1933-05-19

STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) presented the fourth report of the select standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
DISCOUNT AiND LOAN CORPORATION
Mr. J. A. SULLIVAN (St. Ann) moved:: That pursuant to a special order made March 27 last, Bill No. 110 (Letter FI of the Senate), intituled: "An Act to Incorporate the Discount and Loan Corporation of Canada," be now read a first and second time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.


John Alexander Sullivan: That Bill No. 110 (Letter FI of the Senate), intituled: "An Act to Incorporate the Discount and Loan Corporation of Canada," be placed on the order paper under private bills for consideration in committee of the whole this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion:
That on Saturday the 20th May, instant, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning. That in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock p.m., there shall also be an intermission from one to three o'clock p.m., and that both the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Friday.-The Prime Minister.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: With the consent of the house I should like this notice of motion to stand until after eight o'clock.
Notice of motion stands.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: In the absence of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren), I have been asked to explain to the house the amendment made by the Senate. Hon. members will remember that this bill was very hurriedly reprinted and that in some cases reference to other boards had been omitted. Those omissions were corrected in the Senate. They are four in number, three of which refer to the original bill as presented to the committee over which I presided and the other is on account of an agreement between the Minister of Finance and the members of the British Empire Legion. The first amendment is on page 4 of the bill. While provision is here made that a quorum travelling in the country shall be comprised of two members of the board, there was no provision made for a quorum transacting ordinary routine business in Ottawa, and the result therefore would have been that under ordinary circumstances the quorum would have consisted of one-half erf the whole body which, if it consisted of twelve members, would compel six of them to remain continuously in Ottawa to hear routine business. The Senate therefore moved to insert the following as subsection 4 of the new section 7:
(4) Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, for the purpose of exercising and performing the powers, authorities and functions vested in the commission, as distinct from a quorum thereof, under this act, the commission shall consist of two or more commissioners; and whenever under this act a quorum of the commission is referred to it shall mean a quorum as constituted under the provisions of section fifty-five of this act.
I think hon. members will understand that. It is simply to provide that for the transaction of ordinary routine business in Ottawa it will not be necessary to have more members present than are at present required under the board of pension commissioners; that is to say, two or more may decide any ordinary routine matter. This does not interfere at all with section fifty-five which provides for a quorum in the field. That is distinctly and positively provided for.
Criminal Code

The next amendment is on page 6 of the bill, amending the clause providing for the payment of a pension to those members who have previously to this time served on the commission or the court. It is proposed to insert in 10B (1) after the word "bodies" in line twenty-two the words "or as a member of the board of pension commissioners for Canada or of the pension tribunal." That is to say, the act will provide for service on either of these bodies being counted in the total service.
The next amendment is on page 13, and is a very simple one. It is with regard to the presentation of cases to the chief pensions advocate. The amendment is to insert after the word "before" in line ten on page 13 the words "the commission or." I think my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) will understand that. It simply means that the applicant has the power to appear before either the commission itself or a quorum thereof.
The next amendment is on page 18, amending clause 63 by adding after the words "reference" in line five the words "or submission." Our committee found that it was necessary to allow the applicant to submit a stated case to the court, not necessarily the file, and consequently the words "or submission" have been inserted.
The next amendment is on page 21, and this is the one which applies to the agreement entered into 'between the Minister of Finance and the representatives of the soldier organizations. It was never intended that the prospective pension of a dependent mother or father, or brother or sister, under section 33 of the act should be limited, and consequently the Senate have struck out in line eighteen on page 21 the words "or section thirty-three." Those words were evidently placed in there under a misapprehension, and I am sure the house will agree that this amendment is perfectly proper.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) (for the Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 78, to amend the Pension Act.
Hon. J. L. RALSTOiN (Shelbume-Yar-mouth):	The house will appreciate that it
is a little difficult to follow the sections as my hon, friend has indicated the amendments rather quickly. The section I am most concerned with is the one that does not seem to fit in with the reprinted bill I have before me. I have the reprinted bill as amended and reported by the special committee. I 
realize that we are not in committee here, and that all I can do is to ask a question and have the explanation made again. Section 19 of the reprinted bill which I 'have here simply provides for the coming into force of the act.


James Arthurs: What page is that?


Mr. RALSTON:: On page 21. I have just been handed another copy of the bill which I have no doubt is the same as my hon. friend has been using in indicating the amendments. My hon. friend referred to prospective pensions to dependent parents. Did he also say to widows?


James Arthurs: No.


James Layton Ralston: Clause thirty-three does
not apply to widows.


James Arthurs: No. To mothers, fathers, brothers or sisters.


James Layton Ralston: It is prospective pensions to dependent parents and brothers and sisters. They are now being left out of the clause which restriots their pension, and the amendment now is so that they will not be affected by this act or by the budget proposals which were originally made by the Minister of Finance.


James Arthurs: Exactly. The wording of clause 33 was placed there under a misapprehension. It certainly was not the intention to interfere with them at all.


James Layton Ralston: If I might ask another
question with the permission of the house, have these amendments been seen and concurred in by the representatives of the veterans?


James Arthurs: Yes, in every case.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Acting Minister of Justice) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house disagrees with their amendment to Bill No. 71, an act to amend the criminal code for the following reason:
Because the wording of the said amendment may be deemed to involve a principle which it may not be advisable to sanction in an act of parliament, and that the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Maurice Dupré: After this house had accepted section 3 of Bill No. 71, to amend the criminal code, the Senate deleted subsection

Canada Shipping Act
3 of section 3 which concerns an irrebuttable presumption. That was sent back to the Senate and the whole bill came back again to this house with subsection 3 reinserted and subsection 2 amended. Subsection 2 in the bill as it left this house reads:
Every person who, in the home of a_ child, participates in adultery, or in sexual immorality, or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, thereby endangering the morals of such child or rendering the home of such child an unfit place for such child to be in shall be guilty of an offence and liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, or to both fine and imprisonment.
In order to cover the second case, namely that of a man and a woman living in adultery, where the children might be affected, the Senate added a proviso to subsection 2 which reads as follows:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of two persons who though in fact living in adultery are living apparently respectably as man and wife, and where the children affected are the children of such union.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: That is free love.


Maurice Dupré: As this amendment or proviso might be considered as a sort of indirect consecration of adultery, we believe it would be advisable to have another drafting or another sort of amendment to subsection 2.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. 106, to amend the Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Duranleau-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: We are on section 1, subsection 681, appointment of inspectors of ships' tackle. Is the subsection agreed to?
Subsection 681 agreed to.


Mr. NEILL:: Are we now on section 2?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No, we are on subsection 681.


Alan Webster Neill: We passed section 1 last night before we adjourned.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We passed the amendment to the first section.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The whole section.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We are taking it subsection by subsection. Subsection 681 of section 1 is carried. We are now on subsection 681a, "Regulations for the protection of workers against accidents while loading or unloading ships."
Subsection 681a agreed to.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Subsection 681b, "Powers of inspectors." Shall the subsection carry?
Subsection 681b agreed to.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Subsection 681c, "May order cessation of loading or unloading." Shall the subsection carry?
Subsection 681c agreed to.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Subsection 681d, "Meaning of tackle."


Alan Webster Neill: I cannot hear. Are we on section 2? I want to speak to section 2. Probably if we had some order in the chamber we could hear.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I shall call it out when
we come to it.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I understand we are discussing section (2). I admit the bill has been badly drawn, as I pointed out to the minister last night. These small, faintly printed letters in brackets are the real sections, and I say that section (2) begins at line twenty-four of the first page.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No. Section 2 is at page 5 line forty-three.


Alan Webster Neill: I beg to differ. I agreed with the minister last night that section 1 had been passed. I now suggest that section (2) appears at line twenty-four. It is improperly marked in brackets, and should appear in black numbers.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have the bill before me.


Alan Webster Neill: So have I.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I repeat that section 2 is at page 5 line forty-three.


Alan Webster Neill: No. Then, section 2 is in twice.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is section 2 of the bill.	,


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, section (2) is at page on^, line twenty-four.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No, that is subsection 681 of section 1.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not talking about subsection 681. I am talking about a paragraph beginning with the_ figure two in brackets, and it reads like this:
By repealing sections 674 and 681-
And so on.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is a subsection of section 1 which has been passed.
Canada Shipping Act


Alan Webster Neill: No, it is not a subsection of section 1; pardon me. The one to which I refer is a new section. The minister agreed with me last night. I wish to speak to the words beginning at line twenty-four of the first page.


Mr. STEVENS:: I can understand what the hon. member wants and I believe he is entitled to speak. I will admit the bill is rather involved. Section 1 is divided into a large number of subsections, part of the numbering of which is incident to the main bill-that is, the old bill. Subsection (2) at line twenty-four of the first page is really the second paragraph of section 1. The chairman is right enough, but my hon. friend is also right in claiming the right to discuss this particular part of section 1. I believe the noise in the house made it impossible for the hon. member to hear.


Alan Webster Neill: I ask the liberty of returning
to subsection (2).


Mr. MANION:: Go ahead and discuss it. Mr. DURANLEAU: Yes, go ahead.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not want to be thrown out. Wait until the chairman gives me permission.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I cannot understand what the hon member means.


Alan Webster Neill: If you will let me speak I will go on.


Robert James Manion: Go ahead.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish to speak to what is now called subsection (2)-I shall call it anything, for the sake of peace. I am referring to that part of the bill beginning at line twenty-four.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have no objection. I understood it was passed, but I have no objection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The members could not hear the reading of the sections. I could not hear distinctly, and I am sure my hon. friend could not.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Last night I called section 1 (1)-3, (a), (b) and (2). Now I have called subsections 681, 681 A, 681B, 681C and 681D. We are not proceeding regularly. We should proceed section by section, but we are taking the subsections ns they are drafted in the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: Then, Mr. Chairman I ask the opportunity to go back to subsection (2) beginning at line twenty-four.
[The Chairman.]


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The sections I am now calling are under subsection (2) of clause 1.


Robert James Manion: Go ahead until you are
stopped.


Alan Webster Neill: So far as I could hear from this point in the chamber we might have been dealing with the redistribution bill. I have no intention of delaying the house when we should be home. This subsection deals with five sections in the original bill. They cover safety regulations. It was because these details were in the bill that I voted for it, although I was well aware that the primary object of the bill as the minister said was to institute a monopoly on the great lakes, objection to which has been voiced by hon. members to my left and right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Robert James Manion: He did not say that.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) truly pointed out that while the provisions of this bill in relation to the great lakes come into effect the moment it is passed, the operation of the provisions relating to the safety regulations is postponed indefinitely. I also note with some apprehension that while there is provision for appointing inspectors there is no provision for paying them. That makes one wonder how remote the appointment of these men will be. On the second reading of the bill I did not, of course, criticize these regulations, but I criticized, and I think justly, the method in which this bill was introduced so late in the session, not being sent to a committee where it could be adequately discussed, and no chance allowed to get the views of the men concerned. The men in British Columbia do not even know that this bill has been introduced. For this the Minister of Trade and Commerce took me somewhat severely to task, in language that I think went somewhat beyond the range of parliamentary usage or the dignity that one expects from a cabinet minister-or that we used to expect from a cabinet minister. The minister, when he sat on this side of the house, built up a reputation for fair and logical debate. I must say that I think he rather lessens that reputation when he takes a position of political infallibility, that if anything he sets his signature upon is criticized from the opposite side, the wretched member must be doubly and trebly damned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, I never said that.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not think that is a
desirable attitude. I suggest to the minister that he follow the attitude of his own leader

Canada Shipping Act
who the other day said quite frankly when the opposition was putting forward some criticism,-I noted it particularly,-that the criticism put forward by the opposition had a good deal of point to it and was such as he himself would have made had he sat on the opposite side. The Minister of Finance, and also I think the Minister of Public Works, have not once, but several times stated in this house that they were quite ready to welcome criticism. The tolerant point of view, that it is just possible someone else may be sincere in holding a different view, makes for the amenities of public life and certainly facilitates the passage of legislation. Personally I absolutely decline to submit to such dictation; this house is still democratic, whatever the government may be, and I propose to maintain as well as I can the rights of the private members of parliament.
Turning to the minister in charge of this bill, the hon. Minister of Marine, I am glad to second the remark of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) last night that he always treats criticism with fairness and courtesy. These safety regulations are going to be put into effect, as we find by subsection 681A, by regulations made by the governor in council. I am sorry to see that. It is all to be done by regulation. Why is it not definitely included in the act? This is another instance of what we have seen done so often, our jurisdiction taken away and handed over to the minister, which often means not the minister but his deputy or officials, a bureaucracy which we cannot control. There are two functions of government, the legislative and the executive. We are continually handing over a little more and a little more of our legislative powers either to the cabinet or to some member or official thereof. We have had three glaring instances of that evil this present session. I will not take time to mention any but the last, that is in connection with radio. We gave the government or the radio commission power to make regulations, and I am perfectly certain, and I think every hon. gentleman must be of the same opinion, that if we had been passing those regulations in this house a lot of them would never have been passed in the language which we criticized and commented on a couple of days ago. Now we are doing the same thing here, putting power into the hands of a department to legislate. Not to carry out our decision, but we give them the power, by order in council and regulation, to legislate differently to what perhaps we would do! Why not put it in the act? Perhaps have a general clause giving a little leeway, but the main features should be in the act.
Then I notice that the regulations are to have regard to the following things, and there are one, two, three, four, five-really only four, because the last does not apply to safety-four matters on which they are going to make regulations. They are somewhat vague. As far as they go they are all right, but they do not go far enough. I want to put on record one or two other details that should engage the attention of the department in drawing up these regulations, in the hope that when they come to draw them up they will include them also, although I am a little doubtful as to their power to do so. I am quoting from a memorandum prepared by the Vancouver harbour commissioners some time in 1931. I am only going to quote a few paragraphs:
No block nor shackle shall be rigged directly over the head of a workman if it can possibly be avoided.
No man shall be required to work m holds with the hatches off whilst other work or loading or unloading is proceeding above them unless conditions are such as to preclude anything falling from an upper deck injuring those who are working below.
That is not referred to in the act, and I know a man who was killed a year ago by lack of that precaution.
All vessels loading or unloading shall have each hatch that is working tended by a competent hatch tender.
That is not in the bill.
When the vessel is either loading or unloading lumber-
And this is where I am interested.
-or any long loose material such as round pipes, steel rods, rails, etc., and only one sling is being used on each load, the sling shall be of sufficient length to permit a round turn on the load.
That is a very necessary thing.
In vessels loading a deckload of lumber, logs, piling or poles, the deck load shall be secured by hog lashings at a height of not more than six feet from the level of the deck and every four feet thereafter.
The next one has a similar bearing.
No man shall be permitted to work below walled timber, lumber-
That is piled up timber.
-logs, poles or piling unless such wall has been so secured as to preclude the wall or any part of it falling into the space in which the man is working.	_
Any vessel loading or unloading from or to booms, rafts or cribs shall supply a rowboat equipped with a lifebuoy and pike pole and have it attended by a competent person.
Canada Shipping Act

