Civil Rights in the Province "; and, secondly, or, perhaps, alternatively, that it would be obnoxious to the concluding paragraph of section 92, " Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province."

Exceptions are, however, conceded, and these may be introduced no better than by a quotation from Lord Herschell's great judgment in the first Fisheries Case (1), where, referring to section 91, he said

COr- The earlier part of this section read in connection with the words beginning "and for greater certainty," appears to amount to a legislative declaration that any legislation falling strictly within any of the NewcombeJ. classes specially enumerated in s. is not within the legislative competence of the provincial legislatures under s. 92.

In any view the enactment is express that laws in relation to matters falling within any of the classes enumerated are within the " exclusive " legislative authority of the Dominion Parliament. Whenever, therefore, a matter is within one of these specified classes, legislation in relation to it by a provincial legislature is in their Lordships' opinion incompetent. It has been suggested, and this view has been adopted by some of the judges of the Supreme Court, that although any Dominion legislation dealing with the subject would override provincial legislation, the latter is nevertheless valid, unless and until the Dominion Parliament so legislates. Their Lordships think that such a view does not give their due effect to the terms of s. 91, and in particular to the word "exclusively."

It would authorize for example, the enactment of a bankruptcy law or a copyright law in any of the provinces unless and until the Dominion Parliament passed enactments dealing with those subjects. Their Lordships do not think this is consistent with the language and manifest intention of the British North America Act.

Now, referring to the text of section 91 for the enumerations that may, for present purposes, be invoked, it is enacted by the concluding words of the section that

Any matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

And it is, I would think, not doubtful that the regulation of radio communication has a Dominion aspect, or at least an overlapping relation, capable of being worked as incidental or ancillary, with respect to some of the subjects specially enumerated in section 91; for example: " 2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce; 5. Postal Service; 7. Military and Naval Service and Defence; 9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses and Sable Island; 10. Navigation and Shipping; 11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals, and 29. Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces." Most obviously in this (1) [1898] A.C. 700, at 715.

true as applied to the three enumerations that are concerned with the safety of ships and navigation. It follows that a provincial legislature could not sanction or uphold any sort of radio communication which would interfere or conflict with competent Dominion regulations, enacted with relation to these enumerated subjects. It is expressly, and most justly, conceded by the factum of the Attorney- General of Quebec that

Also, by section 132, which has been judicially considered in other cases,

There is the International Radiotelegraph Convention,

"Done at Washington, 27th November, 1927," between the

Governments therein mentioned, including Canada, Great

Britain and the United States of America, and ratified on behalf of Canada, 12th June, 1928; also an agreement between Canada, the United States, Newfoundland and

Cuba, relative to the assignment of " frequencies " on the

North American continent, effective as from 1st March,

These and other international agreements or regulations, to which Canada adheres, are printed in the appendix of the case; and, in so far as they answer the description of the last quoted section, the Parliament and

Government of Canada have, by the express enactment, all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada, or of any province thereof, arising thereunder.

But, while Mr. Geoffrion concedes that interference internationally may be avoided under the powers conferred by section 132, he suggests that, if it be necessary to provide against interprovincial interference, the objects should be attained by arrangement between the provinces, and he refers to City of Montreal v. Montreal Street Railway

That case is mentioned in the recent Aviation Case

(2); and it is distinguishable upon all the points debated with relation to the questions now submitted. I refer to it here by way of reminder that, as shewn by Lord Atkinson's remark at the foot of page 345, the power of Parliament to acquire jurisdiction by the exercise of its authority to make a declaration under paragraph (c) of the 10th enumeration of section 92, was not without a persuasive influence in the result which His Lordship reached; and I think all are agreed that paragraph (c) has no application to the radio powers which are now in difference.

But while the Dominion has at least the authority to regulate and control radio activities, and to provide against confusion or interference, as affecting its own enumerated subjects, and for the performance of treaty obligations, it also has the comprehensive power involved in the declaration of its authority and Quebec, in effect, contends that the classes so excepted include " radio communication," within the meaning of the first question submitted. As to this, the provincial case seems to depend upon the interpretation of the two provincial powers which I have quoted; and my view is that the subject in question has not the prescribed limitation of locality. It is said that " radio communication," as explained by the reference, is a matter of " Property and Civil Rights in the Province," or of a " merely local or private Nature in the Province "; and this I deny, because, upon the assumptions involved in the case, the matter substantially extends beyond provincial limits.

The words "Matters of a merely local or private Nature" are also used in the last paragraph of section 91, and Lord Watson interpreted them as meant to include and correctly to describe all the matters enumerated in the heads of section 92 as being, from a provincial point of view, of a local or private nature. Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominion (1); and, on the next two pages of the same case His Lordship said, referring to the general authority of Parliament under the introductory enactments of section croach upon any class of subjects which is exclusively assigned to provincial legislatures by s. 92. These enactments appear to their Lordships REmNc to indicate that the exercise of legislative power of the Parliament of

Canada in regard to all matters not enumerated in s. 91, ought to be strictly confined to such matters as are unquestionably of Canadian interest and importance, and ought not to trench upon provincial legislation with respect to any of the classes of subjects enumerated in s. 92. To attach any other construction to the general power which, in supplement of its enumerated powers, is conferred upon the Parliament of Can- NewcombeJ ada by s. would, in their Lordships' opinion, not only be contrary to the intendment of the Act, but would practically destroy the autonomy of the provinces. If it were once conceded that the Parliament of Canada has authority to make laws applicable to the whole Dominion, in relation to matters which in each province are substantially of local or private interest, upon the assumption that these matters also concern the peace, order, and good government of the Dominion, there is hardly a subject enumerated in s. 92 upon which it might not legislate, to the exclusion of the provincial legislatures.

And, as I interpret the case submitted, " radio communication," in the state of the science and development which it has attained, is not, substantially or otherwise, a local or private matter in a province. In the course of discussion an attempt was made to distinguish between the transmission of a -message and the reception of it; and it was said that the receiving instrument is property in a province, and that a message is received in a province when the instrument, being there, is adapted and worked for that purpose. But the question is directed, not to rights of property in goods or chattels situate within a province, but to " radio communication "-an effect which is not local, but interprovincial. There must be two parties to a communication; there may be many more; and, if the sender be in a foreign country, or in a province or territory of Canada, and the receiver be within another province, it is impossible, as I see it, to declare that the communication, is local, either to the transmitting or to the receiving province.

