PRIVATE BILLS

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That for the remainder of the session all private bills when presented be read a first and second time and referred forthwith, and that standing order 105, respecting the posting of private bills, be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the eighth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce be concurred in. It will be recalled that this report was presented on Thursday last. Unanimous consent not having been given at that time the matter stood as a notice of giotion. I now desire to make the
4082	COMMONS
Banking and Commerce Report
motion for concurrence, chiefly for the purpose of having approval of the house so that the proceedings may be printed.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to anything contained in the report of the banking and commerce committee. I believe the committee did its work most diligently on the two bills which formed the greater part of their activities, namely Bill No. 18 respecting banks and banking and Bill No. 19, to incorporate the Bank of Canada.
There were two matters dealt with by the committee which I believe were not considered as fully as they should have been. The first is the preamble to Bill No. 19. That preamble states the purpose for which the bank is set up, and I believe greater consideration should be given to it. When I make this statement I am not criticizing the committee in any way. The time at the disposal of the committee was limited, and I know there was a feeling that these bills should be put through the committee stage in good time so as to enable consideration by the house and by the Senate.
As is stated in the report in which concurrence is now moved certain other matters were considered by the committee, namely, the resolution by Major Power asking for an investigation into certain specified items. The last one, particularly, was not given the consideration which I am sure it deserved. This item asked for an investigation into the relationship between the banks, or any of them, and the pulp and paper industry and the extent to which the uncontrolled extension of credit brought about over-capitalization and over-expansion and the subsequent disorganization and near bankruptcy of an industry dealing in some of the most valuable of our natural resources. Then it goes on to ask that certain witnesses be called, and asks that counsel learned in the law should be secured by the committee to assist in the investigation into this particular matter. If I remember correctly the house authorized the committee to employ counsel, but the committee did not see fit to do so when the matter was further considered.
I feel that this matter is a very important one and deserving of further investigation. I should like to urge upon the house that the committee be instructed to give further consideration to it. I know there is a disposition on the part of some hon. members to say that we should not attempt even to suggest to a committee which might sit next year anything as to the nature of tl*e work in

which it should engage, but if the committee of this session feel it has not thoroughly investigated the matter, and that it is worthy of further investigation. I believe we would be failing in our duty if we did not state our opinion to the house for the benefit of the committee next year. Without taking up further time of the house I wish to move:
That the eighth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the said standing committee with instructions that they have power to amend the same so as to recommend:
That at the next session of parliament the said committee be empowered to consider the degree to which the extension of credit by the Canadian chartered banks brought about overcapitalization and over-expansion in major Canadian industries involving the most valuable of Canada's natural resources; to investigate the role played in that disorganization by the overzealous salesmanship of self-styled investment bankers; to investigate any other matters relating to the capitalization or financing of these major industries; to consider the regulation of credit and currency, the control and protection of the external value of the national monetary unit and' the basis, if any, which should underlie that unit, the influences which cause fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment and the proper monetary action necessary to mitigate those fluctuations and, generally, the promotion of the economic and financial welfare of the people of the Dominion of Canada; with power to send for persons, papers and records and with instructions to report from time to time to the House of Commons any recommendations which, if parliament should so decide, should be referred to the executive committee and/or the board of the Bank of Canada for consideration and such action, as in the premises, might be deemed necessary to attain the objects set out in the preamble of the act to incorporate the Bank of Canada; and with instructions that counsel learned in the law and such other persons as the said committee may designate be appointed to assist the committee in the above inquiries.
. Mr. SPEAKER: In my opinion, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) is not in order as this house cannot direct what shall be done by the house at the next or any future session of parliament. The question is on the main motion.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Speaking to the motion, Mr. Speaker, may I quote paragraph 2 of the motion moved in the banking and commerce committee by my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power), that the committee inquire into;
The general policies adopted by the chartered banks to combat the effects of the depression, and to what extent the said banks are responsible for the drastic deflation from which the country suffered and is still suffering.

Banking and Commerce Report
Last year the rate of interest paid by the banks to depositors was decreased by one-half of one per cent. In return the banks were supposed to decrease the rate of interest to be paid by municipalities on the loans advanced to them by the banks, but before that happened, the banks raised their rate of interest to the municipalities by one-half of one per cent, and then later removed that one-half of one per cent, with the result that the municipalities are paying exactly the same rate of interest as they did before, and the reduction of one-half of one per cent paid by the banks to depositors has served only to cover the losses sustained by the banks. So by paying less interest to the depositors it is now the privilege of the banks to increase their reserve funds and to cover their losses. If banking matters are still to be studied by the banking committee until the end of this session I take the liberty of drawing the attention of the members of that committee to that very important fact.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: As a member of the committee
who asked for delay when the report was first submitted by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) I desire to state my own personal position.
I am quite in sympathy with the sense of the amendment that has just been moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), but I quite agree with Your Honour's ruling that it is possibly out of order. At the same time I desire to state that if at another session I am in my place, I certainly intend to move that an investigation be pursued along the lines contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Macleod.
The first point raised by him was a discussion of the preamble of Bill No. 19. I maintain that we are still entitled when Bill No. 19 comes before the house, to-morrow possibly, to discuss that preamble both in principle and in detail.
The second point raised by the hon. member was the resolution that was moved in the committee on banking and commerce by my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power). I do submit that the committee was handicapped and hampered in its investigations of the six subclauses of that resolution by the unwillingness, if I may use that polite word, of the committee to grant us counsel as we requested on the first day of that investigation. I do still think that the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) to have other industries added was very much in order and very much required by the sentiment of the country at
the present time. I agree that possibly it may be more in order to move at the next session of parliament that this investigation be pursued.
I must express my own personal disappointment at the receptton given by the banking committee to some of the suggestions that were made from the minority groups in that committee. At the same time I wish to express here my sense of appreciation of the fairness and the ability and the courtesy of the chairman of that committee during its recent deliberations.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to add a word to what has been said by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) and to take a somewhat similar attitude to that which he has taken. May I also join with him in paying a tribute to the ability and courtesy and fairness of our hon. friend from York-Sun-bury (Mr. Hanson) who so ably presided over the deliberations of that committee.


Mr. DUFF:: Beware of the Greeks bearing gifts!


Charles Gavan Power: Personally I must add to
what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that I regret that the members of the committee did not consider it advisable to provide the committee with counsel in order to inquire further into matters which were the subject of the resolution which I proposed in the committee. It is not for me I suppose to apologize for the manner in which the inquiry was conducted, but may I say that from the very moment that it became clear that counsel was not to be permitted, this investigation no longer became an investigation but a polite discussion as between the bankers and some members of the committee. It was obviously impossible for one who is not familiar with all the phases of the banking situation and whose profession does not lend itself to a thorough study of financial conditions in this country to examine or cross-examine leaders of industry and finance in this country with any degree of knowledge. We did the best that we could under the circumstances, and if more information of value to the public and to the committee in its deliberations was not made available, it is due I think largely to the fact that we were not assisted by counsel, accountants and others who would have been able to make a more searching investigation. I should say that in my opinion which may not perhaps be shared by other members of the committee, we did at least bring to light certain facts which were in the
4084	COMMONS
Banking and Commerce Report
public interest and show that though perhaps the professional bankers who appeared before us are men of high standing and character and have carried on their duties as bankers conspicuously well, there are still some defects, if I may use that term, in our banking system and those defects should be studied by those interested in the finances and the financial and economic welfare of this country in order that sooner or later- preferably sooner-they may be remedied.
As to some of the other questions which were brought to our attention and which were studied, mainly the question of interlocking directorates, I have only to point to the admission of the bankers themselves. Both Sir Charles Gordon and Sir Herbert Holt stated that if the power which they had in their hands were in the hands of someone else who in their opinion was less desirous of consulting only the public weal and not their own selfishness, that power would be a very dangerous one. This admission, or statement if you like, was made by Sir Charles Gordon and was confirmed by Sir Herbert Holt. I think this goes a long way towards justifying those who stated in this house that one of the dangers to the body politic was the great control, power and influence which certain prominent industrialists had over the financial and economic welfare of the country.


Hon. PETER VENIOT (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, before this report is adopted I should like to know if it is the last report of the committee?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: I desire to take advantage of this occasion to refer to ah incident which took place before the subcommittee of the banking committee which sat in Montreal. As I read the report a reference was made by Sir Herbert Holt to the development of horse power and the building of newsprint and pulp mills in New Brunswick. He made a statement with reference to Fraser Companies Limited and the premier of New Brunswick. He did not name the premier but I happened to be premier from 1923 to 1925 and had considerable to do with the initiating of the development of water power in that province, especially at Grand Falls. While Sir Herbert Holt was not definite in the statement he made, if he had in mind the connecting of myself as premier of the province with any transactions of Fraser Companies Limited in the development of horse power, I desire to dissociate myself from that reference. So far as Fraser Companies Limited and myself as premier of New Brunswick at that time are 
concerned, they had nothing to do with the action I was prompted to take in connection with the development at Grand Falls at that time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I have just one word to say in reply. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and the hon. ' member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) for their kind expressions with reference to myself. I should like to say also that the subject matter of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) was considered very fully by the committee. While there was no unanimity, I think I am within the judgment of the members of the committee when I say that it was considered very fully. The members of the committee thought that no useful purpose would be served by adding a rider of that character. The hon. members for Macleod, Vancouver Centre and Quebec South have referred also to the failure of the committee to implement the authority given by the house to employ counsel. May I say to the house and to the country that this matter was considered very fully and the decision arrived at was that considering in a committee of fifty there were twenty-two members who were lawyers of high standing and with considerable knowledge of public business, the employment of counsel was unnecessary. I think it is the considered judgment of the committee that by this action we saved the taxpayers of this country a large sum of money. One word more. I did not understand that Sir Herbert Holt had any reference to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) in the statement he made.
Motion agreed to on division.



DOMINION NOTES ACT

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I propose to ask leave to introduce a bill to amend the Dominion Notes Act. I gave notice yesterday to have this placed on the order paper for to-day. This notice appears in votes and proceedings and I should like to make this motion and give a short explanation before moving the resolution which stands in the name of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). These two matters are related. With the consent of the house, I should like to move for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Dominion Notes Act.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Explain.

Dominion Notes Act-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in view of the pending establishment of the Bank of Canada which will take over the dominion note issue, it is necessary to introduce in this house a bill which will repeal the present Dominion Notes Act and provide for a strictly limited interim elasticity in the note issue, the necessity for which occurs out of circumstances surrounding this period of transitional issiue and the neiw conditions incident to the establishment of the Bank of Canada. Section one of the proposed bill will provide that
8120,000,000 of dominion notes may be issued with twenty-five per cent gold coverage and that any issue in excess of that shall be covered to the extent of one hundred cents on the dollar.
Possibly the house may be interested in knowing something of the present condition of our note issue legislation. I had occasion during the session briefly to direct attention to this and I do not propose to review this matter in full. Under the Dominion Notes Act, which is chapter 41 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, dominion notes may be issued against a twenty-five per cent gold coverage or backing. Above this amount dollar for dollar in gold is required to be held by the Minister of Finance as security for the redemption of these dominion notes. It will be observed that the amendment substitutes 8120,000,000 for $50,000,000. In addition to that we have the Finance Act which provides, as is known, for advances of dominion notes being made to the chartered banks on the strength of such approved securities as may be deposited with the Minister of Finance. The Finance Act, as is well known, is chapter 70 of the revised statutes of 1927. Then, in 1915, by chapter 4 authority was given for the issue of $26,000,000 of dominion notes. These notes have been issued and are outstanding; 816,000,000 of them are issued against certain railway securities, and the balance of $10,000,000 has been issued without any specific security.
On the basis of the legal provisions, the dominion's note circulation on May 31, 1934, showed outstanding dominion notes amounting in the aggregate to $171,110,949.69, issued as follows:	Under chapter 4 of the statutes
of 1915, to which I have just referred, covered by railway securities to the extent of $16,000,000, and not specifically secured as to $10,000,000-826,000,000. Under the Finance Act, being chapter 70 of the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1927, an issue of $38,444,000; advances made to the banks, secured by deposit of approved securities and under the Dominion Notes Act, being the chapter with which we are now dealing, chapter 41 of the
revised statutes of 1927, there was outstanding, May 31, notes to the amount of 8106,666.949.69, making a total issue of $171,110,949.69, as I have just indicated.
On the same date, the gold held by the Minister of Finance was reported as follows: Against notes as required by the Dominion Notes Act, chapter 41 of the revised statutes, .$69,166.949.69; in excess of the statutory requirements to which I have just referred, $371,002.46-1 will not repeat the statutory requirements-and the gold to which I referred yesterday, held in reserve as security for the deposits in the post office savings banks. $2,294,958.85, the statutory requirement being that 10 per cent of gold should be held against such deposits. That makes the total gold held, $71,832,911. If we eliminate the gold that is held for the savings bank deposits, we have a percentage of gold against paper issue of 40^ per cent; that is, for every dollar of outstanding notes at the end of May, the country held 40xh cents in gold.
Now, the most important change to which I am directing attention this afternoon is to authorize the issue of $120,000,000 of notes instead of $50,000,000 as now authorized. The $120,000,000 will be covered by 25 per cent of gold, and above this amount the 100 per cent provision will still apply. In this connection I will trespass upon the time of the house to read again the resolution which was adopted last year at London by the World Monetary and Economic conference. On the recommendation of the subcommittee on technical monetary problems, the conference of sixty-four nations unanimously adopted the following resolution relating to gold reserves to be held by the central banks-D in the report:
That in order to improve the working of a future gold standard greater elasticity should be given to central bank legal cover provisions; for instance, in so far as the system of percentage gold cover is applied a minimum ratio of not more than 25 per cent should be considered as sufficient; similar elasticity should be achieved' by appropriate measures where other systems are applied. However, such changes must not be taken as an excuse for unduly building up a larger superstructure of notes and credits; in other words, the effect of this resolution should be to increase the free reserve of central banks and thereby to strengthen their position.
That is the end of the quotation. It will thus be seen that the proposal I have just suggested to the house, which the proposed legislation enacts, is in accordance with the prudent recommendations of the world conference. In fact, we are providing a margin of reserve in excess of that deemed sufficient by the conference. I offer this comment in advance to dispel any possible doubt in the

Dominion Notes Act-Mr. Bennett
minds of those who may regard the proposed action as unorthodox or as a departure from the accepted canons of sound monetary practice. Now I shall give the particulars to the house.
The gold coverage under the old and new proposed arrangements is to be calculated as follows: Total dominion notes outstanding on May 31, 1934, as I have already indicated, $174,110,949. Gold held against the notes at S20.67 per ounce, that is, at the statutory figure-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: $171,000,000; the Prime Minister said $174,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Gold held against notes at $20.67 per ounce, which is the statutory value at present provided, $69,537,952, making the present percentage of gold to notes, as I have just indicated, 40^y per cent. The amendment which I am now offering to the house provides for a maximum increase of the present outstanding issue of $52,871,003. The total possible issue, therefore, under the amendment that I submit, would be $223,981,952. That is on the basis, of course, of the present advances under the Bank Act, which I have already indicated amount to something over $38,000,000. The present gold holdings, as I have just indicated, at $20.67 per ounce, would give us 31 per cent of coverage in gold, even with the increased issue that I have indicated. But if we value the present gold holdings at the present market rate of $35 per ounce, we should have the value of our gold at $117,746,895; and the revalued gold would thus be 52i per cent of the entire issue provided for by this legislation.
I think it is unnecessary to say to this house that that is a very, very large reserve to have against the issue of paper, of dominion notes. Now, the calculation on the basis of the revalued gold is intended merely to indicate to the house the substantial gold reserves that are held at the present moment and will be held against the increased issue to which I have referred.
I now further indicate to the house the possibilities which the Bank of Canada will have when the transfer of the note issue takes place and after revaluation is effected.
In the United States, as is known, they have revalued their gold so that at the moment the reserve of gold held in that country under the new valuation is between IS,000,000,000 and $9,000,000,000. When our revaluation is effected here as I have indicated, if we exercise the power that I am seeking by the legislation submitted to the house, of issuing

