1934-06-14

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury) presented the eighth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: With the consent of the house I move that the report be concurred in.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I dissent from that request.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the motion will have to stand.
Motion stands.



DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Under the order of introduction of
bills I had hoped to introduce to-day the bill of which notice was given yesterday, namely the Franchise Act. I regret that I am not in a position yet to do so, but I hope to do so to-morrow. Having regard to the discussion which took place in the house yesterday upon the resolution, I may say that it has been decided to appoint two enumerators in each polling subdivision for the purpose of the first enumeration. Just how these enumerators will be appointed has not been definitely decided, but the principle will be maintained of consulting the wishes or obtaining the views of the sitting member on the one hand, and of the defeated candidate on the other hand, and where there was more than one defeated candidate, of the one who had the highest number of votes.
On the other clause, in regard to appeals from the decision of the revising officer, it has been decided that there shall be an appeal to the county or district judge in those provinces which have county and district judges, but as all provinces are not alike in respect to their judicial conveniences some difficulty has been experienced in drafting a suitable clause. When the bill comes before the house I may have to ask the assistance of some of the legal members from the various provinces in regard to difficulties which might arise. The principle in that case will be to limit the time as far as possible and to simplify the proceedings by way of appeal and make them informal and expeditious. I hope to bring down the bill for presentation to the house to-morrow or it may be Monday.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: The assurance which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has just given will meet I am sure-as he has seen-with the general approval of the house. Might I inquire, seeing that the bill is not yet finally printed, whether the government has included a clause which will oblige revising officers to notify the electors as to where they are to vote? If not, would the government take into consideration including such an obligation? I believe official notification to electors is something which would avoid much in the way of expense to candidates and would really constitute a substantial improvement.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: They do it in cities.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the suggestion is worth considering, but the expense would be very considerable if every elector on the voters' list has to be notified where he votes. It has never been the custom heretofore. All I can say is that I shall bring the suggestion before my colleagues.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I might just add this word-I know a discussion is not in order. Viewing the matter in its true light, elections are a necessary part of the machinery of government, and for that reason it seems to me the state itself should meet any legitimate unavoidable expenses incidental to securing a complete and fair election; that expenses incidental to a necessary service to the voter should not be made an obligation on those who may be nominated as candidates. Unless a provision of that kind is in-

Questions

eluded those who may become candidates or their supporters will have to bear the expenses of notifying electors where they are to vote. With lists prepared by the state official, notification of the place of voting is something which really ought to be regarded as also a part of the necessary expenses of elections.


Hugh Guthrie: There is another practical difficulty. The revising officer would not be in a position to notify the people more than as to the subdivision in which their names are registered, because until the writ of election is issued and returning officers appointed no one knows where the polling places will be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some arrangement could be worked out, whereby this obligation might be made a duty of either the revising officers or the returning officers. With the franking of notices, the expenses ought to be comparatively little.


Mr. POWER:: The polling places were made permanent under the legislation now in existence.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, no.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. BROWN:: 1.	How many postmasters have been appointed in the last two years to offices where the revenue is less than $3,000 per year?
2.	In how many of these eases were returned soldiers applicants for the position?
3.	In how many cases were returned soldiers appointed?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	1,474-Vacancies caused by reason of death, resignation, change of site, reopenings and new offices.
2.	301.
3.	219.
federal aid TO HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION IN ONTARIO


Mr. AHEARN:: 1.	Has the government of Canada given to the government of Ontario any commitment to share in the cost of any road or highway construction or maintenance already undertaken in 1934 or to be undertaken before December 31, next?
2.	If so, what is the estimated total sum of such federal commitments?
3.	What is the total estimated cost of the projected work under the joint scheme?
4.	What sum pertains solely to the trans-Canada highway?


Mr. BENNETT:: With respect to this
question, the orders in council that have been passed under the new Relief Act have been brought down, and there is no further information to be given than is covered by these orders in council.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 91, respecting shipping- Mr. Duranleau-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 2, subsection 16-Construction regulations.
Mr. REID:: Might I ask if we passed subsection 13?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: Subsection 13 is passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last evening the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) made a statement with respect to the action taken by the British government, which I indicated I thought was hardly in accordance with the facts.
In 1932 the parliament of the United Kingdom passed the Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Act, 1932, 22-3 George V, Chapter 9, and by that statute it is provided that it might be extended to colonies; and on the 10th of May, 1933, important sections of the act were made applicable to Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Guiana, Cyprus, Fiji, Jamaica and dependencies, Kenya, and Mauritius. The convention is incorporated in the statutes of Great Britain as found in the preamble to the act and in the second schedule, just as is being done here.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Finlay MacDonald: Any objection to all the other subsections in this definition section?


Thomas Reid: Are you attempting to pass all the definitions en bloc, is that the suggestion? If that is the intention, of course we might as well not take any further interest in the bill. I thought an undertaking was given that when this bill was before the committee representations would be listened to. Now are we to be told that we are protesting and trying to block the bill if we try to get an explanation?


Finlay MacDonald: We shall not do that if there is any objection.
Subsections 17 to 19 inclusive agreed to.

Canada Shipping Act


Thomas Reid: Would the minister state as a matter of information how much money was paid to Martin Griffin last year, and what was the expense of drawing up this bill?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: I have not the information with me. I think the exact amount paid was tabled a few weeks ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What has that to do with it? It has nothing to do with this bill.


Thomas Reid: That is your interpretation of it; I have my own reasons. You are just butting in. You should have been here yesterday.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsection 20 agreed to.
On subsection 21-Dangerous goods.
Thomas Reid: Is there a list of dangerous goods mentioned?


Alfred Duranleau: That is a point that will be covered by regulation approved by order in council.


Thomas Reid: According to my information the Board of Trade in Great Britain have all the dangerous goods specified.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 22 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
On subsection 26-Foreign voyage.
Thomas Reid: I would ask that this section stand.


Alfred Duranleau: I would ask one of my colleagues to move an amendment to clarify this definition, striking out all the words after the word "means," and inserting the words:
a voyage extending beyond the area of a home trade voyage and not being an inland or minor waters voyage.


Mr. DORION:: I move that subsection 26 be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
"Foreign voyage" means a voyage extending beyond the area of a home trade voyage and not being an inland or minor waters voyage.


Thomas Reid: I think this section should stand; this definition is too important to be put through quickly. The definitions of foreign and home trade are the two most important definitions in the whole section, so I think the subsection should stand for further consideration.


Finlay MacDonald: Shall the subsection stand?
74726-251 j


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Alfred Duranleau: I understood that my hon. friend had some objection to the definition of a home voyage?


Thomas Reid: Yes, I had, but I am not getting a chance to put my explanation forward. This bill is before the whole committee, but when we get up to try to improve it we are told that we are trying to block it and shouted down. I am trying to get some changes put in which I think should be inserted. Surely I am within my rights as a member in doing that without being accused of blocking the bill. This is a very important subsection.


Finlay MacDonald: Do I understand that the hon. member wishes this subsection to stand?


Thomas Reid: Yes.	.
Subsection stands.
Subsections 27 to 30 inclusive agreed to.
On subsection 31-Grain.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In connection with this definition I have some representations from the Vancouver Chamber of Shipping. They suggest the deletion of the present definition and the insertion of the following:
"Grain" means corn, wheat, rye, barley, oats, peas, rice, paddy, pulse, seeds, nuts or nut kernels, and all other grain.
They further add:
It is the opinion of the chamber that the words used in the Merchant Shipping Act should be included, together with the words which have been in the Canadian act for many years.


Alfred Duranleau: What is the association?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Vancouver Chamber of Shipping.


Alfred Duranleau: Just a moment ago I received a wire from the Vancouver Chamber of Shipping, and they seem satisfied with the bill as drafted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman will find that this definition is more comprehensive than the one he suggests. The word "grain" has the generic meaning, and these other words are included to remove any doubt. Once or twice we had the same difficulty to meet, and I think the hon. gentleman will appreciate the necessity of not trying to make the definition too exact, and making sure that it does include certain named grains.
Canada Shipping Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would
the minister send me that telegram? If he does not mind I should like to put on record what it contains. They say their amendments were rejected by the Senate, but they want the legislation passed this session and suggest that their amendments be given further consideration at a later session. That removes my responsibility.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 32, 33 and 34 agreed to.
On subsection 35-Harbour or port.
Thomas Reid: Stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why?


Thomas Reid: I will endeavour to explain why I should like this subsection to stand. Yesterday when I moved an amendment to the definition of subsection 13 perhaps I should have elaborated my remarks in that connection. If I may say so, subsection 13 is correlated with subsections 35 and 41. Subsection 41 deals with navigable fresh waters and subsection 35 designates salt water. That was why yesterday I endeavoured, in connection with subsection 13, to have New Westminster or the Fraser river included. The fresh water and the salt water are clearly defined in subsections 35 and 41.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman of course realizes that those exceptions are made because these are ports that have been long established under particular statutes. Vancouver is not mentioned; neither is Saint John or Halifax, or other harbour commission ports. I suggest that possibly the hon. gentleman might take his representations to the minister, who tells me that he would be glad to receive them. Then if there are any difficulties we can perhaps meet them later.


Thomas Reid: If the subsection stands I should be very glad to make those representations.
Subsection stands.
Subsection 36 agreed to.
On subsection 37-Home trade ships.


Thomas Reid: This subsection should stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely there cannot be any difficulty about this subsection. It states merely this:
"Home trade ships" are ships engaged in home trade voyages.
There may be some- difficulty about home trade voyages but there cannot be about home trade ships.	*


Thomas Reid: I understand that this subsection was copied from the British act, and that in

that act there are two definitions, one pertaining to a foreign voyage, and the other to home trade. Home trade in the British act does not mean trade simply around the British Isles, but includes trade going as far as Lisbon, French ports and other points in the particular section. We have embodied in this subsection the term home trade appearing in the British act. I suggest that home trade when it relates to foreign trade is a very important point. My information is that under our home trade system a ship leaving the port of Vancouver and, for the sake of the discussion, going to Montreal would be engaging in home trade just so long as it remained on the Pacific coast. But if it went through the Panama canal and up to Montreal it would be engaged in foreign trade. That is the information I have before me. I understand the term "home trade' is copied from the British act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no reason why subsection 38 should not stand, but surely there is no reason why 37 dealing with home trade ships should stand. The definition of home trade ships could not be changed in any way, no matter how long it stood.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 38-Home trade voyage.
Mr. STITT (Nelson):: In connection with subsection 38 is it intended that vessels engaged in home trade voyages shall not enter the waters of Hudson bay? I should like an answer.
Subsection stands.
On subsection 39-Hull.


Mr. CANTLEY:: With all due deference to the compiler of the bill I would suggest that subsection 39 is not properly worded. It reads as follows:
"Hull" means the body of a vessel including the masts and rigging and all parts of its structure.
I submit that it should read:
"Hull" means the body of a vessel including the structure, spars, rigging and tackle.
I suggest that the word "spars" is much more comprehensive than the word "masts", because there are spars in addition to the mast. I believe, further, that rigging and tackle should be included in the term "hull".
Subsection 39 stands.
Subsections 40 to 88 inclusive agreed to.
On subsection 89-Sailing ship.


Mr. MYERS:: I should like to say a word about subsection 89. May I draw the minister's

Canada Shipping Act
attention to the fact that down around the maritime provinces we have a number of small sailing ships ranging from 50 to 150 tons. Although they are sailing ships, most of them are fitted with auxiliary engines. Am I right when I say that there is nothing in the bill to interfere with them operating as they now are?


Alfred Duranleau: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member will
notice that in the last part of the subsection appear the following words:
And which, in addition, is provided with mechanical means of propulsion.


John Howard Myers: But only with an engine of
three nominal horsepower.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: But that is actually
brake horsepower.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest
the minister should give some consideration to the clarification of this definition. The last clause might be amended to read "So as to include". I believe that is the idea, namely to include a vessel having mechanical power of not more than three nominal horsepower.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the word "and"
should be "or".


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not quite sure as to what the amendment should be but 1 do suggest that at the present time it does not read correctly.


Mr. DUFF:: It is all wrong. The whole
thing is wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe the word "or"
should be used.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest the minister should give some consideration to the wording. Then, may I make the further suggestion that they raise the ante.


Alfred Duranleau: Do you wish to have it stand?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
merely making representations; I do not care what happens to it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Something has been
drawn to my attention which, it seems to me, should be mentioned to the committee. 1 have before me a copy in English of Bill E of the Senate, an act respecting shipping, as passed by the Senate on May 31,1934. I have, also, the French version of Bill E, Senat du Canada, Loi concernant la marine marchande. When I compare the French and English
versions of the definitions we are now passing I find they do not correspond. For instance, in the English version I find in subsection 88 the words "Safety radiotelegraph certificate". Then, I find that subsection 88 in the French version is as follows:
(Translation) "Chairman" (president) means the Chairman of the Board of Steamship Inspection (8).


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Would the hon. gentleman look at definition 16 in the French version?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) had read the explanatory note which is at the bottom of the first page, he would have found the following:
The definitions are arranged alphabetically. At the end of each is found the number of the corresponding definition in the French version of this act, the alphabetical order being necessarily different in the two languages.
Therefore, we are following the alphabetical order of the French definition. The same applies to the English definitions. That is why the numbers do not correspond.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are certain difficulties in the French translation. When the English copy was finished the French translation was entrusted to Mr. Montigny, and it has been observed that there are several discrepancies between the English and the French sections. I am glad that the hon. gentleman has brought it to the attention of the committee because it had to be done sooner or later. The French version has been sent back to Mr. Montigny for correction.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I point out that if hon. gentlemen will look at the end of the subsections they will note the number of the corresponding definition in the French version. For instance, the corresponding French definition of the English definition of Safety Radiotelegraph Certificate in subsection 88 will be found in subsection 16 of the French version.
Subsection stands.
Subsections 90 to 93 inclusive agreed to.
On subsection 94-Ship.


Thomas Reid: Might I point out to the minister that there are two definitions, one of ship, and the other of vessel. I do not think the definition of "ship" goes far enough. When we get to section 3 the word "vessel" is used. "Ship" is defined as including every descrip-
Canada Shipping Act

tion of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars. That might mean that to come under the definition of "ship" a vessel has to be self-propelled, but out on the Pacific coast we have what are called log barges. The logs are piled on top of one another to the height of perhaps eight feet. A patent was obtained for this type of barge. I do not think it would be included in this definition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The definition of "ship"
covers it.


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose that the
situation my hon. friend speaks of has existed for years.


Thomas Reid: No. At the moment I do not
remember the exact name of the type of barge I am speaking of but it was patented a few years ago, and before you can use that type for towing logs you must obtain permission from the patentee. The booms of logs are piled one on top of the other, and these rafts travel quite a distance. They are different from any other form of navigation.