In many cases that is done voluntarily but it ought to be compulsory.
Men shall not be permitted to go into the holds of vessels after such holds have been fumigated until the holds have been certified in writing, by the officer responsible, to be clear of gas.
Those are all things that, as far as I can see, could not be covered by even the broad provisions of the bill. But they certainly should be there.
Another fault I have to find is that there has been omitted a clause often found in such bills which would go a long way to compensate for the absence of the things I have suggested. I have not got the legal language, but the lawyer members will understand what I mean. I am speaking of a clause something like this: Without restricting the generality of the above section attention is directed to the following items. That is not the technical wording, but all lawyers know that if you do not have a clause like that, the working of the act is confined entirely to the items that are mentioned, whereas if a general clause is put in it is not so restricted and it would be possible to go further with the regulations than the details mentioned in the act. That clause certainly ought to be in, and I submit to the minister that he might as well have it put in now. It is not a question of expense, it is a question of making the act more workable.
I have just one more objection. In subsection 2 of 681a penalties not exceeding $100 and not less than $50 are provided for anyone contravening any regulation made under this section. That penalty is simply ridiculous.
I took the trouble to look it up and I find that we have this year on two occasions-I have it under my hand if anyone wants to see it-imposed for a much less serious thing than where men's lives are at stake a possible penalty of $2,000 and not less than $200 and a possible gaol term as well of not less than three months. If the $2,000 is not paid the offender is liable to a further gaol term of not less than three months. What was the crime involved there? In the one case it was being in possession of liquor that had been made illegally, that is, without having a licence. If a man or some poor ignorant woman made a little home brew and did not know that a licence was required, he or she would be liable to a fine of $2,000 and to a gaol term of not less than three months. Here the lives of men are at stake, but if a life is lost through neglect to provide these safeguards, on the first offence the fine is only $50.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, many of these accidents are fatal. If a stick of timber is dropped down two holds and falls on a man he has not much chance to survive, or if a man falls backward into a hold through the lack of a proper guard, his life may be lost. Let me give another instance. Many of these ships are loaded and unloaded in a hurry; perhaps they must pay demurrage if they are not at another port in so many days. There is a rush, and sometimes these safety provisions do take a little while to rig up, and possibly they may cause a little delay in the handling of the cargo. Under such conditions it would pay the ship owner to take a chance and drive his men on in order to get through, ignoring the provisions of the act. If the ship is loaded without accident the owner is that much ahead; he has got away with it and saved expense. But if something should go wrong and a man should lose his life, for the first offence the ship owner would get off with a fine of only $50. Most ships load a couple of hatches at the same time, and in such a case the wage bill would be more than $100 an hour. It would pay a ship owner to take a chance in order to save half an hour's wages. I think we are making a burlesque of the matter when we impose the extreme fine of $100 for an offence which may cost a man his life. Surely there should be some greater severity and some heavier penalty than a fine of $50 in the first instance.
I think that is a most regrettable feature.
I intend to propose an amendment when we reach section 681d. Perhaps I should wait until we reach that section; if you say I should do so, Mr. Chairman, I will wait. Section 681d reads:
The expression "tackle," as used in the four sections immediately preceding means the tackle, machinery, gear, apparatus and appliances used on board a ship for the loading or unloading thereof.
That is not the way the section was introduced originally; the Senate changed the wording, and I should prefer to go back to the section as it was drafted by the officials of the department. I think the latter part should read:
-gear, apparatus and appliances used for the loading or unloading of ships, and includes all tackle whether on ship or on shore.
The difference, of course, is that in the one case it is confined to the tackle on the ship, and in the other case it applies to tackle on shore or on the wharf as well. This is very necessary, because vessels are often

Canada Shipping Act
loaded by an engine with a derrick, placed on the wharf or on the bank of a river. If the object is to protect the lives of the men this provision is equally necessary whether the defective crane, we will say, is on the boat itself or whether it is on the wharf or the bank of the river. It is suggested that this is beyond our jurisdiction and that, being on land, this tackle would come under provincial authority. The minister was kind enough to discuss this question with me last night, and he said there were provincial officials who were charged with such inspection. All I can say with regard to British Columbia-and I consulted with my colleague from South Vancouver-is that we never heard of any official who performed duties of that kind. There are officials appointed under the workmen's compensation board who go into the woods and supervise the machinery used there, but I do not think their jurisdiction extends to cases such as these. Further than that, the objection is surely overcome by the fact that under the old act the inspection extended to the shore. Section 674 reads:
-may inspect and examine the tackle, machinery or apparatus used for the loading or unloading thereof.
It seems to me we are going back if we limit it to the tackle on board ship when the old act, which we are trying to improve, said the inspection extended to all tackle used for loading or unloading, which would cover tackle on shore.
While I am on my feet there is just one other point I should like to impress upon the minister, also in regard to these regulations. I should like the hon. gentleman to give us some assurance-and I do not see why he should not do so-that when these regulations are formulated, and I hope he will indicate .that this will foe done in the near future, they will be published in the Canada Gazette so that everyone .may know exactly what the regulations are. If the minister would be kind enough to assure me on those two points I will wait until we come to section 691d to imove the amendment I have suggested. 1


Mr. MacINNIS:: Before the minister replies .may I say that I agree almost entirely with everything that has been said by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi in connection with Ithese amendments. Of course that does not include his reference to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his opening remarks. The need for these amendments has been so apparent to those engaged in this work that I think we should take every care to see that
they are made as precise as possible. Section 681 seems a little indefinite. It says:
The governor in council may from time to time appoint at such places in Canada as he deems advisable-
I believe this could be strengthened by .making it read:
The governor in council may and shall from time to time appoint at such places in Canada as he deems advisable-
The same change might be made in section 681a, which reads:
The governor in council may make regulations for the protection against accident of workers employed in loading or unloading ships-
I suggest that this should read:
The governor in council may and shall make regulations for the protection^ against accident of workers employed in loading or unloading ships-
I believe this change should be made because, as I said yesterday, there has been a great deal of objection on the part of stevedoring companies and shipping federations against the taking of any but the very least precautions for safety in loading and unloading ships. I have before me a letter from the shipping federation of British Columbia to the Deputy Minister of Marine, dated August 23, 1932, in which they regretted that the minister was taking steps to engage an inspector of tackle who would see that safety regulations were carried out. I am sure these objections will continue, and I think for the protection of the minister himself the act cannot be made too strong or too definite. Let me repeat that I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni with regard to these amendments.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to make just a few observations with regard to this portion of the bill. While I take no great exception to the observations of the bon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), I should like to direct the attention of the committee to the words which he complains are out of order or impose a strain on the decorum of the house, so that I might at least be in the judgment of the committee whether or not I conduct my discussions with due regard to the amenities of parliament. The words to which the hon. member referred were these -I am quoting from Hansard, page 5119, reporting the debate on the same bill:
The hon. member for _ Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) in his usual sarcastic manner-
Mr. Neill: Thank you.
Canada Shipping Act

Mr. Stevens: -referred to this part of the bill in most scathing terms. I think his remarks were entirely unjustifiable. There is nothing mysterious about the nautical or shipping terms used in the bill-


Alan Webster Neill: Read further.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, further down there
is this:
The hon. gentleman is not the only man in the house or in the world who has a fairly wide knowledge of many of these things, and I would suggest to him that he would have been serving those whose interests he frequently pretends to have at heart-


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I was interrupted
and I went on:
I say, he would have been serving much better those whose interests he has at heart had he said a word of commendation to the minister for at least the attempt to bring in these measures providing for safety appliances in the ports.
If there is anything offensive in parliamentary debate in the words I have quoted-


Alan Webster Neill: "Pretends"?


Henry Herbert Stevens: -I fancy that hon. members who take exception to discussion of that sort will have great difficulty in carrying on debate at all. I simply say this. As the hon. member who has taken his seat knows, this measure is of great interest to the men working in the hazardous calling of loading and unloading ships in various parts of Canada, and particularly I think in the great port of Vancouver. He has raised the matter here and so have I over a period of years, and as I said the other day, it was hoped that we might have done something in this regard last year. But for reasons which it is useless now to discuss the bill was not then proceeded with. Then we included the present proposals in the general revision of the aot this year; but when it was found, for purely constitutional reasons, that we could not proceed with the main act, the minister excerpted from that act these separate provisions relating to pilotage and to lake shipping, and it was considered that, these three matters being of sufficient urgency, we should bring in a separate bill this year instead of putting the whole matter off until next year.
Under these circumstances I submit that the minister ought to have been commended rather than criticized for his action. Now with regard to the observations that have just been made with reference to those measures in the bill dealing with inspection, the minister himself will discuss them from a technical point of view, but I am speaking now as one 
who for twenty years represented one of the largest ports in Canada and who therefore is deeply interested in the success of this legislation. The observations of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni indicated more clearly than I could in half an hour's argument the imperative necessity of empowering the governor in council to direct these matters by making regulations, because the hon. gentleman cited a number of more or less minor details which illustrate that there must be thousands of such. If we were to put them all in the bill, if we embodied them in the bill in detail, we should probably find ourselves limited to the terms of the bill, with the result that such contingencies as were not actually indicated in the bill would not come within the purview of the inspectors. Under the bill however, and following universal practice in this respect -the practice in other countries and the practice dictated by many of the major statutes of Canada-we have empowered the governor in council to make regulations. Let me read the section as it is here:
681a. The governor in council may make regulations for the protection against accident of_ workers employed in loading or unloading ships,-
Let us stop right there. That is very broad, and it is a general injunction imposed upon the minister and the governor in council to make regulations of a general character for the protection of those employed in the loading and unloading of ships, and I submit to the committee that this includes everything in the way of risks which might crop up unexpectedly-risks unforeseen in the loading or unloading of ships. It goes on:
-having regard in particular to the following:-
And "the following" are matters that are again fairly broad.
(a)	the strength of machinery, tackle and gear and their fitness for the purpose for which they are intended;
That embraces all apparatus used-ropes, cables, blocks and tackle, winches, booms and so forth, everything used in the loading or unloading of ships. All these are subject to the regulations to be made by the governor in council.
(b)	the provision of proper safe gangways, stagings and matters of a like character.
This provision anticipates a peculiar class of accident which I regret to say is frequent on the Pacific coast. Late at night in the dark men have on many occasions fallen off the edge of the dock or off an unprotected deck space on the ship, falling between the ship and the dock; and usually, lying be-

Canada Shipping Act
tween the ship and the dock, are a couple of large booms, probably three or four feet thick, thirty feet below the level of the dock or of the deck of the ship. Men have not uncommonly fallen down between the ship and the dock and been killed or seriously injured; frequently they are drowned. This provision is intended to take care of such accidents.
The next subsection provides:
(e) protection in the way of rails or other sufficient protection at openings through decks and around wharves and docks.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni suggested that this did not refer to the protection of hatchways. I submit that it covers that very matter. Where there is a hatchway open it usually has a combing and roping around which may be and usually is set up, and this provides that it shall be done. It is provided here that suitable protection shall be given to safeguard against risks of that kind. The next subsection reads:
(d) illumination of holds and decks of ships, and docks or wharves at which ships may be loading or unloading.
I pause for a moment to refer to an observation of the hon. member for Vancouver South. He suggested that the word "may" should be followed by an obligatory "shall." May I suggest, subject to correction by any of the legal gentlemen in the house who are probably better qualified than I am to discuss this particular point, that generally speaking, in statutes the word "may" carries with it the import of the word "shall." And the very fact that we are passing this legislation will impose upon the governor in council the duty of carrying out its terms. I do not think that the hon. member need have any doubts as to the effectiveness of the clause as it stands. When he refers to the inadequacy of the powers which the governor in council will have, may I refer to section 681C. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni will find a subsection giving still further power to the inspectors:
If any inspector of ships' tackle-
(a) is of opinion that any person employed in the loading or unloading of any ship is exposed to undue risk on account of the condition of any machinery, tackle, stagings or the like, or on account of the way in which the operation is being carried on, or-
Then it goes on with another observation, and then it states:
*-he may and shall order, orally or otherwise, addressing such order to the owner, master and other person in charge of the loading or unloading of such ship or to any of them, that the operation of loading or unloading such ship shall cease.
That places a mandatory power in the hands of the inspector to deal with the matter if he considers that any machinery, tackle or staging is not proper and safe.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni also referred to the inadequacy of the penalty, but he will notice that the item he quoted in clause 681A is of course applicable to that particular clause and a similar penalty is in the next clause, but under clause 681C where the inspector's mandatory power is provided for, we find this penalty:
If any person so ordered-
That is, so ordered to discontinue the operation.
-continues the operation of loading or unloading or allows it to be continued he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars and not less than one hundred dollars.


Alan Webster Neill: Under that clause only.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; I call my hon.
friend's attention particularly to this: this is applicable to the mandatory power which the inspector has, if he sees any machinery, tackle or the like not being properly operated, to order those in charge to cease. If he is disobeyed, then the master or the owner is liable to this fine of $500.


Alan Webster Neill: Under this one section only.


Mr. QUINN:: As well as the others.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will
permit me I will invite him to consider this point, and I will do so in very courteous terms if I might inspire in him a little confidence in me. This applies to all of the clauses because the mandatory power of this clause is provided in the two or three preceding clauses. Therefore any order given under this clause must carry the very clauses of which he was complaining and the power of fining in this clause is added to the power of fining in the other two clauses; there is no question of that. I say again, borrowing a little from his own sarcasm, if he will permit himself to be fair for a moment, he will certainly admit that.