$120,000,000, we shall still have 52J per cent of gold coverage on all the paper thus issued.
In the second place, I desire to point out in these calculations no reference has been made to the gold of the chartered banks which is to be transferred to the Bank of Canada. Next, I desire to indicate that the Dominion Notes Act so amended is only to operate until .the Bank of Canada Act is in force and the bank is established, at which time, of course, as is well known by hon. members who have been following the legislation, the dominion note issue will be taken over by the new bank under legal requirements as to gold reserve less stringent than those which the present amendment proposes. I need hardly remind the house which has been engaged in passing the legislation, that under the provisions of the statute the bank will be called upon to hold 25 per cent in gold of all the notes that are issued as well as 25 per cent of the deposits which may be made with it under the circumstances provided for in .the bill itself, that is by the chartered banks or by the nation itself as the case might be. I mention this because while some hon. members are of the opinion that I err on the conservative side in connection with this legislation, this is to fill the gap between the time when the new bank begins to function and the rising of this house; that is, we must make provision for the situation that develops between now and the time the new bank comes in, and we have dealt with the matter as indicated by this legislation. I think it may be said that the effect of the amendment will be to provide an element of elasticity in the note issue, which element of course is to be one of the outstanding features of the central bank and one which we believe will be of the utmost value to the dominion.
The next point I desire to make in regard to the amendment has to do with the necessity of making some provision for our credit situation during this transitionary period. Hon. members are all aware that the dominion notes provide the greater part of the base on which our commercial credit structure is reared. One of the banks the other day in the committee said that they had holdings, I think, of $40,000,000 worth of dominion notes. The reserves of the banks are largely held in dominion notes and in fact the statute requires that 40 per cent of the reserves shall be so held. The result is of course that the base of our credit structure is in dominion notes. That has been so and under the new legislation the notes issued

Finance Act
by the new bank will constitute that base. In the past when the banks have needed to strengthen their position they have, in order to meet any situation that they thought required treatment or consideration, merely secured advances under the provisions of the Finance Act. That act of course will be repealed and in fact this afternoon I am submitting an amendment providing for its repeal when the new bank begins to function. It will therefore be apparent that the banks in that transitionary period may feel some hesitancy in utilizing the Finance Act, knowing it will cease to operate when the new bank begins to function. To meet that situation it is desirable to provide for greater elasticity in our credit structure and also to enable the banks by that means to meet any growing demands that may come from industry if there is an improvement in economic conditions. I think it may be said that the provisions of the proposed measure will afford that ample foundation, which business may demand for our commercial credit structure during the transitionary period. When business was at a low ebb the requirements were very much limited; as business increases the demand for credit and currency becomes greater and in order that there may be no question as to the sufficiency of the provisions of our legislation during this transitionary period to meet the situation, I have offered the amendment in question.
But I propose also to deal with another phase of the matter that this measure will assist, namely, the program of public works to which I shall presently refer. Before doing that, however, I desire to point out that the amendment submitted to-day in the new bill contemplates the purchase of silver by the Minister of Finance in accordance with the London agreement to the extent of 1,671,802 fine ounces for the year 1934 and the payment therefor by the issue of dominion notes. Of course it will be within the memory of members that the purchases during the succeeding years, 1935, 1936 and 1937 are to be made by the new bank and not by the Minister of Finance; Then, as I have just indicated, the bill that I now ask leave to introduce provides for the repeal of this statute when the proclamation is issued bringing into force the statute that creates the Bank of Canada. A similar bill with respect to the Finance Act will also be offered to the house this afternoon.
In addition to that the Public Works bill that I will announce to-day is one of the means by which the provisions of the act as amended may be utilized. Wffiile each, of
course, must be considered independently of the other, the fact is that the two measures are mutually supplementary and are part of a policy primarily concerned with the restoration of sound business conditions in the dominion. With these all too lengthy explanations of the provisions of the bill that is proposed to be offered to the house I now move for leave to introduce Bill No. 110, to amend the Dominion Notes Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. Ill, to repeal the Finance Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill I think I have already indicated. It becomes effective only upon the Bank of Canada Act being proclaimed and the bank beginning to function as a central bank in this country.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 112, to repeal chapter 4 of the statutes of 1915.
He said: This bill, which is complementary to the other, is to repeal chapter 4 of the statutes of 1915, which authorized under the conditions I have indicated the issue of additional dominion notes. That, of course, will have to be repealed, for when these two statutes have been repealed the dominion will have to provide the central bank with three per cent bonds, the return from which of course will inure to the benefit of the dominion under the provisions of the statute, but it is done as a matter of bookkeeping to provide for the new institution taking over the responsibilities and obligations to which I have already referred.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 102 for the relief of Edward Headley Acland-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 103 for the relief of Ella Gertrude Bush Adamson.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 104 for the relief of Helen Cohen Levine.-Mr. Vallance.
Bill No. 105 for the relief of Annie Rosner. -Mr. Luchkovich.
Farm Loan Act
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 106 for the relief of Grayse Irene Westlake MacLaren.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 107 for the relief of Naomi Willard Lyman Robertson.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 108 for the relief of Hyman Stot-land.-Mr. Hanson (Skeena).

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 92, to facilitate compromises and arrangements between farmers and their creditors.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 93, to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Yesterday when we were in committee of the whole on this bill the Prime Minister who was sponsoring the measure indicated that on the third reading he might be prepared to state whether there was any possibility of extending the legislation to help a province like Saskatchewan. I would like to remind him again, as the sponsor of the bill and the leader of the house, that the situation under discussion is one that merits consideration. Just recently I had correspondence with a farmer in my own district who purchased land during the era of high prices at $40 per acre. He has been unable to make any payment. Recently he was offered the land at $10 per acre if he could raise the money to pay it in cash. He got in touch with our provincial farm loan board and was advised that they were unable to advance any money. That is one case, which might be multiplied hundreds of times, in which farmers who are in financial difficulty, if they could get some money could readjust their finances so that they would have some heart to carry on. I realize that our province is operating under its own scheme.
I recall when the federal farm loan scheme was put through the political complexion of our federal government was the same as that of our provincial government. Yet our provincial government saw fit to carry on under their own scheme. At the present time however they have not the money to carry on, and they are unable to raise the money at as low a rate as this federal government is able to raise it. The thought I had in mind was that if the money which is raised for this 
scheme could be used to help out our provincial scheme I am sure it would be a great boon to a great many struggling agriculturists in the province of Saskatchewan, and I shovdd like again to ask the Prime Minister if there is any method whereby he thinks such a measure might be made helpful to that province?


Richard Bedford Bennett: While I have no right to reply, I believe with the permission of the house I have the right to answer a question. I can say only this, that the same conditions obtain in the province of Ontario as in the province of Saskatchewan. Neither province has accepted the provisions of the Farm Loan Act. And the only method, so far as we can at the present time discern by which the benefits of the compromise statute might be made available in Saskatchewan would be by loans made to the province for that particular purpose. That phase of the matter has engaged our attention, and no definite conclusion has been arrived at.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like now to proceed with order No. 8, an act respecting shipping. I have to leave the chamber for a short time, but presently I shall move the committee up, and take up the resolution at any time which suits the convenience of the right hon. gentleman.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 91, respecting shipping- Mr. Duranleau

Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 2, subsection 26-Foreign voyage.
Mr. DURANLEAU:: 
Mr. REID:: Will the term "home voyage" take care of a ship leaving the port of Vancouver and going via the Panama canal to Montreal? The minister will remember that I discussed this matter the other day, and pointed out that Canada had adopted the definition of "home trade" as it appears in

Canada Skipping Act
the British Merchant Shipping Acts, and I indicated that a vessel leaving the port of Vancouver and going to Montreal would be designated as a foreign-voyage vessel.


Alfred Duranleau: As I shall indicate in a moment or two, the definition of a home trade voyage does not take care of the situation described by the hon. member. The term "foreign voyage" is not based on *geography, but is based on the dangers of the sea.1 A ship making a home trade voyage should not go outside the two hundred mile limit from the land or from the shore, and if a ship were to leave Vancouver for Montreal, travelling via the Panama canal, it would have to take to the deep sea at a point far beyond two hundred miles from shore. It is designated as being on a foreign voyage and there must be considered the strength of the ship, the life saving apparatus and the certificates of masters and mates.


Thomas Reid: As it is not my wish to delay the committee any more perhaps I would do well to make a general statement. As I pointed out earlier in the previous discussions, this is a very serious matter. A ship leaving the port of Vancouver and going to South America is in no more danger than one going through the Panama canal and up the Atlantic coast to the port of Montreal. Previous to this I understand that a home trade voyage would include a ship leaving the port [DOT]of Vancouver and going to Montreal. The present legislation will necessitate a change of certificates and many changes which I suppose the committee has not time to discuss.
I shall, in a few general statements, outline my objections to the bill. The sections which I object to and which were allowed to stand dealt with questions as to 'whether or not ships should be designated British or foreign, the load line, the point as to whether or not a ship should be designated a vessel or a boat, the recording of ships, the certificate of masters, mates and engineers, safety regulations, and reciprocal arrangements affecting the accepting of certificates. There are, I would again point out, 130 sections dealing with seamen.-wages, dismissal, sickness, and every condition under which seamen may be employed or engaged. My protest on former occasions and again to-day is that no personal representations from the seamen has been heard. Then, there are certificates of pilots and examiners. I am very sorry indeed that the minister has not seen fit to embody the amendments suggested which were allowed to stand over. I again protest against the one now under discussion, because it affects
ships loaded with lumber, and other cargoes, leaving the ports of Vancouver or New Westminster.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether or not you will allow a general discussion on the amendments, but as the hon. member for New Westminster has opened the matter probably the atmosphere would be cleared if a few general observations were made.
Some days ago I voiced my regret that the government had decided to proceed with this bill. Since making those observations I have received a number of letters supporting my contention and saying that the various shipping interests, vessel owners and seamen have not had time to consider the bill and for that reason would desire to have it stand over. However, as I have stated I do not intend to make any further protest. In view of what I have heard since the introduction of the bill I intend to deal with certain amendments, and if the minister will agree I intend to make only one speech, and that one will be very short. If he is content I shall send him my suggestions with regard to certain amendments which I believe might be incorporated.
I shall deal with the whole matter in a few moments and then leave it to the government to decide what they will do. The minister has moved that clause 26 of section 2 be amended. Now clause 26 as it appears in the original bill "E" from the Senate reads: "Foreign voyage" means either a voyage between a place in Canada and a place not in Canada other than, a place within the limits of a home trade voyage or a voyage between places not in Canada and not all within the limits of a home trade voyage.
It would take a Philadelphia lawyer, let alone a sailor, to tell what that means, and the minister recognizing that the language was not clear arranged with one of his colleagues on the other side of the house to move an amendment, and here is the amendment :
"Foreign voyage" means a voyage extending beyond the area of a home trade voyage and not being an inland or a minor waters voyage.
Why, Mr. Chairman, should we introduce into that amendment of the minister's any reference to a minor waters or inland voyage? Surely nobody who knows anything about the sea will require to have in mind in dealing with this section either a minor waters or an inland water voyage. I am going to suggest to the minister what I consider a real amendment to this clause. I am not going to move it; I am simply going to suggest it. It is expressed in real sailor language, in words that every sailor can understand. Not only
Canada Shipping Act

will every sailor and mariner understand it, but I am sure that my hon. friend from Pictou will agree with me that it is a proper definition so far as this bill is concerned of what a foreign voyage means. We do not want in this bill language which nobody can understand except perhaps a lawyer or somebody else living a thousand miles away from the sea. What we want is language that a sailor can understand, and therefore I suggest to the minister that clause 26 in section 2 read as follows:
"Foreign voyage" means a voyage between Canada, and a port east of the 60th degree of longitude and south of the 5th degree north latitude, and north of the 65th degree; and a port west of the 125th degree of longitude, and south of the 5th degree north latitude, and north of the 65th degree.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Nobody will understand that.


William Duff: I can quite understand that
my hon. friend coming from a farming district in Manitoba does not understand it, but let me put it in simpler language so that even the Minister of Marine will understand it.
My hon. friend from New Westminster has raised the question of a home-trade voyage which is defined in subsection 38 of section 2 as follows:
"Home trade voyage" means a voyage not being an inland or minor waters voyage between places -nothin the area following to wit: Canada, the United States of America, the territory of Alaska not west of cape Spencer, Newfoundland, Labrador, St. Pierre and Miquelon, in the course of which a ship does not go north of the 60th parallel of north latitude or south of the 36th parallel of north latitude.
The other day in speaking on this clause I called the minister's attention to .the fact that a vessel sailing from Nova Scotia to Hudson bay would be going on a foreign voyage, according to the definition I have just quoted. Surely Hudson bay is in Canada. If any part of this country is in home waters, surely Hudson bay is. But under this definition of a home-trade voyage a ship could go to Greenland because she does not go north of the 60th parallel of north latitude, but she could not go to Hudson bay without being considered to 'be on a foreign voyage. I say, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that subsection 38 of clause 2 should be amended. That is the subsection that defines a home-trade voyage, and I say that it does not give us the best definition. In my opinion the old reference to a "coasting" voyage was much more understandable than the words "home-trade" voyage. And under section 73 of chapter 186 of the statutes of 1927,
TMr. Duff.]
being the Canada Shipping Act, a coasting voyage is defined as follows:
"Coasting voyage" means a voyage between any port or place in Canada, and any other port or place in Canada, or in. Newfoundland, Labrador, or St. Pierre or Miquelon, or any Port or ^ place in the United States of America, or Mexico or Central America or in the West Indies, or on the eastern coast of South America not further south than forty degrees south latitude; or on the coast of the territory of Alaska, or of the western coast of Soutla America not further south than forty degrees south latitude.		
My hon. friend the member for New Westminster asked the minister to consider whether a home-trade voyage should not include a voyage from Vancouver through the Panama canal to Halifax, but the minister in his answer, if I understood him aright, did not agree with that. But under the act which is in force now a vessel could go to Buenos Aires on a coasting voyage or any other place in South America not further south than forty degrees south latitude. But in this bill which has come to us from another place I notice that according to the definition given in subsection 38, if a ship goes south of the 36th parallel of north latitude, it is a foreign voyage. That is, under this definition a ship cannot go to Buenos Aires and be considered on a Coasting or home-trade voyage. No, it can only go as far south as cape Hatteras, and where is cape Hatteras? Cape Hatteras, as everbodv knows, is only a stone's throw from the Delaware river in the United States of America. Surely if we are going to have what is called a home-trade voyage, it at least should include places where Canadian ships go in the regular course of their business in carrying on the trade and commerce of this country and with other countries.
I agree with the minister that perhaps the old act went too far in allowing a vessel to be considered on a coasting voyage when it went not further south than forty degrees south latitude, which would include Buenos Aires. I am not going to argue with the minister whether it should be a home-trade voyage or a coasting voyage, but I do submit to the minister that a home-trade voyage in the proper sense of the term should mean a voyage between ports in Canada and other ports in Canada, and I am sending my suggestion across to the minister. But in subsection 38 of section 2 the minister goes outside of Canada. He goes to the United States, a foreign country. He goes to St. Pierre and Miquelon or to Newfoundland and Labrador. Surely, Mr. Chairman, a coasting voyage is a much more appropriate name than a home-trade voyage, but I am

Canada Shipping Act
not going to quarrel over that with the gentlemen in the other chamber or with the minister. I am going to suggest an amendment to the minister which I shall send over to him, that subsection 38 of clause 2 should read as follows:
"Home trade voyage" means any voyage not being an inland or minor water voyage, between places within the areas following, to wit:-Canada, the United States of America, the territory of Alaska, not west of cape *Spencer, Newfoundland, Labrador, St. Pierre and Miquelon and the West Indies, in the course of which a ship does not go north of sixtydive (65) degrees parallel of north latitude or south of five (5) degrees parallel of north latitude.
What does that suggestion mean, Mr. Chairman? It means that Canadian ships could go north into the territory of my hon. friend from Nelson, up to Hudson bay, and still be on a home-trade voyage, but it would be a foreign voyage under the clause that stands in the bill because if a vessel goes north of the 60th parallel of north latitude that is considered a foreign voyage. I trust that the minister will accept my suggestion that the north latitude be extended from the 60th parallel to the 65th parallel, which would allow vessels to go to the Hudson bay and still be on a home-trade voyage.


Alfred Duranleau: The amendment I have suggested will eliminate entirely the latitude in the north.