Alfred Duranleau: I hope my hon. friend will be satisfied when I tell him that this definition has existed in the British law and in our own law for years, and we have never had any trouble over it, so I do not think it will be necessary to make any change.


Thomas Reid: I do not doubt that it has
been in the British law.


Alfred Duranleau: And in the Canada
Shipping Act. It has been the law of the land for years, and there has never been any objection or complaint.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The definition covers
every kind of vessel.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 95 to 98 inclusive agreed to.
On subsection 99-Sick mariner.
Thomas Cantley: There is some mistake in this definition. It says:
"Sick mariner" includes any person employed on board any ship in respect of which the duty has been paid.
That must be a mistake. I suppose what is meant is any person whose services on the ship are being paid for. It is not right as it is. Some of the lawyers can fix it up.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: And afterwards somebody will complain about the translation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Charlevoix-Saguenay has been.
fMr. Reid.]


Thomas Reid: Suppose a ship comes in for
the first time with a sick mariner whose dues or tolls are not being paid for, how is he taken care of?


Alfred Duranleau: It is the responsibility of the master of the ship. The word "duty" is the word employed in the sections.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 100 and 101 agreed to.
On subsection 102-Tackle.
Thomas Cantley: There is something lacking here. It says:
"Tackle" used in relation to a vessel means the tackle . .. used on board a ship for the loading and unloading thereof.
But that is not the only tackle used. The ground tackle is just as important as any other tackle, and it is not referred to here at all. I think this clause should be amended to include ground tackle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word has a limited
meaning attributed to it for a purpose. When the word is afterwards referred to, it will be found that is the only meaning attributable to it. That is the reason the limitation is imposed upon it.


Alfred Duranleau: This definition was
adopted last year in chapter 52. It comprises the tackle on the ship only, not tackle outside the ship.


Thomas Reid: Why is the tackle used outside the ship not also included? A man may be injured by tackle not on the ship, by tackle not only on a wharf but on a lighter on the other side of the ship. I think this definition should be amended to include tackle outside the ship.


Alfred Duranleau: I think that men
injured on the wharf would be taken care of under the Workmen's Compensation Act.


Thomas Reid: It may be a sailor on board
the ship who is injured by tackle on the shore.


Alfred Duranleau: We will let the subsection stand if that is the wish of my hon. friends.
Subsection stands.
Subsection 103 agreed to.
On subsection 104-Tug.


Thomas Reid: The definition reads:
"Tug" means a steamship used exclusively for towing purposes.

Canada Shipping Act
What about a tug that is used exclusively for salvage purposes and may not be doing any towing at all?


Alfred Duranleau: If a boat is employed for salvage purposes she is not a tug. She is an ordinary ship.


Thomas Reid: They may not be technically
described as tugs but that is the common name used.


Alfred Duranleau: Under the law a tug
is a vessel employed exclusively for towing purposes. Even though other boats may have the form or appearance of a tug, they are not called tugs officially.


Thomas Reid: Is a definition for salvage
given in the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no definition
but there is a section dealing with it.


Thomas Reid: I notice the definition for
timber is left out of this bill.


Alfred Duranleau: The reason is obvious.


Thomas Reid: What is the reason?


Alfred Duranleau: It does not need any definition; what a timber is is well known.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 105 and 106 agreed to.
On subsection 107-Vessel.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think vessel is sufficiently defined to meet the hon. gentleman's difficulty. He would have seen this if he had looked.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 108 to 112 inclusive agreed to.
On subsection 113-Year.
Thomas Reid: The bill last year defined
"young persons" but it does not seem to be taken care of here.


Alfred Duranleau: My information is
that that phrase appears in only one section and is defined in the section itself.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 3-Vessels not yet registrable may be recorded.
Thomas Reid: Throughout the bill there are only the two words "vessel" and "ship" used and I note here that every vessel is to be registered. The definition of vessel is:
"Vessel" includes any ship or boat or any other description of vessel used or designed to be used in navigation.	.
I should like to know if a person building a scow would have to register that scow? It would appear to me that a scow would have to be registered according to that definition, and I don't believe they should.


Alfred Duranleau: The word "vessel" is applied to ships which are not completely built. When they start construction we call them a vessel for recording purposes.


Thomas Reid: That is my point. According to the definition, "vessel" includes any ship or boat or any other description of vessel used or designed to be used in navigation. A scow is used in navigation. These scows are used quite extensively on the Pacific coast and according to this definition, under section 3 a builder or owner of a scow would have to go and have it registered.


Alfred Duranleau: They are not bound
to do it unless it is over ten tons capacity.


Thomas Reid: They have large scows on the Pacific coast which have a greater capacity than ten tons.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend knows that a scow is not a ship because it is not propelled by any power; it is a vessel.


Thomas Reid: Davis raft were the words I was trying to remember. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said that "vessel" and "ship" would 'take oare of it all. According to the definition a vessel is any ship or boat or any other description of vessel used or designed to be used in navigation. A scow is used in navigation.


Alfred Duranleau: A scow is a vessel.


Thomas Reid: It will be necessary to have a scow registered, according to that definition?


Alfred Duranleau: This section is to cover the recording of ships when building is started. Although a scow is called a vessel, it will not need to be recorded. This section is to permit the recording of a ship during the course of its construction in order that security may be taken on that vessel. When it is built and launched, it then becomes a ship.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the suggestions forwarded by the Vancouver Chamber of Shipping, the following definition of scows was given:
"Scow" means a vessel having no rudder and no sails or other means of propulsion and having a deck without hatches or openings save such as are provided for the purposes of ventilation and inspection, and which carries no cargo under her deck.
I understand that that definition was rejected by the committee in the other place.
Canada Shipping Act


Thomas Reid: In spite of what the minister says, we must take the definition of "vessel" which is given, and that definition includes any ship or boat or any other description of vessel used or designed to be used in navigation. A scow is used in navigation and I am asking the minister if, under section 3, a man who is building a scow would have to have it registered?


Alfred Duranleau: I am told by the law department that a scow would not have to be recorded. In connection with the remarks of the hon. member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), my information is that these suggestions were studied carefully by the subcommittee of the Senate. That committee came to the conclusion that the definitions which appear in this bill cover the whole point. I am told that these vessels are only employed on the Pacific coast.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Which section of the bill makes an exception in the case of a scow? I think my hon. friend is entitled to an answer.


Thomas Reid: The definition of "ship" includes barges, but the definition of "vessel" is entirely different. Vessel is mentioned in section 3 and in order to get a definition of the word, we must go to the interpretation clause.


Alfred Duranleau: If my hon. friends have any other definitions to suggest we are quite prepared to examine them.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Section 3 states, "every vessel, which is about to be built or is being built." "Vessel" is defined as including any ship or boat or any other description of vessel used or designed to be used in navigation. Such a vessel would have to be built already while section 3 refers to a vessel about to be built or being built. There are hundreds of such things throughout this bill. Somebody will be complaining about the translation but you cannot translate something that is not proper.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend may be more expert than I am in marine matters or the construction of ships, but my information from the legal department is that only ships over ten tons will have to be registered, under this legislation.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That has nothing to do with the registration. Clause 3 reads:
Every vessel, which is about to be built.


Alfred Duranleau: Vessels have to be recorded before they are registered.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: But the minister forgets that the definition of "vessel" is:
"Vessel" includes any ship or boat or any other description of vessel used or designed to be used in navigation.
If it is used, it must have been built, yet clause 3 reads:
Every vessel, which is about to be built.


Thomas Reid: With all deference to the minister, apart from what he says we are going by the bill; the bill is our guide and after it has been passed it will be the guide and law for all shipping. This definition should receive a great deal of consideration because the words "vessel" and "ship" are defined in the bill and under clause 3 it is required that every vessel about to be built or equipped in Canada shall be recorded. I ask the minister whether under this the owner or the builder or a person about to construct a 6cow would first of all have to have it registered.


John Howard Myers: I believe subclause 107 of clause 2 would be improved if there were added at the end of it the words "other than scows."


Thomas Reid: Scows or barges.


John Howard Myers: I know on the Atlantic there are hundreds of barges which are used by dredging companies and which carry from thirty to forty tons. This addition might clarify the matter.


Finlay MacDonald: We are dealing with clause 3 which refers to a vessel that is not yet a vessel. It is on the stocks; it is not yet finished and it cannot be registered.


Thomas Reid: But I was drawing the attention of the committee to the fact that a person about to build a scow or barge would under this clause have to go and have that scow or barge registered.


Alfred Duranleau: No. If my hon. friend will read the first three or four lines of the clause he will see that it applies only to a construction which will become a ship and then be registered. The clause reads:
Every vessel, which is about to be built or is being built or equipped in Canada and which, when completed, launched and/or equipped will be a ship registrable in Canada as a British ship.
So my hon. friend will see clearly that this applies only to ships in course of construction.


Thomas Reid: This just shows, as I have stated previously that this bill should be considered by a small committee. I am glad the minister mentioned the word "ship." The

Canada Shipping Act
word "ship" under the definition includes a barge. First of all you have a vessel about to be built. When it is built it becomes a ship and therefore comes under subclause 94 of clause 2, which defines "ship" to include a barge. The definition of "ship" is:
"Ship" includes every description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars. ... It shall include every description of lighter, barge or like vessel used in navigation in Canada however propelled.
Your own words, Mr. Minister, confirm what I am saying.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will notice that the second sentence of suibclause 94 of clause 2 is only for certain parts of the act:
"Ship" includes every description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars.
Then:
For the purpose of part I-
This is only for part I



(recording, registering and licensing) and sections 649 to 654 inclusive of this act (limitation of liability) it shall include every description of lighter, barge or like vessel used in navigation in Canada however propelled.
My hon. friend will see that the definition of "ship" applying to smaller vessels is only for the purposes of certain parts of the measure.


Thomas Reid: For the purpose of part I,
which is recording, registering and licensing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
further point out to the minister that under clause 367, Bill J, it was suggested to the minister last year that the words "other than scows" be inserted, because otherwise it would mean that scows would under that clause be liable for the payment of sick mariners' funds although no scows require as a rule to carry crews. This was pointed out to the minister a year ago.


Alfred Duranleau: We will let subclause 107 of clause 2 stand.


Finlay MacDonald: We have passed subclause
107 of clause 2. We have passed everything down to part I of the bill. Now we are dealing with clause 3 of the bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let
clause 3 stand.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If there are any definitions that conflict with clause 3, surely, even if they have been passed we should have a right to return to them.
Section stands.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Ownership of recorded vessels remains unchanged until bill of sale recorded.


Thomas Cantley: I want to bring before
the committee a case in regard to this. I do not know whether this is the proper clause, but I would like to ask the minister whether any duty is imposed upon the registrar, when ownership is changed to another port in Canada, to give notification of the change of ownership to the registrar of the port to which the ownership has been changed. My reason for asking that is this, if the committee will pardon me for bringing in a personal matter. Twelve or fourteen years ago I built a steel vessel in New Glasgow which I operated for some time. Later I sold her while she was lying in Boston through a broker, a former Nova Scotian, who conducted a ship brokerage business there for many years. I went to the custom house in Pictou, saw the registrar of shipping, and made the usual declaration of change of ownership. That change of ownership was registered on the shipping register of the port of Pictou. The new certificate of ownership was issued in the new owner's name, on his statement that he was a citizen of Toronto, Ontario. He kept the register on board the ship as by law he had to do, but never registered the ship in the port of Toronto where he said he resided and where he said he wanted the vessel registered. Afterwards the ship was seized as a rum runner, and a few days later the Halifax Chronicle published an item to the effect that the vessel had been seized and that by application to the registrar's office in Pictou they had found the owner was Thomas Cantley, New Glasgow, M.P. for Pictou. At that time I was a member of this house. This ship made history inasmuch as she was the first vessel that was seized by the United States authorities after Great Britain agreed to the twelve mile limit. My question to the minister is: In that case, should the registrar of shipping in Pictou, after closing of the register there, not have transferred the certificate of change of ownership to the registrar's books in Toronto? If not, is there any provision in the act now before the house that will take care of such a case? I submit it is a matter that should be rectified. I ask the minister to take it into consideration.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think there is any provision in the bill that would put on the owner the obligation to declare change of ownership in another port than the port of registration.


Thomas Cantley: The minister can understand what is involved. Many things may
Canada Shipping Act

happen. The new owner may obtain credit in view of the fact that apparently the vessel is still owned in Pictou still registered there whereas in fact it has been removed from the registry in Pictou and should have been put upon the registry in Toronto. That I submit, should be remedied.


Alfred Duranleau: We shall take into consideration the suggestion made by my hon. friend and report at the next sitting.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I call attention to the wording of the section:
(1) For the purposes of the provisions of this part of this act which relate to recording of vessels the owner of every recorded vessel which is being built shall identify it by painting on a board, maintained near the place in the yard of the builder where the vessel is being built, on a dark ground, in white or yellow figures.
Did anyone ever hear of a vessel being built on a dark ground!


Finlay MacDonald: That section has been carried.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Well, I think it should be changed and worded properly. I am not going to be a party to such a ridiculous statement.


Alfred Duranleau: That means light letters on a dark board.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Then why complain
about the translation.


Alfred Duranleau: That has been the law of the land for years.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Let us change it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In French it says "fond sombre."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Qualification for owning British ships.
Thomas Reid: I think an explanation should be given why the word "British" has been substituted for the word "Canadian." I hold as high a regard for Britain or the name British as any man in this house, having been born there, but coming to this land which I have adopted I believe the time has come when we should be proud enough to use the word "Canadian." I think an explanation should be given why all through this bill the word "British" is used instead of the word "Canadian."


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: "Canada first" policy.


Alfred Duranleau: I am not sure if this is not to accord with the convention between the different parts of the empire. All British subjects have a right to register ships in Canada.
Mr, REID: But since the statute of Westminister I thought we were starting off as an independent young nation and calling ourselves Canadian.


Alfred Duranleau: But in matters of ships and their registration all British subjects are on the same footing.


Thomas Reid: That does not answer the question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the hon. member will find the answer in the definition of "British ship" in the interpretation section:
(5) "British ship registered in Canada" and "ship registered in Canada" means a ship registered in Canada either under the provisions of this act or under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts before the coming into force of this act.
My interpretation is that the word "British" is used to secure uniformity, and include both classes of vessels, those registered before the coming into force of this act and those registered under this act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On section 19-Port of registry.
Thomas Reid: I think it is hardly fair that British ships registered in London should operate all the time in Canadian waters. I think British ships working and making a profit in Canada should be registered in Canada. There are many steamship companies operating here which have their ships registered in London, and certain favours accrue to them thereby. I am of the opinion that any ship owners who have ships trading on our Pacific or Atlantic coasts, and whose ships .are used exclusively in those waters, should be made to take out registration in Canada.