Alan Webster Neill: I certainly shall not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I confess my hon.
friend is hopeless.
I was quite sympathetic toward the anxiety of the hon. member for Vancouver South when he referred the other evening to a possible delay in bringing these provisions into operation. In that regard he referred to clause 681F which provides:
Sections 681 to 681e, inclusive, of this act shall not come into operation until r r'ate to
Canada Shipping Act

be fixed by the governor in council and proclaimed in the Canada Gazette, and pending such proclamation sections 674 and 681 of this act, as they now exist, shall remain in force.
I want to say very frankly to the hon. member that if I thought for a moment there would be any unreasonable delay in bringing this into operation, I certainly would not support the measure as I am doing. But may I point out to him a very sound reason and, indeed, an absolute necessity for having it in that way. If we passed the bill as it is and repealed section 784 and 681, during the 'hiatus or the period of time between the actual passing of this bill, let us say, to-morrow or next Monday or Tuesday as the case may be, and the date when we are able to promulgate very complete regulations which undoubtedly will take a month or two to draft, we would be without any protection whatever, because we would have repealed section 674. The importance and significance of that will be apparent at once when I read the present section 674 in the main act. This section reads:
Every inspector may, at any time visit any ship, whether registered in Canada or elsewhere, and whether propelled wholly or in part by steam, except ships belonging to His Majesty; and although any such ship is classed in Lloyds register of British and foreign shipping, or in any other corporation or association for the survey and register of ships approved by the governor in council, may inspect and examine the tackle, machinery or apparatus used for the loading or unloading thereof, and, if he considers such tackle, machinery or apparatus defective, so as to be dangerous to life, he shall report thereon to the minister who may order that such tackle, machinery and apparatus shall not be used until permitted by the minister.
I am not for a moment arguing that this section is satisfactory, but what I am saying is that it is the existing protection we have. If we delete or repeal it and do not have in its place the regulation provided for in this new bill, then we shall be denied even that measure of protection.
Then I invite attention to section 681 of the main act which is also repealed by this bill unless the clause that is complained of is substituted therefor. Section 681 reads:
Any tackle, machinery or apparatus used in violation of any order made by the minister under the authority of this part, prohibiting the use of such tackle, machinery or apparatus until permitted by the minister, shall be liable to forfeiture and seizure by the chief officer of customs at any port, and may thereupon be sold in the same way and under like provision as goods liable to forfeiture for non-payment of customs duties; and the owner of the ship, for the loading or unloading of which such 
tackle, machinery or apparatus is used in violation of such order, shall incur a penalty of $100, and such ship shall be liable for such penalty.
Again I draw attention to the fact that just during the nexit few weeks, during the period of time while the minister, in consultation with the harbour commissioners of the various large ports, is able to draft the necessary order in council with the detailed regulations, it is desirable that these provisions should be preserved to us. I trust the hon. member will at least accept from me the assurance so far as I am concerned, as one equally interested with himself in the bill, that I certainly never had in mind any suggestion by the minister or anyone else that it was intended to postpone indefinitely the bringing in of these regulations. Furthermore, it is, I think, obvious to all who have given study to this matter, that these regulations will be very voluminous; that is, they must necessarily cover a very wide range of activities, not only the very few mentioned by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, but a very large and wide range of matters provided for, and those regulations necessarily will have to be very carefully considered by the Justice department and others in order that we may be certain that they are of a character that cannot be challenged in connection with the powers of the federal parliament. It will therefore probably take some little time to draft these regulations. I shall leave it to the minister to declare his own views, but I am speaking now as one who has been interested in this matter for a number of years and I say to the hon. member for Vancouver South that I share with him the anxiety to have these regulations promulgated at the earliest possible date, and that I do not think the interests of those who are most serioush- affected are in any sense jeopardized by this clause.
Mr. MaeINNLS:	Perhaps the Minister of
Trade and Commerce and I, although coming from the same city, are not as well acquainted as we should be, but I can assure him that whatever our differences may be in regard to other questions, when it comes to such practical matters as this, he will find me at least quite reasonable and able to see points that he may make. I would ask the minister if there is an inspector at the present time at the port of Vancouver under section 674.


Alfred Duranleau: Not actually in office but in course of appointment.

Canada Shipping Act
Mr. MacINN'IS:	That just takes away
the ground from under the feet of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If there is no inspector at the present time there is no protection, and consequently if this section should come into effect immediately on the passing of the act we would be in no worse position than we are now in. So on that score there is no valid reason why the section should not come into operation immediately on the passing of the act.
Referring to the penalties provided in section 681C, subsection 2, I would point out that penalties are also provided in section 696 which deals with the manner in which cargoes and deck cargoes may be carried on British ships registered in Canada, and the fine in this instance shall not exceed for any one offence one thousand dollars, but a term of imprisonment is also provided not exceeding three months for non-payment of the fine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In what section?


Angus MacInnis: In section 696 on page 4
of the new bill. I believe that the proper carrying out of the sections that we have been dealing with up to section 681C is just as important as the' carrying out of section 696. Defective tackle at any moment may mean and has often meant the loss of life, and consequently we should make the penalties as severe as possible.


Alan Webster Neill: I understand that the Minister of Marine is a lawyer high up in his profession. I would ask him whether in his opinion section 681A would not be greatly strengthened by the clause I suggested, not limiting the generality of the reference by the particular details mentioned. That would give the minister power to cover by regulation many of the amendments I have suggested, which after all were recommended by the Vancouver harbour commissioners.


Alfred Duranleau: There is no doubt
that when the terms are general, without any particulars, the powers of the minister may be greater, but I think that the different subsections give the minister all possible power to enact regulations. I do not see why it would be necessary to add general powers when everything is covered by the subsections.


Alan Webster Neill: My point is that 681A-B-C-D
do not cover many of the possible accidents which should be guarded against.


Alfred Duranleau: The section reads:
The governor in council may make regulations for the protection against accident _ of workers employed in loading or unloading ships, having regard in particular to the following: 53719-329
Then follow certain particulars, but the first sentence of the clause is absolutely general. We might frame the clause in the manner suggested by my hon. friend, but it would not strengthen the power of the minister at all. The governor in council may make regulations for the protection against accident of workers employed in loading ot unloading ships. That is an absolutely general power. Then there are added the words "having regard in particular to the following," but that does not limit the powers at all.


Alan Webster Neill: I suggest that it does.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think so,
and it has been so held by our courts time and again.


Alan Webster Neill: Then why do we so often
find in our acts a clause that the generality shall not be limited?


Alfred Duranleau: It has been held time and again that where there are general powers, if there are also special powers such as are given here by the words "having regard in particular to the following," that is simply a direction given, but the general power still holds good. I think there is no doubt about that.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister undertake,
when he draws up his regulations, to consider these other details that I have mentioned?


Alfred Duranleau: Of course. I am told by my officials that all the suggestions that have been read by my hon. friend are now in the office of the ministry. We shall not be limited by these subsections at all. If we find that something else should be included we have general powers to cover it.


Alan Webster Neill: Can the minister indicate
when he expects to have these regulations out, and will he publish them in the Gazette?


Alfred Duranleau: I think all these regulations must be published in the Gazette. At all events these certainly will be.


Alan Webster Neill: When?


Alfred Duranleau: As soon as they have been adopted.


Alan Webster Neill: There is an amendment to
section 681D. Mr. Chairman, which you have not yet put.


Alfred Duranleau: I was just going to
say a word on the amendment. The ground has been very well covered by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I shall add only a word or two. The very question raised by my hon. friend's amend-

Canada Shipping Act

meat was discussed at length in the Senate. The original bill included practically the same enactment, but they came to the conclusion that it was better to empower the inspection of tackle only on board ship. There may be tackle on the wharf, of course, but the moment the tackle goes on ship it can be inspected by our officials, and anything that is used from the ship to the shore, such as chains, wires and that sort of thing, can be inspected by our officials. The point was raised in the Senate whether the enactment of an amendment such as my hon. friend suggests would not be encroaching on the jurisdiction of the provinces. It was also felt that every province had a Workmen's Compensation Act in force, which provides for the inspection of machinery used by workmen. My hon. friend stated that in his province the inspectors go into the woods and inspect machinery used there. I am not familiar with the British Columbia act, but under the laws of the province of Quebec, and I presume it is the same in the other provinces, the inspectors have the power to inspect tackle or machinery in any part of the province, including wharves. The workmen employed on the wharves are fully protected by the Workmen's Compensation Act of the province. It was felt in the Senate, in view of the fact that there was a doubt as to whether or not we were encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the provinces, and owing to the fact that provincial laws protect their workmen, that it was advisable to limit the powers of inspectors to the tackle on ships
only. The words employed are "tackle	
used on board a ship."


Angus MacInnis: Does the minister hold that he is correct in stating the case that way? How can we then, as provided in subsection (c) of section 681a make regulations for .the "protection in the way of rails or other sufficient protection at openings through decks and around wharves and docks." Is that not on shore, just as much as the tackle which would be on the wharf for the loading of a ship?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The wording is "openings through decks."


Alfred Duranleau: And "around wharves and docks."


Angus MacInnis: Then subsection (d) of 681a is as follows:
Illumination of holds and decks of ships, and docks or wharves at which ships may be loading or unloading.
If we can make regulations for wharves, surely such regulations could apply to the 
tackle with which ships were being loaded. Surely it would apply to that tackle as much as to the tackle on the ship. We cannot exclude it in one instance and include it in the other.


Alfred Duranleau: There may be some doubt as to what is mentioned by my hon. friend. I do not admit this parliament cannot grant a power of inspection of tackles used on the dock for loading or unloading ships. When I say the Senate thought it better not to give power to the inspector to inspect tackles on the wharf, I must add that the leader of the Senate stated that there was no admission that we did not have that power. He did not believe it was necessary, however, on account of the fact that the workmen on the wharf were protected by provincial laws. There may be something in the point just made by the hon. member; but I do not think it matters very much.


Alan Webster Neill: I am glad to hear the minister state that at least there is a substantial doubt. There are two phases before us, namely the bill itself which limits it ,to the tackle actually on the boat, and the amendment which seeks to put it back to where it was before action was taken by the Senate, namely to have it apply both on ship or ashore. Suppose we go back to the language used in the original act, in the Revised Statutes of Canada, and leave the doubt- which the minister admits is a doubt-open. We may then have some advantage from the enforcement of the law. I suggest we go back to the language of the original section, number 674, which contains the words "used for the loading or unloading thereof." Just use the words "used for the loading or unloading" of ships. Do not say where the tackle is. The minister admits there is a doubt. We will not raise it, and other people will not raise it. Further, this language has the advantage of being in the law ito-day.


Alfred Duranleau: When the hon. member reads section 674 he will find in the first line the words "every inspector may, at any time visit any ship." Therefore it seems to me that the inspection is limited to the ship.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, but he inspects the tackle used for "the loading or unloading thereof." The tackle may be in the next county, so far as this section is concerned.


Alfred Duranleau: The section itself may not be clear. But it provides first for his visit to the ship, and it is on such ship he must carry on his inspection. The language

Canada Shipping Act .
of the section would imply that his inspection would be limited to tackle or other apparatus on the ship.


Alan Webster Neill: Not necessarily. That is only implied.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I should like to appeal to the hon. members who are opposing this amendment to keep in mind the history of this whole negotiation. During the year 1931 and up until last year we pressed the department for a measure of this kind. It will be recalled that the board of harbour commissioners of Vancouver drafted regulations, part of which were quoted today. Upon arriving in Ottawa, their constitutionality was investigated by the Department of Justice. They sought to find out whether it was within the jurisdiction of parliament -the harbour commissioners being a creature of parliament-to approve of or pass such regulations. The Department of Justice found that they did not have jurisdiction. That finding covers all the provisions included in the harbour commissioners' by-laws. I have before me the opinion of the Department of Justice in that respect, and also communications from the department saying that this matter was very carefully considered. I suggest to the hon. members that if they insist upon injecting into this bill the words contained in their amendment chances are that when we come to apply the provisions of the bill we may be attacked by a stevedoring company or a ship which might be libelled. And on a narrow technicality of that kind the whole value of our efforts would be destroyed. We do know of a certainty that this parliament has jurisdiction to deal with the ship. We also know fairly well that we have not jurisdiction to deal with matters ashore. At least such jurisdiction is in question. I appeal to hon. members not to press their amendment unless we are perfectly certain that it is constitutionally intra vires of this parliament, but rather that they should let that section pass as it is. I submit that this is very broad and very general, and while the inspector will have to be a little careful, and enforce his orders only where his jurisdiction extends, to my mind it will be a tremendous mistake to inject the suggested language into the bill, only to find out later that we have destroyed the whole effort we are now making.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has said that the Department of Justice decided along the lines set out in the bill. I point out that the original bill as presented to the Senate-not the big bill, but this one under our hand- did contain a provision about tackle on shore, 53719-329J
and the Senate changed it. If the Department of Justice looked into the matter and decided that it was all right to have that provision in the bill-as presumably they did, as the minister said they did-why did the Senate take it out?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was referring to the bylaw of the harbour commissioners. I cited that as an illustration of the narrowness of the powers or the ground on which these powers are exercised. I would certainly deplore the introduction into the bill of anything that would jeopardize its passage as it stands.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to draw
the attention of the committee to a slight amendment to the section which, if put into effect, would not ibe as noticeable as the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Instead of adopting his, amendment I suggest that we delete the-words "on board a ship" appearing after the word "used" in the twelfth line. That would not restrict the meaning or interpretation of" the term "tackle," and would not be so likely to be questioned as it might be if the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni were used, which would draw attention immediately to the term "on shore." I believe that would be the best way to pass this section. I submit that to the minister and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for their serious consideration,


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will
notice that the word "thereof" at the end would not fit.


Alan Webster Neill: It would need to be changed to "of a ship." I would withdraw my amendment cheerfully. As I suggested a moment ago, that would leave the thing undecided, the doubt unsolved.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, Mr. Chairman,
I see no objection to deleting those words "on board a ship," and the word "thereof" at the end, and substituting for the latter word the words "of a ship." It would then read as follows:
The expression "tackle," as used in the four sections immediately preceding means the tackle, machinery, gear, apparatus and appliances used for the loading or unloading of a ship.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, as the
minister cannot move an amendment to his own bill I take the liberty of moving:
That on page 3 of the bill, line 12, the words "on board a ship" be deleted, and that the word "thereof" at the end of the next line be deleted and in lieu thereof there be added at the end of the section, following the word "unloading," the words "of a ship."

Canada Shipping Act


Alan Webster Neill: I ask leave to withdraw my
amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Subsection 681D as amended agreed to.
On subsection E-Marking of heavy packages or objects.
Felix Patrick Quinn: If the minister will look at
681B, subclause (a) gives power to the inspector of ship's tackle in the exercise of his duties to:
... go at all reasonable times on board any ship or on any port or dock at which any ship is, for the purpose of loading or unloading, . . .
Now, large ocean liners or cargo steamers have their gangways or stagings rigged from the ship direct into the sheds. Their freight in the majority of cases does not touch the wharf or dock at all, and the operations of stevedoring, loading and unloading, are superintended largely from the sheds. I submit that the inspector should be empowered to go into the shed or warehouse where these operations are being carried on. I submit that that subclause would read better as follows:
... go at all reasonable times on board any ship or on any wharf or dock or in any warehouse or shed alongside *which any ship is lying for the purpose of loading or unloading.
I move that amendment.


Alfred Duranleau: Of course we are all anxious to have this legislation as complete as possible, but I am asking myself if the word dock does not include warehouses and sheds. The sheds and warehouses are on the dock.


Felix Patrick Quinn: If the. minister will interpret wharf or dock as covering warehouses or sheds the amendment is not necessary. The amendment makes it more explicit and definite.