William Duff: I could have made it seventy degrees or one hundred degrees, but that would not have made any difference. I am very glad the minister has adopted my suggestion. As I explained the other day, with the subsection remaining at sixty degrees, no vessel could go to Hudson bay on a home trade voyage. There is no need to take out the latitude altogether. I would suggest that the minister adopt my suggestion and make it the 65th parallel instead of the 60th. Also, instead of having it the 36th parallel of north latitude, which is cape Hatteras, he should have it the 5th degree of north latitude.
Subsection 110 of this section gives a definition of the West Indies. It reads:
"West Indies" includes the West Indies, the Bahama and the Bermuda islands.
I am going to try to show the minister why subsection 38 should extend from the 36th degree of north parallel down to the West Indies to the 5th degree. If we are going to include the Bahama and the Bermuda islands, I think we should take in more territory. The Bermuda islands are 700 miles from St. Kitts, the nearest West Indian island. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) knows this.
Home trade voyages should include both places where our Canadian merchant marine and our Canadian National steamships and the ships from Nova Scotia go. I suggest to the minister that the latitude given in section 38 should be extended to the 5th degree north latitude. The hon. member for New Westminster has suggested that a vessel should be able to leave Vancouver, go down the Pacific coast, go through the Panama canal and come up to Halifax or Montreal on a home trade voyage. I am sending over to the minister a copy of my suggestions in connection with subsection 110. I am suggesting that it should be amended to read as follows:
"West Indies" includes the West Indies, the Bahama and the Bermuda islands and British Guiana.
If the West Indies and the Bahama islands are considered as a home trade voyage, British Guiana should be in the same position. I hope the minister will consider my suggestion.
I have a further suggestion to make in connection with subsection 38 of section 2. Apparently the gentleman who drafted this bill felt that he had to earn his money. I do not blame him because if I had been drafting it I would have made it twice as large and used perhaps twice as many words. There is no need for all this verbosity in these clauses. I suggest that subsection 38 should be amended to read as follows:
"Home trade voyage" means any voyage between five degrees of north latitude and sixty-five degrees of noTth latitude, both on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
I think this covers the suggestion of the hon. member for New Westminster, and it is certainly more simple. Let us go to Hudson bay if we want to; let us go through the Panama Canal to the Pacific coast. Why have all this verbosity? Let us cut out all this nonsense and have a clause which sailors, mariners and shipping men can understand. May I suggest laughingly to the minister that he should have asked me to help with this thing. I could have framed a simple clause which a sailor, a captain, a merchant or anybody else could understand. Let us adopt something reasonable and fair; let us have something which the people of the country can understand.
I have dealt with subsections 26, 38 and 116 of clause 2. I shall now deal with subsection 89. As it appears at present, this section reads:
"Sailing ship" (except as may be provided under the load line rules) means a ship propelled wholly by sails, and includes a ship in excess of five tons, gross tonnage, provided with masts, sails and rigging sufficient to allow
Canada Shipping Act

her to make voyages under sail alone, and which, in addition, is provided with mechanical means of propulsion, the power of which does not exceed three nominal horse power.
Such a section is very much against the best interests of this country. In this day and age sailing ships are equipped with means of propulsion outside of masts and sails, and I am going to suggest a change in this subsection. I am sending over a copy to the minister. I am suggesting that subsection 89 of section 2 be amended to read as follows:
*'Sailing ship" (except as may be provided under the load line rules) means a ship wholly or in part propelled by sails,-
The present definition is a ship propelled wholly 'by sails, and I say that that is not in the best interests of the country. My suggestion continues:
-and includes a ship in excess of ten tons, gross tonnage, provided with masts, sails and rigging sufficient to allow her to make voyages under sail alone, and which, in addition, is provided with mechanical means of propulsion, the power of which does not exceed ten nominal horse power.
It will be noticed that in speaking of other means of propulsion I have increased the nominal horse power from three to ten. If the business of this country prospers and we are able to develop our fisheries, we will need a large number of vessels partly propelled by sails but which in addition will have auxiliary power. If the minister is going to encourage men on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts to build vessels for use in the fisheries, their horse power must be sufficient. I ask the minister to accept my suggestion and provide that in addition to a sailing ship meaning a ship propelled wholly or in part by sails, it shall mean one which is provided with mechanical means of propulsion, the power of which does not exceed ten nominal horse power.
Mr. Chairman, I continue with your permission. As I said at the beginning, I do not want to make half a dozen speeches.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: I have not called the hon. member
to order because of his introductory explanation, but the discussion is out of order. However, I have no objection if the committee desires to proceed in this way. Section 2 is under discussion and the hqn. member is dealing with the various subsections of another section.


Alfred Duranleau: I would rather let
my hon. friend make his full statement.


William Duff: I am trying to save time,
because once I sit down I am not going to get up again. I want to discuss the impli-

cations of section 113, in regard to which I sent over to the minister a suggestion I have to offer on this important matter. Section 113 comes under Part II, and my own idea is that Part II is the most important part of this act; and while I am not under section 2, I submit that section 113 deals with some of the definitions that come under section 2. Now, section 113 is a very long and complicated provision, dealing with all sorts of things, and my idea is to make it concise. Instead of having all this tomfoolery and nonsense about pleasure yachts, ships solely employed in fishing, passenger steamships not exceeding five tons gross tonnage, barges or other vessels, and so on, we should have a concise definition such as I am going to propose. I sent over to the minister a section which I think would simplify the whole matter. I propose that section 113, subsection
(1), be amended to read as follows:
Every British ship, except ships under 150 tons registered tonnage, and which does not have engines of more than ten nominal horse power, when employed in the trade of Canada, shall be an exempted ship.
That simplifies the whole thing and does not refer to pleasure yachts or fishing vessels or anything else. It simply proposes that every vessel under 150 tons registered tonnage, whether propelled by steam or by ten nominal horse power, shall be exempted from the necessity of having certificated masters and mates. That I submit is a much better clause and one which would meet the desires of those who are engaged in the fishing industry or who have to sail the seas, men who have been sailing vessels for ten, fifteen, twenty and thirty years, without any certificate. If this bill passes, with section 113 as it now reads, these men will not be able to sail their ships; they will have to have certified masters, which is impossible. More than that, they will have to have certified engineers to sail a fishing schooner or a barge or any other kind of vessel. My amendment, from line 25 of section 113, subsection (1), will read:
shall, when going from any place in Canada, be provided with masters and mates duly certificated, according to the following scale:
That means that every vessel over 150 tons must have a duly certificated and qualified master and mate.
(a)	In any case, with a master holding a certificate of the proper grade and class;
(b)	If the ship is a passenger ship, and certified to carry more than forty passengers, or is a foreign-going ship of over 150 tons, registered tonnage, with at least one officer besides the master, holding a certificate of the proper grade and class not lorver than that of first mate.

Canada Shipping Act
Under this bill as it now reads there are at least one hundred and fifty men in Nova Scotia who have sailed ships to Oporto, Bristol, England, Barcelona, Italy, Greece, Bahia and Pernambuco, as well as other places, who will not be allowed to do so in the future. These men have been sailing ships for anywhere from ten to thirty years; they are well qualified. But if they had to pass an examination they could not do so, any more than I can teach my little grandson his lessons when he comes from school and says, "Grandpa, will you tell me how to spell this, that and the other." * It is impossible, and surely the minister and the government do not intend to throw these men out of employment. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) knows as well as I do that there are men in Nova Scotia who have been going to sea for thirty and forty years without certificates, in vessels under 150 tons, and I suggest that if in paragraph (b) which I have just quoted, as I suggest it be amended, we substituted 150 for 100 it would meet the situation not only on the Atlantic but on the Pacific coast as well. Surely the minister will see the necessity for such a provision, instead of passing this bill as it stands, which would result in throwing hundreds of fishermen, sailors, masters and mates out of employment, because they have no certificates and will simply have to go on the beach. They will be without employment.
Why did not the person who drafted this bill follow the British act entirely? Why did not this gentleman from Vancouver with his paste pot and scissors cut out the whole Merchant Shipping Act of Great Britain? Why did he take part of the British act, part of the Canadian act and God knows what else and jumble it all together into this conglomeration? Let me point out to the minister that under the British act to-day a man without a certificate may not only sail a sailing vessel but he may sail a steamer as large as the Empress of Britain, without a certificate.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Do you think it is right for a man without a certificate to sail a boat as large as that?


William Duff: My hon. friend is four inches shorter than I. Does he mean to say that he cannot navigate his way from the main entrance of this building to this chamber as well as I can? It is the same thing. What I say is that under the British act a captain may sail a steamer as large as the Empress of Britain, without a certificate, provided that no passengers are carried. Not only that, but a steamer that size can carry a mate and 74726-259
engineers without certificates, so long as there are no passengers on board. Surely no one will deny that our home trade waters are just as treacherous and the conditions just as strenuous as they are around the British Isles. If the minister will look at the definition of home trade voyage, so far as Great Britain is concerned, I think he will come to the conclusion that if the British government and the British people, in order to encourage their merchant marine, are willing to allow vessels to be sailed, under certain conditions, without certificated masters, mates and engineers, there is no reason why section 113 of this bill should read as it does at the moment. I suggest therefore, in addition to amending section 113 as I have proposed, that section 117 be amended to read as follows:
Certificates of competency as engineer be granted in accordance with this act for the following grades:
First class engineer.
Second class engineer.
Third class engineer.
Fourth class engineer.
Probationary engineer.
To-day there are at least 150 young men, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, who are on board Nova Scotia vessels propelled by auxiliary power, and these men, if this bill goes through as it stands, will be thrown on the street. They will not be able to sail those vessels. I would like to know who is going to sail them? Has the minister any engineer to send down? What about Mr. Griffin of Vancouver or Mr. O'Connor? Will they provide the engineers or will the nineteen senators in the other house who hardly ever saw salt water and who put through this bill, send engineers to man those ships either in Nova Scotia or on the Pacific coast? That was my reason for asking in the first instance that the bill should stand over so that people throughout the country might study these clauses and the minister might get their views with the result that next year he would come before the house with a bill that would be a right and proper one in the interests of shipping and of the people of this country. Therefore I say that in clause 117 the words "temporary engineer" should be changed to "probationary engineer," so that young men in machine shops, young men who can handle these crude oil or gasoline engines that are used to run these vessels need not have to go through a long rigmarole and have a lot of government officials go down and put them through a severe test and examination with the result that they cannot pass it and consequently cannot take charge of the engines in those steamboats.

Canada Shipping Act

Clause 118 is another to which I am going to refer. Clause 118 as it stands at present reads:
Everjr British subject who-
(1) served as a master or mate of a foreign-going or home trade sailing ship of oveT seventy-five tons, gross tonnage, before the first day of January, 1934, for a full period of twelve months within ten years immediately preceding the date of his application for a certificate of service.
Whoever heard of a foreign-going vessel of seventy-five tons gross register? Who put that into the bill? Was it the minister or the deputy minister or one of his officials who inserted in the bill the provision with regard to a foreign-going vessel of seventy-five tons? I know, of course, a man named Jacobs crossed the Atlantic in a dory some thirty years ago and somebody is now trying to cross the Atlantic in a small boat, but whoever heard of a foreign-going vessel of seventy-five tons register? The whole thing is ridiculous. Is it any wonder that I get warmed up about the matter? Who advised the minister? Who advised the leader in the other part of this parliament to allow that clause to go through? A vessel of seventy-five tons going on a foreign voyage! The thing is ridiculous. The minister should have the committee rise now and report progress instead of going on with this bill. This is a new clause. By whom? By Mr. Pastepot and Mr. Scissors, or who was it that drafted the clause? I am going to suggest to the minister that clause 118 be amended to read as follows:
Every British subject who-
(1) served as a master or mate of a foreign-going or home trading sailing ship of over one hundred and fifty tons registered tonnage, before the first day of January, 1931, for a full period of twelve months within ten years immediately preceding the date of Ms application for a certificate of service-
And so forth. I will not read the other part of the clause. If a man wants to sail a ship of 400 or 500 tons and go on foreign voyages, it is all right for the minister and his department and parliament to say that that man should have some kind of certificate, but there are in Nova Scotia-and I presume the same thing applies to the Pacific coast -small vessels with two or three masts which, after fishing all summer, take a cargo of coal from Sydney to St. John's, Newfoundland; they load fish for Oporto or the West Indies or Pernambuco, and surely the minister by this new bill and new clause inserted by somebody who did not know anything about shipping conditions in this country, will prohibit men like Angus Walters, men who can sail ships, from doing so if they have not a

certificate. It is true, as the minister knows, there is a simple examination, but one of the requisites is that a man who may have sailed a ship fo-r ten, twenty or thirty years must pass an eye test. How in the name of heaven can men do this at forty or forty-five years of age? We have all been to the optician to get glasses or our eyes, examined and the first thing he does is to put a card on the wall about ten feet away. He says: "Can you see those big letters?" Then: "'Can you see the smaller letters?" And then: "Can you see the still smaller letters?" The same thing applies in the eye test of the Minister of Marine under this legislation. An old salt who can see five miles from the crosstrees, who can go aloft and without his binoculars see five miles in the distance on the horizon, is taken into a little room ten feet by twelve and has to or is asked to read a card as you and I have to do when we go to get our eyes tested on Sparks street. Who can do this? I am sure the government is sincere when it wants to see trade increasing and prosperity in this country, but surely the way to bring this about is not by preventing from sailing these ships men who have sailed the seas for years and years,, who are well equipped to sail these vessels and who have nothing against their character or ability to navigate in any part of the world. Yet under clause 118 every man who cannot pass the eye test cannot sail a ship of more than seventy-five tons register. Who would want to go to sea on a foreign voyage in a seventy-five ton ship? I would not and I do not get seasick either.
As regards clause 122, the minister could very well eliminate "minor waters of Canada" and replace that with "waters of Canada," and strike out "twenty tons" and replace that with "one hundred and fifty tons." Paragraph (b) could be struck out altogether. Why under that provision should he make fishermen and others pay a fee of $5 for a temporary certificate for only one year? Why any fee at all? Why should these men who sail little boats have to pay the department a fee of $5? I know we are hard up; we need money; we need greater revenue in this country, but surely the minister and the government are not going to take it out of the sailors and fishermen who are struggling along with three dollar mackerel, two-fifty herring and four dollar codfish. Let us cut out that provision that they must take out a certificate, pay a fee of five dollars, and then have a certificate for only one year. Why not make the certificate for ten years or for life so long as the man has good behaviour?

Canada Shipping Act
This shows that whoever drafted this bill did not know what he was doing.
With regard to clause 125 I have no objection to the provision "not more than twelve passengers." The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) will be interested in this. Let the minister strike out the provision "four nominal horsepower" and insert in its place "ten nominal horsepower." Give the people on the great lakes, the people anywhere in Canada a chance if they want greater power, stronger means of propulsion in their boats. Why keep them down to four horsepower? The thing is ridiculous and the minister should make that "ten nominal horsepower," internal combustion engine other than by steam. With regard to the steam may I suggest to the minister that this should read "not more than twenty nominal horsepower." In that case there would be a reasonable clause in the bill, a clause which the men on the great lakes who sail those little steamers will appreciate, a clause which every man in this country will appreciate; but whoever drafted this bill and these clauses did not know what they were doing or what the interests of the country demanded. I say to the minister that before he asks us to adopt the clauses now standing he should change them in the way I and others have suggested.
Now, in conclusion let me say that in chapter 186-


Alfred Duranleau: What section?


William Duff: I have not the section, but under the old law vessels using internal combustion engines are not subject to inspection. Then why are they brought under this bill? In what way has navigation in Canada been affected by the use of the internal combustion engine? I say the change is not necessary, and I agree with the hon. member for Pietou who the other night strenuously objected to certain of these clauses because of the phraseology. I do not know who drafted them; surely it was not the Prime Minister. Although he looks after nearly all the legislation of this government, he would not use such phrases found in some of those clauses. I say to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Marine that I have no particular objection to the rest of this bill, other than Part H. No one is going to be hurt much by the other parts, as far as I had a chance to study it, but I do say that Part II of this bill should go into dry dock, should be repaired from stem to gudgeon, should be overhauled from truck to keelson. I have no objection to gentlemen learned in the law sitting in in order to draft in proper legal terms the ideas of practical 74726-259S
men who know the cathead from the dogwatch and the glory hole from the lazarette. But I do object to these legal men trying to draft an act without consulting with people who know their business. I suggest to the minister that this bill should stand until next year. Call in Captain Mitchell of Halifax, a practical mariner, call in Captain Lindsay of Vancouver, both of whom have sailed the seas in foreign ships for a great many years, and get their ideas of what is necessary in regard to certificates for foreign voyages. Call in practical men who have sailed the seas in coasters and fishing vessels for many years, captains of freighters, and fishermen either on the Pacific or the Atlantic, men of experience who have sailed for years without certificates, consult with them and you will get a bill of which this government and this parliament will be proud; not a bill which cannot stand the light of day, and of which as I said criticism is already coming in. I have received so much already that I cannot possibly deal with it. I plead with the minister and the government to lot this bill stand so that Part II may be redrafted in order that every man in this country who is interested in shipping or vessels may be protected, and men who earn their living on the sea shall not be ostracised or put in a position where they cannot sail their ships, or young men who want to go to sea will not be discouraged by some fancy educational test which none of them can meet.


Alfred Duranleau: I have to recognize that my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff) has done considerable work in studying this bill. Last week he contended that he had had no time to study it, but I see now that he has perused the whole bill. I fully recognize the experience of my hon. friend in marine matters and I appreciate his knowledge. But as he expressed himself he tended to show that he is the only man-


William Duff: Oh no, that is not fair.


Alfred Duranleau: -who knows something about marine law.


William Duff: I object to that, that is not fair; I did not say I was the only one who knew anything about marine matters.


