Validity and Applicability of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act

Validity and Applicability of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1955-06-28
Report
[1955] SCR 529
Judges
Kerwin, Patrick; Taschereau, Robert; Rand, Ivan Cleveland; Kellock, Roy Lindsay; Estey, James Wilfred; Locke, Charles Holland; Cartwright, John Robert; Fauteux, Joseph Honoré Gérald; Abbott, Douglas Charles
On appeal from
Canada
Subjects
Constitutional law
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Validity and Applicability of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, [1955] S.C.R. 529
Date: 1955-06-28
In the Matter of a Reference as to The Validity of The Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 152, and as to its Applicability In Respect of Certain Employees of the Eastern Canada Stevedoring Company Limited.
Present: Kerwin C.J. and Taschereau, Rand, Kellock, Estey, Locke, Cartwright. Fauteux and Abbott JJ.
Constitutional law—Validity and applicability of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 152, ss. 1 to 53 inclusive.
Part I of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 152, deals with labour relations and provides for col­lective bargaining, certification and revocation thereof, unfair labour practices, strikes, lockouts and conciliation proceedings. Its applica­tion is restricted by s. 53 which states that Part I "applies in respect of employees who are employed upon or in connection with the operation of any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada including but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, (a) works, undertakings or businesses operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada". Other paragraphs specify other works, undertakings and businesses to which Part I applies.
Held (Per Kerwin C.J., Taschereau, Kellock, Estey, Cartwright, Fauteux and Abbott JJ.): Ss. 1 to 53 inclusive of the Act (on which alone argument was heard) are intra vires the Parliament of Canada, and' their application will depend upon the circumstances of any particular case.
Per Rand J.: The Act is valid if applied to works and undertakings within ss. 91(29) and 92(10) of the B.N.A. Act. But crews of vessels engaged in strictly local undertakings or services and locally organised stevedores are outside the scope of the Act.
Per Locke J.: Sections 1 to 53 inclusive of the Act are intra vires, except as to employees engaged upon or in connection with the works, under-takings or businesses operated or carried on for or in connection with shipping, the activities of which are confined within the limits of a province, or upon works, undertakings or businesses,of which the main or principal part is so confined.
The Eastern Canada Stevedoring Company Ltd., incorporated under the Companies Act of Canada, 1934, supplied stevedoring and terminal services in Toronto consisting exclusively "of services rendered in con­nection with the loading and unloading of ships, pursuant to contracts with seven shipping companies to handle all loading and unloading of their ships arriving and departing during the season." All these ships were operated on regular schedules between ports in Canada and ports outside of Canada. Held (Ranci J. dissenting and Locke J. dissenting in part): The Act applied in respect of employees in Toronto of the Company employed upon or in connection with the operation of the work, undertaking or business of the Company as described in the Order of Reference.
Per Rand J. (dissenting): On the evidence submitted, the Act did not apply to the employees of the Company.
Per Locke J. (dissenting in part): The Act applied to the stevedores, as defined in the Order of Reference, but not to the office staff of the Company.
REFERENCE by His Excellency the Governor General in Council (P.C. 1785, dated November 18, 1954) to the Supreme Court of Canada.
F. P. Varcoe, Q.C., D .W. Mundell, Q.C. and R. W. McKimm for the Attorney General of Canada.
C. R. Magone, Q.C. for the Attorney General of Ontario.
L. E. Beaulieu, Q.C. for the Attorney General of Quebec.
H. J. Wilson, Q.C. and J. J. Frawley, Q.C. for the Attorney General of Alberta.
A. W. Roebuck, Q.C. and D. R. Walkinshaw, Q.C. for the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks.
F. A. Brewin, Q.C. for District 50, United Mine Workers of America.
N. L. Mathews, Q.C. and Beatrice E. Mathews for the Eastern Canada Stevedoring Co. Ltd.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE:—His Excellency the Governor General-in-Council has referred the following questions of law to this Court for hearing and consideration:—
(1) Does the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, Chapter 152, apply in respect of the employees in Toronto of the Eastern Canada Stevedoring Co., Ltd., employed upon or in connection with the operation of the work, undertaking or business of the company as hereinbefore described?
(2) Is the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, Chapter 152, ultra vires of the Parlia­ment of Canada either in whole or in part and, if so, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?