Angus MacInnis: I have no objection to this amendment except that I believe it is open to the same objection as the amendment offered by the hon. member for Comox-ALberni to subsection 681D. It draws attention particularly to the warehouse or shed, [DOT]which I think is rather undesirable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Personally I think the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) would be well advised not to press this. I think he is running the risk of injecting into this bill terms which may on a narrow interpretation of jurisdiction destroy the bill. It will be noted that the draftsmen have been rather careful in drafting this bill to provide that the IMr. Stevens.]
inspector may go at all reasonable times on any wharf or dock at which any ship is for the purpose of loading or unloading. That gives him access over the dock to the ship, which of course is absolutely essential and is well within the power of parliament. But when you enlarge that by stating that the inspectors shall go into warehouses and so on I think you give possible ground for dispute. I know this has been very narrowly interpreted, I would deplore injecting into it anything which might jeopardize the validity of the whole section.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon):: Do I understand that the hon. member withdraws his amendment?
Mr. Q'UINlN: If the minister gives me that assurance, that warehouse and shed is covered by the term wharf or dock I am satisfied and will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Alan Webster Neill: I call the minister's attention to subsection 681 :
The governor in council may from time to time appoint at such places in Canada as he deems advisable-
I would direct the minister's attention to the need for appointing an inspector at Port Alberni, which is now the third biggest lumber shipping point in British Columbia and employs sometimes as many as three hundred stevedores.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to refer the word ''third" to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid).


Alan Webster Neill: Third is right. We are ahead of Victoria, and we come a very good second to New Westminster and will very speedily pass it.


Onésime Gagnon: May I remind the committee that we are now discussing subsection 681E.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On paragraph 681F-Proclamation of date.
Angus MacInnis: I listened very attentively to the explanation given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with this section, but after pointing out that there were no inspectors at the present time under section 674 I do not see that we would be any the worse off if we did not have this section at all.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsection 606 agreed to.
Subsection 897a agreed to.

Canada Shipping Act
On subsection 932-British ships.
Mr. REID:: Before dealing with this section I should like to say that I differ with many hon. members on this side of the house; I am absolutely in support of this bill, particularly with regard to the section relating to safety appliances. In regard to the section, now before the committee however, I should like to direct a question to the minister. I know that under the British commonwealth merchant shipping agreement the registry of British ships is defined, and I should like to ask him why we have not followed the example set by Australia and New Zealand in this connection and defined the registry of British ships in Canada as it is defined in that agreement, which I might say was signed by Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland. Under that agreement it is almost imperative that the persons owning or registering such ships shall be British subjects.


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose my hon.
friend has read section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, which says:
A ship shall not be deemed to be a British ship unless owned wholly by persons of the following description (in this act referred to as persons qualified to be owners of British ships); namely,-
(a)	Natural born British subjects;
(b)	Persons naturalized by or in pursuance of an act of parliament of the United Kingdom, or by or in pursuance of an act or ordinance of the proper legislative authority in a British possession;
(c)	Persons made denizens by letters of denization; and
(d)	Bodies corporate established under and subject to the laws of some part of Her Majesty's dominions, and having their principal place of business in those dominions:
Provided that any person who either-
(i)	being a natural born British subject has taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign sovereign or state or has otherwise become a citizen or subject of a foreign state; or
(ii)	has been naturalized or made a denizen as aforesaid;
shall not be qualified to be owner of a British ship unless, after taking the said oath, or becoming a citizen or subject of a foreign state, or on or after being naturalized or made denizen as aforesaid, he has taken the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, and is during the time he is owner of the ship either resident in Her Majesty's dominions, or partner in a firm actually carrying on business in Her Majesty's dominions.
As we see, Great Britain has deliberately abstained from defining British ships by statute, and in the past Canada has done so by section 932 of the Canada Shipping Act. The present draft eliminates the word "means" from the definition and adds at the end the words "and are by the law of England" and so forth. So we follow the same practice that is followed in England at the present time. By the marine laws of England it is the place of control in fact of a ship owned by a corporation, and not the place of residence or the nationality of the owners of the shares of the corporation, or even the place of registration of such a ship, that settles the nationality of the vessel.


Thomas Reid: There is another point to
which I should like to direct the attention of the minister, and perhaps it might be discussed at this time because it is of great importance to many seamen on the Pacific coast. Under the commonwealth merchant shipping agreement provision is made with regard to the certificates of officers. Article 17 reads as follows:
Subject to any special provisions that may be made by any part of the commonwealth as to the qualifications to be required of officers on ships engaged in its coasting trade,-
The next words are those to which I wish to refer.
-a valid certificate of competency or service granted by one part of the commonwealth will be recognized throughout the British commonwealth as indicating that the holder is duly qualified accordingly when serving on board any ship registered in that part.
I take that to mean that in the case of a ship of British registry coming to Vancouver or New Westminster and having a crew engaged in the old country, who had English certificates, that crew would be considered competent to be on board. Take it the other way around, however, with a British ship leaving Vancouver or New Westminster and going to the old country. We find that officers or seamen applying for berths are not considered if they have certificates of discharge issued in Canada, and I understand that this is being done on instructions from Great Britain. I have had several affidavits sent me in that connection. I am not going to take time to read them all, but I have one in particular which explains the whole situation. This affidavit was sworn to by a ship's carpenter named Harrison, who says:
3.	That during the summer of 1932, I applied to the assistant shipping master of the city of Vancouver, namely Mr. Menzies, for a berth as ship's carpenter or able seaman or by any other capacity upon ansr British ship that might be returning to the old country and I was then and there informed by the said deputy shipping master that it would be impossible for me to obtain such employment as all captains of English vessels had been circularized to the fact that they were not to engage any Canadian citizens or English or British subjects who had been domiciled outside of England for a period
Canada Shipping Act

of over two years and that as X had been in Canada three years at that time, it would be impossible to obtain such employment.
4.	That I have returned to the shipping master's office to obtain employment on numerous occasions and have always met with the same answer.
5.	That on Monday the 13th day of March, A.D. 1933, I attended the shipping master in the city of Vancouver, with one, Paul Bailey, who was applying for berth as fireman on board the steamship Juanita, and I heard the assistant shipping master, Mr. Menzies, advise the said Paul Bailey that he could not obtain a berth as fireman unless he had an English board of trade certificate of discharge and that his Canadian certificate of discharge was useless.
6.	That I verily believe that amendments should be made to the Canada Shipping Act for the protection of holders of Canadian certificates of discharge and for the protection of holders of English board of trade certificates of discharge who were domiciled in Canada.
I have three affidavits, one from the carpenter, a man named Harrison, another from Paul Bailey, the fireman, and a third from Cornelius Jan Lieuwen, mate, and they all swear that they have been turned down when they have applied for berths on British ships going to the old country. Under the Canada Shipping Act we recognize in this country discharge certificates from any part of the British commonwealth, and I submit that the matter should be very carefully considered. I think we should have an explanation as to why our Canadian citizens who apply for positions on British ships, and who have their discharge certificates from Canada, should be treated in .the way these men have been treated in Vancouver recently.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It happens that I received the same affidavits to which the hon. gentleman has referred. They were prepared by the Seamen's Union. The complaint is of course a very natural one. Here are quite a large number of seamen, some of them ablebodied seamen, others officers, mates and so on. They find themselves out of work and are naturally anxious to be employed, and the complaint is that frequently they apply to the captain of a British ship, or rather, to put it properly, they apply to the shipping master's office for berths on British ships in the harbour of Vancouver, and the master of the British ship declines to take them.
We have not all the facts before us. A statement is made by these men who feel they have a grievance. Now, in this instance, immediately I received these affidavits, I turned them over to the officers of the Department of Marine, through my colleague the Minister of Marine, and I can assure the 
committee that they are now being carefully looked into. We feel that these men are entitled to have the whole matter fully surveyed, and at the moment we can make no statement. The minister and his officers have been in touch with the situation but there is no answer definitely because the facts have not all been ascertained.
May I hazard one or two observations, not for the purpose of justifying the attitude of the ship's captain but rather that we may have before us at least part of the argument to be advanced on the other side. A British ship comes to the harbour of Vancouver with a British crew, or at any rate a crew taken on at a British port, and as the result of desertion, or possibly discharge or sickness, they may be short a few men. Usually the crew is signed on for the round trip, wherever they may be going-sometimes around the world, sometimes from Liverpool to Vancouver and return, whatever the cruise may be. Frequently on arriving at Vancouver the ship will be short three or four men. The master of a British ship in such a situation will go to the shipping master and ask for a sufficient number of men to complete his crew. The affidavit asserts that these captains have been instructed not to employ Canadian sailors. I submit that that statement in that form looks prejudicial to Canadian interests, but I apprehend that this is the more correct way to put it. Inasmuch as there are a very large number of British born seamen who are themselves unemployed in these days, the owners of the vessels in Great Britain desire that their captains in signing on men in any port away from home-a port in one of the dominions, for instance-should give the preference to British sailors entitled to return to Great Britain, thus finishing a cruise which had been broken in some way. I presume therefore, speaking again without absolute knowledge, that the instructions are not to bring back any man who will not be completing a voyage and who, on his arrival in Liverpool, may be subject to discharge, simply adding to the ranks of the unemployed there. They prefer therefore to bring back if possible British seamen who are competent, shall I say, to finish the voyage in Liverpool in the ordinary course of events.
I am quite certain that neither the British government nor the British board of trade, under which these regulations very largely come, has ever at any time given instructions that Canadian or Australian seamen, or seamen from any of [DOT] the other dominions shall be treated prejudicially or in any unfair way.

Canada Shipping Act
There is no doubt in my mind on that score.
I sympathize of course with men who wish to get work and are unable to, but I think it is desirable that we should keep before us some at least of the elements which enter into and complicate the situation for the captain and others concerned. However, the department has the matter in hand and is making inquiries, because I transmitted to the department the affidavits which I received. We expect to have all the facts before us in the course of a few days. Whether they will come to hand in time to deal with the matter here I do not know, but hon. gentlemen can rest assured that the Minister of Marine and I myself will follow it up until we secure a fully satisfactory explanation of all the circumstances.


Alan Webster Neill: It is quite natural that the
British government should look after British sailors, but there is one point which I think should not be lost sight of. Reference was made a few weeks ago to the case of a man named Bailey, the circumstances being similar to those now under discussion, although there was this additional factor: he was trying to get a job on a boat subsidized by Canada. Now, if Britain can look after her sailors it is the duty of this country to see to it that if we subsidize vessels they shall engage Canadian sailors.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In that instance the vessel was chartered for a special trip because there was an excess of lumber offering over and above what the two ships owned by the company could carry. As Minister of Trade and Commerce I was faced with this situation. I could have refused to permit the company to charter that ship, but that would have meant that four million feet of lumber would have remained unshipped for a month and the British Columbia workers in the mills and in the woods would have been deprived of a month's work. I felt therefore that it was desirable to permit the company to charter the ship and earn the subsidy in that way- because it was a voyage subsidy. They did so, and I may say to the committee that in a period of about six or seven months there has been moved by this company under the subsidy system something like fifty million feet of lumber of the secondary grades, lifting it off our markets in British Columbia. There is not a lumber exporter, not a lumber mill nor the lumber association itself that will not speak in the highest terms of the efforts made to move that lumber.
As regards this particular man to whom reference is made, the vessel was British and
the captain found himself short a man in the port. He had brought out a cargo to Vancouver and was on his way across the Pacific. His ship had been chartered for the outward trip and he would therefore proceed to Liverpool or some other port for which he was headed. It would have been unfortunate for that Canadian seaman to find himself out of a job in Shanghai or in some other part of the world, because we could not have followed him.


Alan Webster Neill: Was it not a round trip?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. These subsidies are for the outward trip only, and in the case of a chartered ship, they take a cargo at Vancouver and go on to Shanghai, which is always a good kieking-off place. They take on a cargo of soya beans there and go through the Indian ocean and the. Mediterranean around to Great Britain, the other way altogether; or they might take a cargo to some other place, but it is an outward bound subsidy.
Subsection 932 agreed to.
On subsection 935-British ships only may engage in coasting trade.


Mr. YOUNG:: When this bill was under discussion the other day the minister made a statement to which I would like to refer.
I was speaking in regard to grain being consigned from the head of the lakes to Buffalo and the Minister of Railways said that much of it was consigned right through to Great Britain, while the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that most of it was consigned through. Will the minister say how much of the grain is consigned right through?


Robert James Manion: I did not say that much was consigned through; I said it could be consigned through.


Edward James Young: My hon. friend's words were "Often it is."


Robert James Manion: I do not know I said those words, but it does not make any difference.


Edward James Young: The Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
Most of it is consigned through.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the hon. member say from what page of Hansard he is quoting?