As usual, in cases where the validity of provincial legislation is attacked as engaged with a subject matter not local, the Manitoba Liquor case (1), is cited in support of the power. The passages are at pages 77-80 of Lord Mc- Naghten's judgment, and the meaning is relieved of some obscurity when the reasons are considered. Manifestly,

His Lordship's conclusion depends upon the text of the par- (1) 11902] A.C. 73.

ticular Act and he quoted and emphasized the recital and the 119th section by which there is introduced a legisla- R tive declaration that the object is to suppress the liquor traffic in Manitoba by prohibiting provincial transactions, A and that, while the act is intended to prohibit transactions in liquor which take place wholly within the province, except as otherwise specially provided, and to restrict the consumption of liquor within the limits of the province, That section, his Lordship said, was as much part of the Act as any other section contained in it, and must have its full effect in exempting from the operation of the Act the transactions which came within its terms. Their Lordships were not satisfied that the legislature of Manitoba had transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction in passing the Liquor Act. But provincial legislation for the regulation and control of radio communication is a much more expansive matter and cannot, upon present information, be constructed in a manner to qualify as relating to matters of a local or private nature in the province.

The subject is one which, undoubtedly, relates to the peace, order and good government of Canada; and I am not satisfied, for any of the reasons which have been submitted, or which I have been able to discover, that it falls within any of the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.

For these reasons I certify to the Governor in Council, for his information, my opinion that the first question submitted should be answered in the affirmative; and, of course, in view of that conclusion, I am not required to answer the second question.

RINFRET J.-En donnant son opinion sur les questions d6fir6es au sujet de la loi autorisant le contr6le de l'a6ronautique (1), mon colligue, Monsieur le Juge Duff, avec qui j'ai concouru, commence son jugement par l'expos6 suivant:

upon the proposition that the Dominion possesses authority to legislate upon the subject of aeronautics, in every respect, and that this authority at

This proposition is supported upon a variety of grounds.

It is contended that, in their very nature, the matters embraced within that subject cannot be local, in the provincial sense, and that accordingly the subject is beyond the ambit of section 92; that, in the alternative, it falls within one of the enumerated heads of section 91, no. Navigation and

Shipping; that, as a sort of further alternative, so many aspects and in- Rinfret J. cidents of the subject fall within various enumerated heads of section 91, such as the regulation of trade and commerce, undertakings extending beyond the limits of a province, customs, aliens, beacons and lighthouses, postal service, defence, ferries, or under immigration (s. 95), that the subject must as a whole be treated as within Dominion jurisdiction, that being, it is argued, the only interpretation under which the undoubted authority of the Dominion over the various aspects of the subject can be effectively exercised. Still again, it is said, the authority of the Dominion under section 132, to legislate for the performance of its obligations under the Convention relating to Aerial Navigation, 1919, extends over the' whole field.

En substituant la radiocommunication A l'aviation, et en retranchant la mention relative au paragraphe 10 de Particle

91 de 1'Acte de l'Ambrique Britannique du Nord concernant

" Navigation and Shipping", nous avons dans le passage cit6 un exact r6sum6 de l'argumentation qui a 6 faite de la part du procureur g6n6ral du Canada dans 1'affaire qui nous est actuellement soumise.

D'autre part, les procureurs g6n6raux des provinces, pour r6clamer la juridiction en faveur des gouvernements qu'ils repr6sentaient, dans cette cause de 1'aviation comme dans la pr6sente, se sont surtout appuy6s sur le paragraphe 13

("property and civil rights in the province ") et sur le paragraphe 10 (" local works and undertakings ") de 1'article 92 de 1'Acte constitutionnel.

11 en est r6sult6, entre la cause de 1'aviation et la pr6sente cause de la radiocommunication, une tr&s grande analogie, au moins dans la manibre dont la question nous a t6 pr6sent6e. On peut done regretter que nous soyons appel6s

A nous prononcer sur les questions qui nous sont actuellement soumises avant d'avoir eu l'avantage de connaltre la d6cision finale du Conseil Priv6 dans l'affaire de 1'aviation, car il me parait 6vident que cette d6cision nous aurait apport6 une aide consid6rable dans la solution du probl&me que nous avons maintenant h trancher.

De mime que dans la r6firence sur l'aviation, il nous faut ici adapter une loi constitutionnelle datant de 1867 h un sujet qui non seulement n'avait aucune existence, mais dont on ne soupponnait m~me pas la possibilit6 A cette epoque. I est exact de dire cependant que l'Acte de l'Amirique Britannique du Nord " is always speaking " et que ses dispositions doivent recevoir un sens de plus en plus 6tendu, au fur et A mesure que les inventions scientifiques Rinfret j. et les d6veloppements de la vie nationale exigent de nouvelles solutions constitutionnelles (1).

A la question nouvelle soulev6e par la d6couverte de 1'aviation, cette cour a r6pondu que la juridiction primordiale appartenait aux provinces. Il me semble qu'il existe A l'6gard de cette question nouvelle qui est maintenant soulevee par l'invention de la radio des raisons encore plus fortes pour d6cider dans le m~me sens.

La radiocommunication, telle qu'elle est connue et telle que la science nous la presente jusqu'a date, consiste dans un appareil 6metteur, des ondes radio6lectriques (que le dossier appelle " Hertzian waves ") circulant dans l'6ther, et un appareil r6cepteur.

En soi, l'appareil 6metteur et l'appareil r6cepteur sont des objets de propri6t6 " d'une nature locale " situ6s dans. la province, au sens de l'article 92.

Qu'on les envisage comme objets de propridt6 purs et simples, ou comme des travaux couverts par le paragraphe 10 de Particle 92, ils tombent de prime abord sous la juridiction provinciale.

En plus, la personne qui ophre un appareil 6metteur ou la personne qui ophre un ricepteur, exerce un droit civil dans la province; et I'une ou 1'autre operation, prise isoldment, est indiscutablement matibre a contr81e provincial. De ce point de vue, il existe sans doute une difference entre l'op6ration de l'appareil r6cepteur et l'opdration de l'appareil 6metteur. Alors que la reception ne peut d'aucune fagon 6tre envisag6e comme 6tant autrement qued'une nature purement locale, il est exact de dire que, sui-vant les donnies actuelles de la science, 1'6mission ne peut pas 6tre circonscrite dans un rayon pr6cis et les ondes qui. sont mises en mouvement par 'appareil 6metteur se propagent dans toutes les directions, sans qu'on puisse les, limiter aux frontibres d'un territoire.

Je ne crois pas cependant que cette dernibre particularit6 enlive A l'op~ration de l'appareil 6metteur son caracthre de droit civil dans la province, suivant la port6e qu'il faut donner au'paragraphe 13 de larticle 92. Un droit civil ne perd pas sa nature de droit civil contr~lable par la province simplement parce qu'il peut produire des effets au delA de la province.