Certain facts and circumstances are recited in the Order of Reference, the relevant ones being now set out.
The Eastern Canada Stevedoring Co. Ltd., which was incorporated under The Companies Act of Canada, 1934, c. 33, furnishes stevedoring and terminal services for certain shipping companies in the ports of Halifax, St. John, Montreal, Mont Louis, Rimouski and Toronto. In Toronto it owns Shed Number 10 and leases Shed Number 4 and during the navigation season in 1954 —approximately April to November—its operations consisted exclusively of services rendered in connection with the loading and unloading of ships, pursuant to contracts with seven shipping com­panies to handle all loading and unloading of their ships arriving and departing during that season. All these ships were 'operated on regular schedules between ports in Canada and ports outside of Canada.
The Company's business in Toronto consists in rendering the following services. The Company on notification of the pending arrival of ships makes such preparations as are necessary for unloading and loading such ships, including the taking on of necessary employees. It also receives delivery of cargo from the tailboards of trucks or from railway 'car doors and holds it in its sheds for loading. With respect to unloading, when the ship has arrived, and been secured by its crew alongside the Company's sheds, the Company opens the hatches (if this is not done by the crew) and removes the cargo from the hold to the dock and there delivers it to 'consignees at the tailboards of trucks or at railway car doors or places the cargo in the Company's sheds. The cargo placed in the sheds is immediately, or during the next few days, delivered by the Company as required to the tailboards of trucks or to railway car doors. In these operations the Company uses the ship's winches and booms for raising and lowering the slings; it furnishes pallets necessary for lifting and piling the cargo and machines for towing and lifting 'cargo on the dock and in the sheds; and in cases of cargo too heavy for the ship's winches and booms it uses land cranes obtained by it. With respect to loading, the operations are substantially similar except that they are reversed, the last act of loading being the securing of the hatch covers if this is not done by the crew of the ship. In unloading the Company checks the cargo against the ship's manifest as it is unloaded and for loading it checks the cargo as it is received to assist in preparation of the ship's manifest. Forms of contracts entered into by the Company in 1954, which are typical of all such contracts entered into by it for providing these services, are annexed to the Order-in-Council. In Toronto the Company has the following employees: officers, office staff, superintendents, foremen, longshoremen, checkers and shedmen. The four last-mentioned groups are commonly referred to in the port of Toronto as "steve­dores". During loading and unloading the Company has at the dock a management representative, superintendents and walking-bosses, and stevedores. The duties of these steve­dores are as follows. The longshoremen work in gangs under the foremen. In unloading some remove hatch covers if necessary and work in the hold to place the cargo in slings; some are winch operators and signalmen operating the ship's hoists; and some work on the dock to sort and pile cargo in the sheds except where immediate delivery is taken by the consignee or carrier. In loading the operation is reversed, the cargo being taken from the sheds and stowed in the hold by longshoremen whose last act is, if necessary, to secure the hatch covers and winches and booms. The shedmen in general deliver cargo from the sheds to the tailboards of trucks or to railway car doors or receive cargo at those points and place it in the sheds and sometimes re-arrange the cargo in the sheds. The checkers check the incoming cargo against the ship's manifest and check outgoing cargo for preparation of the ship's manifest. The unloading and loading of a ship is performed under the direction and authority of the ship's officers. The orders of the ship's officers are given to the supervisory personnel of the Company who direct the work of the stevedores.
In 1953 the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freighthandlers, Express and Station Employees, as the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, consisting of all employees of the Company in the port of Toronto, save and except non-working foremen, persons above the rank of foreman, office staff and security guards, was granted conciliation services by the Minister of Labour for Canada and subsequently entered into a collective agreement with the Company, pursuant to the Canadian Act. On June 17, 1954, a further collective agreement was entered into by the Company and the Brotherhood. On June 15, 1954, the United Mine Workers of America applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for certification as the bargaining agent, of the same employees, and that Board decided it had jurisdiction to hear the application for 'certification and to deal with it on its merits. The Brotherhood applied to the Supreme Court of Ontario for an order quashing that decision, or, in the alternative, for an order prohibiting the Board from taking proceedings with respect to the applica­tion. The Attorney General of Ontario intervened and noti­fied the Attorney General for Canada that in those proceed­ings the 'constitutional validity of the Canadian Act, the long title of which is an Act to provide for the Investiga­tion, Conciliation and Settlement of Industrial Disputes, would be brought in question. The order of reference was made in order to settle the dispute and obtain the opinion of this Court as to the jurisdiction of Parliament to enact the statute.