Alfred Duranleau: Perhaps my hon. friend does not know that it is an imperial agreement between all parts of the empire. It is reciprocal. Our Canadian ships have the same privileges in any ports of the empire that other British ships have in Canada.


Thomas Reid: I would not protest so much but I know in regard to the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company whose ships are registered in London that they bring out masters, en-

Canada Shipping Act
gineers and men from Great Britain and employ them on those ships to the detriment of our own men. They refuse to accept our men and refuse to accept certificates of competency of our seamen. I believe that apart from any imperial agreement a British ship doing business solely in. Canadian waters should be compelled to register in Canada. I think it is only right.


Mr. DURANLE  AU@: That question would not come under this section. It will come elsewhere in the bill.


Thomas Reid: Then we will come to it later on?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 19 to 32 inclusive agreed to.
On section 33-Endorsement of change of ownership on certificate.
Ernest Lapointe: On some sections there
are no notes indicating whether it is the old law or whether they are new sections. There is nothing to show whether there is any change in the British or Canadian acts.


Alfred Duranleau: I think this enactment will be found in our statute, chapter 186 of the revised statutes of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The new sections are marked, are they not?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 34 to 43 inclusive agreed to.
On section 44-Effects in law of a builder's mortgage.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I note
that this section 44 is a new one. Does it contain any improvements; if so, what are they? Could the hon. minister explain the reason for such a change?


Alfred Duranleau: This section takes the place of about fifteen sections which were in the old act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 45 to 52 inclusive agreed to.
On section 53-Transmission of interest of mortgagee.
Mr. VENIOT:: Do you not think we
would make a little more progress if some of our friends on the opposite side took a little more interest in this bill? There are only about ten of them in the committee,
considering this bill to which such absolute objections have been made from this side of the house. They have not enough courtesy to attend and support their own bill. They have to depend for the passage of a measure of this kind on the members whio have protested strongly against it. I think members on the other side are showing very little courtesy to the minister by leaving him alone. If hon. members on this side had gone out there would not have been a quorum, and the bill could not have been proceeded with.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 54 to 88 inclusive agreed to.
On section 89-National colours for ships, and penalty on carrying improper colours.
Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, I shall ask the Right Hon. Sir George Perley to move:
That after the word "shield" appearing in line twenty-nine of subsection 1, the words "of the coat of arms" be inserted.
Undoubtedly those words have been omitted in error.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 90 to 93 inclusive agreed to.
On section 94-Deductions for ascertaining
tonnage.
Thomas Reid: I notice that certain exemptions are put in for tonnage, and I am wondering what is to be done about the forecastle, bridge space and shelter decks. Are they taken care of in the bill?


Alfred Duranleau: These are exactly the same measurements as are mentioned in the Merchant Shipping Acts.


Thomas Reid: Does that answer my question? Tonnage is an important feature in this bill.


Alfred Duranleau: The places mentioned by my hon. friend are included in the tonnage.


Thomas Reid: They should be excluded. We are dealing with exemptions. I find in subsection 1 the words "deductions shall be made from the space."


Alfred Duranleau: I understand this is the under deck tonnage and the spaces mentioned by my hon. friend are included in that tonnage.
Canada Shipping Act


Thomas Reid: Subsection 1 reads:
In measuring or remeasuring a ship for the purpose of ascertaining her register tonnage, the following deductions shall be made from the space included in the measurement of the tonnage, namely,-
And so on. I do not see any mention of the forecastle bridge space or shelter decks, although other points in the ship are mentioned in subsection 2.


Alfred Duranleau: There are no exemptions for the spaces mentioned by my hon. friend.


Thomas Reid: Should there not be? You are exempting:
(ii)	any space used exclusively for the working of the helm, the capstan, and the anchor gear, or for keeping the charts, signals, and other instruments of navigation, and boatswains stores; and
(iii) the space occupied by the donkey engine and boiler, if connected with the main pumps of the ship; and
(iv) any space (other than a double bottom) adapted only for water ballast; and
(b) In the case of a ship wholly propelled by sails, any space set apart and used exclusively for the storage of sails.
Yet there is no provision for the exemption of the forecastle, the bridge space and shelter decks. It shows how important these sections are and I am surprised that it is being passed so quickly. There will be many errors in it.


Alfred Duranleau: This is the law which has been in existence for years.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Can we not improve it?


Alfred Duranleau: In existence both in Canada and in Great Britain.


Ernest Lapointe: But people have been complaining about it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Can we not improve it?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 95 to 99 inclusive agreed to.
On section 100-Deck cargo.
Thomas Reid: I notice that there is a change in this instance. In subsection 1 of section 100 I find the words, "carries into Canada as deck cargo." I am of opinion that the section should stand, because it deals with the dues placed on a ship.
Section stands.
Sections 101 to 105 inclusive agreed to.

On section 106-Licences to ships not required to be registered.


Thomas Reid: This section should stand for further consideration, because I believe it affects the fishermen.


Alfred Duranleau: How does it affect the fishermen? What is your suggestion?


Thomas Reid: At the moment I have not drafted my amendment, and I should like the section to stand until I can give it further consideration, because it has a bearing upon the fishermen.


Alfred Duranleau: I am told it costs
nothing to the fishermen, and that they do not have to apply for a licence.


Thomas Reid: They have not to apply?


Alfred Duranleau: No, it does not affect the fishermen at all. That is my expert opinion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 107 to 113 inclusive agreed to.
On section 114-Ships to be provided with certificated engineers.
Thomas Reid: Why is the word "steamship" used throughout the act? There is no mention of any auxiliary ship or vessel.


Alfred Duranleau: "Steamship" is a
Canadian expression; "steamer" is British. The Senate came to the conclusion that they should use the word "steamship" instead of "steamer."


Thomas Reid: I note that in a subsequent section a certificate given to an officer acquainted with a steamship qualifies him for a motor-driven vessel, but an expert in motor-driven vessels is not qualified to become an officer on a steamship.


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection 101 of the definition clause reads:
"Steamship" or "steamer" (except as may be provided under the load line rules) means any ship propelled by machinery, and not coming within the definition of sailing ship.
The words are interchangeable in the definition.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: Has the minister received any requests from the engineers for a modification of the regulations in regard to the number and class of engineers who shall be employed on vessels?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, there were requests from the association.

Canada Shipping Act


John Anderson Fraser: Have they been met?


Alfred Duranleau: Their representatives were heard by the Senate, where the point was discussed at length, and I am told their suggestions could not be accepted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 115-Grades of certificates of competency.
Thomas Cantley: What is the meaning of lines 2 and 3 on page 56, reading:
(d)	Sailing ship;
(e)	Fore-and-aft rigged sailing ship.
They are both sailing ships; why the distinction?


Alfred Duranleau: The sailing ship is the squaresailed ship. That is the general term.


Thomas Cantley: They are both sailing ships.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 116 to 120 inclusive agreed to.
Section 121 stands.
Sections 122 to 129 inclusive agreed to.
On section 130-Recognition of certificate.
Thomas Reid: I would like to have moved an amendment to this section. In explanation I would draw the minister's attention once more to the fact that engineers and first and second mates have been refused employment on board ship at the port of Vancouver and the port of New Westminster because the captain or those in authority would not recognize the certificate of competency issued by the Canadian authorities. It is all very well to say that this is a reciprocal matter, and that what another country does we will do, but I repeat that ships registered in Great Britain and plying between the Britsih 'Isles, Vancouver, and the Orient have consistently refused to accept Canadian officers because they had not certificates issued by the British Board of Trade. I think it should be made mandatory in this clause that a certificate of competency issued under the authority of the Minister of Marine or other competent authority in Canada shall be accepted for engineers and first and second mates on British vessels. I think that is only fair. I could cite case after case of men being refused because they did not hold a certificate from the British Board of Trade, and not only were they refused but men were brought out from Great Britain to fill those
positions, and the excuse given was, "We are very sorry, but we cannot engage you because you have not papers recognized by the Board of Trade, London." I would like to move an amendment to this clause. It is a very serious matter, and I think now is the time to remedy the situation.


Alfred Duranleau: I will ask that this section stand, but I am afraid that as this is a reciprocal arrangement it comes under the British commonwealth agreement of 1931. I would suggest to my hon. friend to send in his amendment and we will consider it, and if it is possible to incorporate such an amendment we will do so.
Section stands.
Sections 131 and 132 agreed to.
On section 133-Master must produce certificate on clearance.


Thomas Cantley: is subsection 2 the present law?


Hugh Guthrie: That is the present law.


Alfred Duranleau: It is chapter 186, section 100.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 134 to 142 inclusive agreed to.
On section 143-Shipping masters.
Thomas Reid: Has the minister given any consideration to the issuing of certificates to shipping masters? In certain ports it would seem as though anyone can be appointed as shipping master whether or not he has any knowledge of ships. This bill is providing regulations for captains, mates, engineers and so forth but there is nothing in connection with shipping masters. I think these men should undergo some examination. I know of one case where the harbour master is also the shipping master and is paid as such.


Alfred Duranleau: These officers are appointed by the government and the government takes the responsibility in connection therewith. Before an appointment is made we ascertain if a man is qualified for the position.


Thomas Reid: Is shipping master and harbour master the same?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 144 to 162 inclusive agreed to.
Canada Shipping Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 163-Agreement with crew.
Thomas Reid: Has the minister given any consideration to having agreements made between the masters and crews of home trade ships? There are ships engaged in home trade on the Pacific coast carrying between three and four hundred employees and according to this section they would be exempt from entering into any agreement with the crew. On the other hand a much smaller ship not engaged in home trade would have to have an agreement.


Mr. DURA  NLEAU@: My hon. friend will see that this is covered by section 167.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 164 and 165 agreed to.
On section 166-Agreements with crew of foreign-going ships.
Thomas Reid: Will this section take care of all foreign ships coming to Canada from abroad?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 167 agreed to.
On section 168-Agreements with crew of inland water ships.
Alfred Duranleau: There is a clerical error in this section which will have to be corrected. I will ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) to move to strike out the word "eight" in line 45 and substitute the word "nine" therefor.


Hugh Guthrie: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 169 to 178 agreed to.
On section 179-Engagement of seamen out of Canada.
Thomas Reid: Can the minister give any
assurance as to reciprocal arrangements in connection with the engagement or hiring of seamen? Will action be taken so that British ships registered in London and plying in Canadian waters will engage Canadian seamen? It is all very well to have a reciprocal arrangement, but so far it has been onesided in favour of British ships operating here and registered in London.


Alfred Duranleau: As my hon. friend
knows all agreements among the different dominions have to be enacted in a statute [Mr. Duranleau.l
of each dominion. We undertake to enact as we are doing now with the understanding that the other parts of the empire will do the same.


Thomas Reid: I do not think the minister
has fully grasped my point. Great Britain is at present taking certain action in favour of her own seamen on her own ships operating in Canadian waters. My question is: Why cannot we do the same thing in Canada now and have reciprocal arrangements with the British ships?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will
understand that we can control our own ships but we cannot control ships other than our own.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 180-Rating of ablebodied seamen.
Thomas Reid: I think this clause should stand because as it reads it loses sight of the fact that a man may have been engaged on, say the Canadian National ferries for two or three years and on certain classes of fishing boats. In this clause his service is defined that before he is entitled to the rating of A.B., it shall count as sea service only up to a period of two years on decked deep sea fishing vessels and the rating of A.B. shall only be granted after at least one year's sea service on a trading vessel in addition to two or more years' sea service on board of decked fishing vessels. I think that clause should be given greater consideration.


Alfred Duranleau: Has my hon. friend
any amendment to suggest? If so, I will let the clause stand and consider the amendment he proposes. I am informed that this clause applies only to deep sea ships and cannot apply to ferries.


Thomas Reid: I know. Perhaps the minister did not get my point. There are seamen engaged on ferries travelling, say between Port Mann and Vancouver island who get as much experience as a man on board a decked fishing vessel, as the decked fishing vessel may be operating in exactly the same waters. The clause does not cover men who may have 9erved, shall I say, apprenticeships on board those Canadian National ferries.


Alfred Duranleau: Let the clause stand.
Section stands.

Canada Shipping Act
On section 181-Discharges before shipping master.


Thomas Reid: I must at this time draw the
attention of the minister to a serious state of affairs which is not taken care of in this clause which, I believe, refers to the discharging of seamen at certain ports. I have a case where a man was engaged on a ship in Vancouver going to Montreal and on reaching Montreal was discharged and left stranded. Under this clause I believe provision is made to take care of a seaman stranded on a foreign shore or, say in Great Britain but there is no provision to take care of a seaman who may be stranded by a Canadian ship in any port in Canada. A striking case occurred last year. The man went on board the ship in Vancouver in good faith; the boat was carrying lumber to Montreal, and when he reached Montreal he was fired and left stranded.


Alfred Duranleau: I think that is taken care of somewhere later on in the bill but I will let the clause stand for the present.


Thomas Reid: I have looked through the
bill as carefully as I can but cannot find such a provision. The matter should be taken care of.
Section stands.
On section 182-Certificate of discharge.


Thomas Cantley: Is there not a change or omission in the last line of subclause 1 of this clause in regard to the statement on a seaman's discharge certificate? It reads:
But not containing any statement as to his wages or the quality of his work.
The practice has hitherto been that on the discharge of a seaman he has been given a certificate of discharge with four letters on it: "0," "G," "V.G."; "O" meaning ordinary; "G" meaning good, and "V.G." meaning very good. He was entitled to have those letters appended to his certificate of discharge, but so far as I can see that is not provided for here.


Alfred Duranleau: Subclause 1 of clause 182 has been taken from the Merchant Shipping Act.


Thomas Cantley: I think that should be
looked into. I do not think it is right.


Alfred Duranleau: We will let the clause stand.
Section stands.
Sections 183 to 268 inclusive agreed to.
On section 269

Official logs.


Thomas Cantley: Is there any change in
this section?


Alfred Duranleau: No, this is from the
Canada Shipping Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 270 to 278 inclusive agreed to.
On section 279-Employment of children on board ship.
Alfred Duranleau: I have one or two
minor amendments to this section in order to clarify the wording. At line 13, after the word "no" insert the words "child being a." At line 20, after the word "no" insert "young person not being a child and being a." On page 115, line 1, after the word "no" insert "young."


Hugh Guthrie: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 280 to 283 inclusive agreed to.
On section 284-Sanction required for discharge of seamen out of Canada.
Thomas Reid: I think this is the section to
which I should have referred a moment ago when I spoke with regard to seamen who were stranded in ports in Canada. This section reads:
The master of a ship registered in Canada shall not discharge a seaman at any place out of Canada (except at a port in the country in which he was shipped) -


Alfred Duranleau: Let it stand.


Thomas Reid: I think this section should
stand.
Section stands.
Sections 285, 286 and 287 agreed to.
On section 288-Expenses	of medical
attendance in case of injury.