Un contrat pass6 dans une province J. produit des r6sultats en dehors de cette province, sans que pour cela il soit soustrait A l'autorit6 provinciale.

Une firme, A Montr6al, qui fait avec un voyageur de commerce un contrat de louage de ses services, verra sa responsabilit6 engag6e vis-h-vis d'une personne A Vancouver, dans la

Colombie-Britannique, par l'acte de ce voyageur de commerce, et cette responsabilit6 r6sultant du contrat d'abord fait h Montrial continuera d'6tre r6gie par la loi provinciale.

Pour prendre un exemple encore plus frappant, un journal publi6 A Toronto et dont la circulation est r6pandue dans tout le Dominion ne cessera pas pour cela d'8tre de la part de ses propri6taires l'exercice d'un droit de propri6t6 et d'un droit civil dans la province d'Ontario et d'8tre subordonn6 A la l6gislation de la province.

Supposons encore une fanfare qui jouerait un concert dans une province, sur les bords de la frontibre. Elle ne tomberait pas sous le contr6le f6ddral parce que les sons de sa musique seraient entendus dans une autre province.

On pourrait donner ainsi des exemples presque A l'infini.

Si maintenant l'on traite l'appareil 6metteur ou l'appareil ricepteur comme des "travaux... d'une nature locale", je ne crois pas qu'on puisse pr6tendre que, par le seul fait que ces travaux ont une r6percussion au delA des frontibres d'une province, ils perdent leur caract~re local.

Je suppose un phare qui serait 6rig6 sur le territoire d'une province mais suffisamment prbs de la frontibre pour que ses feux et sa lumibre soient projet6s sur le territoire d'une autre province. Il me semble que l'on ne pourrait en conclure que ce phare cesse d'6tre un ouvrage d'une nature locale au sens du paragraphe 10 de Particle 92.

J'6carte done la pr6tention qui voudrait que par cela seul qu'un droit civil ou un ouvrage local produit des effets en dehors d'une province, il acquiert ipso facto un caractbre qui a pour effet de le soustraire A la juridiction provinciale.

Mais on objecte que le sujet dont il s'agit n'est pas l'appareil 6metteur ou l'appareil r6cepteur en soi, que la v6ritable question est la communication qui s'6tablit entre les deux appareils et que, comme il est impossible de restreindre cette communication aux limites d'une province, il en r6sulte qu'elle tombe dans le domaine f6ddral.

Sur ce point, on invoque les sous-paragraphes du paragraphe 10 de Particle 92 qui sont des exceptions et qui, en vertu du paragraphe 29 de Particle 91, doivent 6tre envisag6s comme faisant partie des catigories de sujets r6serv6s au pouvoir l6gislatif f6d6ral.

Il y a lt trois sous-paragraphes: (a), (b) et (c). (b) s'occupe des lignes de bateaux h vapeur entre les provinces et les pays d6pendant de l'Empire britannique ou tout autre pays 6tranger. Il n'a done rien i voir avec la question actuelle.

(c) traite des travaux qui, bien qu'entibrement situds dans la province, sont d6claris par le parlement du Canada 6tre pour I'avantage g6n6ral du Canada ou pour l'avantage de deux ou d'un plus grand nombre de provinces. Il ne s'agit pas d'une d6claration de ce genre dans la question qui nous est soumise.

Reste le sous-paragraphe (a). Il s'applique h " lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province ".

L'interpr6tation souveraine qui doit nous guider dans la port6e qu'il faut donner h ce sous-paragraphe a 6t6 donn6e par le Conseil Priv6 dans la cause de Montreal v. Montreal Street Railway (1).

Il y est dit, en r6f6rant aux travaux dont il s'agit dans ce sous-paragraphe: " These works are physical things, not services."

Or, la distinction fondamentale entre la radiocommunication et la communication par t6ligraphe, til6phone ou autres travaux du mime genre auxquels s'applique le sous-paragraphe (a) du paragraphe 10 est pr6cishment que la radiocommunication peut 6tre un " service ", mais elle n'est pas un " physical thing ". En outre, il n'existe pas de connexion physique entre 1'appareil 6metteur et l'appareil r6cepteur, comme le fil qui, dans le t6l6graphe et le t6l6phone, relie l'endroit d'od sont emis les sons ou les signaux A l'endroit ils sont regus. A la rigueur, une ligne de radiocommunication 6tablie par une firme commerciale pour le service du public partant d'une ou de plusieurs stations d'6mission fixes qu'elle posshderait dans une province et qui transmettrait des messages de toutes natures h l'aide des ondes hertziennes A des stations de r6ception fixes, dont la firme serait 6galement propri6taire, et qui seraient situ6es dans d'autres provinces, constitueraient un " undertaking " tombant sous la juridiction f6d6rale. II semblerait cependant que, dans ce cas, le pouvoir f6d6ral prochderait non pas du sous-paragraphe

(a) du paragraphe 10 de 1'article 92, mais du paragraphe 2 de l'article 91 concernant " The regulation of trade and commerce ".

Nous avons eu tout dernibrement un exemple de l'application de ce principe de juridiction dans l'arrit de cette cour Re: Lawson v. Interior Tree Fruit and Vegetable

Committee of Direction (1).

Il est juste toutefois de faire remarquer que mime l'attribution de la juridiction f6d6rale sur une entreprise commerciale, comme celle dont nous venons de parler, reliant deux ou plusieurs provinces, laisserait quand mime intacte la juridiction provinciale sur des entreprises du mime genre

6tablies entre des stations fixes exclusivement h l'int6rieur d'une province, et surtout sur tous les appareils op6r6s par des amateurs ou par des gouvernements locaux, ou de toute autre fagon qui ne serait pas pour des fins de profit.

Mais tous les cas mentionn6s au sous-paragraphe (a) du paragraphe 10 sont des cas oii il s'agit d'une connexion physique continue dans les travaux ou l'entreprise (sauf peut-ftre les lignes de bateaux h vapeur ou autres bAtiments, avec lesquels la radiocommunication n'a aucune espice d'analogie) et d'un " physical thing " tout entier sous le mime contr6le, sinon de propri~t6, au moins d'op6ration.