The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907 applied generally to a large number of important industries in Canada and it was held by the Judicial Committee in Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider[1], that that Act was not within the competence of Parliament, as it was clearly in relation to property and civil rights in the Prov­inces, a subject reserved to the Provincial Legislatures by s. 92, s-s. 13 of the British North America Act. Since then the Act has been re-cast and is now found in the form sub­mitted to us for consideration.
As its name indicates, the present Act deals with labour relations and the sections in Part I provide, in a pattern now familiar, for collective bargaining, certification and revocation thereof, unfair labour practices, strikes, lockouts, conciliation proceedings. S. 2 (1) (i) reads:‑
2. (1) In this Act,
…..
(i) 'employee' means a person employed to do skilled or unskilled manual, clerical or technical work, but does not include
(i) a manager or superintendent, or any other person who, in the opinion of the Board, exercises management functions or is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations, or
(ii) a member of the medical, dental, architectural, engineering or legal profession qualified to practise under the laws of a province and employed in that capacity. However, the Act is restricted in its application by the first section in Part II, s. 53:‑
53. Part I applies in respect of employees who are employed upon or in connection with the operation of any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the Parilament [sic] of Canada includ­ing, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing,
(a) works, undertakings or businesses operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada;
(b) railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings con­necting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province;
(c) lines of steam and other ships connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces or extending beyond the limits of a province.
(d) ferries between any province and any other province or between any province and any country other than Canada;
(e) aerodromes, aircraft and lines of air transportation;
(f) radio broadcasting stations;
(g) such works or undertakings as, although wholly situate within a province, are before or after their execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces; and
(h) any work, undertaking or business outside the exclusive legislative authority of the legislature of any province;
and in respect of the employers of all such employees in their relations with such employees and in respect of trade unions and employers' organ­izations composed of such employees or employers.
The sections in Part I are thus specifically restricted in general terms to any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada. The enumeration in paragraphs (a) to (h) inclusive is not to restrict "the generality of the foregoing", but, taking in order the subjects listed, the matters coming within paragraph (a), subject to a reservation hereafter mentioned, are referable to Head 10 of s. 91 of the British North America Act, "Navigation and Shipping"; the matters within paragraphs (b) and (c) are referable to Head 10 of s. 92 and, therefore, by virtue of Head 29 of s. 91, are within the exclusive legislative authority of Parliament; those within paragraph (d) are referable to Head 13 of s. 91 "Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces"; those within paragraph (g) are referable to Head 10 (c) of s. 92 and again, therefore, by Head 29 of s. 91, within the exclusive legislative authority of Parliament; paragraphs (e) and (f) have been placed under the jurisdiction of Parliament by judicial interpreta­tion and (h) is merely an omnibus paragraph. The reserva­tion is that in some particulars a provincial legislature has jurisdiction over ferries or ships plying only between points within the limits of the province, but even there questions may arise in connection with particular employees because the power to control the class of subjects falling within "Navigation and Shipping" is to be widely construed. Paquet v. Corporation of Pilots for and Below the Harbour of Quebec[2]; City of Montreal v. Montreal Harbour Com­missioners[3], particularly at 312.
It is not to be presumed that Parliament intended to exceed its powers. McLeod v. Attorney-General for New South Wales[4]; Attorney-General for Ontario v. Reciprocal Insurers[5], and, therefore, the Act before us should not be construed to apply to employees who are employed at remote stages, but only to those whose work is intimately connected with the work, undertaking or busi­ness. In pith and substance the Act relates only to matters within the classes of subjects within the specific heads of s. 91 of the British North America Act. Cases may develop, depending upon their particular circumstances, where it will be necessary to determine the applicability of the statute under review, but that is not a question as to the validity of its provisions.