Alfred Duranleau: No, I say we can infer from the statement of the hon. member that no one but himself-


William Duff: I can understand the minister inferring that, because he knows a good deal less than I do.
Canada Shipping Act


Alfred Duranleau: There is no doubt about that, but I do not think it was necessary for my hon. friend to make the statement he has just made.


William Duff: You should not have made the first one.


Alfred Duranleau: I would remind my hon. friend that this bill has been studied by experts for over two years; in the Marine department we have the best experts who have been studying it for two years with the assistance of legal advisers. I do not know if my hon. friend has done the same with respect to the amendments he has suggested, but if he drafted them himself I think he will admit it is rather dangerous for a layman to attempt to draft the sections of a bill such as this.


William Duff: I can assure my hon. friend I had no legal advice, it was purely a matter of common, horse sense.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend says he drafted those amendments himself?


William Duff: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: Then I shall proceed with the clauses that stood last week, and I have some amendments to propose which have been studied, and which I think will cover some of the points raised by my hon. friend. I urge my hon. friend to be careful before suggesting amendments drafted without the help of legal advice, because it is a very difficult job even for a legal adviser who has some knowledge and experience in marine matters.


William Duff: Might I ask my hon. friend what legal gentleman who had any knowledge of marine matters helped to prepare this bill?


Alfred Duranleau: The first bill drafted was drafted by my assistant deputy minister and my officials under him with the help of Mr. Martin Griffin, K.C., of Vancouver, one of the outstanding lawyers of the west in marine matters.


William Duff: But he says he used the paste pot and scissors.


Alfred Duranleau: I was in the department and I know what Mr. Griffin did and I know what my officials have done for two years. My officials state that these amendments cannot be accepted, they would not fit the rest of the bill at all.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Why?
{Mr. Duff.]


Alfred Duranleau: For many reasons.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Could the minister explain?


Alfred Duranleau: We shall see as we come to the various sections.


Peter John Veniot: I have already stated that I did not intend to go any further in my opposition to this bill. I would like very well to have kept my promise in that respect but when I hear the minister say that this bill was prepared by experts with knowledge of legal terms connected with marine matters I must say that if those experts cannot give any better exhibition of their knowledge of marine conditions in different sections of Canada than this bill they never should have undertaken to prepare such a bill. I have no fault to find with the experts in the department over which the minister presides; they are competent in carrying out the duties they have to perform, but when anybody in the Department of Marine or the Department of Fisheries, especially the Department of Marine, will undertake to say that this bill does not do an injustice to the fishing industry of the maritime provinces he does not know what he is talking about.


Alfred Duranleau: In what respect?


Peter John Veniot: That is the reason I am now rising-


Alfred Duranleau: In what respect?


Peter John Veniot: In every respect.


Alfred Duranleau: Tell this committee in what respect.


Peter John Veniot: A few days ago I told the minister and this committee that there were sections which could be amended by the hon. member -for Antigonish-Guysbor-ough or by myself. We could suggest amendments to some of those sections, but there were other sections which we knew were working injustices but which we would not dare, even with our knowledge -of the fishing industry, to undertake to amend without first having the opportunity to -consult the people interested. That is the reason I have asked for delay in the passage of this bill; that is the reason I haive asked the government if they are determined to force it through, and whether or not they would not delay, for this session at least, bringing into operation the first part of the bill. They have authority under one section of the bill to take that action. I received no satisfactory answer to my request, nor did I receive any guarantee that tha-t would be done.

Canada Shipping Act
I agree with the statement of the minister as to the preparation of amendments without the help of legal talent. However, the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough did not suggest that no lawyer should be called in. As a matter of fact he said he had no objection to legal minds being consulted so that the suggested amendments might be framed in proper legal phraseology. He knows that neither he nor I is in a position to place the suggested amendments into proper legal language without first having the cooperation of legal minds. Therefore we are not suggesting that the amendments should be accepted in the exact terms in which they now appear; all we want is to have an acceptance of the subject matter of the amendments. These suggestions come from men who know what the conditions really are, and they know that if the bill passes in its present form it will operate not to the advantage of, but rather to the disadvantage of, the fishing and freighting industries of the maritime provinces. That is the reason we are opposing the bill, and that is the reason I have risen in my place to-day to ask that the passage of the bill be postponed. No interests would suffer. Give us an opportunity t.o consult our people, to lay the whole matter before them, and to come back next year bringing with us suggestions to meet the conditions. In that way the bill could be put through in a proper manner. If any interests might suffer by the nonadoption a.t this session of the bill now under discussion I would hold my tongue, but I say to the minister-and he knows it-that if action on the bill were postponed no interest would suffer. If the government are determined to put the bill through in its present form, then I ask them to take advantage of the power they have under the bill whereby they may not bring into effect those sections affecting coastal freighting and fishing interests of the maritime provinces and the Pacific coast. Do not bring them into operation, but let them stand under the old act until such time as we may consult our people and, coming back here next year as their representatives, lay our opinions before the House of Commons.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, after the unparalleled latitude you have allowed other members in this discussion-unparalleled in my experience, at any rate-I presume you will extend to me the same opportunity to wander all over the bill.
I am not surprised that the absurdities and contradictions in the bill have led the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) to depart from the decision he made a few days ago to wash his hands of all responsibility, to let the government put the bill through the house, and to leave them wholly responsible for if. I wholly agreed with that stand, and I proposed to follow it. However, as he and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) have departed from that decision I shall fallow their example, and speak for but a short time indeed, to place on record a wire I received yesterday.
I agreed with hon. members who took the stand that it was hopeless to try to amend this bill, due to the extended and intricate nature of the sections, the wide variety of subjects covered, and the basic fact that the government, without any reasonable excuse so far as I could see, refused to send the bill to a committee where we could have sat around a table, had the advantage of legal experts and technical experts about whom the minister has been talking-an advantage which we certainly would have required-and we would have heard the arguments and settled the matter.
The idea that a layman cannot formulate an amendment is pure nonsense. The committee could function, and could decide along laymen's lines what they wanted done. The committee would adjourn, and the lawyer in the department could be present to draft appropriate amendments for the next sitting, when he would find whether or not the amendments agreed with the ideas in the minds of the members. That has been done scores of times, and it is useless to suggest that it could not be done again. I remember sitting on a committee which framed the old age pensions legislation. I believe there were only four of us, and a lawyer. Within certain limits indicated by the government, he would ask us what we wanted, draft the section and bring it down next day. That legislation although a new departure, stood the test of a great deal of criticism until the present government messed it up with a lot of ill-timed regulations.
With a great deal of what the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has said, I agree. With some of his statements perhaps I might not agree. With a good deal of what he has said I do not know whether I can agree or not, because I simply do not know about all those matters. I am quite appreciative of the fact, however, that he does know about these matters, and that on a committee his presence and knowledge would be of great value in arranging the details of various sections. But the minister has no intention of sending the bill to a committee, and never
Canada Shipping Act

had. He has no intention of leaving it for another year, and never had. What is the use of wasting time urging him to do so? I do not purpose wasting either my time or that of the committee.
The minister has said he will now introduce some amendments. That is remarkable when we recall his remarks upon the introduction of the bill and upon second reading. In his view the shipping bill was the last word in legislation and could not possibly be improved upon. I was reminded of Moses going up to the mountain and coming down with the ten commandments.


Alfred Duranleau: I stated as a whole
it is a remarkable piece of legislation.


Alan Webster Neill: It is a remarkable bill, all right; I admit that, and I suggest that time will demonstrate how remarkable it really is. We will be sitting here next session-those of us who are fortunate enough to return-and we will be amending this bill. However I am not going to waste the time of the committee by any further observations, but shall proceed to quote the telegram I have before me. Hansard indicates-and if the minister wishes I shall quote it-that he said that a committee sitting in another place heard all people interested in this matter. In fact, I think the Salvation Army was about the only body which was not heard. If there was anybodj'' or anything which had an interest in the bill, it was heard. Then, later on in reply to a question put by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) we find the minister stating that the seamen from Vancouver had not been heard. At a later point he admitted they had not been heard, but said they had presented a brief. Still later that statement was contradicted. At a later point he referred to telegrams, but notwithstanding the request of an hon. member on this side of the house to read those telegrams, he did not do so. He apparently read selected excerpts which gave the impression in one case that the whole engineering bodies of Canada were behind it, but upon being pressed by the hon. member for Hamilton we found that it was only one-seventeenth of those bodies, only one council out of seventeen, which is a very different thing.
I just want to quote a wire that I have received from an important body in Vancouver, the Canadian Merchant Service Guild of Vancouver, which the minister said had been fully heard. It is a long wire and I am pleased to say that it was not sent collect. It; is addressed to myself and reads as follows:

Hansard eight June. Received on the sixteenth; thanks. Your statements properly taken but nominal horse power only one reason-[DOT]
By the reference to nominal horsepower they are no doubt referring to the quotation I made with reference to someone who wanted a change in the nominal horsepower.
-only one reason why practical and honest advice should be secured before passing Bill E.
That is not my sentiment; it is the sentiment of this body interested only in their own affairs, and they say that practical and honest advice should be secured before passing this bill:
Example: Two vessels identical motor engines quoted in registry shipping Shean eighty-four and Czar eighteen nominal.
The telegram goes on:
Majority vessels now driven motor engines defined by makers and users brake horse power but no provision for such made in act being another proof act is already fifteen years obsolete and impractical in many respects.
They say that we are fifteen years behind the times as regards the proposed bill itself. The telegram continues:
Please concentrate on elimination subsections (b) and two of section one twenty, being rank discrimination against coasting inland and minor water masters and mates who have upheld the highest traditions of the sea.
That is the section that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough quoted in connection with the qualifications of officers.
Such legislation can serve no good purpose except to satisfy some childish whim or prejudice and would destroy that higher statutes-
I think "standing" is meant:
-which the proponents of the act apparently do not understand. Please endeavour have coasting limits not less than ten south instead of thirty-six north to permit Canadian officers and ships to trade between eastern and western Canada ports through Panama canal. Copy our brief mailed Minister Marine and Senate twelfth April will reach you Wednesday. Meantime use this telegram as required.
Canadian Merchant Service Guild.
If that last sentence had not been there I would have hesitated to put that somewhat drastic criticism on Hansard, but they are apparently quite willing that it should be so used. This brief was mailed to the minister. It is the first I have heard of it. Did it reach the Senate committee? We do not know. The committee did not print its evidence. The minister is going to say, "Yes, it was submitted." I have no doubt it was and that the only consideration it received was whether it should be pigeonholed under the letter "C" or the letter "G," being the

Canada Shipping Act
first letter of the name of the man perhaps or of the association. We have no record before us that the brief was considered. We have only the minister's statement that it was ever received at all. Certainly it was not considered by any member of this house. At any rate this substantial and important representative body of seamen are, to put it mildly, very far from satisfied with this bill when they talk about its needing practical and honest advice. The act is fifteen years obsolete in its wording, they say, and impractical in many respects. Certainly the statements that we have heard from the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough do bear out, so far as my limited knowledge goes, much of what they say.
I turn to section 120. That is the section dealing with certificates not valid. It says that these certificates will not be valid after a period of five years.


Alfred Duranleau: Will my hon. friend
allow me? I am sorry that my hon. friends have not allowed the minister to proceed with the amendments he was to propose to the committee. I have an amendment here to strike out that subsection limiting the life of a certificate to five years, and I am going to ask the committee to consent to another provision giving the minister the power to make an inquiry and set aside a certificate if the certificated mariner is found upon investigation to be incapable of performing his duties and still persists in following his calling when he has a life certificate.


Alan Webster Neill: I am very glad indeed to
hear it.


Alfred Duranleau: As to the nominal
horsepower question, there will be a definition of "sailing" vessel proposed when we come to the section but may I say here that nominal horsepower is the standard way of calculating the power of an engine all over the empire, and we felt it was better to follow the standard way throughout the empire rather than have a way of our own.


Alan Webster Neill: I am pleased indeed to hear
what the minister says.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend
understands that it is only for legal purposes, because it is well known that one nominal horsepower means about twenty brake horsepower, or rather the reverse, twenty brake horsepower means one nominal horsepower.


Alan Webster Neill: The "break" just made by
the minister indicates his ignorance as well as my own in regard to these technical matters. I am very glad indeed to hear that the minister is going to make these changes. It indicates the advisability of adhering to the ordinary rules and going through this bill section by section instead of allowing us to talk all over the lot as we have been doing. Apparently, according to the terms of this wire, it is the custom for motor driven engines to be described by the makers and users in terms of brake horsepower, not of course steam engines, and that is what these people are referring to. I am quite willing to wait until the different sections come up to hear the amendments the minister has to propose, but that again illustrates the extreme advisability of sending this bill to a special committee where these questions could have been argued out. The Canadian Merchant Service Guild sent their brief to the minister on the twelfth of April, making their suggestions, and now the minister tells us that he has amendments to move. Why not have put them in the bill in the first place? I think that in the other chamber there has been a complete lack of a proper understanding of the subject they were dealing with, or they have ignored the representations that have been made by these people. If their representations are to be given effect to now, why were they not given effect to in April? I am glad that the changes are being made but I do not believe that they will be sufficient to make the whole bill workable, and I do not propose to take any responsibility for this bill. Let the government pass this bill if they wish, and let them take the responsibility. If there are to be any changes, I shall be glad to hear them when we come to the various sections.


Alfred Duranleau: I am sorry my hon.
friends are making general statements about this bill, and trying to show that very important changes are being made in the existing law. I should like to put on record a comparison of the present law and section 113 of this bill, to show that there is practically no change in the exemptions.


William Duff: Why not simplify the matter?


Alfred Duranleau: Section 113 of the
present bill requires that every ship except those mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) shall have certificated masters. Section 93 of the Canada Shipping Act provides:
No ship registered in Canada, over one hundred tons registered tonnage, shall go to sea from any port or place in Canada on any voyage not being a coasting voyage, unless the master and first mate or only mate thereof have obtained and possess valid certificates.

Canada Shipping Act
Section 94 requires that every sailing ship registered in Canada of over 150 tons registered tonnage, and every steamship when employed in the coasting trade or plying on any Canadian water, shall have a certificated master. The act provides for certain exemptions under section 98. What are those exemptions? Under the Canada Shipping Act, the first exemption is for pleasure yachts. There is the same exemption in this bill.


William Duff: Why exempt pleasure boats?


Alfred Duranleau: I am only making a
comparison between the present act and this bill.


William Duff: That does not do any good.


Alfred Duranleau: The next exemption in the bill is for ships solely employed in fishing. The exemption in the existing act is for ships employed solely in fishing. The next exemption in the act is for steamships of not more than five tons gross tonnage. The exemptions in the bill are for passenger steamships not exceeding five tons gross tonnage and steamships not carrying passengers and not exceeding ten tons gross tonnage.


William Duff: Did the minister ever see a
steamship of five tons gross register?


Alfred Duranleau: I am only making
a comparison. My hon. friend has stated that this bill is entirely different from the existing law as far as certificated masters are concerned, and I am attempting to show that that is not the case.


Peter John Veniot: It is the case.


Alfred Duranleau: The next exemption
in the existing act is for barges or other vessels having neither masts, sails nor rigging, and not being steamships. The exemption in the bill is for barges or other vessels having neither masts, sails nor rigging, and not being steamships-exactly the same thing. The next exemption in the existing act is for "sailing ships engaged in the coastwise trade of not more than one hundred tons, registered tonnage, propelled by auxiliary power other than steam, employed partly in fishing and partly in the carriage of freight." The exemption in this bill is for "home-trade, inland waters or minor waters sailing ships not exceeding one hundred and fifty tons register tonnage." I have an amendment to suggest to the definition of "sailing vessels" which will help the situation. As a matter of fact, the exemptions in this bill are perhaps greater than they are under the existing law.


William Duff: No.
(Mr. Duranleau.]


Alfred Duranleau: With reference to the difference between a foreign and home-trade voyage. The bill defines an inland voyage, a minor waters voyage and a home-trade voyage. Is it not sufficient to say that a foreign voyage is one outside of those three definitions? As I said before, the difference between a foreign and a home-trade voyage is not based on geography, it is based on the hazards of navigation. The same principle is applied all over the empire.


William Duff: Let me say to the minister
that the hazards of navigation are not nearly as great on a foreign voyage as they are on a home-trade voyage.


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member has made his statement and I would ask him not to interrupt. He stated a moment ago that there was not the same rule in England, but I claim that exactly the same principle applies there. The definition of a home-trade voyage in the Merchant Shipping Act would cover, for instance, certain voyages from England to Germany or France where there are no great dangers or hazards. A voyage from Vancouver to Montreal would be a "foreign voyage" on account of the hazards of navigation, because it would necessitate a ship having to take the deep seas before reaching the Panama canal, in which case the hazards of navigation would be greater.


William Duff: No, they are not.