La plus r6cente decision sur ce point se trouve dans l'arrat du Conseil Priv6 dans la cause de Luscar

Collieries v. McDonald (2), ot Lord Warrington of Clyffe, qui a prononc6 le jugement, revient h deux reprises sur le caractbre de .continuit6 de la voie de chemin de fer dont il s'agissait dans cette cause et dit (p. 932):

Ces expressions semblent bien marquer que, pour tomber lefe sosprgah sous 1'effet du sous-paragraphe (a) du paragraphe il faut le double caractbre de continuit6 dans le " physical thing " et de propri6t6, de contr8le, ou, au moins, d'op6ration par la mime personne ou la mime compagnie, sans quoi l'on ne se trouve plus en pr6sence d'un seul " undertaking ", mais l'on a plusieurs " undertakings " distincts. Ces deux caractbres manquent it la radiocommunication, dont la nature habituelle et la plus ordinaire est de proc6der d'un appareil 6metteur qui appartient & un propri6taire vers des appareils ricepteurs qui appartiennent A d'autres propri6taires compl&tement ind6pendants, sans aucune espice de relations avec le propri6taire de l'appareil 6metteur, et que ce dernier ne connait mime pas. Du point de vue ligal, il est difficile de voir la distinction qu'on peut faire entre la radiocommunication op6rie dans ces conditions et la transmission des sons de toute autre fagon (comme, par exemple, par la fanfare dont nous parlions tout A l'heure) d'une province h 'autre. Et il est assez juste, sous ce rapport, d'assimiler l'appareil ricepteur h une simple amplification de l'appareil auditif humain, puisque sa fonction n'est rien autre chose que de rendre perceptibles h Yoreille des sons ou des signaux transmis h travers l'6ther par la propagation de vagues intangibles.

De toutes fagons, par cons6quent, et sauf les exceptions que j'ai mentionn6es au cours de ce jugement jusqu'ici, le sujet de la radiocommunication me parait tomber essentiellement dans la cat6gorie des sujets de " Property and civil rights in the province " ou de " Local works and undertakings ", tels que pr6vus au paragraphe 10 de l'article 92. Dans ces conditions, la juridiction primordiale r6side donc dans les provinces, et cette juridiction ne peut 6tre entam6e qu'en autant que 'on peut trouver dans l'article 91 des sujets de juridiction f6dirale qui donneraient, dans les limites de leur application particulibre, le pouvoir d'empi6ter sur cette juridiction provinciale primordiale. En effet, dis qu'un sujet tombe sous le contr6le provincial en vertu de l'une des clauses de l'article 92, il ne peut 6tre transf6rd au domaine fid6ral qu'a' la condition de tomber express6ment sous l'une des clauses de l'article 91; et il est absolument fallacieux de pr6tendre que, sauf dans un cas de " national emergency ", le Dominion pourrait s'emparer de ce contr8le en vertu de la clause r6siduaire et sous pr6texte que l'autorit6 provinciale n'a pas l'ampleur voulue nwo pour contrbler effectivement le sujet qui est attribu6 h sa juridiction.

Rinfret J. Pour mieux exprimer ma pens6e, je me permettrai de citer sur ce point un passage du jugement de notre colkhgue, Monsieur le juge Duff, dans la cause de The King v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Company (1):

The other fallacy is (the two are, perhaps, different forms of the same error) that the Dominion has such power because no single province, nor, indeed, all the provinces acting together, could put into effect such a sweeping scheme. The authority arises, it is said, under the residuary clause because of the necessary limits of the provincial authority. This is precisely the view which was advanced in the Board of Commerce Case (2), and, indeed, is the view which was unsuccessfully put forward in the Montreal Street Railway Case (3), where it was pointed out that in a system involving a division of powers such as that set up by the British North America Act, it may often be that subsidiary legislation by the provinces or by the Dominion is required to give full effect to some beneficial and necessary scheme of legislation not entirely within the powers of either.

Cela m'amine A examiner de plus pres la v6ritable base sur laquelle, de la part du procureur g6ndral du Canada, on a voulu placer 1'argumentation en faveur de la juridiction f6d6rale.

L'on nous a dit que, A cause de sa nature m~me, la radiocommunication 6chappait au domaine provincial et qu'elle ne pouvait 6tre contr6l6e d'une fagon efficace que par le pouvoir f6d6ral, parce qu'elle exige un contr8le central et unique.

A mon humble avis, c'est Ih porter la discussion exactement sur le terrain dont parle Monsieur le juge Duff dans le passage que je viens de citer, et c'est nous ramener, une fois de plus, A cet argument si souvent offert et autant de fois rejet6 par les tribunaux que, parce qu'il serait plus avantageux de concentrer toute la l6gislation sur un sujet entre les mains du pouvoir central, c'est-h-dire, en l'espkce, du pouvoir f6d6ral, il en r~sulte que le f6d6ral devrait avoir juridiction. Il n'y a pas le moindre doute que s'il existait (1) [19251 S.C.R. 434, at 448.

(2) [19221 1 A.C. 191.

(3) [19121 A.C. 333.

un seul parlement, tous ces conflits de juridiction seraient eVit6S.

Mais cet argument de " convenience " ou de inconvenience " ne saurait 6videmment constituer une regle d'interpr6tation.

La constitution du Canada a cr66 une union fid6rale en distribuant les pouvoirs l6gislatifs entre un parlement central et des parlements provinciaux. C'est uniquement par l'interpr6tation du texte de cette constitution que l'on doit tre guid6 lorsqu'il s'agit d'attribuer un sujet A l'une ou l'autre juridiction. La question de savoir s'il serait plus avantageux que les choses fussent autrement ne saurait entrer en ligne de compte et, h tout 6v6nement, ne saurait trouver place devant une cour de justice.

Le principe que, par suite du fait qu'une 16gislation f6d6rale serait pour le plus grand avantage du Canada, ou rencontrerait d'une fagon plus efficace les exigences de la situation, il en rdsulterait que le pouvoir central a la competence pour l'adopter a regu son coup de grAce dans le jugement de Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider (1). L'autre point soulev4 de la part du procureur g6n6ral du Canada, et 1'on peut dire sans doute le pivot de son argumentation, c'est que, dans I'6tat actuel de la science de la radio, il est absolument impossible d'empcher les inconv6nients resultant des interf6rences, et que, h moins d'une l6gislation uniforme ayant pour but de r6partir ce que j'appellerai les bandes de communication (" channels communication "), il se produira une telle confusion que tous les b6ndfices de la radiodiffusion seront absolument annihil6s.

On en conclut que cela n6cessite le contr6le unique du parlement f6d6ral.

De la part des provinces, on a ni6 le danger de cette interf6rence et on a assur6, h tout 6v6nement, qu'il y avait exag6ration dans la pr6tention 6mise par le Dominion. En la prenant pour acquise, je ne vois pas comment ce fait peut venir modifier la question de juridiction.