It was contended that any meaning to be given the words "or in connection with the operation of any" in s. 53 would include the employees of the Empress Hotel in Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Attorney General for British Columbia[6]. However, there it was held that the hotel was not part of the railway works and undertaking of the railway company connecting British Columbia with other provinces, within the meaning of Head 10 (a) of s. 92 of the British North America Act, so as to be excepted from pro­vincial legislative authority and brought within the Dominion legislative power by virtue of Head 29 of s. 91 but was a separate undertaking. Similarly it was also held that the hotel did not fall within the definition of "railway' in s-s. 21 of s. 2 of the Railway Act, 1927, and, accordingly was not "declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada", within the meaning of s. 6 (c) of the 1927 Act. That decision has no relevancy to the present discussion.
If the words complained of had not been inserted it might have been contended that it was necessary that employees should be actually employed upon a work, 'undertaking or business. In John Pigott and Sons v. The King[7], the phrase "upon any public work" in the Exchequer Court Act dealing with the liability of the Crown was construed in that sense and it was found necessary to amend that enactment. As amended it was considered in The King v. Schrobounst[8]. The decision of the High Court of Australia in Australian Steamships, Limited v. Malcolm[9], is significant in the present connection, notwithstand­ing the difference between the constitutions of Australia and Canada and the following statement by Isaacs J. at p. 331 is particularly appropriate:‑
Now, it is evident to me that to leave outside the sphere of control, with respect to inter-State and foreign trade and commerce, all but the mere act of supply or commodity or service would practically nullify the power.
It is emphasized that the first question asks whether the Act applies "in respect of employees in Toronto of the Eastern Canada Stevedoring Co. Ltd. employed upon or in con­nection with the operation of the work, undertaking or busi­ness of the Company", as described in the Order-in-Council. That description is that the Company's operations for the year 1954 "consisted exclusively of services rendered in con­nection with the loading and unloading of ships, pursuant to contracts with seven shipping companies to handle all load­ing and unloading of their ships arriving and departing dur­ing that season. All these ships were operated on regular schedules between ports in Canada and ports outside of Canada". In connection with the first question, the fact that the Company by its charter has power "to carry on a general dock and stevedoring business in all its branches" does not require us to consider the possibility of such a power being used, or indeed the possibility of anything except the facts as they are presented to us. The circum­stance that the Company is an organization independent of the steamship companies with which it contracted, does not, in my opinion, affect the matter, and I find it difficult to distinguish the employees we are considering from those, engaged in similar work, employed directly by a shipping company whose ships ply between Canadian and foreign ports. The question whether employees of other indepen­dent organizations engaged in furnishing services are cov­ered by the Act should be left until the occasion arises. The employees of the Company in Toronto, as they were engaged in the year 1954, are part and parcel of works in relation to which the Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to legislate.
Construing the Act in the manner indicated it applies in respect of employees in Toronto of Eastern 'Canada Steve­doring Co. Ltd. employed upon or in connection with the operation of its work, undertaking or business, as described in the Order-in-Council, including persons employed to do skilled or unskilled manual, clerical or technical work, but excluding those referred to in (i) and (ii) in s. 2 (1) (i) of the Act. The first question submitted should be answered in the affirmative.
The second question should be answered in the negative so far as sections 1 to 53 inclusive of the Act are concerned. These are the only sections as to which argument was adduced and nothing is said as to any of the others.
TASCHEREAU J.-The Governor in Council, by Order in Council of the 18th day of November, 1954, (P.C. 1954-1785) referred the following questions to this Court for hearing and consideration :‑(See p. supra).
The material facts essential for the consideration of this submission are taken from the above mentioned Order in Council. The Eastern Canada Stevedoring Co., Ltd. is a company incorporated under The Companies' Act of Can­ada, Statutes of Canada, 1934, e..33. The operations of the company consist in furnishing stevedoring and terminal services for certain shipping companies in the ports of Halifax, St. John, Toronto, Montreal, Mont Louis and Rimouski. In Toronto, the company owns one shed and leases another shed on the piers in the port. The company receives delivery of cargo from the tailboards .of trucks or railway car doors and holds it in its sheds for loading. As to unloading, when the ship has been secured by the crew alongside the com­pany's shed, the hatches are opened by the company or by the crew, and the company removes the cargo from the hold to the dock, and there delivers it to consignees at the tail-boards of trucks or at railway car doors, or places the cargo in the company's sheds from which it is delivered without delay.