Edward James Young: Page 5141 of Hansard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will just examine that language a little-I notice it is always better to check these things up- he will find that we were discussing the hypothetical question of the consignment of grain
Canada Shipping Act

through United States ports to Great Britain and its competence to earn the preference on entry into the British -market. The hon. gentleman himself goes on to say:
Mr. Young: But I say that it is not consigned clear through. The shipper has to keep his grain moving; he does not know when he loads it on to the boat at the head of the lakes, where it is going. When it is consigned to Buffalo, it is not consigned clear through.
Mr. Manion: Often it is.
Mr. Young: He wants to be able, when he ships it to Buffalo, to consign it wherever he can make a sale.
Then I said:
Most of it is consigned through.
My point is this: I really think it is almost senseless for us to have to repeat these discussions on these clauses, but I shall do so in spite of the fact that we are in the dying days of the session and everybody wants to get away. This movement of grain to Buffalo is of two general distinct characters. One is during the open season of navigation when grain moves freely from the head of the lakes to the seaboard by Canadian and United States ports. It will move to Buffalo and naturally be moved as rapidly as possible through to New York, Boston, Providence, Portland, Baltimore, Philadelphia and other ports where it can find the cheapest and best shipping to carry it to the markets of the world. The consequence is that during that period the tendency is to push the grain through. But when we come down toward the end of navigation, the holders of wheat will very frequently, in fact every year, store up as much as they can in Buffalo and hold it there because, as I said the other day, it is a good kicking-off place. The tendency is to do that, but that is for what we call winter storage. In addition to putting the grain into elevators, it is a common practice to rent storage in as -many vessels as they can and tie those vessels up to docks contiguous to an elevator spout to be loaded in the winter or spring as the case may be. Those vessels are frozen in and remain there as winter storage. Precisely the same thing applies to Port Col-borne, Port McNicoll, Midland, Goderich and other bay ports.
What we were discussing the other day was this principle: Is it possible or competent for a shipper of Canadian grain through Buffalo to Great Britain to earn the preference? I have stated over and over again: Yes, it is, provided he observes the terms of regulation No. 12 of the British Imports Act. Regulation No. 12 in brief is this, that not merely wheat, but goods of any kind, of course including wheat, shipped from a British territory or a fMr. Stevens.]
British dominion through a foreign country must, in order to earn the preference in Great Britain, be consigned through on a through bill of lading. Then it says further, that in the absence of a through bill of lading, it must have such invoices and other documents as may be certified by the customs authority in the foreign country to show that the goods were shipped through in a direct route from the point of shipment in a British territory to Great Britain. Any wheat or any other commodity that is handled in that fashion will earn the preference.
Let us pause for a moment and study, shall I say, the soundness or sanity of that. Obviously, neither Great Britain nor Canada nor any other country desires to place upon its statute books a preference and then make that preference open for goods that may lie in a foreign country for weeks, months or even years. There must be some control over the goods and so this provision that I have mentioned has been made.
When the wheat shipments were made last winter, this is what happened: Wheat had been moved from Port Arthur to Buffalo and put into storage. But when it was Shipped, as is the case with nearly all wheat that is shipped to Buffalo or Montreal, it was entered on the bill of lading as being for export to the United Kingdom. Why do they do that? It is done constantly and daily because that is the most favourable market in the world. But very much of that grain after it leaves Montreal or Halifax or Saint John or United States seaboard ports is redirected while at sea and may go to Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg or any other European or other foreign port; it may go down to the Mediterranean. This is a matter of daily occurrence, and one of the great problems confronting the Bureau of Statistics here and the statistical authorities in Great Britain has been for years to reconcile precisely the imports entered under customs authority in Great Britain and the recorded exports from Canada to the United Kingdom. There is always a variation. We have now got it down to a point where we can estimate that degree of variation; we can make an estimate, but it is only an estimate, because what we call the export entry will be for Great Britain, but the ship may be diverted at sea. In the case I have already cited, the wheat was put into storage at Buffalo and I think it remained there for nearly three months. Then what in the British order is forbidden, was done; the wheat was reconsigned to Great Britain. The documentation of it was broken at Buffalo and because the continuity of the movement so far as

Canada Shipping Act
documentation is concerned was broken at Buffalo, the wheat was refused the right of the preference in Great Britain. To emphasize this, may I point out that only yesterday hon. members opposite, in discussing this matter, spent a good deal of time in stressing that you could not ensure the identity of the grain. They pointed out in connection with this very clause that we have under consideration-I think the hon. member for Willow Bunch did so-that when wheat goes into the elevator at Buffalo, let us say from a Canadian ship and, in order to earn that right of coastwise preference under this clause, has to be moved out in a Canadian ship, it is impossible when loading that wheat out of Buffalo for Montreal to determine that it is Canadian wheat. That was the point that was made and emphasized. I am prepared to meet that argument and discuss it, but not at the moment.
What I wish to point out is that it naturally impresses the import authorities in Great Britain as decidedly unfair to ask them to accept as Canadian wheat, wheat which has actually been consigned to Buffalo and has remained there, and is then reconsigned to Great Britain. In other words, there is no continuity of documentation that proves it was Canadian wheat. On the other hand, as my colleague the Minister of Railways and I stated the other day, where the grain is moved on a through bill of lading, as is frequently and almost constantly done, to New York, Baltimore or some other American port, it is entitled to earn the preference when it is so moved. I think I have spent more time than I should have in emphasizing that point.


Edward James Young: The minister regrets that he had to make a speech of some length in reply to my question. I simply asked for some figures. I do not know why he made that speech unless to make me forget what I wanted to ask him.


Robert James Manion: He has done well if he has done that.


Edward James Young: The point I want to make is this: When the minister said yesterday that most of the grain going from the head of the lakes to Great Britain is consigned right through from the head of the lakes, he must either have known or not known the facts. If he knew the facts will he give the figures? That is important for this reason. If that grain leaving the head of the lakes is consigned right through to its ultimate destination and the shipper knows where he can get a ship to carry it, he can route it over whatever route he likes from the head of the lakes to the seaboard. But if he does not know
where it is ultimately going to be sold, he has to be very careful what boat he ships it in to Buffalo, for if he ships it in an American bottom he loses the choice of routes when the grain gets to Buffalo. When the grain arrives at Buffalo he might have the chance to sell the grain where it would be to his advantage to ship the grain out through the St. Lawrence route, and he would have to refuse that sale because he could not ship through the St. Lawrence route once the grain had been carried in an American bottom to Buffalo. That being the case, the shipper of grain moving from the head of the lakes to the seaboard, the object of the shipper always being to get it as close to the seaboard as he can and always reserving the choice of routes, will not ship the grain in an American boat to Buffalo because then if he has the chance to sell the grain where it would be to his advantage to ship it through the St. Lawrence,, he is precluded from doing so; he cannot make that sale. He will therefore confine his shipments to Canadian boats. Already Canadian ships have a monopoly of the Canadian grain trade between Canadian ports, and this will give them a monopoly of the Canadian grain trade from Canadian ports to American ports.


Robert James Manion: What is there to prevent
him from sending the grain out from Buffalo to Great Britain and then changing its destination en route? He has a cargo of grain, and if he ships it to Great Britain he can get the benefit of the preference. The preliminary statements made by my hon. friend are correct. The shipper sends the grain in an American ship to Buffalo, if he chooses that way, and consigns it on through. He can hold it in Buffalo indefinitely until he wishes to consign it through. Then it goes out of Portland or Boston to Great Britain, and there is nothing to stop the shipper, once the grain is on the ocean, from changing its destination to Antwerp or Rotterdam or Marseilles.	1


Edward James Young: There is this: When he
gets the grain to Buffalo he might find it to his advantage to ship it to Montreal.


Robert James Manion: He cannot ship it back
to Montreal if it came to Buffalo in an American ship, and my hon. friend was not arguing that. He was arguing that the shipper could not get the preference, and I am asking why.


Edward James Young: He is denied the choice of
routes.


Robert James Manion: If he ships it to Buffalo in an American ship; no one questions that.
Canada Shipping Act


Edward James Young: That being the case, he will not ship it to Buffalo in an American ship, but in a Canadian ship.


Robert James Manion: What is there to prevent
him from shipping it on an American ship and then doing as I suggested?


Edward James Young: If he ships it on an American boat to Buffalo, he might find it to his advantage to ship the grain from Buffalo to Montreal and he would be denied that privilege.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I point out that the narrow, technical point my hon. friend makes is correct, but in the main his argument is not very sound because if the grain is shipped from Port Arthur in an American Ship it is then competent for the shipper to ship it to any market in the world, by the Erie canal, by Boston, Portland, New York, Baltimore or Philadelphia and I believe other ports. In other words, he has all these American ports that he can ship by. On the other hand, if a shipper wants to take his wheat to Buffalo and then move it on to Montreal, as is frequently the case, all he has to do is to ship it in a Canadian vessel to Buffalo. My hon. friend's point, if it has any point, is that this is creating a monopoly for Canadian shipping, and the second point is that there is a combine of Canadian shipping. Those are the two points emphasized, and we might as well combat them now.
As a matter of fact, this does not create a monopoly. It may give a partial preference to Canadian vessels for the movement of grain from the head of the lakes to the seaboard provided the shipper wants to pass his grain through Buffalo and then through Canadian routes. But what are the routes open? You can move the grain from the head of the lakes in large lake vessels, to Port McNicoll, Port Colborne, Midland, Goderich and one or two other ports, and from one of these points you can ship it in a smaller boat by canal down the St. Lawrence to Montreal, or you can ship it from any of those ports by rail to Montreal, and the rail rate usually synchronizes with the lake rate on the fall trip. He has the choice of all these routes. He can also ship the grain by a Canadian ship to Buffalo and by another Canadian ship to Montreal, or from Buffalo in an American ship to an American port, or in a Canadian Ship to Buffalo and then out through an American port. Surely he has enough choice of routes. We are narrowing that only very slightly, in this respect: We say that we do not wish to extend the coastwise privilege to foreign ships in our waters, and that if the shipper [Mr. Manion.J
wants to choose one of these dozen routes by Buffalo to Montreal he must use a Canadian ship. That is all we say.
Many hon. gentlemen opposite have said that we are giving this trade into the hands of a monopoly. What are the facts? There are forty steamship lines plying on the great lakes, on the lower lakes and on the upper lakes. Dn the upper lakes you have vessels of a large capacity, carrying from 250,000 to 550,000 bushels of grain. Most of the boats plying below Niagara are smaller boats of 80,000 to 90,000 and 100,000 bushels capacity. Forty steamship companies operate in those waters. How many of them belong to what is known as the association? Out of forty companies eighteen belong to the association. I will admit that the large company, the Canada Steamships, is one of that group. But there is competition even among the steamships in the association. Then outside the association there are twenty-two steamship companies operating on the great lakes. So I submit to the hon. gentleman in all fairness that there is no sound reason to assert that there is a combine of shipping on the great lakes.
I pointed out the other day what the rates are at the present time. The rate to Montreal, to Three Rivers and Quebec is six cents a bushel. The maximum rate fixed was six and a half cents, but for the last eleven years, from 1921 until 1932, the rate has averaged yearly from eight cents to ten cents per bushel. No one has complained bitterly about it.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Has the minister noticed the press dispatch of this morning stating that it was cut to four cents yesterday?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In Montreal?


Alfred Speakman: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had not noticed it, but I am glad the hon. member has spoken because as a matter of fact I had intended referring to that matter a moment ago when I was discussing the question of the number of steamship companies operating. I should have concluded my remarks in that connection, and shall do so now. I have gone into this matter with great care. To me it has not been a trivial matter; I have spent hours and hours upon it, and my officers and the board of grain commissioners are constantly in touch with it. I have been assured over and over again that not only is there no monopoly, but there is the most bitter kind of competition. I wished to observe when I stated the fact that the rate was only six cents, instead of six and a half cents, that

Canada Shipping Act
that was evidence of competition. I have already stated that there is competition within the association itself. But as to the twenty-two steamship companies outside of the association I had intended to say that there was every possibility-I am informed that there was-of keen competition and cutting *of rates. The hon. member has just told me that the rate to-day is announced as four [DOT]cents a bushel. It is news to me, and I thank the hon. member for it. I wish to assure hon. members opposite that in this legislation they will find all the elements of sound competition.
Another point we must keep in mind is this, that during the years to which I referred the other night, when we opened the Canadian coastal trade to American vessels-that was, mark you, for the movement of grain from Port Arthur to our own bay ports, as they are called-during those years that power was exercised because of a paucity of vessels capable of carrying cargo in Canadian waters. But that very paucity of vessels incited the forty companies to which I have referred to purchase ships; as a result they purchased some in the United States and some in Great Britain. Some of them, particularly the larger "vessels, were built on the great lakes. Some of them are old Canadian National ships turned into lake carriers. Although I have not the exact number, the figures are set forth in detail in the Senate report. There are literally scores of vessels. I find that there are fifty-two on the upper lakes and many more than that on the lower lakes.


Robert James Manion: With a capacity of nearly fourteen million bushels.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They had a carrying
*capacity at one time of fourteen million bushels. That shows the extent to which our *lake shipping has developed. Certainly at the present time there is no need to open Canadian coastal trade to foreign vessels. But I do point out to the house that it has been [DOT]the practice in the past to do that. It has *been our practice to do it and, as I said, to do it over night-it requires no length of time.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: How often is that done?-the opening up to which the minister has referred.


Henry Herbert Stevens: By order in council.


Charles A. Stewart: It is done for storage purposes in the fall?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not necessarily. I
know what the hon. member is referring to. JHe is quite right in saying it has been common practice to open up at the end of the season for storage purposes. If I am called upon to do so I shall again cite the figures I gave the other night.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not a>t all interested in that. I know perfectly well that almost every year we are forced to open up in the fall for storage purposes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And for carrying.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister is stretching a point there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I am not. I can
cite the figures, if I can lay my hands upon them.


Robert James Manion: When my -hon. friend's
government was in power they asked them to do it.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In 1924 hon. members
opposite went to Chicago and invited vessels to come up.


Charles A. Stewart: On several
occasions I went through the process of ascertaining whether or not storage space was available in the fall. Large quantities of grain were stored in American bottoms and carried to Canadian ports. No one denies that. The minister is stating it was open for traffic.


Robert James Manion: So it was.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not anticipate that this point would be challenged again, and I find that I have not the figures before me. The other day I gave them for a period of years. I believe I can place my hands upon them. They showed distinctly that what I am stating is true. Hon. members opposite will notice that in some years only a few American boats came to Canadian ports. The figures I gave in my remarks the other evening will indicate the years when the boats were used for storage purposes only.


Charles A. Stewart: That is not an answer to my question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall give the hon.
member an answer, and I am certain he will agree with it. In 1922 only 383,148 bushels were sent in American boats to Canadian ports. No doubt that was some vessel tied up at Goderich, or at some other point. In
1923	there were 1,220,900-storage again. In
1924	there were 4241,535 and in 1925, 113,810. In 1926 there were about 5,000,000 bushels, and in 1927 over 7,000,000 bushels. I am cer-
Canada Shipping Act

tain they were not American ships in storage because that would mean at least twenty of their larger ships. But in 1928 we have nearly 20,000,000 bushels. That was not storage, but represented a very substantial traffic.


Mr. VALLANCE:: May I ask a question? How many boats stored wheat in the port of Montreal during the winter of 1928? I say there were seventy-five. I visited the port to see that very thing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Seventy-five boats would
carry aibout 7,000,000 bushels, but the figures for that year show 19,000,000 bushels. I submit it is well known that they were admitted occasionally for carrying purposes when required.


Charles A. Stewart: I think so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Since those years there
has been an accretion to the Canadian fleet, and there is no need for it. But if need arises we have power under section 938 of the law.


Charles A. Stewart: The same
power which existed previously.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And we have powers under the coastal laws, so that there is ample protection in the law as it stands for all interests which may be affected. The point I am endeavouring to emphasize to the committee is that the facts do not bear out certain allegations made by hon. members opposite. The facts do not dhow that there is a monopoly of shipping on the lakes which will be used to the detriment of the producers at the head of the lakes. No evidence has yet been produced to support that contention; in fact there is abundant evidence to the contrary.
In the second place, the question of rates has been challenged. The rate to-day is four cents, whereas for a period of ten or eleven years it ranged from eight cents to ten cents.
I am not making any suggestions in this connection, but I am merely stating what has occurred. I say therefore that there is no reason to be alarmed in regard to rates. Then, we have the Inland Water Freight Rates Act by which the board of grain commissioners have control. And I submit that that control, which has never been exercised to any great degree, can be exercised more than it has in the past. If operated in conjunction with the power under the shipping act to suspend, the west is ensured against danger of monopoly, unfair rates or anything which will interfere with the free movement of the grain. As I said to the hon. member for Weyburn, out of a dozen different rates for

movement of grain to the sea we are interfering only in part with one. That is all. We are interfering to ensure in larger measure to our own ships the carriage of our own goods, in the interest of the men working on the ships as well as of those who own them.