Thomas Reid: I think in connection with
this section it would be advisable to look into the question of compensation. Under the present shipping act the seaman is cared for in regard to illness, death, discharge and so forth, but there is no provision for compensation. A case occurred last year in which a man engaged on a government ship lost a finger. He might easily have lost an arm or a leg, and this brings up the question of men who are injured at sea, with no provision being made for compensation. This man was on the William J. Stewart; when nearing the British West Indies he met with a serious
Canada Shipping Act

accident to his hand. Although he asked to be put ashore in the British West Indies he was not allowed to go to the hospital there because the ship was carrying a skeleton crew. The ship returned from the British West Indies to Collingwood, Ontario, and from there it went to British Columbia. This seaman was discharged at Victoria, and was promptly given the benefit of the provisions concerning medical attention and so forth. He applied to the compensation board at Vancouver, but his application for compensation was turned down because he did niot come under any compensation laws of any province. That seaman is minus a finger as a result of obeying the commands of the master of that ship. Although his hand was badly injured he carried on his work because the ship did not have enough men on board; it had only what is called a skeleton crew. There is no provision at all for compensation to seamen; the matter is very serious, and now that the act is being revised I think some section might stand in order to see if it is not possible to provide for compensation to seamen.


Alfred Duranleau: I understand that in
the circumstances mentioned by my hon. friend the seaman would come under the different compensation acts of the different provinces, but at any rate we will let this section stand in order to see what may be done.


Thomas Reid: That is not the information
I have from British Columbia. That case came before the board and I understand they refuse to take care of seamen, especially those travelling to foreign ports.


Alfred Duranleau: We will let the section stand in order to obtain more particulars from my hon. friend about this case.


Thomas Reid: It emphasizes the point I
made earlier in the discussion, that representatives of the seamen's union should have been before a committee, either of the house or of the Senate, to give their views with regard to wages, hiring and firing, and so on.
Section stands.
Sections 289 to 298 inclusive agreed to.
On section 299-Proper return port.


Thomas Reid: I believe this section has a bearing on the discussion we had previously. The last part of the section reads:
Provided that in the case of a seaman shipped in Canada the return port shall be in the same province in which he was shipped unless otherwise agreed' to by him as aforesaid.

That has a bearing on the case I drew to the minister's attention in which a man was engaged in one part of Canada and discharged in another.
Section stands.
Sections 300 to 303 inclusive agreed to.
On section 304-Minister may rent and equip premises for hospitals.


Thomas Reid: What hospitals are designated?


Alfred Duranleau: This part of the act comes under the Department of Health. I am informed the section would include hospitals in every part of the country.


Thomas Reid: The section refers to the "minister." I presume it refers to the Minister of Marine.


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member will notice that subsection 54 of section 2 states:
"Minister" means the Minister of Marine save in part V of this act (sick mariners and marine hospitals) where it means the minister named by the governor in council to administer that part.
Up to date it has been under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Health.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 305 to 312 inclusive agreed to.
On section 313-Pilotage district of Montreal.
Thomas Reid: Would the minister explain why certain pilotage districts are specified?


Alfred Duranleau: For a great many
years that has been the law of the land.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not an answer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 314 to 327 inclusive agreed to.
On section 328

Age limit for active pilot.
Thomas Cantley: Sixty-five years is not a fair age at which to retire a pilot. I think the minister should let the section 6tand.


Alfred Duranleau: What are my hon.
friend's views?


Sir EUGENE FISET:: One hundred years.


Thomas Cantley: I would say seventy-five years, but it depends altogether on the man. It is quite unfair to retire an active man at sixty-five years. There are first class pilots on the St. Lawrence who are seventy-five years of age.

Canada Shipping Act


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will note that in the section there is a provision whereby a pilot reaching the age of sixty-five years can, up to a certain age, renew his licence from year to year.


Thomas Cantley: I had not noticed that this clause said so.


Alfred Duranleau: I suggest it does. I find in it the words:
Every licensed pilot shall, on attaining the age of sixty-five years, produce and deliver up his licence to the pilotage authority which issued it and such authority may grant him a new licence for one year, and so from year to year, until his seventieth birthday, provided he is declared capable of performing his duties as a pilot by a medical officer appointed by the pilotage authority.


Thomas Cantley: I would suggest that the minister make the figures seventy years in the first instance and seventy-five years in the second.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall ask to have the section stand. I do not deny the merit in my hon. friend's suggestion, but this is a very important matter. The safety of navigation is an important feature, and I should like to consult experts in the matter.
Section stands.
Sections 329 to 337 inclusive agreed to.
Sections 338 and 339 stand.


Ernest Lapointe: Why?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: To add the
word "Quebec" after the word "Montreal" in the second paragraph of section 338 and in section 339.


Ernest Lapointe: When
will the amendments be discussed?


Alfred Duranleau: We
shall come to an understanding in this respect.
Sections 340 to 370 inclusive agreed to.
On section 371-Application of pilot funds.
Mr. CANTLEY': Is there any change in regard to the pilotage funds in the ports of North Sydney, Sydney or Halifax?


Alfred Duranleau: No change at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 372 to 405 inclusive agreed to.
On section 406-Radio-telegraph installation.
Thomas Reid: Is there any provision that home ships shall carry radios? Paragraph (a) of subsection 1 reads:
All passenger ships and other ships of sixteen hundred tons gross tonnage or upwards, regis-74726-252
tered in Canada plying on international voyages shall, unless exempted under the provisions of this act or of the regulations made hereunder, be fitted with a radiotelegraph installation complying with the provisions of article thirty-one of the safety convention and shall carry such operators with such qualifications as are prescribed in the regulations issued hereunder;
There are many ships carrying passengers which go far afield and I think these ships should be made to carry radio. I remember one instance, that of the steamship Princess Mary which struck a rock going up north. Surely vessels of this size should be compelled to carry radio.


Alfred Duranleau: I think the point is covered by the following subsection.


Thomas Reid: I am not familiar with navigation on the lakes but I think radio should be compulsory on such ships.


Alfred Duranleau: Subsection 2, paragraph (b) reads:
This subsection shall also apply to all other steamships of five thousand tons gross tonnage and upwards going on any voyage which is or which includes a voyage of more than two hundred nautical miles from one place to another place: Provided, however, that the governor in council may exempt from the obligations imposed by this paragraph any ship or class of ship if he is of the opinion that having regard to the nature of the voyage in which the ship is engaged or the season of the year or other circumstances of the case, the providing of a radiotelegraph installation or the operation thereof is unnecessary or unreasonable.
I think that covers the point.


Thomas Reid: Does the minister think that the minimum tonnage of 5,000 tons is sufficient? A ship of that size is quite large, while the ships I am referring to are probably three or four thousand gross tons.


Alfred Duranleau: I think the first part of subsection 2 covers the point. It reads:
All passenger steamships, whether registered in Canada or not, which are not within subsection one of this section
(i)	carrying or certified to carry fifty or more persons, including passengers and crew, and going on any voyage which is or which includes a voyage of more than two hundred nautical miles from one place to another place; or
(ii)	carrying or certified to carry two hundred and fifty or more persons, including passengers and crew, and going on any voyage which is or which includes a voyage of more than ninety nautical miles from one place to another place; or
(iii)	carrying or certified to carry five hundred or more persons, including passengers and crew, and going on any voyage which is or which includes a voyage of more than twenty nautical miles from one place to another place;

Canada Shipping Act


Thomas Cantley: All these radio regulations are new and I think we had better call it six o'clock in order that we may have a little time to consider them. I should like to know if these regulations were arrived at after consultation with the British Board of Trade.


Alfred Duranleau: All these enactments were adopted by the convention of the different parts of the empire held in 1931.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: When the committee rose at Bix o'clock, clause 406 was under discussion.
Section, agreed to.
Sections 407 to 435 inclusive agreed to.
On section 436

Certificates of convention ships to be produced to customs.


Thomas Reid: Are there any load line regulations in connection with ships on home trade voyages?


Alfred Duranleau: I think so.


Thomas Reid: What clause? I notice these load line regulations pertain to vessels on international voyages.


Alfred Duranleau: We will let this clause stand. I think the load line convention concerns voyages outside Canada, but there may be some clause concerning home voyages, and I will give the information to my hon. friend when my assistant deputy minister is here. He is not here yet.'


Thomas Reid: I hope the minister will find the clause. I have looked for it but I cannot find it. It is important I believe to have load line regulations for home trade voyages.


William Duff: There is no such thing as load line regulations for home trade voyages.


Alfred Duranleau: As to the query of my hon. friend, my information is that when our 6hips go outside Canada the load line convention regulations apply.


Thomas Reid: If a ship leaves Vancouver for San Francisco with lumber, would there be any load line regulations touching that?


Alfred Duranleau: The load line convention would apply.


Mr. HEAPS:: Would it apply on the great lakes?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why would it not apply on the great lakes?


Alfred Duranleau: Because the imperial agreement specifically exempted inland waters.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As a matter of protection to navigation on the great lakes, would it not be advisable to have the same regulations apply to vessels plying within the confines of the dominion?


Alfred Duranleau: The Department of
Marine has had this question under consideration for some time but it is waiting for an agreement with the United States because those are international waters.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 437 to 441 inclusive agreed to.
On section 442-Loading of timber.
Thomas Reid: Does the minister know
whether logs are included in the definition of timber here? I asked that previously and he said he thought timber was generally understood.


Alfred Duranleau: Logs are included under the word "timber."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 443 to 453 inclusive agreed to.
On section 454-Helm orders.
Thomas Reid: Is there not some change since last year-the word "starboard"?


Alfred Duranleau: There is a small change in the wording of the present section, yes: the words "steering order" have been added.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 455 to 465 inclusive agreed to.
On section 466-Inspection of ships' tackle.
Thomas Reid: Were those regulations put into effect last year?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


Thomas Reid: We were told that measure had to go through because you were going to put it into effect. I am particularly interested in this section. I understood last year that it was very important that those provisions should go through, and now we are told that they are not in effect.

Canada Shipping Act


Alfred Duranleau: My officials have
worked on those regulations for over a year. When they were completed about three or four months ago they were distributed to interested parties all over Canada for study. The department have been receiving since answers and suggestions, and I am told they expect to receive two or three more. The moment they are completed they will be approved by order in council and put into effect.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 467 to 502 inclusive agreed to.
On section 503-Wreck.
Thomas Reid: Can the minister tell the committee why this portion of the act is not made reciprocal? It deals with aircraft found derelict, but an airplane might assist a derelict or disabled ship.


William Duff: Do you want the airplane to tow the wreck in?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will see on reading the section that it applies to airships when they come within our territory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 504 to 543 inclusive agreed to.
On section 544-Shipping casualties.
Thomas Reid: I should like to direct the
attention of the minister to the wording of subsection (a):
Whenever any ship is lost, abandoned, stranded or damaged in any of the inland waters of Canada or on or near the coasts of Canada, or on a voyage to or from a port in Canada.
That is a definition of what is termed a shipping casualty. There is no definition covering the rivers; the inland waters and coasts are mentioned. Supposing a casualty occurs in the Fraser river say twenty miles from the sea. Would that be termed a casualty under the act?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will
notice that in the definitions his point is covered. I refer him to subsection 41 of section 2:
"Inland waters of Canada" means all the rivers, lakes and other navigable fresh waters within Canada, and includes the river St. Lawrence as far seaward as a line drawn from Father point to point Orient.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 545 to 560 inclusive agreed to.
On section 561-Power of court of investigation.
Thomas Reid: I see this section gives the
court power to investigate into and cancel the certificates of a master, mate or engineer. Does that apply to a master, mate or engineer on any ship, British or foreign, or just on British ships registered in Canada ?


Alfred Duranleau: I think it applies to other ships when they are in Canadian waters.


Thomas Reid: Supposing a British ship registered in Canada had an accident and the court of inquiry considered the liability of the master, the mate or the engineer, and their certificate was cancelled. Would that man be allowed to go on another British ship, or on the same one, in Canadian waters?


Alfred Duranleau: Our courts have power to suspend or cancel while the holder is in Canada a certificate granted by another dominion.


Thomas Reid: But would that have any
effect when he reached Great Britain?


Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon.
friend will see that under the law the certificate is suspended o.r cancelled and report is made to the proper authorities of the dominion where the ship is registered.


Thomas Reid: Then I suppose it would be
up to Great Britain to say whether or not they would accept that ruling?


Alfred Duranleau: It is for Great Britain to accept it or not, but the holder of the certificate cannot act in our waters if his certificate is suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 562-Certificates of another part of His Majesty's dominions.
Thomas Cantley: How long is this suspension to be for? Is it to be indefinite or for any particular period?


Alfred Duranleau: It may be indefinite.


Thomas Cantley: That is not satisfactory.
Can the man go up again for examination and obtain a new certificate, or is he debarred forever?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, if he applies and qualifies he can get his certificate back.


Thomas Cantley: I submit the clause ought
to intimate as much.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 563 to 567 inclusive agreed to.
Canada Shipping Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 568-Certificates cancelled or suspended in other parts of His Majesty's dominions.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, does this not seem to be a hardship? It would appear from the section that a Canadian who is a master could have his certificate cancelled or suspended by reason of an investigation in another dominion. A few moments ago the minister, replying to the hon. member for New Westminster, stated that he did not know whether Great Britain would recognize a suspension or cancellation from a court or commission in Canada. By section 568 the minister will adopt a cancellation or suspension which would arise, by reason of an investigation in another part of the British commonwealth. In my view that arrangement is hard on Canadians.


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member will notice that the provision is not imperative. The section states that-
The minister may adopt and carry out said cancellation.
That means that if after having examined and studied the record and the judgment rendered by the court outside of Canada the minister is convinced that a proper judgment was rendered, he may maintain the cancellation of the certificate.


Ernest Lapointe: But it would still be a court in another country which would suspend or cancel the certificate of a Canadian citizen.


Alfred Duranleau: No.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: No, it means that the final judgment as to the effect of the cancellation in Canada will be rendered by the minister, after having studied the whole proceeding. Surely if he thinks that the proceeding was not fair or the judgment has not dealt fairly with the mariner, the minister would not be bound to maintain the cancellation.


Ernest Lapointe: Some ministers do not enjoy the confidence of everybody.


Peter John Veniot: This is a new section; where did the idea come from?


William Duff: It is imperialism.


Peter John Veniot: Where did the request for the new section come from? This clause was never in any of our shipping legislation.


Alfred Duranleau: There is no mention in the bill as drafted, but I think it comes under the imperial agreements.


Peter John Veniot: I thought so. Is there reciprocity?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friends will find the provision at page 7 of the British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement.


Peter John Veniot: Please read it.