Alfred Duranleau: Such a ship leaving
Vancouver would have to go more than two hundred miles from the coast, it would have to pass through the Panama canal, up the Atlantic coast and then up the St. Lawrence to Montreal. The experts claim that such voyages should be made only by ships having sufficient strength to make a deep-sea voyage and carrying the same life saving apparatus and the same certificated master. These rules are for the protection of life at sea and I think my hon. friends are wrong when they want to define a home-trade voyage as one between two ports in Canada. I should like to proceed with the sections which have not yet been adopted and if my hon. friends have any suggestions to make, I shall be glad to hear them.


Peter John Veniot: What does the Canada
Shipping Act give as the definition of steamship?


Alfred Duranleau: That is given in section 73, subsection (i) and reads:
"Steamship" or "steamer" includes any ship propelled wholly or in part by steam or motive power other than sail or oars.

Canada Shipping Act


Peter John Veniot: That is not the same as
the definition given in this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It means the same.


Alfred Duranleau: Subsection 101 of
section 2 of the bill reads:
"Steamship" or "steamer" (except as may be provided under the load line rules) means any shiip propelled by machinery, and not coming within the definition of sailing ship.
I am not an expert in this matter, but I think my officials know something about it, and they assure me that there is no difference between the two.


Peter John Veniot: Under definition 89 a sailing ship is described as so and so, and when you come to the last part of subsection 89 you find the following:
and which, in addition, is provided with mechanical means of propulsion, the power of which does not exceed three nominal horse power.


Alfred Duranleau: In this regard I have another definition to propose:
"Sailing ship" (except as may be provided under the load line rules) means a ship propelled wholly by sails, and includes a ship not in excess of 150 tons, gross tonnage, provided with masts, sails and rigging sufficient to allow her to make voyages under sail alone, and which, in addition, is provided with mechanical means of propulsion other than a steam engine.
I think this definition will cover the whole point.


Peter John Veniot: Then you will have to change the definition of 101.


Alfred Duranleau: Why?


Peter John Veniot: Because the moment you depart from rigging, under 89, and insert a certain horse power, even if she is under 150 tons, she becomes a steamship.


Alfred Duranleau: Definition 101 states very clearly that the vessel shall not come within the definition of sailing ship.


Peter John Veniot: Under the present definition, 89, if she has a nominal horse power of over three horse power she becomes a steamer and is no longer a sailing ship.


Thomas Reid: The minister has read some of the sections and has pointed out that there is little difference between the old act and the new. I understand that the old definition of a home-trade vessel was divided into three parts, but under the present provision there are only two definitions. Heretofore a boat could leave Montreal or Vancouver for Buenos Aires provided it did not cross the ocean; it would then be a h'ome-trade voyage. But under the present definition of home-trade voyage no boat will be allowed to do that.


Alfred Duranleau: If the hon. member will look at the existing act he will see that the definition of home-trade ship refers only to the signing of seamen.


Thomas Reid: Under the old act the definition of home trade voyage would allow a ship to leave Vancouver, New Westminster or Montreal and go to Buenos Aires provided it did not directly cross the ocean. Now, by the new definition, a home-trade vessel though it may operate twenty or thirty or even more miles out from the shore, will not be allowed to leave Vancouver and go to Montreal, say, with lumber or any other cargo. As regards hazards at sea, there is just as much hazard leaving New Westminster or Vancouver and going to Los Angeles or Panama as there is in going through the Panama canal and coming up the other side.


Alfred Duranleau: The definition of home trade under the existing act refers only to the engagement of seamen. Section 124, subsection (c) reads:
"Canadian home trade ship" includes every ship registered in either of the provinces, employed in trading or going from any place or places in any of the provinces to any other place or places in any other of the provinces.


Thomas Reid: What is the definition of coastal trade?


Alfred Duranleau: This definition is included in part III, which deals with seamen only.


Thomas Reid: I must come back to this point, because it will affect ships leaving either the Atlantic or the Pacific coast for ports in Canada, I cannot accept the minister's statement in regard to hazards, because there is just as much hazard going to the Queen Charlotte islands and other places as there is crossing the Atlantic. A man has to be a real sailor to go to Queen Charlotte islands. There is just as much hazard going from New Westminster to Los Angeles-I believe they go seventy-five miles from shore-as there is coming up on the other side, and I see no reason why going through the Panama and coming up the other side of Montreal should bring a vessel within the classification of foreign and not home trade voyages.


Alfred Duranleau: If my hon. friend will compare the existing act with this bill he will find that while there may be a difference as to certificated masters, there is no change as regards the strength and structure of ships.


Thomas Reid: There is quite a difference. The minister read clauses from the Shipping Act to bear out his contention, and I say that he
Canada Shipping Act

is failing to take into account one most important feature that has a bearing on Canadian ships.


William Duff: I thought I made it clear that under chapter 186, the old act, instead of being called home trade voyage it was called coastal voyage, and I read to the committee the definition of coastal voyage, which extended to 40 south latitude. That goes as far south as Buenos Aires. The minister says that is not correct, and I would ask him to have his officials look it up; I forget just now what the section is.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think I said what the hon. member stated.


William Duff: The minister said that the
old act was not any broader than this. I say that under the old act instead of being a home trade voyage, it was a coastal voyage, something every sailor could understand, and it extended to Buenos Aires. That would take in what my hon. friend said. In order to meet the minister's views I was willing to bring it up to five degrees north latitude which would be in the latitude of British Guiana where the Canadian National steamships, the ships of the Minister of Railways, go every fortnight. Surely that is a fair compromise. The minister says that a home trade voyage is the same under the old act as it is under this. What does he say besides that? The minister will not say that I am trying to be too critical with him. He says that foreign voyages are more hazardous than home trade or coastal voyages. I do not know who advised the minister, but let me say that the worst voyage a vessel can make is from the bay of Fundy through Long Island Sound to New York. I would rather cross the Atlantic ten times than go from the bay of Fundy to Boston or New York, and yet that is a home trade voyage. Still the minister tries to tell the committee that a foreign voyage is more hazardous than a home trade voyage. Surely somebody is misleading him. I do not want to waste my time here; I desire to go home and to do some business, but I say to the minister he should move that the committee rise because he has been badly advised by his officials when he says to any intelligent man not only on the floor of the house but elsewhere that a foreign voyage is more hazardous than a home trade voyage. That is not the case.


Alfred Duranleau: That is not what I
said.


William Duff: The minister said that a
foreign voyage was more hazardous than a 
home trade voyage. A home trade voyage is ten times as hazardous. Did the minister ever leave Halifax and go to Canso or leave Vancouver and go up the inside channel to Prince Rupert? I would rather leave Vancouver and go to Hongkong than go to Prince Rupert. Let us get down to brass tacks. How are we going to trust our officials if we are going to be told tommyrot like this? I do not want to be too critical; I do not want to say that the minister does not know anything about the bill, but what I have said shows conclusively that the bill should stand. It was considered for two years in the Senate.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Order. We are dealing with subclause 26 of clause 2.


William Duff: I am dealing with foreign
voyages.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman's
observations are wholly foreign to the clause.


William Duff: Well, I have heard the Prime Minister in previous remarks just as far away from the point as a home trade voyage would be under this clause. Instead of subclause 26 with which we are dealing and the strange amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), I made a suggestion to the minister before the Prime Minister came in and I believe he will agree with me in his heart if he does not outwardly.
I said that subclause 26 instead of reading as it does should read in this way, and I will read it so that the Prime Minister may hear me. I will first read what it says in this wonderful bill which came from another place:
"Foreign voyage" means either a voyage between a place in Canada-
That might mean up in lake Winnipeg, for instance.
-and a place not in Canada-
That might mean anywhere else.
-other than a place within the limits of a home trade voyage or a voyage between places not in Canada and not all within the limits of a home trade voyage.
Did the committee ever hear such a stupid, ridiculous definition as that? That clause alone cost the country some $10,000 with those wonderful legal men who, the minister told us, drafted this bill. Then the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, which is far removed from the stormy waters of the Atlantic or the Pacific, moved the following amendment to this subclause:
"Foreign voyage" means a voyage extending beyond the area of a home trade voyage


Canada Shipping Act
Where else would it be? This is taken., for granted.
-and not being an inland voyage or a minor waters voyage.
Is that not a great suggestion coming from the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency? Before the Prime Minister came in, I did not move but I suggested that subclause 2 of clause 2 be amended to read:
"Foreign voyage"-
I am delighted to see the Prime Minister in his seat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that
he is not listening to the hon. gentleman.


William Duff: Is it nice to say that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is nice to say that.


William Duff: This is what I suggested:
"Foreign voyage" means a voyage between Canada, and a port east of the 60th degree of longitude and south of the fifth degree north latitude, and north of the 65th degree-*
That is on the Atlantic coast.
-and a port west of the 125th degree of longitude, and south of the fifth degree north latitude, and north of the 65th degree.
There I have given a simple amendment in nautical terms which every sailor, every mariner, understands, and not a clause like the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency nor like what was in the bill which the Prime Minister said must go through this house this session in spite of the fact that it came down here only a few days ago. That is a simple suggestion to clear up the matter. If I were playing politics I would say: Let the bill go through; there would not be a mariner or a sailor or a business man vote for the government at the next election if this bill goes on the statute books. But the matter is too serious for that; there are thousands of men interested in shipping and all I am trying to do is straighten out certain clauses which I have had time to consider so that the bill will be reasonable and clear and will not be a conglomeration of pastepot and scissors as it is as drafted by the legal gentleman who spent two years in preparing it.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would call the hon. member to
order again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has
referred to me and therefore I think it well for me to say how clearly the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency indicates what is desired. There are three kinds of voyages; home voyage, foreign voyage, inland voyage. The
home voyage is defined in the statute and the amendment moved makes it clear that it is any voyage other than a foreign voyage or an inland voyage.


William Duff: Or a minor waters voyage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Can one get anything
clearer than that?


William Duff: It is as clear as mud.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By excluding the other
named voyages, necessarily the term "home voyage" includes all other forms of voyages. Could anything be clearer than that? Instead of fixing it by latitude and longitude, you fix it by the form of voyage, and all forms of voyages which a ship may take other than those named as excepted shall be home voyages. Does the committee wish anything clearer than that?


William Duff: I would think we would deal with the foreign voyage first and then necessarily use those terms outside of the foreign voyage. The minister has got it all twisted; he is going backwards; he has reversed his engines and is going back half speed. I say the foreign voyage should be the voyage designated. I also say that if the Prime Minister's statement is right a man who wants to make a foreign voyage has to look up this act and see what a home-trade voyage means and then what an inland voyage means and what a minor waters voyage means. So that before he gets through he will be trying to get up the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa river over the mountains and the Lord knows where he will get. Why not put it in simple language that a sailor can understand? Why all this nonsense about other than a home trade and inland water voyage? Who ever heard of such ridiculous nonsense in a definition?
Mr. DURAN'LEAU:	In defining these
different kinds of voyages we are proceeding in the way vchich has been adopted by England for centuries. If you look at the Merchant Shipping Act you will see that England defines a minor waters voyage, an inland waters voyage, a home-trade voyage and a foreign voyage. In England the home-trade voyage includes all kinds of small voyages, on inland or minor waters-all are included in home-trade voyages-and then the others are the foreign voyages. In this bill we have minor waters voyages; inland waters voyages and home-trade voyages defined very clearly. Then we say all other voyages will be foreign voyages. I think that is clear.


William Duff: My hon. friend said a moment ago that the English act defines minor voyages
Canada Shipping Act

and so on, and a moment afterwards he turned right around, went on another tack and said the only thing in the English act was home-trade and foreign voyages. If the minister is going to change his views in even half a second on this thing how can we expect him to know much about the other sections? He told us deliberately a moment ago that in the British act there were minor waters voyages and inland waters and home-trade voyages, and because he realized he made a mistake he turned around and said, No, pardon me, there are two definitions in England, home-trade and foreign. That is the trouble with this whole bill; the minister has not studied it.


The CHAIRMAN:: (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) : Order.


William Duff: What is wrong with that?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Everything is wrong. We are on subsection 26.


William Duff: We are talking about voyages. I am quite in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: In order to have some understanding about a foreign voyage one must know the line of division between interior and exterior waters, especially in the St. Lawrence river. For a long time I have been asking the government what is the line of division between interior and exterior waters in the St. Lawrence river. I was told that no change had been made. I understand that the "exterior" waters come like a V in the gulf of St. Lawrence and river St. Lawrence. I would like to know from the minister what the line of demarcation is.


Alfred Duranleau: I would draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that in the bill there is no definition of interior or exterior waters; the terms used are "inland waters of Canada," and they are defined in 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.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police gave certain instructions to their men some time ago, and I asked the government why there was a change. Instructions were given first for the men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to stay within a certain line. Afterwards other instructions were given, and then new instructions were given in accordance with the first instructions. I would ask the minister why that line has been changed, and at whose request.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think there is any change in the law as to that line. I understand my hon. friend means in the St. Lawrence river. I think it was the same line before, from Father Point to Point Orient. I have no knowledge of any instructions given to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as to the limits of our inland waters. If my hon. friend refers to a special case I shall be pleased to have the particulars and to investigate it, but I do not think there was any change in regard to the limits of our inland waters in the St. Lawrence.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall not insist any further at the moment. I will take it up at eight o'clock and see in Hansard the precise answer given by the government. The point is I could not get any information about the change in the line dividing interior and exterior waters, but what I know is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have given instructions to their men which were entirely different from former instructions, and I wondered what was the reason for that change. If there is a line it cannot be changed at the will of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If that line is good for the merchant marine it is good as well for the police. Navigation within that line is inland shipping, and outside of it is foreign shipping. Therefore it is a most important line of demarcation, and we are entitled to have all available information about it. It is of the utmost importance because when the ships go outside of that line they are no longer under the jurisdiction of Canada; they are sailing under international law. Therefore it is most important to have that information. I shall be more precise about it at eight o'clock.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM



PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OP CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS AND UNDERTAKINGS THROUGHOUT CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister, for the Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the expenditure of certain sums of money for the construction of and

Public Works Program
repairs to public works and for dredging and improving harbours and rivers throughout Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I assume it is the wish
of the committee that the bill to be founded upon the resolution should be presented as soon as possible, because the details are more important than the subject matter of the measure itself. It contemplates the expenditure of something less than .$40,000,000 for the purpose of public works undertakings throughout the dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The details I suppose I am not expected at this time to indicate, further than to say that in a large way by the expenditure of the moneys in question it is proposed to give employment to as large a number of persons in as many walks of human activity as may be possible. As I intimated to my right hon. friend the other day, if the resolution is passed I propose to move the first reading of the bill, and when the bill is in committee the fullest possible opportunity will then be afforded for criticism and suggestions.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The resolution indicates the nature of the bill, and the Prime Minister to a certain extent has indicated the extent of the moneys to be spent. I agree that the details constitute the feature of the legislation of greatest interest, and I imagine little good can be served by discussion of the resolution in committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will hon. members be given an opportunity to make representations with regard to certain work in their respective communities?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is only fair to say
that when the bill is in committee of the whole I expect many criticisms will be offered from many sources.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And suggestions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Suggestions also.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 113, to provide for the construction and improvement of certain public works and undertakings throughout Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall said bill be
read a second time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Next sitting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the bill
been printed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I intended to say
to my right hon. friend that the bill is not yet printed. I was not able to have it printed because for the last few days the Minister of Public Works has been away, engaged in patriotic work for his country. I desired to leave it until the last minute before completing it. I completed the bill itself this morning-the schedules he had had prepared for some time-and the bill will go to the printing bureau to-night. I believe I could send my right hon. friend a typewritten copy, and I shall endeavour to get a schedule for him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume the
bill also is intended for patriotic purposes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can assure my right
hon. friend that when he looks at it he will regard it as being the acme of patriotism, inasmuch as communities which have little claim except their adherence to the time honoured tenets of the great party which he has the honour to lead, have not been forgotten.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 91, respecting shipping- Mr. Duranleau-Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Section 2, subsection 26, agreed to.
On subsection 38-Home-trade voyage.
Alfred Duranleau: I should like to have this subsection stand for the moment.
Subsection 38 stands.
Subsections 35, 39 and 102 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 100-Deck cargo.
Thomas Reid: From the bill of last year
these words have been inserted, "carries into Canada" as deck cargo. Now that affects the measurement of foreign ships, and it would affect lumber shipments from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast.


Alfred Duranleau: Those words have
been inserted in this bill.


Thomas Reid: But it affects the measurement of ships, and it will affect Canadian ships carrying lumber from one of our coasts to
Canada Shipping Act

the other. When a ship leaves one coast it will be a foreign vessel, and this section says:
If any ship, British or foreign, other than a home trade shipenters a port in Canada-


Alfred Duranleau: If a British ship was bringing a cargo of lumber to Montreal, for instance, she would have to pay duty.