Si j'ai bien compris le d6veloppement de cet argument, le brouillage peut avoir lieu A la source, c'est-a-dire au poste 6metteur, ou au moment de la r6ception. De toutes manibres, c'est le r6cepteur qui est empch6 de recevoir utilement la radiocommunication.

Si l'interf6rence provient d'une cause locale situ6e dans Ia mime province que l'appareil r6cepteur, la province qui a juridiction sur l'appareil r6cepteur peut 6galement adopter la 16gislation necessaire pour empicher cette interf6rence.

Si la difficult6 provient d'une r6partition des " channels " entre les provinces, il m'est impossible de voir pourquoi la solution ne pourrait pas 6tre trouv6e dans une entente entre les provinces, ainsi qu'il est sugg6r6 par le Conseil Priv6 .dans la cause de City of Montreal v. Montreal Street Railway (1).

Mais il semble admis que l'interf6rence peut tout autant provenir d'une source extirieure non seulement h l'une des provinces, mais d'une source ext6rieure au pays lui-m6me.

Je d6duirais mime de l'expos6 scientifique qui est au dossier et de l'argumentation qui a 6t6 faite devant nous que la principale, pour ne pas dire 1'unique, difficult6 de toute la situation vient des Etats-Unis, pays voisin, et de 1'exploitation du nombre consid6rable de postes 6metteurs qui se trouvent dans ce pays. Or, 'on ne peut 6viter de faire remarquer que s'il en est ainsi, ce n'est pas par une l6gislation f6d6rale qu'on empichera cette interf6rence.

Le parlement du Canada sera tout aussi impuissant que n'importe quel parlement des provinces pour 16gif6rer sur une situation de ce genre. Aucune loi du Canada ne pourrait empicher les postes 6metteurs des Etats-Unis de causer dans notre pays, ou dans chacune des provinces, toutes les interf6rences que la science pr6voit.

La r6ponse h 1'argument du Dominion serait done:

Ce n'est pas parce qu'une personne situ6e ailleurs dans le Dominion vient causer dans une province une interf6rence avec 1'exercice d'un droit civil dans cette province que le Dominion acquerra de oe fait une juridiction sur ce droit civil. Cette interf6rence constitue un conflit entre deux droits civils. Un conflit de ce genre n'a pas pour rbsultat de soustraire les droits civils h la juridiction provinciale et de les transf6rer au domaine f6d6ral.

20 Si la source de 1'interf6rence est situde dans le pays, bien que dans une autre province, la v6ritable maniere pour les provinces de r6gler le conflit entre les droits civils qui sont respectivement de leur domaine, est par une entente entre les provinces. Le Dominion n'acquiert aucune juridiction comme cons6quence d'un conflit de ce genre.

Si la source est situ6e en dehors du pays, le Dominion, par sa propre legislation, est tout aussi impuissant que n importe laquelle des provinces pour y mettre fin; et la seule ressource en pareil cas: c'est le trait6 avec le ou les payS Voisins.

Au point de vue pratique, je crois bien que, en donnant J. A 1'objection f6d6rale la plus ample portie que 1'on puisse lui attribuer, la vraie question qui r6sulte du danger de l'interfbrence est en r6alit6 une question internationale. Or, du moment qu'on en arrive A cette conclusion, la difficult6 de juridiction ne se prisente plus. Une question internationale ne peut se r6gler que par un trait6; et, dans ce domaine, le parlement f6d6ral a toute la latitude nicessaire.

L'article 132 de I'Acte de l'Amgrique Britannique du Nord 6tablit ses pouvoirs en pareil cas; et, dans le jugement que cette cour a rendu sur la question d'aviation (1), nous avons d6fini les droits du parlement fid6ral en matibre de trait6s, tant dans leur adoption que dans leur ex6cution, de fagon A ce qu'il n'y ait pas lieu d'y revenir, sujet naturellement A ce que pourra dire le Conseil Priv6 sur cette question.

Dans la cause actuelle, il est r6sult6 de 1'argumentation de part et d'autre que 1'6tendue des pouvoirs du parlement f6d6ral, agissant en vertu de Particle 132 de l'acte constitutionnel, ne faisait pas 1'objet de la moindre discussion. suffit peut-8tre de faire remarquer, par consequent, que c'est en definitive, que le parlement f6dral va trouver le remide A la principale difficult6 qui semble le prioccuper h 'heure qu'il est, c'est-A-dire cette question d'interf6rence. Elle ne peut se r6gler que par trait6; et, en matibre de trait6s, les pouvoirs f6d6raux sont probablement illimit6s. Et tout ce que je viens de dire au sujet de l'interf6rence provenant de l'6tranger s'applique avec autant de force, au Canada, A la riglementation de la radiodiffusion et de la radiocommunication venant de l'6tranger. encore, c'est une question de traitd; et sur ce point le f6d6ral est souverain.

Mais, si 'on se borne au domaine national, mon opinion est que, pour les raisons que j'ai expos6es, la base de la juridiction en matibre de radiocommunication est primordialement entre les mains des provinces.

Il reste 6videmment que, nonobstant cette juridiction provinciale primordiale, le parlement f6d6ral conserve la juridiction pr6pond6rante chaque fois qu'il s'agit d'un des sujets qui lui sont express6ment attribus par l'article 91.

Cela est admis dans le factum qui nous a 6t6 soumis de la Rinfret J. part de la province de Qu6bec:

Cela comprendrait, au moins, les sujets suivants:

" The regulation of Trade and Commerce ", dans les limites qui ont 6t6 assign6es h ce sujet dans les arrits de

Citizens Insurance Company v. Parsons (1); The Insurance

Reference (2); The Board of Commerce Act, 1919, et The

Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919 (3);

"Postal service ";

"Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence ";

"Beacons, buoys, lighthouses and Sable Island

"Navigation and Shipping ";

"Sea coast and inland fisheries ";

Les cat6gories de sujets express6ment except6s dans l'6num6ration des cat6gories de sujets exclusivement assign6s par la loi constitutionnelle aux 16gislatures des provinces, conform6ment au paragraphe 29 de l'article 91, dans les limites que j'ai expliqu6es au cours de ce jugement.

Ce que j'ai dit jusqu'ici me dispenserait de traiter plus amplement de la juridiction provinciale. Je crois cependant devoir ajouter que m~me si, contrairement h la conclusion h laquelle j'en arrive, le sujet de la radiocommunication appartient primordialement au domaine f6d6ral, l'on ne pourrait quand m~me dire que son contr6le est absolu, ou, pour employer une expression que nous avons adopt6e lors de la r6f6rence sur 1'aviation, que ce contr8le existe

"in every respect ".