Charles A. Stewart: This matter is one with which we had a great deal to do in former days. Application was made almost every fall to permit American bottoms to come in and store grain through the winter, thus providing additional storage space, and they would be permitted to take the grain to a Canadian port to unload in the spring. Apparently no change has been made in that respect; it is permissible under the proposed amendments. Am I right in assuming that the only intention of these amendments is that the government will not permit American bottoms to carry grain to Buffalo, unload it there and reship it to Montreal in American bottoms?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is right.


Charles A. Stewart: So really the only thing you are doing is taking away the permission to carry grain from Buffalo or an American port to Montreal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is right.


Robert James Manion: Or on either leg of the journey.


Charles A. Stewart: Then if the grain is destined to a Canadian port an American ship cannot carry it to Buffalo?


Robert James Manion: That is right.


Charles A. Stewart: That is much more serious than the other aspect. Because as I have examined these rates I see no reason why the rate to Montreal should not be four cents, when the rate for a journey three times the length, namely to Port Colborne and Buffalo from Fort William, is around two cents or one and a half. I see no reason why they cannot carry it the rest of the distance at that rate. One may assume that the mere fact that American bottoms are carrying grain to Buffalo, even if you stop them there, will have a regulating influence on the movement of grain to lake ports. Every one knows that the bulk of the grain is moved from Fort William to Georgian bay ports and thence largely by rail to Montreal. So there is nothing strange about a four cent rate to Montreal when the average rate in the past three years, without going beyond that, has been less than two cents to Port Colborne and Buffalo.

Canada Shipping Act


Robert James Manion: Except that the rate to Montreal includes the transshipment at Port Colbome. Of course that costs something.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, competition there did not have the same effect as competition to Port Colborne and Buffalo. Competition to Port Colborne and Buffalo undoubtedly kept that rate down; no one can deny that, or the rate to the lake ports would have been higher when rates were eight and ten cents to Montreal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I interrupt there?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not going to say much about this except that having had the matter up so frequently during the eight or nine years we were in office, and having permitted by order in council the storage of grain in American bottoms and the unloading at Canadian ports in the spring, I always felt that the little bit of competition which the permission to American bottoms to carry Canadian grain from the head of the lakes to their own port of Buffalo acted as a regulating influence upon rates from Fort Fort William to the bay ports. After all that is the important end, because I always look upon the direct shipment via bay ports to Montreal by train as the most economical route for handling the grain. I thought all you were doing by this provision was merely taking away the right to move that grain from Buffalo to Montreal in American bottoms. But if you say that every bushel of grain that goes to Buffalo in bond, before they decide whether it shall go out through American or Canadian ports, is going to be denied carriage in American bottoms, then you are handing a pretty strong lever to our Canadian shipping. If that is not true then why for the last ten or fifteen years as far as I know have the Canadian shippers always been complaining about this very thing?


Robert James Manion: Because they are not
treated on the same basis as the Americans treat their ships.


Charles A. Stewart: If there is nothing in it, why the demand practically every year for permission for American bottoms to handle Canadian grain, always refused as far as I remember except on two occasions, when it became evident that there was not sufficient storage space to take care of the grain?


Robert James Manion: The reason the Canadian
shipping objected to American competition was that Canadian ships were not permitted to do the same thing on the American side.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes,
they are.


Robert James Manion: Oh no, the American shipping laws will not permit Canadian ships to take part in any American coastal trade. Let me give an instance. Last year or the year before there was a good deal of sulphur shipped from Texas up the Atlantic coast to Montreal and then transshipped and taken to some inland American port. The Canadian boats wished to share in that traffic but no Canadian boats could get in on it at all; the American shipping laws do not permit them to take part on one leg or the other in intercoastal shipping in the United States. That is the reason Canadian shipping wants to be put on the same basis. This bill merely does that and nothing more-not another thing beyond what the Americans have been doing to the Canadians for years. This is the first time that Canadian shipping is being put on the same basis as American, and it is only fair that dt should be. In regard to the remark of my hon. friend from Weyburn-


John Vallance: Before the hon. minister leaves that sulphur shipment, is it proposed now to refuse to let an American bottom come to the port of Montreal and do what they did with the sulphur?


Robert James Manion: No, certainly not. We do not interfere with that in the least. I was just giving that as an illustration of the intercoastal trade of the United States, in which they will not permit a Canadian ship to take part on either leg of the journey. We are only putting the wheat 'trade on the same basis. Previous to this bill an American ship could carry wheat to Buffalo and another American ship could take it thence to Montreal, so that they did both legs of the journey, but Canadians were not allowed to carry on either leg of a corresponding journey between American ports. Now we are putting them on the same basis.
I might give another illustration that came to my notice as Minister of Railways in regard to a large number of cargoes of coal shipped up the lakes. It is said that the Canadian ships are in a combine. The prices quoted for the carriage of that coal ran from 17 cents to 25 cents per ton. Seventeen cents is a ridiculously low rate, a losing rate, and some ships would not look at it, but the tenders ran from 17 to 25 cents; I think some were 20 and 22. That does not look much like a combine. The coal traffic is usually divided amongst them at the lowest rate. If there was anything in the shape of a combine
Canada Shipping Act

all they had to do was to get together and instead of tendering from 17 to 25 cents, all put in the 25 cent rate. That came to my notice within the last two weeks. It shows that there certainly is not a combine on the up journey. And by all the methods that the Minister of Marine has mentioned in this discussion the government can certainly prevent a combine on the down journey.


Edward James Young: Has the minister seen the
by-laws of the Associated Lake Freighters?


Robert James Manion: I have not seen them
recently, but I am arguing the point without the by-laws; we have power through the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Marine and the board of grain commissioners and the shipping laws to break any such combine. And finally, if the Canadian shipowners take unfair advantage, this parliament can repeal the law. I do not think there would be a man on this side of the house who would not at once support the repeal if he thought the Canadian shipowners with their fifty-two ships were taking unfair advantage of this law in any shape or form. Surely every member of this committee is anxious for Canadian advantage; surely it is not the desire of the committee to give to American bottoms the right to drive Canadian bottoms out of the great lakes trade and put into the hands of American bottoms complete control of the carriage of Canadian grain, giving them power to charge any price they choose later on. Surely we do not wish entirely to destroy our Canadian shipping, but that is what is happening to-day. Anyone who has watched the price of the stock of the Canada Steamship Lines, which is the biggest line on the lakes, knows what is happening. This line has the largest fresh water ship in the world, the Lemorne, with a capacity of something like 600,000 bushels of grain. A few years ago the preference stock of the Canada Steamship Lines was selling at 84. Yesterday, out of curiosity, I checked it up, and I found that it was selling at 7. The reason is that the company is on the verge of going out of business; it cannot carry on with the present business that is being done. It is not getting the business, and I think it is only fair that we should want some Canadian shipping left.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister had better say they need volume.


Robert James Manion: That is what I said; they are not getting the business. If the United States vessels are allowed to come in and take it away from them they cannot carry on. After all-though my hon. friend will not (Mr. Manion.]
agree with this-the basis of protection is to give volume, not necessarily higher prices. If our Canadian ships, after they get the traffic, do not treat the farmers of the west fairly I for one, and I am sure I should be joined by all hon. members on this side of the house, would want to undo a law that harmed the farmers. I am not a farmer myself, but the head of the lakes is just as much interested in the success of the farmers as are the farmers themselves.


Charles A. Stewart: Will United States vessels still be permitted to carry grain consigned through United States ports?


Robert James Manion: Certainly.


John Vallance: Some time ago the minister gave the total capacity of the lake carriers as 14,000,000 bushels. Perhaps the minister, coming from the head of the lakes, will be able to answer this question: On the average how long does it take to make the trip from the head of the lakes and back?


Robert James Manion: To Montreal?


John Vallance: Average them all up.


Robert James Manion: It depends to a large extent on where the vessel is going. It is very much shorter to the Georgian bay ports than it is to Port Colborne; it is a great deal shorter to Port Colborne than to Prescott, and it is still farther to Montreal. Since the Welland canal has been deepened it is possible for the large boats to go as far as Prescott. I do not know what the average would be, and I would hardly care to make a guess.


John Vallance: Six days?


Robert James Manion: Yes, that would be my
guess if I cared to make one.


John Vallance: For the sake of argument we will say it takes six days, and we will assume that the lakes are open for twelve weeks in the fall.


Robert James Manion: I see what my hon. friend is coming to, and I do not wish to make a statement that I cannot support. I do not know that six days would be the average. It would be roughly a three day journey from the head of the lakes to Port Colborne, and of course it would take three days to go back. But they have to unload and they might be tied up waiting for other ships or for other reasons. They could not make it to Montreal and back in six days, so I should say that average is rather low.


John Vallance: All I want to point out is that if we had twelve weeks in the fall, in

Canada Shipping Act
the rush season, with that capacity we could only move 168,000,000 bushels. Would there not be some danger of congestion at the head of the lakes in that event?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, 168,000,000 bushels
is a lot of grain to move in three months.


John Vallance: Then let me ask the
minister this question: On the average how much is offered by the farmers of the west to the trade, and what is the total storage capacity at the head of the lakes?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There my hon. friend
comes up against the question of futures, as he knows. The only way the grain of the western farmers is taken care of, as far as offerings are concerned, is by the existence of the futures' market, and the grain is held by those who desire to go into that business. My hon. friend knows that last winter we held at the head of the lakes something like 68,000,000 bushels. I could look up the figures, if I had time, to show precisely the amount of grain that has been moved during the fall rush, but I do not think it applies to this argument.
May I reply to an observation made by the hon. member for West Edmonton, which I think should not go unchallenged. The hon. gentleman said the rate to Buffalo was two cents, and he went on to say that surely another two cents ought to cover the transportation to Montreal. I know the committee desires to be just and fair. The movement from the head of the lakes to Buffalo or any bay port is made in these large vessels. I will give the capacity of just a few; 420,000 bushels, 460,000 bushels, 350,000 bushels, 550,000 bushels, 220,000 bushels, 320,000 bushels and so on. The capacity of the ships below Niagara, however, is much less; some of them carry 95,000 bushels, 85,000 bushels, 82,000 bushels, 75,000 bushels, 100,000 bushels and so on, most of them less than 85,000 bushels. So the movement of grain over a short distance in a ship carrying 400,000 bushels is a much less expensive proposition than the handling of grain in a ship carrying only 70,000 or 80,000 bushels.
That is the first point. Then we must remember that with the exception of the Soo it is clear sailing from the head of the lakes to Buffalo or Port Colborne or the bay ports, but from Niagara down to Montreal the ships must pass through a long series of canals and looks. The difficulties in navigating these narrower and more difficult waters certainly are much more serious than is the case on the lakes. As a consequence the rates from Buffalo or Port Colbome to Montreal could not be expected to be anything like as low
as the rates from the head of the lakes to Buffalo. I think it is only fair to the shipping interests to point out these facts. I am definitely of the opinion that there is no ground for complaint when the rate from the head of the lakes is around six or seven cents a bushel, The present rate of four cents a bushel, while no doubt a good rate for those shipping the grain, certainly is most unprofitable for the carriers.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I want to take the minister back to where this discussion started. We are talking about shipping Canadian wheat to Great Britain, and the possibility of shipping that wheat through a foreign country and obtaining the preference. The Minister of Railways and the Minister of Trade and Commerce both told us how easy it was to do this, but they did not tell us how much grain has been shipped in that way. I want to know if any wheat has been shipped to Great Britain through a foreign country that obtained the preference and, if so, how much.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not the figures, but I have made inquiries.


James J. Donnelly: That just goes to show that it is rather hard to do. We were led to believe that most of the grain was going that way, but now we are told that no one knows how much is being shipped through a foreign country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I said yesterday that I would try to get the figures, and I am still trying to do so. As I pointed out, the movement of grain whether through Buffalo, Montreal or any other export point, is very difficult to keep track of so far as Canadian statistics are concerned. The prevailing practice is to bill the grain out as for the United Kingdom, and then the destination is changed later.


James J. Donnelly: That is not the point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am trying to show my
hon. friend the difficulty of securing these figures.


James J. Donnelly: The minister is not
telling us anything we do not know. We are trying to get some actual facts as to how much grain has been shipped in that way, but we are told that no one knows. There is another point I brought up the other day as well. A good deal of our wheat during the past year went to Buffalo and was transshipped to Montreal. We were led to 'believe that practically all Canadian wheat going to Buffalo was shipped in American bottoms. What I should like to know is how much of our wheat
Canada Shipping Act

was shipped in Canadian bottoms and how much in American, going from Buffalo to Montreal. I think you will find that most of it went in Canadian bottoms.


Robert James Manion: Well, that will not be
interfered with.


James J. Donnelly: It will, I submit, because wheat cannot be shipped in an American bottom to Buffalo and come from Buffalo to Montreal in an American ship.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman said
that most of the grain went in Canadian bottoms. That will not be interfered with.


James J. Donnelly: We were given to
understand that last year most of the grain went from Buffalo to Montreal in American bottoms, but I contend that most of it went in Canadian ships. This competition is the only competition we have had-the competition furnished by American ships from Buffalo. That is the only competition we have depended on in order to secure low rates. We have been getting low rates because of the fact that grain has come from Buffalo to Montreal in American bottoms. Will the minister tell us how much Canadian wheat going either from Duluth or Chicago to Montreal was carried in Canadian bottoms? We have not had any statement in that regard. Some of the wheat going down the lakes, from Duluth and Chicago, goes down in Canadian bottoms. WThat I want to know is how much wheat during the past year was carried in Canadian ships.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend said that
this bill would wipe out the competition so far as Buffalo is concerned. It will not wipe out that competition. It is true it will eliminate part of it but there is still the competition furnished by Canadian ships carrying grain to Buffalo. That competition will continue, and it applies to all grain going on to Montreal or going out the other way. There is still also the competition from the shipping of grain in American bottoms to Buffalo. A man shipping from the head of the lakes may ship in a Canadian bottom to Buffalo, or by an American bottom through an American port, and there is still competition to that extent. The hon. gentleman is correct to this extent, that competition is eliminated with respect to that proportion of the grain that may have been carried to Buffalo in American ships and then carried on to some Canadian port. The fact remains, however, that all competition is not wiped out, because there still remains a good deal of it.