On the 10th of June, 1953, the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freighthandlers, Express and Station Employees, entered into a collective agreement with the company, pursuant to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, c. 152, and on the 17th of June, 1954, a further collective agreement was executed by the said Brotherhood to be in effect until the 11th day of June, 1955.
On the 15th of June, 1954, District 50, United Mine Workers of America filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board for certification as the bargaining agent of the employees of the company. By Order dated the 14th day of September, 1954, the Labour Relations Board of Ontario found that the Labour Relations Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1950, c. 194, applied to the company; it also found that it had jurisdiction to accept the application and to deal with it on its merits. It was ordered that a representative vote should be taken of employees of the company in the bargaining unit.
The Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freighthandlers, Express and Station Employees moved before the Supreme Court of Ontario for an Order quashing the decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, or in the alternative, for an Order prohibiting the Board from taking further proceedings. In order to expedite the final disposition of the legal questions involved in the proceed­ings in the Supreme Court of Ontario, the present reference was made by the Governor in Council.
I think that it is better to dispose first of the second ques­tion, as to whether the Federal Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada, and if so to examine next if the Act applies in respect of the employees in Toronto of the Eastern Canada Stevedoring Co., Ltd. The Attorney General for Canada, the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship, the Eastern Canada Stevedoring' Co., Ltd., contend that the Act is within the powers ,of the Federal Parliament, while the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General for Quebec, the Attorney General for Alberta, and the United Mine Workers of America submit that it is ultra vires.
The contention is that the provincial legislatures have, exclusive power to make laws in relation to matters coming within the following classes of subjects, pursuant to the B.N.A. Act, s. 92:‑
13. Property and civil rights in the province.
16. Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
It would follow that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is an invasion of the exclusive legis­lative jurisdiction of the provinces to legislate in relation to property and civil rights, because the "true nature and character of the law," or, "its pith and substance," is legislation affecting those civil rights,
The Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act was originally enacted in 1907 (6 and 7 Edward VII, c. 20), but in 1925 it was held invalid by the Judicial Committee( (Toronto Electric v. Snider[10]) as being legislation on a matter of provincial concern. The Act was amended in the same year (Statutes. of Canada, 1925, 15 and 16 Geo. V. c. 14) in order to limit the application of the Act to a more restricted number of labour disputes. Finally, in 1948 (Statutes of Canada, 11 and 12 Geo. VI, Vol. 1, c. 54) the former legislation was repealed and a new Act was enacted to provide for the investigation, conciliation and settlement of industrial disputes.
The legislation of 1907 which was declared ultra vires by the Privy Council, was of a very wide general application, and its primary object was directed to the prevention of settlement of strikes and lock-outs in mines and industries connected with public utilities. It provided that upon a dispute occuring between employers and employees, in any of a large number of important industries in Canada, the Minister of Labour for the Dominion might appoint a Board of Investigation and Conciliation, and the Board was empowered to summon witnesses, inspect documents and premises and was to try and bring about a settlement. If no settlement resulted, they were to make a report with recommendations as to the fair terms, but the report was not to be binding upon the parties. After reference to the Board, a lock-out or strike was to be unlawful. It was held that the Act was not within the competence of the Parlia­ment of Canada under the British North America Act It was the opinion of the Judicial Committee that the legisla­tion was in relation to property and civil rights in the prov­inces, a subject reserved to the provincial legislatures by s. 92, s-s. 13, and was not within any of the .overriding powers of the Dominion Parliament specifically set out in s. 91. It was further said that the Act could not be justified under the general power in s. 91, to make laws "for the peace, order and good government of Canada", as it was not estab­lished that there existed in the matter any emergency which put the national life of Canada in an anticipated peril.
The new law is quite different and its application is limited by section 53. This section reads as follows:--‑
53. Part I applies in respect of employees who are employed upon or in connection with the operation of any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing,
(a) works, undertakings or businesses operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportaton by ship anywhere in Canada;
(b) railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province;
(c) lines of steam and other ships connecting a province with any other or others ,of the provinces or extending beyond the limits of a province;
(d) ferries between any province and any other province or between any province and any country other than Canada;
(e) aerodromes, aircraft and lines of air transportation;
(f) radio broadcasting stations;
(g) such works or undertakings as, although wholly situate within a province, are before or after their execution declared by the Par­liament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces; and
(h) any work, undertaking or business outside the exclusive legislative authority of the legislature of any province; and in respect of the employers of all such employees in their relations with such employees and in respect of trade unions and employers' organ­izations composed of such employees or employers.