Alfred Duranleau: It reads:
The court on formal investigation shall be empowered to cancel or suspend a certificate of competency or services granted by the administration of another part of the commonwealth only as to affect its validity within the jurisdiction of the part in which investigation is held, but the administration by which the certificate was granted may adopt such cancellation or suspension.


Peter John Veniot: It is not the same.


Alfred Duranleau: I contend it is absolutely fair.


Ernest Lapointe: No, it is not.


Peter John Veniot: It is not the same, at all.


Alfred Duranleau: Upon the return of a Canadian mariner who while abroad was guilty of certain offences meriting cancellation or suspension of his certificate when on a British ship in another part of the commonwealth, the minister will look info the record and conduct a review of what took place abroad. If he finds that the judgment was justified I see no objection to his maintaining the cancellation or suspension.


Peter John Veniot: I have no objection to that, provided the arrangement is reciprocal, and the same treatment is given in another British country to a Britisher whose certificate has been cancelled here. But the paragraph the minister read from the convention does not agree with the section now under consideration, and there is no reciprocal provision.


Alfred Duranleau: If my hon. friend would read the agreement he would find it is reciprocal; it must be.


Ernest Lapointe: But the agreement is in force only when legislation is adopted in the various dominions.


Alfred Duranleau: Of course.


Ernest Lapointe: It is adopted when legislation is accepted to ratify or to give effect to it, and it may be given effect to under certain conditions. In the present instance the only condition is that the minister may or may not suspend or ratify a suspension or cancellation, and I say that very little safeguard is provided.

Canada Shipping Act


Alfred Duranleau: The imperial agreement is to the effect that every part of the British Empire should adopt the same legislation or legislation along the same lines.


Ernest Lapointe: Why not indicate that arrangement in the statute?


Alfred Duranleau: That is the agreement. If other parts of the empire do not follow the agreement, surely we will do otherwise; the government would not give effect to the section or would come to the house for a change in our law. At the present time we are taking the lead, being the greater dominion, and are adopting the legislation based on the imperial agreement. We expect that all the other parts of the empire will follow.


Peter John Veniot: Is there anything in the bill which, for instance, gives power to a Canadian court to cancel for misdemeanour the certificate of a captain coming from England on an English ship? Is there anything giving any court in Canada the power to cancel the certificate of such a man for misdemeanour on the high seas, accident, or for any other reason? I can see nothing. If there is no such provision we have no right to have the section before us in our statutes.


Alfred Duranleau: Section 562 covers the point the hon. member has raised. It is as follows:
Any court holding a formal investigation pursuant to this part of this act may cancel or suspend a certificate of competency or service granted by another part of His Majesty's dominions so far only as concerns its validity within Canada.


Peter John Veniot: That is it exactly-"within Canada."


Alfred Duranleau: Other parts of the
empire have no greater power with respect to our mariner's certificate.


Peter John Veniot: If it is cancelled in England, the validity under this legislation is null and void, even in Canadian waters, until the Canadian minister has made an investigation. The section states that the Canadian minister "may" maintain the cancellation. Therefore if he does not maintain the cancellation it should not take effect. But he has power to maintain or not to maintain the cancellation, as he sees fit, and no such provision exists in the British act.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will
readily understand that so long as the minister has not maintained the cancellation abroad, the certificate of the mariner is in force in Canada, and the judgment or finding of the court abroad has no effect in Canada.
It is left to the minister to decide whether or not he should maintain the cancellation in Canada, and exactly the same kind of legislation is supposed to be adopted by other parts of the empire.


Peter John Veniot: If they do not adopt it,
will the minister change this section?


Alfred Duranleau: In connection with this reciprocal arrangement the same law should be adopted by every part of the empire.


Ernest Lapointe: But it would be so
easy for the government to insert the words: "provided the certificate has been cancelled or suspended in a part of the British dominions which has adopted a similar provision." That w'ould be very easy to do.


Alfred Duranleau: I think there is some protection in the last section of the bill. It is as follows:
This act shall not come into force until a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council published in the Canada Gazette: Provided that he may, in the same manner and from time to time, bring any portion or portions only of this act into force.
If some parts of this legislation are not enacted in other parts of the empire we may never proclaim them.


Ernest Lapointe: There are 719 sections; surely there will not be 719 proclamations.


Thomas Reid: Suppose the captain of a
British ship operating in Canada came before the court, so long as that vessel was operating in Canadian waters would we have full jurisdiction to cancel the certificates of the captain, mates or engineers?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, we have, so far as
Canada is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Thomas Cantley: I want to revert to section 562. We are rushing through these sections * so fast that we are having no opportunity to read them, let alone give them any consideration. In section 562 we are abrogating our rights in regard to our certificates to our own captains and leaving those rights to a court in some point other than the dominion. Then we come to section 568, a new section, and we find there again that the certificates of Canadian captains may be cancelled by a foreign court, and we adopt the section without giving our own captains a hearing. I submit that is not god citizen-
Canada Shipping Act

ship or good Canadianism. Then, although we have not yet reached clause 570, may I say that it reads as follows:
The minister shall not order a rehearing in Canada in connection with a shipping casualty in respect of *which a formal investigation has been held in another part of His Majesty's dominions.
I say that that section should read absolutely the other way, and should say, "may order" instead of "shall not order."


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for Pictou is quite right. Under section 569 the minister may order the rehearing of an investigation which has been held in Canada, if there is new evidence, or if for any reason he believes there has been a miscarriage of justice. But when the cancellation or suspension has been the result of an investigation in another country, under section 570 the minister shall not order a rehearing in Canada in connection with a shipping casualty in respect of which a formal investigation has been held in another part of His Majesty's dominions. That is a discrimination not only against Canadians but against Canadian courts and Canadian investigations, and the minister will be powerless when there has been an investigation outside of Canada. When it is a Canadian investigation he has the power of ordering a rehearing. Surely my hon. friend from Pictou is right. These are provisions which seem absolutely uncalled for.


Thomas Cantley: I am not content to
allow a Nova Scotia captain who has sailed all over the world to be demoted by somebody in Hongkong or Ireland or some other part of the world. The minister should not abrogate his rights in that way.


Alfred Duranleau: The minister does not abrogate his rights because there is one thing he can do, and that is to ignore the judgment of an external court.


Thomas Cantley: Surely we are masters
in our own house.


Alfred Duranleau: The minister has only one thing to do, and that is to ignore the judgment and then the certificate is still valid in Canada.
Section 570 to which the ex-Minister of Justice referred is a new section. I understand that it also is a provision in the British commonwealth agreement of 1931, and the reason probably is that when a misdemeanour has been committed outside of Canada it is very difficult to have a rehearing in this country because the witnesses are far away and an inquiry would be very expensive.
[Mr. Cantley.l


Peter John Veniot: It goes beyond a misdemeanour.


Alfred Duranleau: I want to remind my hon. friends that the provision is absolutely reciprocal, being part of an agreement arrived at by all the different parts of the empire.


Ernest Lapointe: But it will be reciprocal
only when similar legislation is enacted by the other parliaments, and I am doubtful whether Australia, for instance, will enact legislation giving to a court in Canada the right to cancel Australian certificates, because Australia is pretty jealous of her rights.


Alfred Duranleau: Australia was represented at that conference.


Ernest Lapointe: But the legislation has
not gone through the Australian parliament.


Alfred Duranleau: It is well understood,
and it was so stated when the bill was introduced, that Canada is the first of the dominions to enact the provisions agreed upon in the conventions. The intention of this government is to put in force reciprocal agreements only when the other parts of the empire have adopted similar legislation. If they do not do so we shall see that our law is changed. But in this bill we are setting an example and inducing the other parts of the empire to adopt the same legislation. They have already agreed to do it. The conventions have been duly signed by the representatives of all the dominions.


Ernest Lapointe: I know, but parliament
is master in each of those countries.


Alfred Duranleau: If we do not accept
section 568 or section 570 we are setting aside the convention that was accepted by Canada and the other parts of the empire.


Peter John Veniot: The other parts of the empire have not adopted any of this as yet.


Alfred Duranleau: But we have agreed to pass this legislation and the other dominions are waiting for this legislation in order to follow.


Thomas Cantley: If the minister agreed to do that 'he did something he had no right to do. Parliament has the last word as far as we are concerned.


Alfred Duranleau: I did not agree myself; the representatives of Canada agreed.


Thomas Cantley: Then they agreed to more than they 'had any right to agree to.

Canada Shipping Act


Alfred Duranleau: I have no objection to allowing the section to stand.
Section stands.
Section 569 agreed to.
Section 570 stands.
Sections 571 to 594 inclusive agreed to.
On section 595-Appointment of harbour master.


Thomas Reid: I think there should be an amendment to subsection 2. It should read, "no licensed pilot or harbour master shall be appointed to act or shall act as harbour master or deputy harbour master of any public harbour, unless he first surrenders his licence." I think this amendment should be made as we now have harbour commissioners who have been appointed harbour masters.


Alfred Duranleau: Acting in both capacities?


Thomas Reid: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: On the western coast?


Mr. STEVENS:: Where?


Thomas Reid: New Westminster, I believe.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend is mistaken.


Thomas Reid: No, I am not. I would not rise if I did not know about this. Because of certain circumstances I would not like to go into the matter at this time but I shall be glad to give the name to the minister.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I know what my hon. friend means. The gentleman is ill.


Thomas Reid: For that reason I do not like to bring it up publicly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. The gentleman he refers to is a commissioner but he acts as manager of the harbour on behalf of the commission. He is not a harbour master in the sense of a harbour master appointed under this legislation.


Thomas Reid: I think perhaps the minister is
correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 596 to 608 inclusive agreed to.
On section 609-Regulations respecting grain cargoes and deck cargoes.
Thomas Reid: Why is it that only grain and deck cargoes are designated?


Alfred Duranleau: This section has been taken from the Canada Shipping Act.


Thomas Reid: That may be true, but I should like to know why only two types of cargo are referred to. What about a wheat cargo or any other type of cargo? This section does not take care of all cargoes.


Alfred Duranleau: I am informed that it is the rule to adopt regulations in connection with these two types of cargo.


Thomas Reid: Only?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, because they are particularly dangerous.


Thomas Reid: You have the power to make regulations concerning the carrying of dangerous goods. Dangerous goods may be carried below deck just the same as flour, apples, eggs or butter.


Alfred Duranleau: Under this bill dangerous goods means those goods which are dangerous in themselves, like explosives, but this type of cargo is not.


Thomas Cantley: Referring to subclauses 2 and 3 of clause 609, am I to understand that if a vessel lo-ads a cargo in the St. Lawrence and subsequently calls at Pictou or Sydney for bunker coal, an officer may go aboard and investigate the question of the deck load or the storage of the cargo after the ship has been at sea for four or five days? What is the object in that?


Alfred Duranleau: Of course the intention is that this clause should apply to a cargo coming from outside to a port in Canada; it is not intended to apply to a cargo leaving Montreal for Pictou, for instance, because such a cargo is supposed to have been examined in Montreal, in a Canadian port.


Thomas Cantley: With all due courtesy I do not think that is the meaning of the clause. If a vessel arrives from overseas safely in a Canadian port, what is the necessity of an officer going aboard to investigate her cargo? I do not think the minister's explanation is the correct one.


Alfred Duranleau: It is in the case of damages to a cargo.


Thomas Cantley: It may be.


Alfred Duranleau: It is to ascertain the condition of the cargo when it arrives in the Canadian port.


Thomas Cantley: That is a question for the underwriters.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 610 to 627 inclusive agreed to.
Canada Shipping Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 628-Annual return of port warden to minister,
Thomas Reid: Can the minister explain why it is that the returns made by harbour masters are made at the end of the fiscal year while those of the port warden are made at the end of the calendar year? AVhy should the date of making returns not be the same?


Alfred Duranleau: These are the dates at which reports have always been made in the past. We have only reenacted the Canadian statute.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 629 and 630 agreed to.
On section 631-Certificate to be evidence.
Mr. DENIS (Translation):: Is it only the
number that we are passing or is it the whole section? It seems to me that we are simply passing the number. I think the sections should be read in committee in order that members may, at least, follow them. It is simply childish; we should .be more in earnest in considering this bill and should not only adopt the numbers, as we have done this afternoon and evening.


Alfred Duranleau: What is the number of the section?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: The same
procedure prevails in penitentiaries, everything goes by numbers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 632 to 636 inclusive agreed to.
On section 637-Collisions.
Thomas Reid: In subclause 3 does the word "regatta" cover sports and races put on by fairs? The subclause reads:
The governor in council may make rules or regulations relating to the safety of life or limb on navigable waters during regattas and marine parades.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, it is for the safety of life.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire to call the attention of the committee to subclauses 4 and 5. This is government by order in council with a vengeance. Subclause 4 reads:
The governor in council may by order or regulation provide for the government and regulation of any body of water defined or described therein and may provide for the enforcement of such order or regulation.

That is as general as any language can be; it covers any rule or regulation whatever in connection with any body of water described in the order. Then subclause 5 states:
Any rule, regulation or order so made may provide for a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars-[DOT]
And so forth. Surely the minister should give the committee some explanation which would justify us in passing such arbitrary and drastic legislation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
marketing bill.


Ernest Lapointe: It is worse than the marketing bill.


Alfred Duranleau: I will ask that these stand.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Subclause 4, 5 and 6 stand. Shall the remainder of the clause carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Section stands.
Section 638 agreed to.
On section 639-Observance of regulations.


Thomas Reid: In connection with this we come back to the old question of the definition of "ship" and "vessel." The clause reads:
All owners and masters of vessels and rafts.
It will be remembered that in the interpretation clause the words "ship" and "vessel" have different definitions. The word "ship" has a clearer definition than the word "vessel." Here it just designates "vessels and rafts." I wonder if it should not be "ships, vessels and rafts."


Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon. friend knows that "ship" is included in the term " vessel."


Thomas Reid: I do not believe "raft" is defined. A question may arise regarding rafts.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think it is
necessary to define the word " rafts " because everyone knows what it is. It is logs bound together.


Thomas Reid: The Davis raft that I was
speaking of, used on the Pacific coast, is entirely different from anything in any other part of the world. I do not think the shipping interests of Great Britain have ever seen a Davis raft and they would not have any idea what it is.

Canada Shipping Act


Alfred Duranleau: Of course we have
to give the ordinary meaning to the word " raft." A Davis raft would be included because it is a raft.


Thomas Reid: I do not think the present
section is wide enough.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 640-Provisions as to collisions, etc.
Thomas Cantley: The clause reads:
(1) Where, by the fault of two or more vessels, damage or loss is caused to one or more of those vessels, to their cargoes or freight, or to any property on board, the liability to make good the damage or loss shall be in proportion to the degree in which each vessel was in fault:
I should think there might be a collision with only one vessel at fault, not necessarily two.