Thomas Reid: I do not think the minister
caught my point. We have two definitions of ships; there is the foreign ship and the home-trade ship, and in section 100 you are excluding the home-trade ship. The section reads: "British or foreign" ships, so it has a relation to subsection 35 of section 2. If a ship leaves one port on the Pacific coast and goes to a port on the Atlantic coast it would be a foreign-going ship and would come under section 100.


Alfred Duranleau: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 120-When certificates not valid.
Alfred Duranleau: I move to amend
this section, Mr. Chairman, by striking out paragraph (b) in subsection 1, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
(b) after an inquiry if the minister is satisfied that such holder has become permanently incapacitated in respect of the performance of his duties as a master or mate, as the case may be, such an inquiry shall be held in a like manner to an inquiry held under the provisions of section 572 of this act.
In other words, we are deleting the paragraph which limits the life of a mariner's certificate to five years. Under the amendment the certificate of a mariner will be for life, but the minister will have the power to institute an inquiry in a particular case. For instance, if it was reported to the minister that a master who had a certificate as such had become incapacitated by sickness or permanent disability, the minister would have the power to ask for an inquiry, and after the inquiry to suspend or cancel his certificate.


Peter John Veniot: Have you also power to
reinstate him ?


Alfred Duranleau: I should think so.
If the minister has the power to suspend or cancel he has the power to reinstate. This, however, is to cover cases of permanent disability. If the inquiry shows that it is only a temporary incapacity the minister has no power to cancel the certificate. It is only in cases where the incapacity is permanent.


Thomas Reid: How does that affect subsection 2, reading, "Every certificate of competency or service as master or mate" and so forth?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, I move also,
Mr. Chairman, that subclauses 2 and 3 be deleted.


Alan Webster Neill: Does not the minister think
he has sufficient power of inquiry under section 572? He is given there full power to investigate when a complaint is made of any condition of incompetency or misconduct, so why is the new clause needed? I think section 572 gives him all the power he wants.


Alfred Duranleau: No, I have been
studying this point very carefully since last week and section 572 does not cover this point.


Alan Webster Neill: Under section 572 you can
hold an investigation into incompetency.


Alfred Duranleau: But section 572 does not cover the case of incapacity from sickness or other causes.


Alan Webster Neill: Is not incapacity the same
as incompetency?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think so.
I have discussed the matter with experts and we came to the conclusion that incompetency or misconduct are the only cases covered by section 572. There is no harm in inserting this provision for an inquiry into cases of permanent incapacity.


Alan Webster Neill: I think we are entitled to
give the minister credit for making this change. It is a very great improvement and will be appreciated by a whole lot of men who have been very anxious about it.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Cancellation will not
take place unless the disability is permanent. But if the disability is only temporary will the minister have the power to suspend temporarily?


Alfred Duranleau: We considered that
point. We want to cover certain particular cases where a master, for instance, is paralyzed or otherwise incapable of performing his duties and persists in continuing to act as master. We have found cases of that kind. It is only in extreme cases that we intend to intervene.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Armand Renaud La Vergne: (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :	There is a further amendment to
strike out subsections 2 and 3 of section 120.

Canada Shipping Act


Alan Webster Neill: The last subsection states
"unless the holder of the same at the time of renewal is a British subject." Are we going to do away with that?


Alfred Duranleau: Paragraph (a) covers that point.


Alan Webster Neill: I am talking about subsection 3, which refers to a British subject.


Alfred Duranleau: That subsection
refers to the renewal of a certificate, and these are life certificates.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 121-Certificates to remain in force.
Alfred Duranleau: I have a slight amendment to move to make this section conform with the amendments to section 120. I move that the words "subject to the provisions of the next preceding section" be added before the word "certificates" in line 41, and that all the words after the word "issued" to the end of the section be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 130 agreed to.
Sections 180 and 181 agreed to.
On section 182-Certificate of discharge.
Alfred Duranleau: I have an amendment to move to subsection 1. Under the section as it now reads, when a seaman is discharged the certificate of his discharge is not supposed to contain any statement as to his wages or the quality of his work. If the section were to remain as it is now in this bill, when a seaman would be discharged and would ask for a certificate of good conduct or of competency from his master, the master would answer that under the law the certificate must not contain any statement as to wages or the quality of work. I am moving that the words "unless requested by the seaman" be added at the end of the subsection. The subsection will then read:
(1) The master shall sign and give to a seaman discharged from his ship, either on his discharge or on payment of his wages, a certificate of his discharge in a for-m approved by the minister, or any form approved by the proper authority in that part of His Majesty's dominions in which the ship is registered, specifying the period of his service and the time and place of his discharge, but not containing any statement as to his wages or the quality of his work unless requested by the seaman.


Angus MacInnis: I think that amendment would mean that a master would not have to give a certificate unless asked by the seaman. I think it qualifies the whole subsection and not merely the last clause.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think it can be argued that these added words refer to the whole subsection. There is a comma after the word "discharge".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 284-Sanction required for discharge of seamen out of Canada.
Thomas Reid: Did the minister consider the suggestion I made regarding seamen who were engaged at one port in Canada and discharged at another and left destitute?


Alfred Duranleau: In the case of a seaman hired at Vancouver and discharged at Montreal, the law does not provide for any assistance. He is still in Canada and he has his recourse against the master; he is treated like any other citizen. This section protects only seamen discharged outside of Canada.


Thomas Reid: It would take only a very simple amendment to take care of men stranded in Canada. It is all very well for the minister to say that a seaman can go to the courts, but many of these ships are registered and a seaman stranded in Montreal or elsewhere has little chance of recovery without knowing who are the proper owners of the ship. If we are taking care of seamen stranded on foreign shores, I think we should take care of those who are stranded in their own country three thousand miles away from home. I quoted a case which occurred last year where a man was left in Montreal after having been engaged in Vancouver.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to add a word to what has been said by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). Several cases have arisen during the past few years, some in connection with Canadian National ships. I believe that after intercession with the authorities the sailors stranded in Vancouver or in Montreal, whose home was in the other city, were at the expense of the Canadian National afterwards returned to their home port. It is only fair that that should be specifically in the act.


Alfred Duranleau: It is supposed to be only a matter of agreement between the master and the seaman. It seems to me that a Canadian seaman is at home in any place in Canada. There are seamen's associations
Canada Shipping Act

in all parts of the country to take care of any seaman who is discharged in a Canadian port. The case is different when the seaman is discharged outside Canada, and that is why the law takes care of him.


Thomas Reid: Section 284, subsection 1 provides that:
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), unless he previously obtains ...
What objection could there be to inserting "shall not discharge a seaman at any place out of Canada or in Canada"? I suggest that you strike out the words "out of Canada"; that would meet the whole situation.


Alfred Duranleau: The minister may, in the form of agreement between masters and mates impose upon the master certain obligations with respect to the protection of the seaman discharged in any port in Canada, but I do not think that should be embodied in the law. In this section we are protecting the seaman when he is outside Canada and who may be in great difficulty.


Angus MacInnis: But a seaman might be in great distress in Canada as well as outside, and if the minister can by imposing on the master certain obligations which are not provided for in the act, and if it is fair to impose those obligations, why not put them in the act in the first place and so save trouble?


Thomas Reid: A seaman stranded three thousand miles away from his home port would have greater difficulty in getting home than a man stranded one hundred miles away, if he were stranded in say Seattle, because in that event he would come under the British consul, being in a foreign country. Yet he would be only one hundred miles from his home port. Now you have provided in this act for a man who finds himself in that position, and when we appeal to the minister to take care of a seaman stranded three thousand miles from his home he says that it cannot be done.


Mr. GASGRAIN:: Ridiculous.


Alan Webster Neill: If the minister will not give way on that, I will call attention to another error that should be looked into. The section provides that the master shall not discharge a seaman at any place out of Canada "except at a port in the country in which he was shipped." That should read, I submit, "except at the port." He may have been shipped in Liverpool and he might be discharged in London, or if in Australia there might be thousands of miles between the port

at which he was shipped and the port at which he was stranded. This exemption applies to "a" port; apparently any port will do. I think it should be the port at which he was shipped.
Mr. D UR ANlLE AU:	The intention ,is
exactly what my hon. friend says. The moment the owner of a ship discharges the seaman in his own country we feel that he has satisfied the conditions. We cannot expect a ship to go very far from its port to discharge a seaman, and the moment he is discharged in his country that is satisfactory. All parts of the empire at the convention discussed the matter and they were all satisfied with this provision.


Alan Webster Neill: Is that in the British act? Is there not provision for a master paying the seaman's fare to the port at which he was signed on? I cannot understand that the British law would allow a man to be discharged a couple of thousand miles away from the port at which he was shipped. I always understood that he had to be landed at the port from which he started.
Mr.	DURANLEAU:	Section	30	of	the
Merchant Shipping Act contains the same provision.


Alan Webster Neill: But is there not a provision in such a case for his being paid railway fare to the port of origin?
Mr.	DURANLEAU:	Section	30	of	the
Merchant Shipping Act declares that the master of a British ship shall not discharge a seaman at any place out of the United Kingdom except at a port in the country in which he was shipped.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 288-Expenses of medical attendance in case of injury.
Mr. RALSTON:: Before we discuss this section I would call the attention of the minister to a purely formal amendment that should be made in section 167, subsection 2, unless he has a note of it. It refers to the superintendent.


Alfred Duranleau: I have an amendment.


James Layton Ralston: It should be the shipping master.


Thomas Reid: Did the minister consider the question of compensation to see whether it is possible, either by an increase of one cent or by some other means, to take care of sailors injured through the loss of a limb or otherwise?

Canada Shipping Act


Alfred Duranleau: As I said to my hon. friend the other day, in such an event the seaman should be taken care of by the compensation act of the province. I do not think we can deal in the shipping act with the question of damages.
Section agreed to on division.
Sections 299 and 328 agreed to on division.
On section 338-Exempted ships.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, previous to passing the two sections 338 and 339, I wish to make a few comments. At page 47, French version, of a report tabled in the house, Sir Alexander Gibb expresses himself as follows:
The existence of good pilots is of profound importance to Canada, and particularly on the St. Lawrence route, which has only with difficulty been established as one of the great highways of shipping. The Department of Marine has devoted a great amount of thought to the lighting and buoying arrangements and other aids to navigation-and with outstanding success. It is essential, therefore, that the pilotage also should be closely controlled by government.
From the evidence I obtained, it is clear that the standard of St. Lawrence pilots is, on the whole, high; and the administration of this branch of the Department of Marine has a reputation for strictness.
Under the former act ships coming from the province of Ontario and having to go down the St. Lawrence river from Montreal to Quebec and from Quebec to Father Point were obliged to provide themselves with pilots. According to the new act under consideration, pilotage service will not be required between Quebec and Father Point. I contend, sir, that the pilotage between Quebec and Father Point is as dangerous and difficult as that between Montreal and Quebec, in connection with coastal navigation.
Navigation between Quebec and Father Point can only be guided by compass, or by beams of light cast from lighthouses located along the coast. Often, if not generally, fog prevails in the lower St. Lawrence river, so that navigation is very difficult. If navigators, without any previous experience, are permitted to navigate the lower St. Lawrence river without a pilot's licence, navigation in those waters will become difficult. I fear, especially, that when this bill has been sanctioned, such as it is drafted, we shall have acicdents. Moreover, the past has shown that many accidents which happen in the lower St. Lawrence river, could be traced to the fact that certain vessels were not provided with men possessing the required qualifications to pilot them.
Pilots are required to possess particularly those from the lower St. Lawrence river between Quebec and Father Point, special qualifications and the navigation regulations in connection with the pilotage of those waters are entirely different from those required from persons who navigate on the Great Lakes or between Quebec and Montreal.
I again state, that special qualifications are required for pilots of the Quebec district.
They must be acquainted with the rules governing ocean navigation and a more thorough knowledge of navigation is expected from them than from those who navigate the Great Lakes. Therefore, if this bill is passed in its present form, we shall have navigators without any knowledge of the lower St. Lawrence river, not having passed any test required from pilots, and such persons will be placed in charge of vessels who will have to meet, to pass or be passed by other vessels in charge of experienced seamen who were obliged to pass difficult tests.
I submit, sir, that the Quebec section should be placed on same footing as that of the Montreal section. Namely, vessels which navigate along the coast between Quebec and Father Point should be placed on the same footing as those navigating between Montreal and Quebec. I am not a sailor myself, however, from what I have heard, I gather that navigation is more difficult between Quebec and Father Point than between Quebec and Montreal. Between the latter two places, the channel is very narrow, but it is lighted day and night, it is so to speak buoyed throughout, while the Channel between Quebec and Father Point does not possess the same advantages. Moreover, between Quebec and Father Point, it very often happens that vessels are obliged to anchor and wait for the high tide. If navigators who have no experience of the lower St. Lawrence river are permitted to meet and pass vessels provided with pilots, it is clear that accidents will happen. For the good name of that part of the St. Lawrence river, we should place the section between Quebec and Father Point on the same footing as that between Quebec and Montreal and we should therefore add the word "Quebec" after the word "Montreal" in sections 338 and 339, in order that seamen who may have to navigate the lower St. Lawrence river will have no fear of meeting vessels in charge of persons who have had no experience of these waters.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I do not always have an opportunity of agreeing with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion). However, I

Canada Shipping Act

think that many of his suggestions, this evening, should appeal to the house. I have had a little experience in this connection- perhaps not as much as some, however, I have acquired a little since I represent in this house a maritime county. A number of representations have been made to me, with reference to section 338, by pilots who have had a wide experience, especially, by those who are required to pilot ships between Que-ber and the lower St. Lawrence. These pilots wish to be granted the same advantages and privileges as those of the Montreal district. I think that an amendment to that effect was moved in the Senate.
I deem it my duty to bring to the attention of the house an excerpt of a letter, dated May 31, 1934, from Mr. Cyrille Pouliot, special pilot for the Cunard line:
I request to oppose with the greatest energy and vigour section 338, clause (id) which grants certain unwarranted exemptions, as they will be the source of most severe accidents and, unfortunately, with loss of life. I have included in this letter a list of a number of accidents which took place in our section when no pilots were on board such vessels.
Those are, I think, the accidents to which my colleague for Quebee-Montmorency referred, a few moments ago. Such, for instance, the accident to the Empress of Ireland; in 1914, five miles outside the pilotage limits, at Father Point, the collision occurred with the ss. Storstad and 900 lives were lost. There was no pilot on board. Take the case of the General Wolfe vessel, in 1910, which was sunk at Murray Bay when a collision occurred with the ship Arranmore. No pilot was on board. Loss of life. Has not been refloated.
It was decided, about 1917, that colliers of the merchant marine plying between Sidney and Quebec would take no more pilots on board and that the captain would himself steer his ship. Hardly had such a decision been taken that the ss. Warrior grounded at the "St. Roch crossing." The same night, the Canadian Recruit which had no pilot on board was sunk by the Maskinonge in the Patch channel. The wreck remained there, and later a C.P.R. steamship tore its hull on it. This wreck having become an obstruction and a constant danger, the government expended very large amounts to remove it.
There is also the case of the steamship Montmagnv. This government vessel collided on September 18, 1914, with the ss. Lengham, in the de Beaujeu channel. The ship was proceeding down the channel on the wrong side. It tried to cross over but was struck and sunk by the Lengham. Its hull is still
rMr. Casgrain.]
there. There was a loss of life. No pilot was on board.
A tug was sunk by the ss. Batiscan at Madame island, in 1914. It was on the wrong side of the channel and when it tried to cross over, it was struck and sunk. This time again we had to deplore the loss of life. No pilot was on board.
The Christine, another vessel, was sunk by a submarine at Saint-Jean, Island of Orleans. Its hull which is an obstruction, still rests in the same place. There was one loss of life in this accident. No pilot was on board.
There is also the case of another ship, the Hochelaga. In 1926, this vessel of the Dominion Coal Co., was proceeding up the river on the wrong side of the channel without a pilot. It suddenly tried to cross over and was struck by the vessel Leopold D. The Hochelaga was blamed for this accident by a decision of the admiralty court.
There are other cases of like disasters and a more complete list could be given, if necessary. I think these are sound reasons to prove that the privileges granted to the pilots of the Montreal district should also be granted to those of the Quebec district. I shall not quote all the comments which were made to me as regards the reasons in favour of granting these advantages to the pilots of the Quebec district. I simply wish to quote the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Cyrille Pouliot, who is a regularly appointed pilot of the Cunard line. I am personally acquainted with him, he is a very efficient man in his profession, that is why I take the liberty of submitting to the committee his views. He states:
If this Bill E passes, we, the pilots, can no further guarantee the safety of vessels as against the danger of collisions.
We shall, perhaps, be obliged, at times, to ground our own vessels, in order to protect life. If it is intended to repeat the disaster of the Empress of Ireland with its 900 losses of life, it is only necessary to adopt this bill E. The government will not be able to contend that it was not warned by practical men.
We have but to let the bill pass in its present form and allow the vessels coming from the great lakes, Sidney or elsewhere, to proceed to Quebec, without the services of pilots and the unfortunate accidents such as those I quoted will reoccur.
Certain arguments are put forth by people who contend that it is unnecessary to have pilots. They are generally put forth by captains in charge of vessels coming from the Great Lakes and, while on their way to Montreal, take a rest when going through the canal. They have the services of pilots when

Canada Shipping Act
proceeding from Montreal to Quebec and, arriving at Quebec, they contend that they can easily steer their vessels to and fro in the lower St. Lawrence. They argue that after a number of trips, having already had the assistance of pilots, they have a sufficient knowledge of the routes and ports to enable them to dock at Clark city, Shelby or other similar ports, with the same facility as pilots. As I have just shown in my remarks in connection with the various accidents that have occurred-and as the hon. member for Que-bec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) also stated- in certain cases when it is a matter of steering in one direction or of leaving one of these ports below Quebec so as to proceed to the open sea, it becomes much more difficult for a captain whatever may be his qualifications or his efficiency or his acquired skillfulness, he is exposed to all the dangers of meeting vessels or ships coming from the high sea.
When responsible and large companies take advantage on each trip of the services of pilots so as to protect the life of citizens and the goods they carry, it is only just that other companies, who carry on coastal trade and make use of the river route, be tied down to the same regulations.
There is another question. If other unfortunate accidents happen owing to the fact that no steps were taken to compel these companies to take on pilots below Quebec, I think that insurance companies will increase their rates and this in the long run will rather be detrimental to the various companies instead of being beneficial to them. There would be no harm done, sir, in granting to pilots of the Quebec district and those below Quebec, the same privileges as enjoyed by pilots between Montreal and Quebec. I think that this is necessary and that we should insist that these vessels which proceed from Montreal to Quebec and vice versa, and those that navigate between Quebec and the ports on the northern coast and also as far as Father Point, should have a pilot on board.
I am aware that such an amendment was moved in the Senate and discussed. It is unfortunate that it was not adopted. I do not think that it has any chance of passing this-house, because generally when a bill comes from the Senate it is passed such as it is. It would be better to reconsider such a decision. The question is sufficiently important to reconsider it from the viewpoint of safety and protection to life, in case of accidents.