Il me parait certain que pour la r6paration des dommages moraux et matiriels qui pourraient 6tre caus6s par la radiocommunication, pour la responsabilit6 civile en matisre de radiodiffusion, il y aura lieu de recourir aux rigles du droit civil, et, par consequent, A la l6gislation provinciale. Les droits des propri6taires de postes 6metteurs, ou les droits des propridtaires d'appareils de reception devront quand meme 6tre r6gis par le droit civil. En plus, il y a, entre les divers 6metteurs, ou entre les 6metteurs et les compositeurs, 6crivains, auteurs de tous genres, orateurs, conf6renciers, artistes ou ex6cutants, fournisseurs d'information, annonceurs, toutes les personnes d6sireuses de transmettre des communications ou de faire de la rdclame, des rapports 6ventuels de droit priv6, civil ou commercial qui devront trouver leur solution dans le droit commun des provinces et dans la l6gislation provinciale.

(Voir Revue Juridique internationale de la radio-6lectricit6, 1930, 24, p. 234.) Enfin, toujours si le sujet de la radiodiffusion appartient de prime abord h la juridiction fid6rale, je ne vois pas bien comment on pourrait empkcher les provinces d'exercer leur pouvoir de taxation directe en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l'article 92, et leur pouvoir de licence dans le but de prblever un revenu pour des objets provinciaux, locaux ou municipaux, en vertu du paragraphe 9 de l'article 92.

Comme cons6quence de ce qui pr6cide, je r6ponds comme suit aux questions qui nous ont 6t6 soumises:

J'interprite la premibre question comme impliquant de la part du gouvernement du Canada une juridiction absolue et sous tous les rapports; et ma r6ponse est dans la n6gative.

Quant A la seconde question, les diff6rents aspects sous lesquels, A mon avis, le parlement du Canada a juridiction en matibre de radiocommunication sont expos6s en d6tail dans le prsent jugement.

J.-In this case I agree with my brother Rinfret that the jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament over the subject of radio communication is not exclusive, although, in some particulars, a very large measure of control admittedly belongs to it.

When we consider the nature of radio communication and the fact that once the electro-magnetic waves are discharged from the transmitting stations they cannot be confined within the boundaries of a province, or even the limits of a country, it is evident that a provincial legislature, whose jurisdiction is only province wide, is not in a position to control the transmission of these waves, yet, without some control, radio communication would be impossible.

So far, therefore, as the transmission of the waves is concerned, a very wide jurisdiction must, in the present state of the art, be conceded to the Dominion Parliament. It belongs to Parliament because the more important mat-MUsICATrow. ters which must be regulated and controlled lie in the international field where control can only be assured by treaty, convention or agreement between nations.

As indicating the matters over which those who have been dealing with radio communication in a practical way have felt the necessity for control, reference may be made to the International Radiotelegraph Convention at Washington, in November, 1927, and also to the agreement between Canada, the United States, Newfoundland, Cuba, et al. (effective since March 1, 1929), relating to the assignment of frequencies on the North American Continent.

All parties to these agreements recognize that until the development of the art progresses to the stage where radio interference can be eliminated, special administrative arrangements are necessary to minimize this interference and promote standardization. To this end the contracting governments have agreed that all transmitting stations will, so far as possible, be established and operated in such manner as not to interfere with radio electric communication of other contracting governments, or persons authorized by them to conduct a public radio service; that no transmission station will be established or worked by an individual without a special licence issued by the government of the country to which the station is subject; that they will propose legislative measures to prevent the unauthorized transmission and reception of correspondence of a private nature, or the divulgence of messages received;

and, further, that they will take necessary measures to connect the International Radio Service with the general communication system of each country.

The matters covered by these agreements shew the extent of the field in which control can only be secured by agreements between the nations. As to these matters jurisdiction lies with the Dominion Parliament under section 132 of the B.N.A. Act, 1867, which reads as follows:- Besides the transmission of electro-magnetic waves there are other matters in respect of which jurisdiction to regulate and control must exist in some authority. These are, for example, the capturing of these waves and the delivery of the messages they contain. These, to my mind, present a very different question from the transmission of the waves into space. According to Mr. Bain's report, which is printed with the case, the receiving apparatus performs two functions: it receives the transmitted wave, and converts it into an understandable signal. When electro-magnetic waves are thrown into space from one or more transmitting stations, they pass, by virtue of their potentially expanding force, not only over every parcel of land in the province in which the transmitter is situate, but over land far beyond the province. In the case of broadcasting they are not directed to any particular individual, but are left to be captured by anyone who can capture them. Where an owner of land in a province erects on his property a receiving antenna and to it attaches an apparatus which selects a given wave and delivers the message impressed upon it as an understandable signal to those who are within the limits of its varrying power, I am unable to see why the receiving apparatus cannot properly be designated a "local work" under no. 10 of s. 92. The services it performs, first in capturing the wave and then in extracting and delivering its message, are all performed within the province and, therefore, localized. In my opinion such localized service and such an instrumentality constitute a "local work." If it is not a local work within no. 10 of s. 92, I should consider that it would then fall within no. 16 " Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province."

Prima facie, therefore, legislation upon these subjects would come within the jurisdiction assigned to the provincial legislatures by s. 92.

The jurisdiction of the province, however, is subject to being overborne by competent legislation on the part of the Dominion Parliament, ancillary or incidental, to any of the enumerated heads of s. 91.

I would, therefore, answer the questions as follows:- 1. Has the Parliament of Canada jurisdiction to regulate and control radio communication, including the transmission and reception of signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds by means of Hertzian waves, and including the right to determine the character, use and location of apparatus employed?

J Answer: Not exclusive jurisdiction.

Answer: The jurisdiction of Parliament is limited as set out above.

SAITH J.-There are submitted, for the hearing and consideration of the court, pursuant to the authority of s.

55 of The Supreme Court Act, the following questions:- It becomes necessary in the first place to consider the nature of radio communication, how it is brought about, the extent of its effects, its usefulness to the inhabitants of the country at large, and the manner in which that usefulness may be made available.

The principles underlying radio communication are set out in an article compiled by J. W. Bain, radio engineer of the Marine Department, and printed in the case. This document is inserted for the convenience of the court, and it is stated that its accuracy may be verified by reference to the various standard textbooks on the subject. Its general accuracy was, I think, not controverted, and I therefore resort to this document for a brief general description of how radio communication is effected.

