It is also significant, in that it represented a major victory in the fight against discrimination aimed at Japanese Canadians, which was especially prevalent in British Columbia in the early part of the 20th century.

[4] Francis Millerd, general manager and part-owner of Somerville, challenged the oriental exclusion policy through hiring Japanese-Canadian fishermen and lobbying to secure salmon fishing licenses for them.

[5] Further pressure by Somerville and the Association of Fishermen of Japanese Origin resulted in the following reference questions being posed to the Supreme Court of Canada: The Supreme Court unanimously held that the provisions cited in Question 1 were ultra vires the Parliament of Canada, as fish canning only occurs after the fish have been caught, thus not being within the federal fisheries jurisdiction.

In that regard, ...trade processes by which fish when caught are converted into a commodity suitable to be placed upon the market cannot upon any reasonable principle of construction be brought within the scope of the subject expressed by the words "Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.

"[16] As such activity could not be seen to fall under any other heading of s. 91, and a licensing system could not reasonably be seen to be incidental to the federal power, it therefore fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The question of ministerial discretionary authority, and the extent as to how far it can go, continued to be debated, eventually to be settled by the Supreme Court in Roncarelli v.