Generally, I think that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act may be justified by head 10 of s. 91 of the British North America Act, which gives to the Parlia­ment of Canada exclusive jurisdiction on Navigation and Shipping. Regulation of employment of stevedores is, I believe, an essential part of navigation and shipping and is essentially connected with the carrying on of the transporta­tion by ship. Even if incidentally the law may affect pro­vincial rights, it is nevertheless valid if it is, as I think, in relation to a subject within the federal legislative. power under s. 91.
As it was said by Lord Haldane in The City of Montreal v. Montreal Harbour Commissioners[11]: "Now, there is no doubt that the power to control navigation and shipping conferred on the Dominion by s. 91, is to be widely con­strued", and he further adds: "The terms on which these powers are given are so wide, as to be capable of allowing the Dominion Parliament to restrict very seriously the exer­cise of proprietary rights."
In Paquet v. The Corporation of Pilots for and below the Harbour of Quebec[12], the Judicial 'Committee held that it was for the Dominion and not for the provincial legislature to deal exclusively with the subject of pilotage, including the earnings of pilots. Lord Haldane expressed the views of the Committee in the following language:‑
Navigation and shipping form the tenth class of the subjects enumer­ated as exclusively belonging to the Dominion in s. 91 of the Act, and the second class in the section, the regulation of trade and commerce, is con­cerned with some aspects at least of the same subject. Whether the words "trade and commerce", if these alone had been enumerated subjects, would have been sufficient to exclude the Provincial Legislature from dealing with pilotage, it is not necessary to consider, because, in. their Lordships' opin­ion, the introduction into s. 91 of the words "navigation and shipping" puts the matter beyond question. It is, of course, true that the class of sub­jects designated as "property and civil rights" in s. 92 and there given exclusively to the Province would be trenched on if that section were to be interpreted by itself. But the language of s. 92 has to be read along with that of s. 91, and the generality of the wording of s. 92 has to be interpreted as restricted by the specific language of s. 91, in accordance with the well-established principle that subjects which in one aspect may come under s. 92 may in another aspect that is made dominant be brought within s. 91. That this principle applied in the case before their Lord-ships they entertain no doubt, and it was, therefore, in their opinon, for the Domnion and not for the Provincial Legislature to deal exclusively with subject of pilotage after confederation, notwithstanding that the civil rights and the property of the Corporation of Pilots of Quebec Harbour might incidentally, if unavoidably, be seriously affected.
In the Minimum Wage Act of Saskatchewan[13], it was held by this Court that the wages of an employee of a Postal Service of Canada were within the exclusive legislative field of the Parliament of Canada, and that any encroachment by provincial legislation on that subject must be looked upon as being ultra vires whether ,or not Parlia­ment has or has not dealt with the subject by legislation.
This last case is very similar to the one at bar, and I have no doubt that, if it is not competent to a provincial legisla­ture to legislate as to hours of labour and wages of Domin­ion servants, it is not within its power to legislate as to industrial disputes of employees .on a subject matter coming within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada under s. 91.
This however, cannot be construed as excluding the pro­vincial jurisdiction over certain matters, as for instance inland shipping, which is not always of federal concern. The Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act applies to employees who are employed upon or in connec­tion with the operation of any work, undertaking or busi­ness, that is within the legislative authority of the Parlia­ment of Canada, and it would therefore be inoperative if applied beyond this limited sphere. But this would not make the law ultra vires.
The words "in connection with" found in s. 53, must not of course be given too wide an application. But, I think it quite impossible to say in the abstract, what is and what is not "in connection with". It would be overweening to try and foresee all possible cases that may arise. I can imagine no general formula that could embrace all concrete even­tualities, and I shall therefore not attempt to lay one down, and determine any rigid limit. Each case must be dealt with separately.
I would therefore answer the second question in the negative. As to the first question, I believe that it should be answered in the affirmative. The transportation of goods by water by means of ships, is an operation entirely depen­dent on the services of the stevedores of the company and both are so closely connected that they must be considered as forming part of the same business.