An alternating current is one which periodically changes direction in its circuit. For a certain time it flows in one direction, with varying strength, and then reverses and flows for an equal time in the opposite direction. The time in fractions of a second which elapses between two successive maximum values of current in the same direction called a period or cycle, and the number of such periods or cycles per second is called the " frequency " of the alterreo nating current. The maximum value to which the current rises in each half cycle is called the " amplitude " of the OF current. A high frequency alternating current is one Which the frequency is reckoned in tens of thousands. By the use of alternate electric current' in a transmitting apparatus, magnetic and electric fields are created, which expand and contract with the varying strength of the current, the energy being continually sent out into the surrounding medium and returned to the wire to be sent out again with a reversal of direction as the current increases from zero to maximum in one direction, and then decreases to zero, to increase again to a maximum in the opposite direction. If the frequency is very high, all the energy cannot return to the wire after each half-cycle, and it remains in space, to be pushed further out by the next expansion of the field; and the energy so pushed out at each successive cycle forms an electro-magnetic wave, which is radiated out from the radio antenna.

It is formed of two fields, a magnetic and an electric field at right angles to each other and to the direction of propagation, varying in intensity in step with one another and at the frequency of the current which gave rise to them, and travelling through space at the speed of light, that is: three hundred million metres per second. This figure of three hundred million, when divided by the frequency in cycles per second, gives the wave length in metres, and, conversely, when divided by the wave length, gives the frequency.

Part of the energy is radiated in a direction parallel to the surface of the earth, and forms what is known as the direct or ground wave. Another part is radiated upwards into space, and there exists in the upper part of the atmosphere a conducting layer of electrified particles which possesses the property of reflecting radio waves back to earth, making them available, to a certain extent, for radio communication.

The electro-magnetic waves here referred to are energy waves sent out into surrounding space in the manner indicated, and are the means by which radio communication is carried on. This communication involves not only the production and radiation of electro-magnetic waves, but also their reception by suitable apparatus, which intercepts these waves by means of a receiving antenna. The passage of the waves across this antenna produces in it a voltage. The receiving apparatus, which is coupled to this an- " tenna, must be capable of so amplifying the small voltage generated in the receiving antenna as to deliver at the out- Smith put end a signal of suitable strength. Owing to the great number of electro-magnetic fields, due to the waves issuing from a corresponding number of transmitting stations engaged in the various services of radio communication, the receiving apparatus must also be able to discriminate between all these waves and select the desired one.

The fundamental method of arranging the receiving apparatus so as to select the desired wave is by tuning it to the frequency of the wave so desired.

It follows that if more than one wave of the same or nearly the same frequency are coming to the receiving apparatus, one would interfere with the reception of the others and destroy the efficiency of all. In order to prevent this result, it is necessary that stations sending out these waves within certain distances of each other be limited to the use of frequencies sufficiently separated to avoid such interference.

By International Convention, frequencies from 550 kilocycles to 1,500 kilocycles have been appropriated to the service of broadcasting, and this band of 950 kilocycles is divided into 96 channels, giving approximately a width of 10 kilocycles to each channel, deemed necessary to prevent a transmitting station operating on one of these channels from interfering with the station operating on an adjoining channel. The electro-magnetic waves sent out from a transmitting station ordinarily travel through space in all directions, and .the distances at which they can be picked up by a receiver, and at which they may cause interference with other transmitting stations, vary with the electric power and the frequency used.

In "Elements of Radio Communication," by John H. Morecroft, page 98, there is a table shewing the variation according to power. It is there stated that a fifty-watt station will give good service at ten miles, poor service at 100 miles, and interference at 600 miles; a five hundredwatt station will give good service at 30 miles, poor service at 300 miles, and interference at 1,800 miles; and a five thousand-watt station will give good service at 100 service at 1,000 miles, and interference at 6,000 poor miles. At page 76 of the same book it is stated that if frequency is increased, keeping the current constant, more and more energy is radiated until, when the frequency is a million or more, the radiated power may be detected at great distances; and that, for a given current, the power radiated from a given circuit varies as the square of its frequency.

It is scarcely necessary to give in detail the extent and importance of the service now rendered to the whole people of this and other countries by radio communication. The broadcasting service is the one most familiar to the masses of the people, and is useful to them as a means of enjoyment, of information and of education. The vast importance to the Dominion as a whole of the coast stations established throughout Canada, and the services that they render to shipping over great distances, as set out in the case, need not be enlarged upon. Of scarcely less importance to the people of all sections of the Dominion is the service by radio communication, which scatters everywhere daily the news of the world and the happenings of the various localities, in which people everywhere are interested; and the service which enables people everywhere to carry on expeditiously business affairs.

From what has been said above, and what further appears in the case, it is evident that all these services by radio communication would be rendered of little practical use to anybody if there were not regulation somewhere by which transmitting stations would be prevented from interfering with each other.

By the questions submitted, we are asked to determine whether or not the Dominion Parliament, under the British North America Act, is vested with the general power of dealing with the subject.

Section 91 of the British North America Act is as follows:

to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters R coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,- Then follows a list of 29 classes of subjects.

OF Section 92 reads as follows:- 92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make laws n Smith J. relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,- Then follow 10 enumerated classes of subjects, among which are:

Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

Many disputes have arisen as to the respective jurisdiction of the Dominion and the provinces by virtue of these sections, resulting in many appeals to the Privy Council, in which the construction to be put upon them has been authoritatively laid down.

Lord Witson, in Attorney- General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominion (1), makes the following statement:- These enactments appear to their Lordships to indicate that the exercise of legislative power by the Parliament of Canada, in regard to all matters not enumerated in s. 91, ought to be strictly confined to such matters as are unquestionably of Canadian interest and importance, and ought not to trench upon provincial legislation with respect to any of the classes of subjects enumerated in a. 92.

Viscount Haldane, in Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider (2), states the result of what has been laid down in previous decisions, as follows:

The Dominion Parliament has, under the initial words of s. 91, a general power to make laws for Canada. But these laws are not to relate to the classes of subjects assigned to the provinces by s. 92, unless their enactment falls under heads specifically assigned to the Dominion Parliament by the enumeration in s. 91. When there is a question as to which legislative authority has the power to pass an Act, the first question must therefore be whether the subject falls within a. 92.

Even if it does, the further question must be answered, whether it falls also under an enumerated head in a. If so, the Dominion has the paramount power of legislating in relation to it. If the subject falls within neither of the sets of enumerated heads, then the Dominion may have power to legislate under the general words at the beginning of s. 91.