James Layton Ralston: I generally agree with my deskmate (Mr. Casgrain) and I should like to agree with the very moderate presentation which he and the hon. member who preceded him have made of this case. But I venture 74726 -260J
to say that their submission only shows that when one concession is made it leads to another. We have never had compulsory pilotage between Quebec and Montreal. This bill provides that there shall be compulsory pilotage between those ports. That is a considerable hardship on shipping, particularly the shipping of the part of the dominion from which I come, operating up the St. Lawrence. Now having obtained that, my hon. friends- and I do not blame them; they present the views of those who have made representations to them-now propose that shipping shall have an additional burden placed upon it by having pilotage made compulsory below Quebec. Never since confederation, and that is quite a long time, has there been a compulsory provision affecting the lower portion of the river. Perhaps my hon. friends do not realize what a heavy burden they seek to impose on shipping, and particularly on the products of the province of Nova Scotia. I speak especially of the coal trade. I know one company which has eighteen vessels, which make an average of about twenty trips a year; this means 720 trips back and forth between Quebec and Father Point.


Alfred Duranleau: What company?


James Layton Ralston: Dominion Coal Company. It would mean the imposing of a $65,000 burden on the Nova Scotia coal trade if compulsory pilotage were enacted applying to the pilotage district below Quebec. That is a substantial handicap. The government is endeavouring to assist in the marketing of Nova Scotia coal in central Canada by affording subsidies in connection with transportation, and it seems to me that if compulsory pilotage were imposed it would be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. While my hon. friends are perfectly justified in presenting the cases of the men whom they represent, at the same time we must remember that the trade of this country should have some consideration as well. Not since confederation have we had compulsory pilotage there, and as we all know that the route is being improved constantly, it seems to me that the argument for compulsory pilotage between Quebec and the mouth of the river is getting weaker all the time.
Further let me point out that the next section, 339, is rather ominous. As one who wants to see the coal trade of Nova Scotia developed I must say that I have some apprehension in regard to that section, which provides that the pilotage authority may make the pilotage district below Quebec compulsory. That threat is always hanging over
Canada Shipping Act

the Nova Scotia coal trade. My hon. friend has suggested that it is safer to take pilots. I do not know anything about these matters except what I am told, but I understand that below Quebec there are only two dredged channels and that they constitute a very small portion of the route, and outside of that it is open water. The suggestion is made that currents and fog are encountered, but I submit that the masters of our vessels are quite as competent and have as much experience with currents and fog as any pilots they could get, with all respect to the gentlemen whose case is being presented here and without detracting in the least from their qualifications. I understand that it is also suggested that the pilots know more about depth of water. Anyone knows that a man operating a coasting vessel has to familiarize himself with conditions as to depth of water, and most coastwise vessels are of light draft anyway. Notwithstanding that my deskmate urges it so strongly, I have emphatically to record my sincere protest against any extension of this compulsory pilotage feature, and any further imposition of an increased burden on the coal trade of Nova Scotia.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I wish first of all to thank the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) for what he has said in regard to this matter. As he has pointed out, since confederation we have never had compulsory pilotage below Quebec, and we do not intend to have it now. I would also point out that these pilots are employed practically seven months of the year and are idle the remaining five. They are among the best paid classes of labour in this country, and they ought to be jolly well satisfied with their positions.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: I admit, sir, with the two hon. members who have just preceded me in this debate, that since Confederation pilotage is not compulsory between Quebec and Father Point for vessels of Eastern Canada.


Thomas Cantley: Speak in English, if you wish the majority of the house to listen to you. You can speak in English quite as well as in French.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Both languages are official.


Thomas Cantley: I am aware of that.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: However, by section 338, there was added, to the provinces already exempted from pilotage, the province of Ontario. The danger does not arise from vessels coming from the maritime

provinces but from those which do coastal trade on the Great Lakes and are ignorant of the regulations affecting navigation on the St. Lawrence river. Therefore, our objections- and I think that they are those of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain)-are not directed so much against vessels in the lower St. Lawrence as against those coming from the upper St. Lawrence river. Therefore, the act should be amended in such a way as to not make pilotage compulsory for vessels of the maritime provinces, but only for those of the upper St. Lawrence river.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If I may add a word, I think that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency has struck the nail on the head. It is not so much the vessels of the maritime provinces which are a source of danger, because those who steer them are excellent navigators, but the danger lies with the vessels coming from the Great Lakes. Their captains contend that, after a few trips in the lower St. Lawrence and having called at certain ports, they are able to enter and leave such ports and, moreover, they are as competent as pilots, navigators and captains of the lower St. Lawrence river. I contend that such is not the case. I admit that, in some instances, the captains and pilots of the maritime provinces may be as well qualified as those who pilot the vessels from Father Point to Quebec; but where the difference lies is that vessels from the Great Lakes, which navigate under different conditions are unable, relying only on those who man them, to acquire sufficient knowledge of those waters to safely steer the vessels under their charge and prevent all accidents and damages which they are liable to meet on their course.
According to the information I have furnished the house, a moment ago, in almost every accident, the vessels had no pilot on board. I think, sir, it is not asking too much, and such an amendment should be conceded to us.


Alfred Duranleau: I have only a word
of explanation in answer to my hon. friend's remarks. The only amendment to the existing law consists in the addition of the word " Ontario " to the words " Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or any other or others of them," and the words "and any port in the United States on the river St. Lawrence or the great lakes." Under the existing statute a ship leaving Pictou, for instance, and coming to Montreal had no pilotage dues to pay in the district of Quebec, but the same boat

Canada Shipping Act
leaving Pictou for Toronto was bound to pay pilotage dues in the district of Quebec, although in a great many instances it did not use the services of a pilot. We thought there was an anomaly in this regard and all the companies engaged in home trade between the different provinces of Canada insisted that that anomaly should disappear, and because of that we have added the word "Ontario." That is not very important.
I have heard the reading of a letter from one of the pilots in the district of Quebec. It seems to me that he is very pessimistic. He has indicated that if there are no pilots on home-trade ships or on ships doing business between the Canadian provinces there will be a great number of casualties on the lower St. Lawrence from Quebec down. I say that that gentleman does not help the reputation of our great St. Lawrence river.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He is one of the best
pilots, and is always retained by Cunard.


Alfred Duranleau: All the shipping
companies engaged in this business running between the maritime provinces and Montreal, Toronto and great lakes ports have for years appeared before the department asking for this amendment. The Quebec pilots were heard before the committee which sat in another house, and were defeated. I think they were properly defeated. We have to consider the expenses incurred on the St. Lawrence from Quebec down to increase our aids to navigation, and the matter of giving the best service to navigators. There are only two points where there may be some danger, and those points are now well known by all navigators coming from the maritime provinces or from the great lakes; I speak of the traverse, and that part near the island of Orleans. The hon. member will recall that we have two channels at Quebec. Last fall the north channel was inaugurated. It has a depth of 32 feet 6 inches, and probably by the end of this season will be 35 feet deep. So that below Quebec, by the use of those two channels navigation is considered safe. I believe the section is only doing justice to those companies carrying on a business between the different Canadian provinces. I may say that all the companies interested have accepted the amendments, and in that statement I include even the amendment concerning the pilotage district of Montreal, rendering pilotage compulsory between Quebec and Montreal. Surely my hon. friends cannot make a comparison between the boat channel from Quebec down with the channel from Quebec up to Montreal. They cannot do it, and all the companies interested agreed
on that point. As a matter of fact our experience has shown that although pilotage was not compulsory between Montreal and Quebec on those voyages between the different provinces of Canada, over ninety per cent of the ships have used the services of pilots. If we have rendered pilotage dues compulsory in that district of Montreal it is because we want to render navigation safer in that part. The ship owners have shown, by their experience, that they needed pilots between Montreal and Quebec. I may say all these companies were represented before the committee. I have received a long letter from the Shipping Federation of Canada, representing the Dominion Shipping Company, which carries coal for the Dominion Coal Company; Paterson Steamships Limited, Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited, Canada Steamship Lines, Hall Corporation of Canada, Sarnia Steamship Company and subsidiaries, Eastern Steamship Company and the Unit Transit Company. They all accept the amendments for the district of Quebec and the district of Montreal. Under these circumstances I think the section should remain as it is. Navigation is protected under section 339. The governor in council may at any time by'order in council impose compulsion as to pilotage if it is considered necessary. I think that is enough protection for the pilot and for the safety of navigation on the St. Lawrence.


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to you that there is not a quorum present.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Count the house.
The assistant clerk having counted the house:


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: There is a quorum present.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Subject to the rights of parties in this house, Mr. Chairman, if there is not a quorum, I shall proceed with my remarks.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The quorum is now going out, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency in the course of his remarks referred to certain parts of the report of Sir Alexander Gibb regarding the ports of Montreal and Quebec. We have heard of that report very often. I do not know if I am in order in bringing it up, Mr. Chairman, but the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency based his case on parts of that report. So far we have seen only the face of that report but nothing tangible in the way of implementing
Canada Shipping Act

its conclusions. If I may be permitted a digression, I would ask the minister if he will be in a position before the house prorogues to let us know when the recommendations of that report regarding a merger o.r amalgamation of the ports of this country may be expected to be carried out.


Alfred Duranleau: I am not prepared to say at the moment that before the end of the session I will make a statement as to any legislation implementing the report of Sir Alexander Gibb. But we have already profited by that report in many respects, not through legislation, but in our practices, in the construction of harbour facilities, for instance, and in many other respects.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I understand that the report recommended that all the ports should be amalgamated under one board or commission which would have supervision over them. The bill we are now considering covers shipping in general, and as shipping affects the ports all over the country, my question may be regarded as pertinent. I asked the minister this question because I know that in the province of Quebec and in other parts of the country the report of Sir Alexanjler Gibb has been well received to a certain extent. I do not say that the people are favourably inclined to accepting all of his conclusions, but they were looking forward to the government implementing to a certain extent his report, or at all events, doing something about it. The government paid a great deal of money to get that report made, and we were told it would do a lot of good, that it would help to cut costs and improve conditions. That is the reason I bring this matter up.


William Duff: I was very much interested in what the minister said about the great shipping companies being favourable to this legislation in regard to pilotage in the St. Lawrence. I was still more interested in what the member for Quebec-Montmorency said this afternoon. He was very much interested in foreign voyages then, and now to-night he is interested in the St. Lawrence river. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Quebec pilots should be protected, and any ship coming up the St. Lawrence river should be prepared to pay pilotage to these men who risk their lives in bringing ships up the St. Lawrence. I was surprised that the minister and the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency should get up in their places in this parliament and argue that there was no necessity for ships coming from Nova Scotia or coming down the lakes from Fort William to pay pilotage, and it was all the more surprising in view of the fact

that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency was so strong this afternoon in support of the clause to amend the shipping act in regard to foreign voyages. He represents a district where there is a number of pilots, and now he is supporting the minister and the minister is supporting him in advocating that no pilotage should be paid.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 339 agreed to on division.
On section 343-Ship not complying with previous section.


Alfred Duranleau: There is a clerical error to be corrected in this section. I move, Mr. Chairman, that in line 17 the words "liable to pay, to the pilotage authority of the district, a sum" -be struck out. They were obviously inserted by error and do not make sense with the rest of the section. The section will then read:
Every such ship which fails to comply with the provisions of the last preceding section shall be liable^ to pay, to the pilotage authority of the district, a sum not exceeding the amount of pilotage dues which would be payable for piloting such ship.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Mr. Manion moves to strike out the words in line 17, "liable to pay, to the pilotage authority of the district, a sum."


William Duff: The Minister of Marine and
not the Minister of Railways and Canals moved that amendment. I would be quite satisfied if the Minister of Railways and Canals had moved it, but the fact is the Minister of Marine did so.


Thomas Cantley: What is the difference?


William Duff: Let us have this thing in
order.


Thomas Cantley: The hon. member said
he was not going to speak again.


William Duff: I would be quite satisfied if
the hon. member for Pictou would get up and move this amendment. We should have this thing in order.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: There is no name on the amendment
as I have it.


William Duff: The minister moved it.
Amendment agreed to on division.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 391-Form and particulars of inspection certificate.


Alfred Duranleau: There is a small
amendment to be made here in connection

Canada Shipping Act
with the numbers in the fourth line of the section. I move to strike out the words "six hundred and sixty-one or six hundred and sixty-two" and insert in lieu thereof the words "three hundred and eighty-nine or three hundred and ninety."


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, I must again
call your attention to the fact that a minister cannot move an amendment; this amendment must be moved by the Minister of Railways and Canals or the hon. member for Pictou.


Mr. MANION:: I will move it.


William Duff: I should like to know if the
Minister of Railways and Canals godfathers this amendment.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I said so.


William Duff: Will you please stand up and
say so?
Amendment agreed to on division.
Section as amended agreed to on division.
Section 570 agreed to on division.
On section 637-Collisions.


Alfred Duranleau: There is a small
amendment to be made to subsection 4, to strike out the words "body of water" in line 37 and substitute in lieu thereof the words "part or parts of the minor waters of Canada." This amendment is proposed to limit the power of the governor in council.
Amendment agreed to on division.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 654-Tonnage how calculated.


Alfred Duranleau: I have a small
amendment to move to subsection 2 of section 654. I move to strike out the words "scheduled" in line 13 and insert in lieu thereof the words "contained in the eighth schedule." If the hon. member for Antig-onish-Guysborough has any objection, I will ask my colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals to move this amendment.


William Duff: I want to make this regular.
It is altogether irregular that the minister should move amendments to his own bill.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The Minister of Railways and Canals moved it.


William Duff: The minister moved it and
he asked me if I had any objection. I request the Minister of Railways and Canals to please get up and move the amendment.


Robert James Manion: As a matter of fact a
minister piloting a bill through a committee may move his own amendments. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough is wrong in saying that he cannot.


William Duff: That is not right.


Robert James Manion: I remember last year looking into this question very thoroughly. I was piloting the railway bill through at that time and I moved many amendments myself. The other day in the committee, the Minister of Finance moved many amendments with the consent of the chairman. It usually is the custom when a minister is piloting a bill through the committee that he does not move his own amendments, but he has the right to do so. However, I am very glad to move this one.


William Duff: Does the minister know what it is all about?