James J. Donnelly: The only competition
we have had for years has been in connection with wheat going to Buffalo. Is not that a fact?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


James J. Donnelly: Well, what other competition has there been?
Mr. MANIO'N:	As regards wheat going
to Buffalo-


James J. Donnelly: Let the Minister of
Trade and Commerce answer the question. What competition have our Canadian ships had to face?
Mr. MANIO'N:	The hon. gentleman asks
a question and wishes to answer it himself.


James J. Donnelly: The Minister of Trade and Commerce answered my question. He said no, and I want to know why he gives that answer.


Robert James Manion: I say that there is still
competition to Buffalo inasmuch as the American ship can take the grain to that port and it can be shipped right through anyway. So that there is still that competition in the shipping of grain from the head of the lakes. The only point is that once it has gone to Buffalo in an American ship it cannot come back to Canada at Montreal, but it can go through Portland, Boston, Philadelphia or New York.


James J. Donnelly: The statement I made was this, that for the last few years the only competition Canadian boats have had to contend with was in connection with grain going to Buffalo, and I said, "Isn't that so?" And the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "no". Then the Minister of Railways got up to reply to that question I asked. Did he reply to it?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


James J. Donnelly: I don't think you did. I repeat, the only competition that Canadian boats have had to put up with in the carrying of wheat has been in connection with wheat going to Buffalo. That is all.


Robert James Manion: And it can still go. to
Buffalo.


James J. Donnelly: I asked whether or not it was so and the Minister of Trade and Commerce said it was not; I was not right. Well, what other competition has there been? Nona whatever. That is the only competition, and that competition to-day is curtailed to a certain

Private Bill
extent because you cannot ship wheat to-day by an American bottom to Buffalo and then on to Montreal; under this bill it cannot be done, so that the competition is curtailed to that extent.


Robert James Manion: There would have been
no argument if the hon. gentleman had said curtailed in the first instance. I understood him to say that the competition had been wiped out. It is true that it will be curtailed to some extent by this bill, but there is still the Buffalo competition by Canadian boats and on by Canadian boats to Montreal.


Edward James Young: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce said that there were a dozen routes by which we could ship from the head of the lakes to Montreal and that only one of them was being interfered with, and that one not completely. That is true, but the one that is being interfered with is the one in which there is competition, and it is the one in which we have lower freight rates. The freight rates to Buffalo are lower than the rates on the shorter haul to bay ports. It is the one in which we have American competition, the one in which we get lower rates; and the result of this interference will be to eliminate the competitive factor which reduces these rates. The minister suggests, further, that there is competition inside the combine-competition among themselves. I say there is not. James Stewart, who is head of the combine, sits in his office and allots the tonnage to the various vessels. He says to one, "You go there and get so many tons", or he may order the ship to tie up and stay where it is. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce will read the bylaws of the company he will appreciate what I am saying. The minister says that there are some lines that are not in the association. Yes; I know one steamship company that refused to be coerced into it because they said it was a direct violation of the criminal code and they would not make themselves liable in that regard. If that is not a combine I do not know what is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When the hon. gentleman talks about a combine, it reminds me of the time, fifteen years ago, when almost every speech in this house contained references to combines, mergers and so forth. If the hon. gentleman means that certain business groups are working under an arrangement among themselves for the orderly handling of business, and if he suggests that this constitutes a combine, he may interpret the act in that way. But I would point out that there is a definite legal interpretation of the word combine.


Edward James Young: Yes, in the criminal code.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the combines act. A combine exists where there is a combination of business interests in restraint of trade to the detriment of the community as a whole, or affecting other persons' affairs; and under the statute it is competent for any six persons-those who have spoken right in this house-to lay information if they so desire and have an investigation. Such investigations have been held; we have had two or three since the house met. But if my hon. friend talks about a combine in that sense, I say there is none so far as I know. But even in the narrow sense in which he interprets it, I submit that out of forty steamship companies in the business there are twenty-two that are not in the association and eighteen that are, and if we wanted any evidence, if there were any desire to obtain evidence of the ineffectiveness of any combination of interests we have had that evidence in the last two years so far as the welfare of the shipping companies is concerned. We have seen ships tied up, companies going bankrupt, ships not able to get cargoes, and strenuous efforts being put forth to obtain business-keen and bitter competition. There never was a time on the great lakes when there was more competition than there has been in the last year or two. My hon, friend, therefore, should not speak of combines unless he is prepared to make a statement under the act and charge that there is.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BIEL



DISCOUNT AND LOAN CORPORATION OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 110, to incorporate the Discount and Loan Corporation of Canada-Mr. Sullivan-Mr. La-Vergne in the chair.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5-Loans.
Mr. POULIOT:: I have no particular objection to this bill provided that the promoters of the company do not sell any shares in my constituency.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Canada Shipping Act
Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall I reiport the bill?


Mr. SPENCER:: Before you report the
bill, we did not hear who was in charge of it and we have had no explanation from the sponsor. I would like to ask what percentage of interest it is proposed to charge.


John Alexander Sullivan: Seven per cent. Originally the charge was 12 per cent. We have reduced it to 7, or 5 per cenit less.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Does that include all the various charges that are made?


John Alexander Sullivan: It carries everything.
Bill reported.
Mr. SULLIVAN moved the third reading of the bill.


Henry Elvins Spencer: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 106, to amend the Canada Shipping Aot.-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On subsection 935-British ships only may engage in coasting trade.
James J. Donnelly: Just before six o'clock I was asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce .to tell me how much Canadian wheat had been carried by Canadian bottoms to Montreal and how much Canadian wheat that was in Buffalo had been carried by Canadian bottoms and how much by United States bottoms to Montreal. Has he the information for me now?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no additional information.


James J. Donnelly: Just before six o'clock the hon. member for Weybum brought up the matter of the alleged combine. The minister tried to assure us that there was none. Yet he says some eighteen companies were in some sort of association and .there were twenty-two companies that were out of it. That does not give us much information. Would he tell us the amount of tonnage in the association, the amount out of it and also the amount of tonnage interested only in the transportation of wheat. Many boats on tihe lakes will not engage in the transportation of wheat and therefore might not be in this estimate that he gave. As was said by the hon. member for Weyburn, it is well known that James Stewart, who organized this as-

sociation and is the head of it, receives as his share one-fortieth of a cent a bushel for every bushel that is shipped. If he had received his full amount for what Canadian wheat was shipped last year, he would have got in the neighbourhood of $100,000. The wheat growers of western Canada are paying this. To-night's paper shows that the lake freight rate on wheat has fallen to four cents a bushel, this being probaibly due to what took place in the house yesterday. There is some alarm over this legislation. We know very well certain companies thought seriously of going into this association or combine and when they consulted their legal adviser in connection with the matter, he advised them to stay out of it because he said that they would be subject to section 498 of the criminal code which states:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding $4,000 and not less than $200, or to two years' imprisonment, or, if a corporation, is liable to a penalty not exceeding $10,000, and not less than $1,000, who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges wph any person, or with any railway, steamship, steamboat or transportation company,
(a) to unduly limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing ip any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce.
On account of that section, the company to which I have referred was advised not to go into this combine. It is an assured fact that a number of these people are working together for no other purpose than to raise freight rates, that is the only reason they would get together. The only thing which enables us to keep down the prices is the competitive price to Buffalo and under this bill the competition of United States boats going into Buffalo with Canadian grain would be done away with to a great extent. Can the minister give me the information regarding the amount of grain going to Montreal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: As regards the question of tonnage of companies in or out of the association, I have not figured that out at all, but I suppose it could be done without any great difficulty. When I used that argument, I did make the statement that the Canada Steamship Lines, one of the largest companies, was,
I understood, in the association. But I said that there were those twenty-two companies outside, operating independently. I could not give my hon. friend the precise tonnage, but I can say this, that this was in connection with companies engaged in the grain carrying trade.
In regard to the other question asked, namely, the quantity moved from Buffalo to

Canada Shipping Act
Montreal in Canadian vessels and the quantity moved in United States vessels, I made inquiries, but I have not any definite, final figures on the matter, I have not, however, the slightest objection to my hon. friend, for the sake of his argument, assuming what he has or others have asserted, namely, that the bulk of it is carried in Canadian bottoms.
I am not objecting to that at all. I am placing no argument against it. I am not able to give my hon. friend precise figures. When he and other hon. gentlemen ask regarding the amount of grain exported to Great Britain via American ports and that earned the preference, I have told him and others that there is great difficulty in getting those figures. I tried yesterday and the day before to get them, but I have not been able to do so. One of the difficulties, as I pointed out this afternoon, is that frequently, and indeed very . commonly, grain is exported both via Montreal and American ports consigned to the United Kingdom, because that is the best and the largest market, and then frequently after it has left the seaboard it is reconsigned to some other destination. I stated this afternoon that one of the difficulties we have experienced in the compilation of Canadian export statistics is the redirecting of wheat or grain On the high seas after it has left Canadian ports. I am sorry that in- the short time available since this question was raised during the last few days I have not been able to secure the information, although I have asked for it. I am sorry it is not available. It is not a simple but a comparatively difficult matter to work out.


James J. Donnelly: We know that there
have been two shipments of Canadian wheat through foreign ports to Great Britain, and that neither received the preference. We have not heard of any such shipment that did, and therefore we assume, and I believe correctly, that no Canadian wheat so shipped to Great Britain has received the preference in that market. So why beat about the bush? Why not come out openly and say plainly: "We do not know of any such shipment that has received the preference." We have heard of none. We know that two shipments tried to get the preference and did not get it. That is all we have heard about it. On the other hand, it is of vital importance that we should know how much American wheat is taken to Montreal in Canadian bottoms. We hear so much about Canadian wheat going to Buffalo in American bottoms -that I think it is only fair we should be told how much American wheat is taken to Montreal in Cana-53719-330i
dian bottoms. A very large amount of wheat goes out of Montreal every week. How much is Canadian and how much is American?
One more word with regard to this combine. The minister knows very well that this association was started last June, and he also knows very well that at that time the rate from the head of the lakes to Montreal was 4-1 cents. It was the understanding of this association that they would endeavour to put up the rates from Fort William to Montreal half a cent a bushel a month. And how did they succeed? In the month of June the rate from Fort William to Montreal was 4-1; July, 4-5; August, 5-2; September, 6-4; October 6-7 or almost 6-8, and at the very time those rates were being raised by half a cent a bushel a month the rate from Fort William to Buffalo remained steady; it practically never changed at all. Here are the rates from Fort William to Buffalo for the same months: June, 1-56; July, 1-57; August, 1-54; September, 1-52; October, 1-52. So the rates from Fort William to Buffalo practically never changed; and yet the rate from Fort William to Montreal rose from 4-1 in June to almost 6-8 in October. How does the minister explain that, except by the fact that there was some kind of association or combine among the boat owners to raise the rate from the head of the lakes to Montreal? If the minister does not give us any answer we must assume that there was a combine, and I think it is up to the minister and the government to look into that matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not gather that my hon. friend wanted me to deal with that question again because I have dealt with it already half a dozen times. I have done my utmost to demonstrate to the committee, and I think I have done so to the reasonable satisfaction of hon. members who desire to be fair in the matter, that leaving aside this one rate of four cents which was brought to my attention while I was on my feet, the prevailing rates to-day from Fort William to Montreal are exceedingly reasonable. They are substantially lower than the rates that have prevailed for the last ten years. I gave the rates in detail over a period of ten or twelve years, showing that the prevailing rate of six cents was low. I also pointed out in my previous remarks, but I will repeat it for my hon. friends, that the rate of four cents a bushel is an exceedingly low rate due to distress competition; there is no question about that at all.
I have also pointed out, so far as the alleged combine is concerned, that personally I do not think there is a combine in the sense in
Canada Shipping Act

which that word is used, namely, a combine in restraint of trade. I have also pointed out that the law respecting combines is simple and clear, that any six persons who feel there is a combine in restraint of trade can put the act in motion. The act has been invoked in a number of instances in the last few years, and in a very simple manner. It is not my business to invoke it. It is open to any six citizens who feel in any way aggrieved in that respect to do so.


James J. Donnelly: Suppose six citizens put the act in operation to see if there is a combine. We saw something last year of the effect of that when we had an alleged combine in the coal trade investigated, and we heard nothing more about it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not correct.


James J. Donnelly: Practically speaking. We cannot get the information, anyway.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is now in the hands of the authorities of Quebec and Ontario.


James J. Donnelly: We would get no better results from an investigation in this case. What I want the minister to explain is how those rates went up. What was the cause of the Canadian boats-and the grain can only be carried in Canadian bottoms-raising the rates from Fort William to Montreal from 4-1 in June to 6-8 in October while the rate from Fort William to Buffalo remained exactly the same during all those months? There is no other reason whatever except the existence of a combine or working arrangement among our Canadian boats to put up the price.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is not stating the case correctly. Wheat can be carried right up to this moment in American bottoms on the first leg of the journey. My hon. friend said that the rise in the rates was due to the fact that the wheat could only be carried in Canadian bottoms. But I say it can be carried in American bottoms. This competition is in existence now and has been in existence. So my hon. friend is not correct in that statement, for there is the full force of American competition at play.


James J. Donnelly: That is just what I wanted the minister to explain-what caused the rise in the rates.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to a phase that has not so far been discussed. It must be a relief to (Mr. Stevens.]
him to hear something that has not been discussed several times. Subsection 4 of clause 935 reads:
Any goods so transported shall be forfeited as being smuggled goods.
The law is going to forbid a foreign vessel from taking goods or passengers from one port in Canada to another, and it provides a severe penalty for violation of the law, 1500 in the case of freight, and $500 for each passenger in the case of passengers. That may be all right for the big shipping companies and the big shippers who know what the law is, but I submit that to forfeit the goods so transported as being smuggled goods would be very unjust to what is known in some cases as the innocent purchaser. If a man has a horse stolen he can recover it from anybody who has obtained it in an illegal way, but if it is found in the hands of an innocent purchaser who has bought it not knowing it was stolen, and has paid a fair price for it, he cannot recover. Here is a case I should like to place before the minister. Being a business man he may think only in terms of big shipping interests, but I am thinking of the smaller people. I engage his attention, because his local knowledge will enable him to follow me.
We will suppose there is a man at Alert Bay, which is a point one hundred and eighty-three miles north of Vancouver. This man is out of a job, but has a chance to gain employment at Campbell River, a point say, one hundred miles south. He, his wife, his family and household goods are on the wharf at Alert Bay. A steamer comes to that point. He does not ask to see the ship's papers to ascertain where it comes from. Why would he, being a man ignorant of such matters? He goes on board, and when the ship is three or four miles away from the wharf the purser comes along. Of course the purser should not carry the man under those conditions, but chances are he will take him then. A heavy fine may be imposed for this infringement of the law. But I am thinking of the man out of employment. We find that when he gets to Campbell River he is liable to have his household goods forfeited, due to the fact that they are regarded as being smuggled. That is not fair. He has been a perfectly innocent man.
Let me give another instance. A hand logger has been working in a little cove for a period of six months employed getting out logs. He, too, is ignorant of our coastal law. His work is about completed, and he is looking for a tug to tow it to Vancouver, or elsewhere. The cove may be located in a sheltered bay to which tugs would come. Finally he will get

Canada Shipping Act
a fair price from some tug, and that tug is given the work. It is afterwards discovered that he has employed an American tug, and he is liable to forfeit his whole winter's work. It may be argued that this instance would not come under the law, because a tug is not a ship. In answer to that argument I turn to page 10 of the large bill amending the shipping act which, although not yet passed, will no doubt come before us. I find under the definition of a ship that a ship includes "every description of vessel used in navigation, not propelled by oars." Either a tug boat or a gas boat, under that definition, would be a ship. If the man who, in the course of ordinary business, could not be expected to ascertain the exact registry of this tug, does not do so, then he is liable to lose his whole winter's work. That would be the result because of ignorance for which he could not be held responsible. Would it not be sufficient punishment if the ship were fined $500 and a further fine of $500 for each passenger, without confiscating the goods? It seems to me excessive punishment.