Moreover, it is common ground that the operations of the Eastern Canada Stevedoring Company in Toronto during the relevant navigation season consisted exclusively of services rendered in connection with the loading and unload­ing of ships pursuant to contracts with seven shipping com­panies to handle all loading and unloading of their ships arriving and departing during that season. All these ships were operated on regular schedules between ports in Canada and ports outside of Canada. It is, therefore, my opinion that this is exclusively of federal concern under head 10 of s. 91, and also head 10 of s. 92 of the B.N.A. Act.
In Harris v. Best Ryley & Co. (1), (7 Asp. M.C. 274) Lord Esher said:‑
Loading is a joint act of the shipper or charterer and of the ship owner, neither of them is to do it alone but it is to be the joint act of both ... by universal practice the shipper was to bring the cargo along-side so as to enable the ship owner to load the ship ... it is then the duty of the ship owner to be ready to take such cargo on board and to store it on board. The stowage of the cargo is the sole act of the ship owner.
It is therefore my view that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act applies in respect of the employees in Toronto of the Eastern Canada Stevedoring Co., Ltd.
The first interrogatory should be answered in the affirma­tive, and the second in the negative.
RAND J.:‑The questions put to the Court arise out of The Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act whose object is to mitigate and so far as possible avoid in advance disruptive effects to trade, commerce, transporta­tion and other matters caused by .conflicts between employers and employees resulting in strikes and lockouts. The statute does this by furnishing the machinery and pro­cedure for negotiation and conciliation looking to agreement between the principals concerned. This latter ordin­arily relates to the terms of the employment, but it is not always so.
The right to strike and to lockout are undoubtedly civil rights, but, 'directly or indirectly, they are exercised as auxiliary to other rights. Legislation such as that before us is directed to the public interest in the activities which the employment serves and at the same time there is an interest related to the civil rights. The primary matter of the legis­lation is the actual or prospective work stoppages affecting vital national concerns, but the civil rights involved, though secondary, are undoubtedly substantive. In determining its true nature and character, the considerations to be taken into account include those public interests; and con-sequences are pertinent, both of the underlying matters, here the stoppages of work, as well as of the legislation itself. Where the interests lie within the same legislative jurisdiction little or no difficulty is presented; but where that is not so, questions of some nicety may arise; and it is the latter feature which furnishes the principal matter for decision here.
The specific application of the statute is provided by s. 53. This is a comprehensive assertion of parliamentary power over this aspect of employment in relation to many activities. The enumeration has two main groups, "works and undertakings" allocated by s. 91(29), and "works, undertakings and businesses carried on for or in connection with navigation or shipping" under s. 91(10) ; and it will facilitate conclusions on both of the questions put to the Court to deal first with these groups in that order.
The 'background is furnished by several rulings of the Judicial Committee. In Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider[14], the original of the present statute passed in 1907 was held to be ultra vires. Its subject matter was industrial disputes throughout Canada arising out of employment in mines and industries connected with public utilities. The legislation 'was found to be enacted in relation to civil rights as committed exclusively to the provinces. That judgment was delivered in January of 1925. In June of the same year a Reference was made to this Court on a convention adopted by the International Labour Conference of the League of Nations limiting hours of labour in industrial undertakings, and questions were put as to the competence of legislature and Parliament over that matter. The answers were to the effect that the subject generally was within the provincial field, but that it was not com­petent to the legislatures to give the force of law to the proposed provisions in relation to servants of the Dominion Government or to legislate for those parts of Canada not within the boundaries of a province. In the opinion given by Duff J. it was said:‑
It is now well settled that the Dominion, in virtue of its authority in respect of works and undertakings falling within its jurisdiction, by force of section 91, no. 29, and section 92, no. 10, has certain powers of regula­tion touching the employment of persons engaged on. such works or undertakings.
And that
if servants of the Dominion Government egaged [sic] in industrial undertakings as defined by the convention are within the scope of its provisions, then the Dominion Parliament is the competent authority also to give force of law to those provisions as applicable to such persons.
The references to Dominion Government industries and to undertakings within s. 91(29), are to be viewed in the light of an observation by Lord Haldane on the abridged scope of Trade and Commerce in the judgment of five months earlier and the subsequent dissent from it. The convention being restricted to industrial labour, no canvass of certain matters raised in the present reference w