Alfred Duranleau: This section apportions the liability when there is fault on both sides.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 641 to 644 inclusive agreed to.
On section 645-Notice of loss to be given to the minister.
Eugène Fiset: Would the minister explain who is the ship's husband?


Alfred Duranleau: The person who takes charge of the ship as the owner.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 646 to 653 inclusive agreed to.
On section 654-Tonnage how calculated.
Thomas Reid: Is there a different registry
allowed for ships in different parts of the British colonies or dominions? Because I see in subsection 3 (a):
-in the case of a British ship registered elsewhere than in Canada, according to the law of that part of His Majesty's dominions where the ship is registered;
I thought they were all to be the same.


Alfred Duranleau: This enactment has
been reproduced from chapter 186 of the revised statutes, but according to the imperial agreements the rules must be the same in every dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 654 to 662 inclusive agreed to.
On section 663-British ships only may en gage in coasting trade.
Mr. BROWN:: The proceedings this afternoon and evening have been somewhat monotonous, with only an occasional interruption from the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid).


Thomas Reid: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order.


Albert Joseph Brown: I cannot allow this clause
to pass without calling attention to it. It deals with coastal shipping and is of special interest to us who live on the prairies because it is intended to affect-


An hon. MEMBER:: Prairie schooners.


Albert Joseph Brown: -shipping on the great
lakes. The course of the government in this matter has been rather peculiar. It has been devious; we would really like to know what the government intends to do. Two years ago the government brought in a bill-I think it got as far as first reading and was then withdrawn ; at any rate was not proceeded with- the intention of which was to give to Canadian vessels the monopoly of carrying Canadian grain on the great lakes. They probably thought it wise at the time to withdraw that bill, but last year they tried another tack. In the Bill J that was brought in last year they tried to put it across by a few changes in the definitions. The coasting trade of Canada was defined thus:
"Coasting trade of Canada" means the transportation by water or by land and water of goods or passengers from one place in Canada to the same or another place in Canada, whether or not such transportation is direct or via a foreign port outside of Canada and includes any part of such transportation.
The last part of that definition was added in order to take care of the particular situation that the government wanted to bring about. In section 932 of the Canada Shipping Act the coasting trade of Canada was defined as including:
-the carriage by water of goods or passengers from one port or place in Canada to another port or place in Canada.
Attention was drawn to that matter, and then the government decided to bring about the desired end by another method. So a bill was brought in last year restoring the old definition of coasting trade, making the change in what would correspond to section 663 of this act, which says:
No goods shall be transported by_ water or by land and water, from one place in Canada
Canada Shipping Act

to another place in Canada, either directly or by way of foreign port, or for any part of the transportation in any ship other than a British ship.
That bill passed the house in face of opposition from this side, with the support of hon. members from the west representing farming constituencies who managed to convince themselves, or at least who seemed to convince themselves, that there was no danger to the grain interests in this clause. That bill passed the house, but it was not proclaimed by the government, and again we wonder what the real intention of the government is in this matter.
These particular sections form a part of the bill now before us. I do not suppose there is any use in continuing to debate this matter at any length, but I should like to repeat in a general way the objections we from the west take to this clause. Everyone knows that for the last two or three years the price of wheat has been at the lowest point in history, though it is not quite so low as it was a year or two ago. A great deal has been said in the past month or so with regard to relieving the burdens of the farmers. The famous marketing act ostensibly was devised with that purpose in view. It seems to me a much more sensible procedure would have been to consider some of the other difficulties the farmer has to meet. In my judgment it would have been much more sensible to reduce the cost of production, which could be done in a number of ways. It might be done by modifying the high protective measures that have been placed against some of the things used by the farmer, such as the ten per cent duty on barbed wire, the twenty-five per cent duty on cream separators and the twenty-five per cent duty that now applies to practically all lines of farm machinery, whereas previously the duty ranged from six to ten or twelve per cent.


Hugh Guthrie: What section is the hon.
member discussing?


Albert Joseph Brown: I am discussing this bill
as it affects the farmer, and I am indicating that since it is essential that production costs should be lowered this is one of the ways in which the government might approach the matter. However, I quite understand that hon. members opposite, especially those representing farming districts in the west, do not like to have these things brought to their attention. As we see it this bill is calculated to put the carrying of grain on the great lakes into the hands of a Canadian monopoly. As

we see it, it is essential that we should preserve what we have at present, that is, Buffalo as a strategic point at which to have wheat placed, whence it can be carried either via Montreal-and a great deal does go that way -or via New York. It means a great deal to the shipment of wheat to have a choice of routes, and we consider anything that will jeopardize the Shipment of grain via that route to be a menace to the well being of the farmers.
It may be very interesting to note that wheat that has gone by that route sometimes has brought a higher price than wheat that has gone via the Canadian route. I took some interest in this matter, and shortly after coming down here at the beginning of this session I wrote the bureau of statistics to find out how much wheat had gone via the United States route and how much had gone via Canadian ports since the Ottawa agreements came into effect. The bureau of statistics gave me more information than I asked for, and here is what I find. The figures are given month by month from November, 1932, to December, 1933, with the price received for the grain in each month. The totals are as follows: Shipped via Canadian sea and river ports, 104,917,854 bushels; via United States ports, 50,883,301 bushels. The amount of money received for the grain shipped via Canadian ports was $62,428,715, and the amount received for wheat shipped via United States ports was $31,396,715. I was interested to see just what that would amount to per bushel. To my amazement I found that the wheat shipped via United States ports brought 61-7 cents per bushel, while the wheat shipped via Canadian ports brought only 59-5 cents per bushel. I could not understand those figures, and I wrote the bureau again to find out just at what point the price of wheat was fixed. In reply I had this letter:
I have your letter of the 12th instant with reference to the memorandum mailed you on the second respecting Canada's exports of wheat to the United Kingdom via Canadian sea and river ports, and via the United States.
As regards the value, I wish to point out that the value of exports of Canadian merchandise is the actual cost or the value at the time of exportation at the points in Canada whence originally shipped.
In my second letter to the bureau I had stated that I was anxious to know if we could possibly arrive at it what effect the six cent preference had on wheat shipped via United States ports. In that regard, in the same letter they said:
We have no record as to the amount of wheat going via American ports that receive

Canada Shipping Act
the benefit of the preference. With reference to the diversion of wheat shipped to the United Kingdom via the United States, I wish to advise that according to United States in transit figures, a very large percentage of Canadian wheat shown in Canadian trade statistics as exported to the United Kingdom via the United States border ports, is diverted while in transit via the United States, to other destinations, chiefly the continent of Europe. The percentage varies from year to year. For the calendar year, 1931, however, of the total amount of Canadian wheat shipped via United States Atlantic ports, about 27 per cent was destined for the United Kingdom, and in 1932, 17 per cent. There are no statistics available as yet for the year 1933. Then, again, it must be remembered that a considerable amount of Canadian wheat exported to overseas countries via the United States is rerouted from United States lake ports for shipment via Canadian ports chiefly the port of Montreal. For the calendar year 1933 the amount of rerouted wheat from United States lake ports for shipment via Canadian ports, amounted to 4,915,433 bushels.
So that while that figure is of a considerable size, the fact remains that the great bulk of the wheat recorded as having been shipped via American ports actually went that way. The point to which I wish to call the attention of hon. members is this: I am not able to explain-and if any hon. member can, I should like him to do so-why it is that the wheat we shipped to the United Kingdom via American ports brought us a higher price than the wheat shipped via Canadian ports. While I cannot explain that, there is one point which does seem perfectly clear, and that is that the six cent preference we were supposed to get on our wheat is not worth the snap of a finger.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: And never was.


Mr. BAKER:: Would we be better off without the preference?


Albert Joseph Brown: If anyone can give any other explanation for it I will give him the opportunity to do so.


Richard Langton Baker: Would we be better off without the preference?


William Richard Motherwell: Just another piece of humbug.


Albert Joseph Brown: I do not say we would be better off without it, but we are certainly no better off with it. That is the situation, despite the fact that we heard a lot of talk about a sheltered market for a large proportion of our wheat.


Richard Langton Baker: Would you vote against a preference?


Albert Joseph Brown: I think the hon. member had better discuss subjects he knows something about.


Richard Langton Baker: I do know something about it.


Albert Joseph Brown: I wish to protest against this section of the shipping bill, although I have not the slightest expectation that my protests will in any measure be effective. I am speaking for the farmers of the prairie provinces to whom the cheapest possible rates for the shipment of their wheat are absolutely essential. Even half a cent per bushel may mean a great deal to them, and on their behalf I wish to protest, as I did last year, against the enactment of this section. I therefore move:
That subsection 1 of section 663 be amended' by striking therefrom the words, "either directly or by way of a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member (Mr. Brown) has quoted from a communication he received from the bureau of statistics in which, if I caught his reading of it correctly, he indicated that for the 50,000.000 bushels of wheat exported from Canada via American ports the return indicated 01 cents a bushel, while for the 104,000,000 bushels exported from Canada via Canadian ports the return indicated 59 cents a bushel. That I think was in round figures his observation, and he deduced from that the conclusion that it is in the interest of the western wheat grower to export his wheat from Canada via American ports. He has asked, and I think quite properly, if there is any explanation for the difference in those figures. I think I can indicate to him, and to anyone who will give the matter careful and impartial thought, certain factors that enter into the situation. It is I think not difficult to explain.
In the first place, it will be noted that the point of shipment there recorded is in all probability Port Arthur or Fort William. I have similar figures in the report of the board of grain commissioners but covering a different period of time, so they do not synchronize exactly with the figures quoted. The point of departure, however, is Port Arthur or Fort William. Apparently we have no record in the figures given of what the grade of wheat was. It is obvious that grade No. 1, for instance, would bring a much higher price than grades 2, 3 or 4. I think perhaps the major portion of the wheat so exported would be grade No. 2. The first factor is the grade of the wheat, and there is no record of the precise quantity of the various grades that
Canada Shipping Act

were included in those two different parcels.
The second point I would indicate is this, that not only is there a difference in grade, but the shipments cover the whole period of the year. The wheat exported from United States ports, for instance, might have been shipped largely during a certain period and not so much during another period, or the period and quantity may have varied; and as the price of wheat varies from day to day and week to week-we had some very sharp fluctuations last year, particularly last summer, in the middle of the calendar year-here again you have not a constant factor but a varying factor.
The third point I would suggest to my hon. friend, and this is perhaps the main cause of it, is that Europe, due to the very high protection it has had against incoming wheat from any part of the world and the stimulation given to the production of soft wheat in its own territory, is buying very largely No. 1 grade in order to get the strongest wheat for mixing purposes with their flour. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the largest portion of the export of No. 1 wheat went to European ports and not to British ports. I think with these three factors in mind it is not hard to understand the variation in the price of wheat as coming from those two different sources. But in any case one could not possibly base a definite argument or conclusion upon the result obtained merely by dividing the quantity of wheat into the total amount received therefor.


Mr. HOWDEN:: If I may interrupt for a moment, is it reasonable to suppose that all the better grades of grain would be shipped through American ports?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
John Power Howden: I had a recollection that after our first legislation was enacted the rates were increased on the lakes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Which legislation?


John Power Howden: The legislation giving
Canadian vessels practically a monopoly between Canadian ports.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sorry my hon. friend is in error there because that legislation never went into effect. As a matter of fact, the rates were never lower than last year. They were lamentably, recklessly-shall I say-low. But a fair rate, as hon. gentlemen will see, would be a six cent rate. I think possibly you may have lower rates than that at times. The point I am making is that there is an abundance of shipping on the great lakes.
As far as our American neighbours are concerned, Canadian vessels cannot go over there and carry grain or other cargoes in the same way that American vessels have been permitted in part to do on this side, and all that this legislation is doing is to synchronize our legislation with that of the United States, and giving to the Canadian carrier the opportunity of carrying the goods for Canadian ports, while still preserving to the exporter of the west the right to ship his grain to Buffalo or any other American port he wishes by American bottoms or Canadian bottoms. So I think there is no danger to the exporter of a lack of competition or of any penalizing of the farmer by way of an increased rate.
Canada Shipping Act
The minister in charge of the bill will 6peak for himself and for the government, but while I am on my feet I may say that personally I could not find myself justified, in the light of the knowledge I have, in supporting the amendment.


William Richard Motherwell: Will the minister tell the committee why the government did not put into force the act that was passed last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I can answer my hon. friend. This shipping act was then in the process of revision. It was, as my hon. friend knows, revised last year to a substantial degree, but it was not brought into this house. During the year, however, very definite progress was made in its revision, and it was therefore thought inadvisable to proclaim the old act. There was a provision in the act of last year making it subject to proclamation, and it was thought inadvisable to proclaim that act until we had fully revised this shipping act.


William Richard Motherwell: Is it likely that the government will exempt this section by proclamation when the rest of the act is brought into force?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Justice could answer that question. I presume he will correct me if I am wrong, but I should say that when this bill passes it will take the place of the amending act of last year.


William Richard Motherwell: Any section can be exempted by proclamation if the government sees fit.


Mr. BOWMAN:: In answer to the question whether those sections will come into force when this shipping act is proclaimed, might I refer to section 665, which provides as follows:
The governor in council may, from time to time, by order in council declare that the foregoing provisions of this part of this act shall not. for the period specified in such order in council, apply, either throughout Canada or in any specified waters of Canada, to the ships or vessels, or to any specified, ascertained or ascertainable class or number of the ships or vessels, of any foreign country.
There is a special provision covering sections 661 to 664 inclusive.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Section 665 is a permissive clause.


James Langstaff Bowman: Quite so. While I am on my feet I should like to refer to sections 4 and 5 of the Inland Water Freight Rates Act. This act contains special provisions with
Canada Shipping Act


Mr. VALLANCE:: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has just stated that the rates this year were probably the lowest we have had for many years. Would those low rates not be largely due to the short crop in the west this year? If we get back to normal times and grow a normal crop have we any assurance that after this bill is put into operation and the competition on the three way route is eliminated, we will not have a combination of Canadian shipping which will have the shippers of western Canada at their mercy?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad my hon. friend has asked that question. I do not think there is any danger of that 'happening. One reason is that which I have indicated already, the surplus of shipping. This is an enormous surplus and far beyond anything that was warranted. There was a regular plethora of lake shipping construction in the years just prior to 1930. In addition, there are those sections of the act to which my hon. friend referred and which were not at the moment in my mind. The administration of the Inland Water Freight Rates Act is under the board of grain commissioners and, of course, myself as minister. That act gives a very definite control. This control was exercised over two years ago when the Canadian and American shipping raised the rate for a short time to seven and a half cents. We stepped in and immediately fixed a maximum rate of six and a half cents, if I remember rightly, which was later reduced to six cents to Montreal. The board of grain commissioners keep a constant watch on the situation, and should any occasion arise, that control can be exercised. In the present bill there is a clause whereby the governor in council may step in and suspend that particular part, or the same thing may be done under the Customs Act. This matter does not pass out of the control of the government, even when parliament is not sitting. When parliament is sitting, of [DOT] course we can deal with it in parliament if it is so desired. First, there is the economic protection because of the large quantity of shipping, and then there is the protection afforded by the Inland Water Freight Rates Act and the Customs Act.