Alfred Duranleau: This legislation has been on our statute books for years, and no exception was ever taken to it. There is no change whatever in this clause so far as the points raised by the hon. member are concerned. Clause 935 of the statute reads:
1.	No goods or passengers shall be carried by water, from one port of Canada to another, except in British ships.
2.	If any goods or passengers are so carried, contrary to this part, the master of the ship or vessel so carrying them shall incur a penalty of $400; and any goods so carried shall be forfeited as smuggled.
We have not brought in any new legislation on this point. If the hon. member wishes to read clause 936 he will find that it, also, is fair legislation. The cases suggested by the hon. member are most extreme, and I do not think that such circumstances would ever arise. If they did, I am sure a good lawyer would surely save the goods subject to confiscation, and the owner of the ship would be protected.


Alan Webster Neill: I am afraid for the innocent passenger or shipper, not for the owner of the ship. The minister states that this legislation has been in the statutes for years, but never has been enforced.


Alfred Duranleau: It has always been
enforced, but no complaint was ever received against it.


Alan Webster Neill: That is equivalent to saying
that in a case such as I have indicated it has never been enforced. If it has never been
enforced this would be a good time to eliminate it. I believe it is good policy to eliminate faulty legislation when we are making a general revision. If it cannot be defended more successfully than the minister has defended it, I suggest my contention holds. The minister has stated that I have referred to extreme cases. I say that they are not extreme, but are common cases in the area in which I am interested, and are likely to occur at any time. I cannot definitely point out any cases in which the law has been enforced, but it is not wise to have useless legislation on the statute books. However, if the minister will not listen to me I shall not waste the time of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Merchant Shipping Act 1894, not affected.
Alan Webster Neill: I have only one last word
to say to the minister. On this bill which contains only two sections there has been a discussion lasting about three hours and a half. This lengthy discussion has been brought about because the bill was not sent to a committee where it could have been discussed around a table. I have in my hand the original bill which no doubt will be introduced again next year. This bill containing amendments to the shipping act consists of eight hundred and twenty-one sections, and by a simple process of arithmetic I have ascertained that if we are as long proportionately in the discussion of that bill as we have been on this one, about ten months' continuous sitting will be required. I submit to the minister, and to the Prime Minister, who, I suppose, is in some measure responsible for the present bill being brought 'before a committee of the whole instead of before the special committee, that they would do well to allow the bigger bill to go to the committee on marine and fisheries. I believe it is within the knowledge of every hon. member who has followed the progress of bills, such as the pension bill, that legislation is passed much more quickly if in the first instance it is discussed before the smaller committee.


Alfred Duranleau: I can say to my
hon. friend that the matter will be considered then. I do not think so much time will be required for the study of the full revision, because a great many of the sections are merely a repetition of sections in force at the present time. Some parts of the bill may be contested, but many of them will be accepted as being the law in force at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Business of the House
Alfred Duranleau: I have an amendment which I shall ask my colleague to move.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The government has decided and the minister is now asking me to move an amendment which the Prime Minister suggests should be added as a third section at the end of the bill, as follows:
That subsection 12 of section 1 of this act shall come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council published in the Canada Gazette.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What it is intended to do is to add a section providing that subsection 12 of section 1, which reenacts section 935 regarding British ships only engaging in coasting trade, shall come into force only on proclamation. It will be a new section 3.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time on division and passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, shortly after three o'clock this afternoon I indicated that the notice *standing in my name on the order paper [DOT]might stand until eight o'clock. That notice is of a motion that the house sit to-morrow from eleven to one o'clock and from three mntil six, and probably not in the evening. I Shave just been conferring with the right hon. leader of the opposition, who takes the view that it is perhaps undesirable that we should sit to-morrow. I am prepared to sit to-morrow and start consideration of the redistribution bill. The first seven sections of it I fancy could be passed without difficulty, and I then propose to commence at page 34 of the schedule and take the ridings in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, in Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta, leaving Ontario and Quebec only for further consideration. I am entirely in the hands of the house in the matter, and will be guided largely by the views that are expressed.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE ICING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if
we had been fortunate enough to reach an agreement that was at all general with respect to the redistribution measure I would see some advantage in going on immediately with the bill. But if, as I understand is the case, no agreement has been reached between the different parties in the house with respect to

the constituencies generally, I think possibly it would be just as well to conclude everything except the redistribution measure and start afresh with it on Monday morning.
The Prime Minister speaks as though it is going to be an easy matter to pass the bill, but I may say to him at once that if what has been accomplished in the last three redistributions, namely effecting a redistribution by agreement, is not to be accomplished at the present time, I am afraid we will have to take as strong a position as we can in this matter, and while we may be in the minority we will do the best we can to protect the rights of the minority and if need be fight to the finish. If the choice is to lie between a redistribution to be effected by joint agreement of the different parties in the house and one which is to be put through, as the Prims Minister said the other day, by "what is sometimes called the brute majority," we will just have to see how long we can resist the brute majority. We certainly are not going to see the constituencies of this country unjustly redistributed at the will of the administration just because they know they have the majority behind them to put any redistribution through. I had hoped that it might be possible to effect a redistribution in the different provinces of the dominion that would be recognized as fair, but apparently that is not the case, and in the circumstances I would say-having in mind that we have done our best this week to make progress, we have for some time past been sitting morning, afternoon and night- that we might very well adjourn until Monday next and begin on the redistribution measure then. If hon. gentlemen opposite want to begin at once with their brute majority, let them go ahead.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All of which, Mr. Speaker, sounds well, but we are dealing with actualities. A very earnest effort has been made for weeks to find an accommodation with respect to these ridings. If there has been disagreement with respect to at least one of the provinces it is because we know that they never intended to agree; they have been good enough to so express themselves privately, at least, if not publicly-privately in the sense that it was not said on the floor of this house, but nevertheless publicly so far as the purport of it was concerned. I have no desire that there should be placed upon the statute book an unfair redistribution, but I will not become a party to an unfair redistribution being put on the statute book by the will of the minority.


An hon. MEMBER:: We never asked that.

Business oj the House


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what is
asked, and nothing else. It has been said, for instance, that the difficulty is with regard to agreement. There is no disagreement about New Brunswick; it loses one member. No county boundaries have been disturbed; nothing has been done except to drop one member from Saint John. In the province of Nova Scotia, because of the desire to maintain county boundaries as they exist at present, one of our own members finds himself living in a constituency that has fifty thousand people. He has made sacrifices in that direction which he says will legislate him out of the House of Commons. That does not look like jerrymandering. In the province of Prince Edward Island there has been no change at all. At least fifty of the seats in Ontario have been agreed upon beyond all question, and at least seventy-five seats have been agreed upon in a reasonable way.
It has been pointed out that many changes have been made in Quebec. Why? Because for the first time in the history of this dominion we have the urban population constituting a majority of the people. The burden cast upon those responsible for redistribution has been correspondingly great. Need I point out that the island of Montreal contains practically ten per cent of the population of this country; if it received ten per cent of the seats it would have twenty-four members. That brings about a great difficulty, and the city of Toronto stands in somewhat the same position. With respect to Manitoba an agreement has been arrived at; no one is complaining, so why should not the schedule be adopted? In Saskatchewan there were two proposals submitted, one by those who had given much thought and attention to .the figures and the other by hon. gentlemen opposite. Finally the matter resolved itself into smaller differences. A great agitation was carried on because the seat of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) was being taken away. As a matter of fact the majority of the members of the committee said, "We will yield that point and be done with it, rather than waste time." But as soon ias that was done something else cropped up. We will never be able to do business in that way; that is certain. There were some differences in Alberta, one of them because an hon. member has moved his place of residence:, and he wants the place where he now lives to be included in the constituency which he represents. He might move again to-morrow. Should the constituency be changed again in that event?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: That is
absurd.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was absurd, I quite
agree; it was absurd for many reasons, some of which I shall be glad to discuss in this house when the time comes. Then there was the province of British Columbia, where there were two or three minor differences, one being the question of whether a portion of the territory on the mainland should be included in the constituency of Comox-Albemi or in another constituency. There were also some differences in regard to the city of Vancouver, and that territory was divided according to the boundaries established for provincial constituencies. Since the lists are made under circumstances with which the house is familiar it does seem to me that this was not an unreasonable way of dealing with the situation.
Personally I am bound to say that I have not followed the details of this redistribution question, though this afternoon I made myself perhaps more familiar with them than I have been heretofore. I was of the opinion that if we adopted the schedules with respect to the other provinces we might be ablq, in connect-tion with Ontario and Quebec, to arrive at an accommodation that would more nearly represent what everyone, including our opponents opposite, would feel was reasonable. But it is difficult; no one who has not been through this matter understands just how difficult it is. Twenty years ago I was a member of the committee that dealt with redistribution when Sir Robert Borden was in power. I recall the difficulties and the differences that manifested themselves at that time, with members finding themselves out of their constituencies, and I am bound to say that it was not until the last two or three days that we finally managed to have matters disposed of. At that time, however, the rural population was more numerous than the urban population and the difficulties were not so great as they are now. Perhaps the very conditions under which we live, world conditions of depression, tend to create a certain state of mind on the part of members of the House of Commons who sit opposite a government as well as on the part of those who sit on the government side; that may be responsible for part of it. If it is thought that it will conduce to a fair and reasonable discussion of these matters I shall not press that the house sit to-morrow. Personally I think it should, but in this instance as in many others I am willing to yield to what the opposition may think desirable in the national interest.
I do not wish to speak at length with regard to this matter; I have only one further word
Business oj the House

to say. In the very nature of things, when you have had one party completely dominating the position in a province or provinces for many years you are bound to have difficulties when you come to the question of redistribution, when the voice of what is still the minority in those provinces but which constitutes a part of the majority in parliament is heard. The very fact that it is a minority voice in those particular provinces but is a part of the majority voice in parliament makes the position doubly difficult, and in my judgment a frank recognition of that fact is desirable. If a peaceful solution of our problems can be found, well and good, but I think that peaceful solution will be found more readily by proceeding with the bill and meeting the difficulties when we come to them, endeavouring to dispose of them as men should at such a time.
I desire to add only this, that it is always She privilege of a minority, or the opposition in parliament, to keep the house in session just as long as it reasonably can. During the short time I have been here I have made it a rule to be neither deterred by threats nor influenced by promises in the conduct of the business of this house, and I say to hon. gentlemen that I shall not be deterred from doing what I conceive to be my duty with respect to redistribution either by the threat of being kept here or the promise that if I do not do my duty we will not be kept here. We shall continue along the course we have mapped out, and carry forward a fair and equitable redistribution of the seats in parliament.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, being a man of peace, as my right hon. friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) knows, I do not wish to add fuel to the flame by discussing the fairness or unfairness of the proposals contained in the bill as it has come back from the committee. I do not think it is desirable that we should do so this evening.
May I say that I think it is always very desirable, if it is at all possible, to have an agreement between the parties in this house as to the redistribution scheme which will be finally carried out, but I desire to say to my right hon. friend that it will be impossible to proceed with this bill as he suggests. The right hon. gentleman suggested that we might adopt the first seven sections of the bill and then consider some of the schedules as to which there does not seem to be much
tMr. Bennett.]
disagreement. We cannot accept section 3; that is the whole point of contention. Section 3 reads:
The said provinces and territory respectively shall, for the purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of Commons, be divided into electoral districts, and be represented as provided in the schedule to this act.
Those who object to part of the schedules cannot vote for this section; certainly the whole discussion will be made on section 3 of the bill. As to the other sections, I agree that they are not contentious, but wre cannot discuss section 3 unless every possibility of agreement has disappeared. So far as I am concerned, I shall not be able to leave my place in the house while this bill is being considered. I have been summoned to attend this evening a meeting of what have been called the elderly statesmen. I am proud of the last word, though not of the first, because it is not right as applied to myself. But I could not attend that meeting if this bill were being considered by the committee. I urge upon the Prime Minister the advisability of accepting the suggestion of the right hon. the leader of the opposition, so that we might try to find out definitely whether we can agree, as every one hopes we shall, and then if we cannot we can discuss the bill on Monday. May I point out that some of us are rather tired at the close of this week. Speaking for myself, and I know that the same is true of others, we have all done pretty strenuous work this week and I do not think it is fair to ask that we should begin the consideration of the bill to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In that event I would move that the house do now adjourn.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: I understand that the Prime Minister was just about to move the adjournment of the house. Unfortunately, when this question was brought up, I was waiting upstairs for the special committee of this house to meet, but I believe that the leader of the opposition suggested that the house should not meet to-morrow, his reason being that we might have the weekend to explore the situation further in the hope of arriving at some reasonable conclusion. I must confess that my experience of this committee has been a unique one. I have seen party strife at play to the greatest extent one could imagine, but, notwithstanding that, I consider that the committee had made splendid progress. Unfortunately to-day

Questions
the committee was able to meet only for a short time; because of other duties intervening we were unable to meet this afternoon. I am quite confident however that if the major parties of the house agree to restrain themselves and be calm on the subject we can arrive at a fairly satisfactory solution of the problem which will be beneficial to all concerned. I merely rose to say to the Prime Minister that I think he would be well advised to move the adjournment of the house over the week-end for the purpose of having further parleys with a view to arriving at a reasonable conclusion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that the house do now adjourn until Monday at eleven a.m.; the motion is seconded by Sir George Perley. Possibly there is very much in what has been said, namely, that the expression to-night of strong views and the rousing perhaps of latent passions in connection with a matter of this kind could serve no useful purpose, and we might be further ahead on Monday morning than if we proceeded to-night.


Ernest Lapointe: I think so.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 8.55 p.m.
Monday, May 22, 1933