MONOPOLIES. 
255 
view taken by the Judicial Committee, as to the meaning of 
the words “regulation of trade and commerce,” though it is 
expressly stated that « their Lordships abstain on the present 
occasion from any attempt to define the limits of the 
authority of the Dominion Parliament in this direction.” 
They held however that the authority to legislate for the 
regulation of trade and commerce did not comprehend the 
power to regulate by legislation the contracts of a particular 
trade, such as the business of a fire insurance in a single 
province. 
The subsection in question is limited in its operation by Limita 
the effect of some of the provisions in section 92. To tons. 
prohibit the sale of certain articles in the public street is an 
interference with trade, but it was held that a by-law of a 
municipal body to this effect was not ultra vires of a provincial 
Legislature, inasmuch as it related to police or municipal 
matters which are within provincial control”, 
The power of the Dominion Parliament to legislate on 
trade and commerce is limited by the implied or incidental 
power the provinces have of passing laws necessary to give 
effect to the express powers of legislation committed to them. 
On this ground the Quebec Pharmacy Act 1875, requiring 
qualifications on the part of persons exercising the business 
of selling drugs and medicines, was held valid® as falling 
within “local ” matters in the province. 
The Dominion has also sole jurisdiction in 
1. Patents of Invention and Discovery. s. 91 (22). 
2. Copyrights. s. 91 (23). 
3. Incorporation of Banks. s. 91 (15). 
12. MONOPOLIES. 
L Re Harris & the Corporation of City of Hamilton, 44 U. C. Q. B. 641; 
1 Cart. 756 ; see also Hodge v. The Queen, L. B. 9 App. Cas. 117, and the 
cases in Cartwright, vol. ii. 
® Bennett v. Pharmaceutical Association of Quebec, 1 Dorion’s Quebec 
Appeals, 336; 2 Cart. 250.