John Vallance: This particular section
is for the protection of Canadian operators of lake shipping?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not like to agree with that interpretation. I would say that it is to put Canadian shipping on a fairly equitable basis with its competitors on the great lakes, namely, American shipping, without doing any harm to Canadian interests.

Canada Shipping Act


William Richard Motherwell: Is that not the
reason advanced by every country in the world when it puts restrictions on business and trade-"you do so and so and I will follow suit. You put on a quota and I will put on a quota. You put on an embargo and I will put on an embargo." Is that not what is raising the devil with the whole world's trade?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not quite right.


William Richard Motherwell: It certainly is.
Has my hon. friend heard that old nursery rhyme? It goes like this:
Tit for tat,
Butter for fat,
If you kill my dog I'll kill your cat.
That heathen sentiment is what has got the whole world by the ears. I thought my hon. friends opposite were cured of this delusion but they are like the porcine that was washed, and still went back to her wallowing in protection. It is true that those safeguards mentioned by the hon. member are there, and they were put there, by the way, by a Liberal government, who at the time were jeered at for their pains. Nevertheless on general principles I am astonished to hear the hon. member, who is supposed to be a little more broadminded on this matter than the average of his colleagues, enunciating such a policy, not in broad daylight but in lamplight or electric light or whatever you like to call it, without a blush on his face.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am very proud of it.


William Richard Motherwell: Anyway, on general principles I shall vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Lisgar.


Albert Joseph Brown: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated that this is only putting Canadian ships on the same plane as United States ones in relation to coastal trade. He pointed out that Canadian ships could not go to Duluth to carry grain to Port Colbome and then carry that grain back to Oswego. I suppose that is a fact, but I venture the assertion that there is not very much grain going from Duluth to Port Colborne and then to Oswego.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I interrupt my 'hon.
friend? Certainly I am not suggesting that that was an equitable comparison; I mentioned it merely at random as an indication of the application of the principle.


Albert Joseph Brown: I understand that quite
well, but it is a case where one can assert a principle that has really no practical application. The fact of the matter is that the
trade in Canadian wheat from the great lake ports to Buffalo, thence via New York in some oases and via Montreal in others, is tremendous. It is a unique situation for which, I imagine, it would be very hard to find a parallel case elsewhere in the world. Because of that we wish to preserve the situation as it is. I do not, however, propose to carry on the argument any further; I know the intention of the government but I would point out of course that the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not undertake to answer what I said in relation to the six cent preference. Some hon. members opposite have had a beautiful vision of a ship loading wheat at Port Arthur for Britain and then of a ship loading wheat in Russia having to pay six cents a bushel duty to get into Great Britain. That is a beautiful picture but the idea simply does not work. The Prime Minister admitted that we would never get a higher price because of the six-cent preference. He spoke simply of a sheltered market and under the quota the sheltered market has all gone.
Mr. SPEAIvMAN: It will be remembered by the committee-and this has already been stated by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown)

that this question was discussed at some length last year when this provision and some others were brought in by way of special legislation which, however, has never become law owing to the fact that it has not been proclaimed. Now we are again confronted with exactly the same situation.
I may as well say quite frankly that so far as this legislation affects directly the people of my part of the country, this is the only part of the bill in which we are primarily interested, although of course as members of parliament we are interested in all phases of the bill which will affect any part of Canada. But this in particular affects our own people and those whom we represent. No one perhaps knows better than does the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) the customs and practices under which wheat shipments are carried on; as a matter of fact he knows this so much better than I do ,that I would hesitate to express an opinion, but it is fairly well known that, as has been stated by the hon. member for Lisgar, a unique situation obtains in respect of our wheat shipments and in regard to the port of Buffalo. That city is used as a storage and distribution point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member desires to maintain that position.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: Yes.
Canada Shipping Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: We understand it.


Alfred Speakman: Buffalo is used as a storage and distribution point from which wheat may be shipped through any port of Canada or the United States. As I understand this part of the bill, it will be of dual effect. It will at once limit the amount of competition on the great lakes so far as our freight rates on wheat are concerned. It will eliminate not wholly but partly United States competition in shipping on the great lakes. It will do something else; it will militate against Canadian ports which lie below Buffalo because under this part of the bill, if we assume that Canadian wheat has been shipped in a United States bottom from Canadian ports to Buffalo for transfer and reshipment, it will then be impossible, no matter under what conditions of marketing or shipping and no matter what the desire of the shipper may be, for that wheat to return to a Canadian port for final shipment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It can, in a Canadian bottom.


Alfred Speakman: I said: If it had been shipped in a United States bottom from, say Port William to Buffalo, it would be impossible for it to be shipped from there to a Canadian port for final shipment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In a
United States bottom, but not in a Canadian bottom.


Alfred Speakman: But this clause states that goods cannot be carried either directly or indirectly in other than a British vessel, which means a Canadian or British vessel.


James Langstaff Bowman: They can go from Buffalo to Montreal in a Canadian boat.


Alfred Speakman: I was merely calling the attention of the committee to this: if it is assumed that the first leg of the trip has been made in a United States bottom and has been broken at Buffalo, it will be impossible in a British or United States boat to carry the wheat to some other Canadian port as part of that trip.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is in error. The same grain can be handled the balance of the trip in a Canadian bottom.


Alfred Speakman: It will be considered as part of the original trip?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and that will not do violence to this provision at all. The grain could not be carried from Fort William to

Buffalo in a United States vessel and then from Buffalo to Montreal in a United States vessel, but it could be carried from Fort William to Buffalo in a United States vessel and then from Buffalo to Montreal in a Canadian vessel.
' Mr. SPEAKMAN: That phase of the matter was not -made at all clear last year; the impression was left that once grain had been shipped to Buffalo in a United States vessel it would foe impossible for it to be shipped in any vessel back to a Canadian port. To my mind there is no value in any further discussion of this matter, to consider freight rates of past years because it must be pointed out that during all these years and up to the present United States competition has been in force and such freight rates are no criterion as to possible rates where competition is eliminated as this legislation has not so far been put into force.


John Vallance: It will be the maximum.


Alfred Speakman: Freight rates on the
great lakes have also been a determining factor so far as rates from Vancouver and other points are concerned, because it has always been pointed out that wheat at least, being a commodity international in its character and where every fraction of a cent of additional cost must be paid by the producer who ships the grain, will naturally follow the cheapest route, whether western or eastern, whether to Buffalo, Port Colborne, Montreal or any other port; and the cheapest route will set the price very largely for all the other routes by which grain is shipped. Wheat is also in a singular position in this respect, perhaps beyond all other commodities, that every fraction of a cent of additional cost in the handling and shipment is reflected at once in a reduction in price to the producer. The price is set in Liverpool or the markets of the world. Every fraction of a cent which it costs to carry it to that market is taken from the amount which the producer receives. So the route by which and the conditions under which his grain is shipped are of direct and vital interest to the producer of wheat. Frankly, may I say, we look with some trepidation upon any action or act which removes any competitive factor in the transportation of our wheat. We are not inclined to trust too much to statutory protection, to the powers of the grain commission to regulate, or any other form of control, because however effective that control may be, we know that one of the most effective forms of control, and one which under this act will be

Canada Shipping Act
removed in some degree at least, is that which comes into operation through competition of other means of transportation. The slightest restriction or limitation of that competition may be-I do not say necessarily will be-may be reflected in the price that the farmer receives. And may I say that under present conditions, or under any conditions, the manifest duty of those whose interest- for this we have sometimes been accused, and we accept the accusation-whose interest is primarily although not soLely that of the farmer producer, is to make certain to the best of their ability that no additional costs are placed on the transport of that commodity, and that no controlling factor is removed and no injustice done. It is not that the western farmer would not prefer, the cost and other things being equal, to have his grain carried in Canadian bottoms. He would. But he cannot afford to pay for that sentiment, and he cannot afford to take the chance of an increase in cost through the removal of that controlling factor. We know quite well that owing to the composition of the house and for other reasons our protest can be only a protest, but we make it in the hope that being seized of the situation, and in view of the forebodings with which the farmer views this bill, the government will see to it that by every statutory power at their disposal, under section 165 and Other sections, under the Inland Water Freight Rates Act and other acts, every means will be taken when this competitive protection is removed to see that the farmer and producer does not suffer.
I shall not waste the time of the committee in dealing further with this matter, but I desire to associate myself with those to my right who have already given voice to the views of the western farmers in stating our doubt, our trepidation with regard to this part of the bill, which, no matter what may be said, no matter what other regulations may be in force, no matter what other powers of control may be at hand, does remove one of the most effective factors in the control of the transportation cost of wheat and therefore of the price which we may receive.


Mr. MICHAUD:: The question raised by
the 'hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) in submitting an amendment to this clause has been emphasized by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Speakman). The broad question which has been indirectly raised is that of the routing and transportation of western grain. These hon. gentlemen claim that they cannot afford to pay for sentiment. I submit that there is a part of this country 74726-253
and a class of people in this country who have been paying for sentiment for a long time, and have not yet complained. This amendment raises the question of the routing and transportation of grain and indirectly the question of trans-Canada transportation, and the use of Canadian ports either on the Atlantic or on the Pacific. I submit that the people of the west should now begin to think of paying a little for sentiment in this country. We in the maritimes are paying for sentiment. We have been supporting the west; the millions of dollars which have been furnished to the west in the last three or four years-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: -that have been guaranteed are contributed to by the east for sentiment. If these western farmers and wheat growers would think for a moment of what the people of the east have to pay to maintain the transportation systems, both rail and water, they would I believe be satisfied to pay at least half a cent or a cent a bushel more for transporting their wheat by an allCanadian route, either by water or by rail. I cannot subscribe to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and if it were possible to make the section a little stronger, to make it an absolute prohibition so that western people could not ship grain by any other than Canadian ports and Canadian railways or ships, I think we would serve the country well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is
a Canada first policy.


John Vallance: A few evenings ago I
heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) make some such statement as that of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Michaud), and I took it upon myself that night to tell the Prime Minister-and he did not need telling-just what contribution the west has made to eastern Canada. If hon. members are going to talk now of our paying for sentiment, let me say that we have done nothing else ever since we have been in the west. Take the tariff, for instance; on everything we have to buy it is tariff, tariff, tariff. My hon. friend talks about paying for sentiment. I object, Mr. Chairman; I do not care who says it, whether it comes from this side of the house or the other or any corner of the house, as long as I am able to stand on my feet I propose to say that that is not true, and that the west is not prepared to pay any more for sentiment than we have

Canada Shipping Act

already paid. There is no sentiment in this. My hon. friend asks: Why don't you compel all Canadian wheat to go through Canadian ports?


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: The best
way.


John Vallance: Yes, but suppose the
United States government said that any wheat going into Buffalo could not be carried out of Buffalo in a Canadian bottom, what action could the government take?


Frank Roland MacMillan: Wait and
see.


John Vallance: Would you. take the
action that is now suggested? Do you see what you are starting?


Frank Roland MacMillan: Address
the Chair.


John Vallance: The Chair would not
reply, I am addressing the minister through the chair, as I would like to have a reply. We are now taking a stand to prevent American bottoms from taking wheat from Buffalo to the port of Montreal or any other Canadian port. Suppose the United States should say to us: You shall not take any wheat, either American or Canadian, from the port of Buffalo to anywhere. What action would you take?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The suggestion my hon. friend makes is of course a complete violation of aJll known international shipping practice. It is recognized that coastwise trade is the business of a country, but it is also recognized that the movement of goods out of one country's port to another country's port is open shipping. Of course any country could take the stand that no shipping from another country should enter its ports, but that would be a complete violation of international amity in regard to transportation.


John Vallance: Let me ask one question. Is wheat the only commodity that is shipped to United States ports that cannot be shipped back to Canada in United States bottoms?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly not. The only reason wheat comes into the question is because wheat happens to be the major cargo in this case. That applies to anything you like to mention, oats, barley or anything else. There is no coal moving and I suppose there are not many other cargoes, but if there were it would apply to them as well.


John Vallance: So that when we come down to it the western grain grower is the one who has to pay through the nose in the application of this act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman opposite who spoke last said there was no sentiment in this matter. There is no doubt of that so far as he is concerned, but if you want to see an exhibition of pure selfishness I commend you to the speech of the reverend gentleman from Ldsgar (Mr. Brown). For ten years I listened to hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were in power, bellyaching about the Hudson bay railway, and finally we spent $60,000,000 to build that railway and grain storage elevators there. Why don't they use them? Why are they coming here to-day wanting to send grain through United States ports? Have our ship owners on the great lakes no rights? Are they not Canadians and entitled to some consideration? Then hon. gentlemen opposite spoke of what we have done for the west, as though we had no right to mention it at all. Why, we have given the west $30,000,000, $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 in the last two or three years to relieve the situation there. Apparently that counts for nothing at all. Now the hon. member for Lisgar comes along; he will not employ a Canadian vessel at all. We must send all our grain through United States ports, and he deludes himself with the idea that he gets a better price by sending it that way than by sending it through Canadian ports. He cannot prove it; indeed there is no foundation whatever for that suggestion. If the hon. gentleman had his way all the ships that have been built on the great lakes, largely to relieve the situation of which he complains, ships which are now lying idle in the St. Lawrence river by the score, would be wiped out.. Then he would find, before he was very much older, that when the Americans had complete control they would make him pay through the nose for every bushel of wheat they carried for him and his western friends, and possibly they would ultimately force the bulk of it to be sent through that more or less impossible channel that cost $60,600,000 to construct.


Albert Joseph Brown: I am sorry this question has been raised as between east and west.


Thomas Cantley: Perhaps you are, but you raised it.


Albert Joseph Brown: I am sorry my hon. friend who is a new member of the house has discussed the question which has been threshed

Canada Shipping Act
out here again and again; evidently as yet he has only the maritime point of view. In general terms I should like to say that whatever the east has done for the west has been repaid over and over and over again.


Richard Langton Baker: How?


Albert Joseph Brown: It has been repaid over and over again.


Thomas Cantley: We have only your unsupported testimony on that point.


Albert Joseph Brown: The billions of bushels of grain that have been raised in the west during the last thirty years have kept alive the industries of eastern Canada. But for that there would have been no industries in eastern Canada. I do not want to discuss this matter further; I a,m sorry that it has been introduced. There was no occasion for it.


Thomas Cantley: It was you who introduced it.


Albert Joseph Brown: No; all I asked was that the routes we already have should be maintained, because the western farmer is not in a position to even run the risk of having to pay higher freight rates than he is paying at the present time. That is all we are asking in this amendment.
Mr. MaeMILLAN (Saskatoon): This is purely a political speech of the hon. member.