Radio communication is, of course, not specifically mentioned in either of these sections, unless the word " Telegraphs " in s. 92-10 (a) includes it. It is, however, contended, on behalf of the provinces, that it falls within the (1) [1896] A.C. 348, at 360.

(2) [1025] A.C. 396, at 406. class of subjects in s. 92 (13), "Property and Civil Rights in the Provinces," or no. 16, "Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the Provinces."

It is, of course, conceded on behalf of the provinces that OMF if general jurisdiction is vested in the provinces by virtue of these clauses, that jurisdiction is still subject to any J. Dominion legislation properly enacted in reference to the classes of subjects specifically assigned to the Dominion Parliament under s. 91 and for the performing of the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof arising under treaties, pursuant to s. 132 of the British North America Act.

Dealing firstly with class no. 16, is it possible, having in view the nature and effect of radio communication, as described, to say that, when carried on in a province, it is a, matter of a merely local or private nature in the province? When a transmitter sends out into space these electromagnetic waves, they are projected in all directions for the great distances referred to, and it is not possible for the transmitter to confine them within the bounds of a province. As already pointed out, a transmitter of only fiftywatt power-the power of an ordinary house lamp-will radiate these waves in all directions around it for a distance of 600 miles with sufficient energy at that distance to disturb and interfere with any radio communication passing through that field on the same or nearly the same channel or frequency.

Mr. Lanct~t, in his argument, pointed out that by the Beam system electro-magnetic waves can in a largemeasure be prevented from radiating in any but a given direction. This is accomplished by fencing the transmitter behind and at each side by certain apparatus, which results in limiting largely radiation of waves in these directions,. with a consequent diminution of power and distance in those directions, and, apparently, increased power and distance in the remaining direction. He stated that it was. possible that these waves so projected in one direction might travel around the world, and in that way come back to the starting point. If his general argument is sound,, then every resident of the province of Quebec, and of every other province, has a right at will to send out waves of this, or any other character, on any or all channels or frequencies, without limitation or control, unless the province in which the sender resides sees fit by legislation to establish control. The result, if the practice were resorted to to any considerable extent by the residents of the various provinces, would be, as has been pointed out, to destroy the usefulness of radio communication, not only throughout all the provinces, but far beyond the bounds of Smith the Dominion. This, Mr. Lanct~t argues, is a matter of a merely local or private nature in the province. I am of opinion that it is not a matter of that nature, and that radio communication does not fall within the class of subjects mentioned in this clause 16.

Is it, then, within the class of subjects described in clause 13, " Property and Civil Rights in the Province?" It is difficult to conceive of any legislation having a general effect that would not limit or affect in some way an individual's dominion over his property or over his actions; and if we are to hold that all legislation having this effect deals with property and civil rights in the province, within the meaning of clause 13, then that clause is all-embracing; and notwithstanding the general jurisdiction given to the Dominion Parliament in express terms by s. 91, the practical result would be that, by virtue of this clause 13 of s. 92, the province has general jurisdiction, limited only by the jurisdiction given to the Dominion in reference to the particular classes of subjects enumerated in s. 91.

Counsel for the provinces disclaimed any intention of arguing for any such extended interpretation of clause 13, and conceded that legislation merely affecting property and civil rights in the province would not necessarily be legislation in connection with that class of subjects. The argument is that a transmitting set and a receiving set are both pieces of property, and that the resident of a province has a right to use such property within the province, and that any legislation by the Dominion that presumes to control or limit his right to such user is legislation in respect of property and civil rights in the province. We are not, however, here dealing with a transmitter or a receiver simply as pieces of property, but are dealing with radio communication by means of these instruments; and it is shewn that the effects of that means of communication cannot be confined within the limits of the province. It is clear that the provinces cannot, by legislation under clause 13, effectively deal with radio communication and so control it as to make that class of service available within the province to any degree of efficiency.

No one province can prevent the entrance of these electro-magnetic waves from another province, or in any way eliminj. ate the interference coming from outside the province. The subject can only be dealt with effectively by the Dominion Parliament. The various International conferences and treaties that have been entered into, -to which Great Britain and Canada are parties, for the regulation and control of radio communication, in order to make it available and useful to people of all these countries, and the negotiations on the subject still in progress, shew that even the Parliament of Canada is unable of itself to exercise the control and regulation necessary to secure to the Canadian people the full benefits of this recently discovered and marvellous means of communication.

A good deal has been said as to the importance, to provincial governments, of radio communication for maintaining easy connection with the large areas within their bounds, sparsely inhabited or uninhabited, but containing natural resources of great value, such as timber, requiring supervision, that is greatly facilitated by radio service. This, however, contributes little to the argument, because the object and effect of Dominion legislation on the subject is not to deprive provincial governments and residents of the provinces of radio service, but to secure it to them in a degree of efficiency otherwise unobtainable, by preventing disturbance from bringing about a condition of chaos that the provincial legislatures themselves have not jurisdiction to prevent.

Legislation by the Dominion Parliament on the subject no doubt affects the use that the resident of a province may make of a piece of property that he owns, namely, a transmitter or a receiver, and may affect what is claimed to be a civil right to use such property within the province, but it is not legislation directly dealing with property and civil rights in the province. It is legislation, in my opinion, dealing with a subject not included in the classes of subjects expressly mentioned in s. 91 or s. 92, which therefore falls within the general jurisdiction assigned to the Dominion Parliament by s. 91.

In view of what has just been stated, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the jurisdiction that may be conferred on the Dominion Parliament in reference to radio communication by s. 92-10 (a). It has been held that the word " Telegraphs " in that subsection includes telephones, J. though telephones were not invented until several years after the passage of the British North America Act. Attorney-General v. Edison Telephone Company (1). If this case is authority for holding that radio communications are telegrams, then the jurisdiction over that subject vested in the Dominion Parliament by virtue of this clause (a) may amount, practically, to general, or almost general, jurisdiction, because radio communication connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province, could not be carried on with any degree of efficiency without controlling the disturbance that would otherwise arise from radio communication within the various provinces.

I am of opinion that question no. 1 should be answered in the affirmative.

It therefore becomes unnecessary to answer question no. The official judgment of the court is as follows:

C.J.C.-Q. 1. In view of the present state of radio science as submitted, Yes.

Q. 2. No answer.

J.-Q. 1 should be answered in the affirmative.

Q. 2. No answer.

.- Q. 1. Construing it as meaning jurisdiction in every respect, the answer is in the negative. Q. 2. The answer should be ascertained from the reasons certified by the learned judge.

J.-Q. 1. Not exclusive jurisdiction.

Q. 2. The jurisdiction of Parliament is limited, as set out in the learned judge's reasons.