Albert Joseph Brown: It is nothing of the kind.
Mr. MaeMILLAN (Saskatoon): There is not one word in this act that will make the western farmers pay one cent more for freight on their grain. You are just saying this sort of thing for the benefit of the Liberal press in western Canada.


John Vallance: I object to the statement made by the hon. member for Saskatoon. We have threshed this thing out on the floor of this house year after year ever since it was first suggested, not only when there was an election in the province of Saskatchewan. I should like to ask hon. members from that province and from all the western provinces who are sitting behind the government whether they are in agreement with regard to this clause. If this thing goes through and is put into operation you will have the maximum freight rate on the great lakes at all times, and you will eliminate one-third of the competition there to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.
74726-253 J


John Vallance: Yes, you will. You are not going to prevent an Aim'erican bottom from going to the head of the lakes and returning to Buffalo, but you are going to prevent it from going from Buffalo back to any Canadian port. In many years fifty per cent of the Canadian wheat goes through Buffalo.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too much.


John Vallance: Probably it is. It goes
that way not because of sentiment but because of economics.
Mr. MaeMILLAN (Saskatoon): Fifty per cent went via New York in the years you are talking about.


John Vallance: No, it did not. There is no place on the American continent where Canadian, wheat can be assembled so readily as it can be done at Buffalo. All that is necessary to prove that statement is to look at the great expenditures that Canadians have made at Buffalo in order to take advantage of the routes out of that port.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who made the expenditure? The grain growers themselves did.


John Vallance: We did; there is not a dollar of government money invested in Buffalo t.o-day. It is the money of the Canadian growers, paid through the nose to the grain trade.
Mr. MaeMILLAN (Saskatoon): The wheat pool.


John Vallance: Yes, and the grain
growers' company and many of the other interests in Winnipeg. The minister said the lowest rate we ever had was the rate of two and three-quarters cents per bushel this year. If you eliminate this competition we are going to be subjected to the maximum rate.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: As one coming from the province of Saskatchewan I want to dissent from what has been said. In the view of some hon. gentlemen Buffalo may be the cheapest and best place to assemble wheat from western Canada, but I would remind hon. members that hundreds of millions of bushels of Canadian wheat are passing to the British market through the ports of Vancouver and Churchill. This is an entirely new situation which has come into existence in the last two years. Evidently my hon. friend does not know what is happening in Canada. He just sees the country from the point of view of his own constituency, nothing more. When my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) was speaking he said all the west was subject to these rates from Fort
Canada Shipping Act

William. I venture to say that half the grain from his own district goes to the market through Vancouver, and it will continue to go in that way. Then so long as we have that competition between two of our own ports, which we have paid for and which are supported by us, what on earth is the good of talking about raising rates somewhere else? Last summer they lowered rates in order to kill Churchill, and they succeeded. Let them raise the rates, if they dare, and they will build up Churchill. Go to it. It will prevent Churchill from being destroyed, and will save for the western farmer the best port in Canada. If the eastern Canadians do not like to meet our competition, they will have to take the consequences, that is all. I am not afraid of eastern Canadian competition, or competition on the great lakes. We will build up our own trade in our own way, as we have been doing it in the last two years. If the hon. member for South Battleford wishes to laugh about it, he may do so, but we are going to build up trade in that way. I have every sympathy with eastern Canada, because, thank God, I was born in the east. But I live in the west; we have to meet western conditions, and they may as well make up their minds to do so because we are not going to be defeated in our efforts to build up the trade of that country.


Albert Joseph Brown: The last speaker indicated it would be a good thing by law to force all Canadian grain through Canadian ports. Suppose the Americans did that, what would become of Canadian grain going through the port of Montreal?


Alfred Speakman: The last speaker from the province of Saskatchewan has reminded me that the grain from my constituency and that of the greater part of Alberta goes through the port of Vancouver, and not across the great lakes. I am aware of that fact. But I am aware of this fact, too, that the rates on any one of these routes is a factor in setting the rates for any one of the others, and that the rates through Vancouver are at least partially set by the competition supplied by the great lakes, by Churchill, by rail to Montreal, and every other route. It is a matter of balance and competition between one point and another, and no one point can hold itself independent of the conditions at the other point. The rates are set in that way.
Mr. COWAN (Long Lake); Precisely.


Alfred Speakman: May I suggest to the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) for whom I have great personal regard, that

this is not a political question, nor, so far as I am concerned, is it raised as a matter of political policy or political advantage for the Liberal press. If my hon. friend would listen to my friends sitting to my right I think he would readily appreciate at least this fact, that I am not persona grata with the Liberal party or supporting Liberal members at the present time, just as I was certainly not persona grata with the Conservative party when the Liberal party was in power. At that time I was accused of being a Liberal, because I cooperated with the only party in parliament competent to do anything. Now I am accused of being a Conservative, because I cooperate, again, with the only party in parliament competent to do anything. I will cooperate with any government prepared to do anything in Canada's interests, so that no one can accuse me of being for the Liberal party. I am, however, speaking from the point of view which is not only my own but that of the majority of the people whom I represent and who, as has been suggested, ship via the port of Vancouver but are vitally affected by everything which takes place, and by every competitive or non-competitive factor. We are dependent upon and subject to the influence of what takes place at every other point, and I do suggest that one of the most potent factors in regulating the cost of transporting our Canadian wheat has been the competition by American bottoms on the great lakes. I deplore that fact. I deplore the fact that at times during the past years Canadian bottoms have not seen fit to give greater competition. May I point out also that I fully appreciate and understand the policy of the government, namely that within the confines of Canada, and to the degree to which the government of Canada is competent to effect that end, the different ports of Canada shall each be given an advantage within Canada. And as each is given an advantage it is the desire of the government that all will be on a parity, and on a higher parity than would otherwise exist. I understand that. But I understand this also, that perhaps beyond any other commodity in Canada wheat is purely and completely international in its Character. It cannot be controlled by any purely Canadian action. It is predominantly sold on the world market, and the domestic price is a subsidiary factor dependent entirely upon the world market. Again differing from any other article, every fraction of cost in removing wheat from the producer to the ultimate market in the old world is deducted from the price received by the producer. It stands in a class by itself.

Canada Ship-ping Act
It cannot be benefited and it may be injured by any purely national action in respect to it. That is why I suggest that the government should consider very carefully the full effect of its action. If this provision is put into force I suggest that the government at all times keep in mind the application of every possible control, statutory, regulatory or any other form, which will prevent the farmers who are already suffering sufficiently from suffering any additional handicap through the removal of competitive factors on one of our chief channels of trade.


Walter Davy Cowan: The hon.
gentleman is all right and he is all wrong. He is right when he states that competition sets the freight rates. He has said that the competition on the great lakes will fix the rates in Vancouver.


Alfred Speakman: Will be a factor in
fixing the rates.


Walter Davy Cowan: All right. The rates in Vancouver will fix the rates on the great lakes.


Alfred Speakman: Also a factor.


Walter Davy Cowan: All right. As
soon as those rates are increased Vancouver will have more grain to ship. Last year I believe 120,000,000 bushels went through that port. Let them take another 120,000,000 bushels away from Fort William, and where would shipping on the lakes be?


John Vallance: Would it cost the
farmer a little more?


Walter Davy Cowan: No, not a
cent. The farmers out there are shipping through Vancouver because it has the cheapest rate, and that competition will keep the lake rates down. As soon as the rates are raised, down will go the shipping.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


John Vallance: I have one personal
observation to make, and I shall have finished. I come from a portion of Saskatchewan which I may describe as being on the shed. In other words, the rate to Vancouver is to us always the same as it is to the east, and my people are most interested because of the very point raised by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman). If you are going to make it possible to apply the maximum rate on the lakes you are going either to increase the shipments to Vancouver or increase the rates of shipment to Vancouver. There is no part of
western Canada, taking the meridian of Alberta and Saskatchewan, that is more vitally interested than that portion. I represent a part of that country, and I feel keenly on this matter.


William Richard Motherwell: When this matter was under discussion last year and the year before I stated that I had no harsh feelings towards the maritimes. As a matter of fact, I should like all Canadian produce that now goes via American Atlantic ports to go via our maritime ports. Even if the cost might be a trifle greater, in normal times I would not mind that extra cost if it were only say half or quarter of a cent. But when we are losing money on every blessed bushel we raise, every quarter of a cent means that much more loss to us. Last year we had magnificent crops in the district from which I come, yet we lost money. Wrell now, to ask us simply for sentimental reasons to lose a little more is something which is hard to swallow. I think too much of our maritime friends to quarrel with them, because I love that country,-its history, its peoiple, its tradition and the story of the early Acadians and British settling there. I am not going to quarrel with them now; do not make any mistake about it, because I do not feel that way. But I do feel that the government has been derelict in its duty in not settling this question about Canadian wheat going to the United Kingdom via Buffalo. What in the world was the sense of making an agreement here in this building without knowing what were to be the conditions under which grain was to enter the United Kingdom via Buffalo, whether it would be subject to the six cent duty or not? As a matter of fact, this government forgot all about it. I doubt if the question ever was raised in this building at the time the agreement was being made, and it was not until the hullabaloo was set up when the grain started to go via Buffalo that the government grew alarmed, and when the question was put up to them they were afraid to decide it-let the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) correct me if I am wrong. Had the question been settled at the outset whether our wheat could go via Buffalo and thereby escape the tax of six cents duty when it entered the United Kingdom, because it is a tax- there is no preference about it; it is a question of taxing or not taxing the grain when it enters British ports-there never would have been any trouble about it. But the government neglected to settle that question at the time of the bargain, and naturally it then became
Canada Shipping Act

a question whether the grain should go by our maritime ports and please the people of the maritimes or go via Buffalo and please the people of the west. The answer of the government and of the Minister of Trade and Commerce always was: This is a question for the British people to decide; it is their problem; we have nothing to do with it; it is they who gave the preference and so on, and so forth. But is that the case? It is not the case. It is just as much our problem as it is the problem of the British people. If the doctrine that it is the British people who have the say on this matter is correct, it is the British people who have the say on the bacon question, on the cattle question, on the tobacco question and on all the other questions that were dealt with at the Ottawa conference. There was every reason why there should have been a specific understanding at the time of the bargain. The question should never have been left open to cause differences amongst ourselves, because the maritime people naturally want our grain to go that way; we just as naturally do not want to pay any more by having it go that way, and to go that way would mean losing a little more money on every bushel we ship. I would like the Minister of Trade and Commerce to show cause why the government cannot settle this question with the British government. We have had the cattle quota question up recently, and that question should never have arisen, but it did arise and an agreement was come to about it and a quota decided upon. Why cannot this government sit in with the British people and decide whether or not our wheat can go via Buffalo direct to the United Kingdom without any handicap? It is their duty to do it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was settled long ago.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not settled.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It certainly is.


William Richard Motherwell: It is settled on
the basis of every cargo on its merits.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It has been settled, and
it has been explained a dozen times. Any cargo that has a through bill of lading, which is a perfectly proper and ordinary thing, is declared by the British authorities to be duty free.


William Richard Motherwell: That may be so,
but my understanding from the press, and my hon. friend should know better than I because all I had to go on was the press reports, is that every cargo is settled on its
(Mr. Motherwell.]
merits or demerits. Some go straight to the United. Kingdom and get the exemption from paying duty, and some do not. If the question is really settled I would like to know it because there would be no use in talking about it any more. If the minister would say that we cannot ship to the United Kingdom via Buffalo, that would end the matter. But we would then know where the responsibility lies. It would not be with the British government alone but with ours also; do not make any mistake about that.


Alfred Duranleau: After having listened
to all this discussion, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say that the government cannot accept the amendment of my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown). We are compiling in this statute all our existing laws concerning shipping, and we are simply asking the house to reaffirm in these sections what was adopted by the house at the last session, after careful study; this legislation was submitted by the government after strong representations had been made from all sides. We heard the Canadian mariners and the Canadian ship owners, who represented to us that when foreign ships were carrying grain or other goods on the great lakes from one Canadian port to another Canadian port our Canadian bottoms were tied up by hundreds along the shores of the great lakes and our Canadian mariners were standing idle on those . shores looking at foreign ships and foreign mariners carrying and handling our Canadian grain in foreign bottoms. All these questions were studied very carefully, and the house came to the conclusion at the last session that this coasting law should be adopted in order to put our Canadian mariners and our Canadian bottom owners on the same footing as the Americans.
This very question whether this law would bring an increase in transportation rates on the great lakes and thereby injure our western farmers was very carefully studied, and it was only after we had ascertained that we had a great surplus of Canadian bottoms on the great lakes, and that we were sure that there would be enough competition to protect the farmers of the west, that we came to the conclusion that we should introduce the legislation of last session. I do not see why Canadian bottoms could not carry Canadian grain at the same rate as foreign bottoms, if not at a lower rate. If we had thought for a moment that this legislation would have for its effect an injury to our farmers we would never have brought it down. There

Unemployment Relief
is no question, about that. But after very carefully studying the question we have come to the conclusion that we should embody in this bill the legislation which was very properly enacted at the last session.


William Richard Motherwell: That does not exempt the question from discussion.


Alfred Duranleau: Of course not.
Amendment negatived.
Section agreed to on division.
Sections 664 to 704 inclusive agreed to.
On section 705-Power to exempt foreign ships from certain provisions.


Thomas Reid: Would it be possible for ships, say from Japan, operating on the Pacific coast, to receive exemptions under this section?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exemptions from what?


Thomas Reid: The section reads:
Where the governor in council is satisfied that ships of a foreign country-
And so on, and:
-the governor in council may direct that any such provisions of this act, as aforesaid, shall not apply-


Alfred Duranleau: If a country has
reciprocal legislation, their ships may receive exemption.


Thomas Reid: If they exempt Canadian
ships, they may be exempted?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 706 and 707 agreed to.
On section 708-Jurisdiction of courts over foreigners belonging to foreign ships restricted.
Thomas Reid: This section states that no
judge, magistrate or justice of the peace shall entertain or act upon any complaint or information by or against any person belonging to or connected with any foreign merchant ship. Would that mean that a sailor on a United states ship which happened to be in the port of Vancouver could not have a case heard for wages or injury?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in our country;
that is an American ship.


Alfred Duranleau: They must give notice to the consul.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is what the consul
is for.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 709 to 719 inclusive agreed to.
On the schedules.
Richard Bedford Bennett: These schedules represent conventions, international and national, which have been agreed to and ratified by parliament.


Alfred Duranleau: An amendment is
necessary in connection with page 454. I will ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. 'Stevens) to move that the words, "Ottawa: Printed by Frederick Albert Acland, law printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty" at the bottom of the page be struck out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedules as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 15, 1934