Robert James Manion: Oh, yes. I have studied this very deeply. Like my hon. friend, I spent last Sunday studying the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 702-Stevedores and trimmers.
Alfred Duranleau: There are a number of clerical errors which will have to be corrected by amendments. I move to insert the words "this part of" after the word "under" in subsection 2, line 14. I move to strike out the word "act" in line 3 of subsection 5 and insert in lieu thereof the word "part". I move to strike out the words "of this act" in subsection 6. I move to strike out the words "of this act" in line 11 of subsection 7. I move to strike out the words "of this act" in line 18 of subsection 8; to insert the words "this part of" after the word "which" in line 19; to insert the words "this part of" after the word "which" in line 21; to strike out the word "act" in the same line and insert in lieu thereof the word "part", and to strike out the word "act" in line 23 and to insert in lieu thereof the word "part".


William Duff: This is all out of order. Surely, Mr. Chairman, you are not going to allow the minister to get away with this? If there are any amendments to be moved they should be moved by another minister or another hon. member. This afternoon the minister told me that no one but a lawyer should make amendments to this bill in order that they might be legally drawn up. The minister now comes in and moves seventeen amendments to one section and he has no right to move
Canada Shipping Act

these. I want to ask the minister what this section is about and why these amendments are necessary. Either the Minister of Railways or the hon. member for Pictou should move these amendments. Perhaps the hon. member for Pictou would be- more qualified to move them. I submit that the minister has given the whole story away when he finds it necessary to move seventeen amendments to one section. The whole thing is out of order. Unless the amendments are moved in the proper manner they should not be put to the committee.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend stated that I said that no one but a lawyer could draft the sections of this bill. I did not go quite as far as that; I simply asked my hon. friend if he had had legal advice in drafting the amendments he suggested this afternoon. I was supported in that statement by some of my hon. friends opposite. The drafting of any bill is a very difficult job for one not versed in the law. Of course, a man of practical ability like my hon. friend is a great help to the legal mind in the drafting of such a bill, but I suggest that the actual drafting should be under the direction of a lawyer. My hon. friend says that there are some seventeen amendments. As a matter of fact, it is about the same error repeated in seven or eight places, superfluous words; and they are only clerical errors, absolutely. Last week I requested officers of the Justice department to go over the bill carefully and note any possible clerical errors. Having carefully examined their report, I suggest it is proper to adopt these slight amendments.


William Duff: The minister tells us that his
department employed a gentleman of the legal profession to draft the bill. The taxpayers paid that gentieman some $15,000, and then the bill was before another chamber for two years, and that cost the country another $50,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: More than that.


William Duff: And after that the bill was
placed in the hands of another eminent legal gentleman -who was paid by this government $50 a day for the whole session, which must have amounted to $3,000. Now the minister says that last week he had to go to the Justice department to find out whether a certain clause in the bill which he now brings before us was right or wrong, and he admits that this clause was not right. The minister admits that after this government spent thousands of dollars in the preparation of this bill, in 1932, :n 1933 and in 1934, certain clauses 
of it had to be submitted to the Minister of Justice or his department, and we are told that the Department of Justice is of the opinion that this particular clause should be amended in certain respects. Did the minister ask the Department of Justice to give its views on all the sections of the bill? If that department is of the opinion that certain changes are necessary in one clause-fourteen or fifteen changes-then the same thing may be true of all 719 clauses. The whole thing is wrong. Only paste and scissors-*
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Smith,	Cumberland) : Order.


William Duff: Why order?
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Smith,	Cumberland) : The hon. member is absolutely out of order.


William Duff: Why?
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Smith,	Cumberland) :	Because his remarks have no relation
to the section under discussion.


William Duff: What is the section?
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Smith,	Cumberland) :	The section is 702, with amendment.


William Duff: The minister says that he had to go to the Department of Justice in connection with this clause. I am pointing out that this government employed learned counsel in Vancouver and paid him $100 a day for practically a whole year. This learned solicitor, after going over the	bill,	admitted himself
that he used the paste pot and scissors.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The learned solicitor in question did not put this bill into print, and the amendments made before the committee are merely to correct errors made in the printing of it.
I cannot see therefore that the hon. member's remarks have any relevancy to the amendment.


William Duff: It is not to correct errors in printing; that would be typographical. What we are trying to do is to correct the mistakes of the minister or of his legal advisers, or whoever it was that suggested these clauses. The minister has admitted that in this clause alone a number of amendments are necessary and I say that is sufficient to condemn the whole bill, because it shows conclusively that he has no right to force the bill on the people before it is properly considered.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Shall the amendments carry?

Canada Shipping Act


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: On division, and we are very kind to let it go at that.
Amendments agreed to on division.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.


Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon. friend will admit that if, after having perused carefully the whole bill of 500 pages only a few clerical errors were found, perhaps ten or fifteen, this bill has been carefully drafted.


William Duff: I did not say I perused the whole bill. I said that of 497 pages I perused 124, and the minister has no right to say I perused the whole bill. I say now that he himself has never perused the whole bill.


Alfred Duranleau: I am sorry, but my hon. friend did not understand me. I said that after we had perused the bill, as our officials have done since last week, we found a few clerical errors like these.


Thomas Reid: Was section 704 allowed to stand?


Alfred Duranleau: It was carried.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the amendment?


Alfred Duranleau: The amendment is that subsection 1 of section 2 be deleted and that subsection 2 be renumbered subsection 1, and that there be inserted as subsection 2 the following:
"Agreement with the crew" has the meaning as indicated in section 163 of this act.


Alfred Duranleau: I would like in a few words to explain the reason for the amendment. The definition of "the admiralty" was in the bill before it was amended, because the word "admiralty" appeared in certain clauses of it. When the bill was amended in the other house, the word "admiralty" disappeared from the sections, but the definition remained, in order to make no change to the numbering of all the definitions, one hundred and thirteen in number. As some of those definitions are referred to in a large number of clauses by their number, corrections would have to be made in a large number of clauses, and so they thought they should leave that definition because it was of no importance whatever. But I think it is better to delete this definition and insert the one I have just read defining the words "agreement with the crew." In this way there will be no change in the numbering of the definitions.


William Duff: I am sure I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Marine and anybody else connected with this bill, whether it be the
government or somebody else, have come to the conclusion after perusing this legislation that as I suggested a fortnight ago no reference is made in it to the definition that-
"The Admiralty" means the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom for the time being, or the commissioner for the time being for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom.
It is all very well for the minister after I suggested this a fortnight ago to say now that he is willing to cut out this subclause. This proves conclusively that the whole biil has never been properly considered by the ministry or parliament or this definition would never have been inserted. Why should a Canadian bill, a bill introduced in this parliament, whether in another place or here, refer to the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom? This proves conclusively that somebody fell down on the job. The minister this afternoon was very careful to tell us about what wonderful officials he had in the Marine department; but I say that the officials are not worth their salt or they would never have allowed the minister to come before parliament and be placed in the embarrassing position into which he has been put in the last fortnight and especially to-night when he had to admit on the floor of the house that in the 497 pages of this bill there is no reference to the Lord High Admiral or the commissioner for the time being for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom.
The minister, I suppose on the advice of his officials, has moved that a certain clause take the place of this one. That is not a reasonable clause to insert there and just at this juncture I will suggest a better one. The minister must admit that these subclauses are inserted alphabetically. Let me explain what I mean. The first definition is "the admiralty-Ad. The next is "Admiralty Court"; the next "Board", and it goes on A, B, C. The minister wants to insert in place of the definition of "The Admiralty" under A, something about seamen. If he wants to justify his officials and justify his high priced lawyers who for two years have been sweating over this bill and making a mess of things; if he wants to justify the nineteen gentlemen in another place who never saw salt water; if he wants to justify anybody, let me suggest to him that instead of the definition about the seamen and instead of the definition of "The Admiralty", he insert a definition of "this act". I am doing this just now without consulting a solicitor or anybody learned in the law. Perhaps the chairman will help me out because he is one of the most
Canada Shipping Act

eminent lawyers in Nova Scotia. Instead of putting in this foolish clause about seamen, which is entirely out of order because all these definitions are inserted alphabetically, let him make this subclause 1 of clause 2 read: " 'This act' means an act respecting shipping''. That will get the minister out of the hole and his officials out of the mess they are in and bring, them back again sailing in clear water. Let the minister stop this talk about seamen because we must have a certain method of procedure in regard to this bill. Will he accept the suggestion from me that instead of inserting a clause which means nothing at all he put in the marginal note of subclause 1 the words "this act" and then go on to say:
(1)	"This act" means an act respecting shipping.
That covers the clauses of Bill E and is much better than the amendment he moved, although I presume his officials have been sweating for ten days in an endeavour to find something to take the place of this subclause with regard to the admiralty and the Lord High Admiral, which should never have been in the bill in the first place if the minister had been properly advised, and if his officials had been the proper ones they would have never allowed this to come before parliament, thus placing the minister in the embarrassing position in which he has found himself in the last fortnight.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Was there any reference to the admiralty or the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom in any of the clauses of the bill?


Alfred Duranleau: Not in the bill as
amended.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The only reason I am asking this is because the bill was submitted to us with that definition in the interpretation clause. There must have been some reason for putting that in. Like my confrere, the hon. member for Antigonish-Guy^borough,
I am much surprised; after a bill had been considered for practically the w'hole session before the other house, had been studied there last year also and had been studied as extensively as that the minister will readily admit it is most remarkable that in the last minutes before this bill is to be adopted we are told it is better that we should eliminate that clause and replace it by another. Surely the minister, whom I know to be a shrewd lawyer, who has a high standing at the bar, who was our batonnier and of whom we are 
all ptraud, will admit that we have some justification for our criticism of the bill.


Thomas Reid: If this amendment carries, it will practically complete the bill 'and I think it does away with subclause 1. Before this happens, as it affects the engagement of seamen, let me make a last appeal to the minister regarding a clause-


Alfred Duranleau: If my hon. friend would care to wait, I have one or two more amendments.


Thomas Reid: All right.


William Duff: I must ask the minister now
to take time to consider what I have suggested. If he is going to delete this subsection 1 which refers to the admiralty and which he admits should never have been in this bill, he should put in some clause which relates specifically to this part of the bill. The amendment the minister has offered is not necessary.


Alfred Duranleau: Why?


William Duff: Because it is not, that is the reason. I say that it would be much better if the minister would take my suggestion-


Alfred Duranleau: The amendment may not be necessary, but it is desirable.


William Duff: It is not desirable. The minister is only putting this subsection in because he has to delete another.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: To fill a gap.


William Duff: He admits now that this bill
came from the august body in another part of this building, after being considered by two high-priced lawyers which must have cost this country some $30,000-


Alfred Duranleau: No.


William Duff: And in this bill there is no
reference to the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom. If we had a lord high admiral of Canada I could understand it and would not object, but it refers to the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom for the time being or the commissioners for the time being for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom. If those high-priced lawyers and the officials of the marine department and everyone who has been associated with the minister made this mistake in the very first subsection of this bill, what must we expect from the 497 pages of it? The minister wants to delete this *section and put in another one with regard to seamen. I say that is not in order. What we put in this subsection should conform to

Canada Shipping Act
the alphabetical arrangement of these interpretation clauses. The minister's amendment does not fit in alphabetically. He tries to persuade us that he is saving money by taking out this section and making subsection 2 subsection 1 and so on instead of reprinting the bill. But he is not doing that at all. All he is doing is trying to save the face of either the hon. gentlemen in another house, or the high priced lawyers the minister had to deal with this bill, or some of his officials. My suggestion is that the minister's amendment should not be carried in order to save the face of those lawyers or those officials, but that clause 1 of section 2 should refer to this bill. It is a very simple thing; just say that this act means an act respecting shipping as contained in Bill E.
I submit that it is much better than the minister's amendment. I am sure his official must have stayed up nights trying to find something to take the place of this foolish reference to the Lord High Admiral and the commissioners for the time being executing that office in the old country.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is just to fill in a
gap.


William Duff: The minister's officials have
sweated over this and the minister himself has got grey-headed over it, and now he takes out the admiralty and instead of proceeding in the order of A, B, C, D, he is putting in its place an interpretation regarding seamen which should appear at about subsection 90. The minister surely should accept my suggestion.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask the indulgence of the committee for a few minutes while I try to deal with my hon. friend the Presbyterian elder from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff)? This afternoon my hon. friend although entirely out of order continued to speak for some considerable time. When his attention was called to the fact that he was out of order he said that if allowed to continue he would not speak again during this day. I am reminded of a story concerning a man in the old country who was elected an elder of the church. On his way home he saw his cow in the field and he said to her: "Betty, ye are no' a common coo the noo; ye are nothin' less than an elder's coo." Now my hon. friend has recently been elected an elder of the Presbyterian church of his home town, and I submit in view of that he ought to be a little more careful in regard to keeping promises he makes, particularly in this honourable house.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Shall the amendment carry?


William Duff: No, Mr. Chairman, it cannot
carry in view of what my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Cantley) has said. There is one principle in the Presbyterian church which requires that a man must be honest and sincere in his convictions. My hon. friend and I agree, except in this, that my hon. friend, who now occupies the chair of the Prime Minister-[DOT]


Thomas Cantley: No, you are wrong.


William Duff: Well, the chair of the Minister of Justice. I am sure I would be delighted to see him move up there; in fact I would like to see him move up into the other house. The other night my hon. friend was the greatest critic of this bill. He told us that the phraseology of certain sections was absolutely wrong. Yet this afternoon and tonight as a sheep before her shearers is dumb so my hon. friend, openeth not his mouth. Why? Because the Prime Minister or some other influence or magnet has drawn him over into the seat of the Minister of Justice and now he tries to tell us that this bill should go through. My hon. friend knows* very well that this bill is all wrong. He knows that there are clauses in it which he as a shipping man-and he knows a great deal more about shipping than I do-could not approve. He knows that Part II should be changed; he knows that this bill should not go through the house hurriedly-


Thomas Cantley: Stick to your promise.


William Duff: That is not quite fair. I
admit that perhaps I have fallen from grace, but my hon. friend has fallen a number of times even if he is now sitting by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who of course knows more about grace than either my hon. friend or I. I want to say to my hon. friend that this is a very important matter, and he knows it, a matter in which every man who goes down to the sea in ships is interested. The other day when I called the attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice and the attention of this committee to the fact that there is no mention of the Lord High Admiral in this bill, no mention of the commissioners for the time being for executing the office of the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister is perhaps better informed and has a greater memory than any other man in this parliament, yet he could not find in the 497 pages, the 719 clauses, or the schedules of this bill where the Lord High Admiral and the commissioners for the time being for executing his office are mentioned. He tried to find it, and I appreciate his effort, but to-night we have the minister
Canada Shipping Act

admitting that there is no such thing in the bill. Why should there be? This is a bill of the Canadian parliament; we have no lord high admiral; we have no commissioners of the admiralty in this country. It just proves conclusively that this whole bill has been badly drawn. In spite of the fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine had this man Griffin come from Vancouver at $100 a day, just as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has a $150 a day man in this other committee of his and has other lawyers at $100 and $50 a day-


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Order, please. That has nothing whatever to do with the clause under consideration.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, I certainly am in order in discussing the motion of the minister that this subsection be deleted. I am giving reasons why this clause should never have appeared in the bill. In spite of the fact that high priced lawyers and officials of the Marine department have been worrying over this bill for the last two years, the lawyers inserted the clause in the first place. The minister told me a fortnight ago and told this house that he had read the bill, and yet he now wants to delete the clause, in spite of the fact that only a week ago the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice sat in their seats and looked over the bill, and could not find any clause or part of it in which the Lord High Admiral or the commissioners of the admiralty were mentioned. I say the amendment he has moved concerning seamen is not in place, and I suggest he should add a simple clause in order to conform with the alphabetical order of the bill. Hon. members will note that the definitions are indicated alphabetically. For instance, the first subsection deals with the admiralty, and then comes one dealing with the admiralty court. Then there is a subsection dealing with the definition of the word Board." Definitions follow in their alphabetical order, namely, C, D, E, F, G. But to-night the minister wants to make a statement about seamen in the first subsection. I suggest that in order to save his face, and in order to save the face of the government who paid out thousands of dollars to bring this conglomeration of nothing before parliament, the minister could insert in the clause the words " 'This act' means every clause in this bill E regarding shipping." I make this suggestion to the minister. I know he will not agree with it; he will take the advice of some official who does not know what he is talking about. Of course the minister will not take my advice, and I do not care whether 
he does or not. No doubt this bill will go through, because the Prime Minister is determined to push it through. It certainly is not a very great credit to anybody to put through a bill like this. The present bill will be passed as the first legislation based on the convention of a few years ago. All right, if the minister wishes the bill to pass, he may have it passed. But the men interested in shipping will wake up to-morrow morning and they will look at the amendment the minister is moving to-night, an amendment which is not even alphabetically correct, and express their disapproval. The minister admits there is no mention in the act about the admiralty or the commissioner. Why does he not put in the simple amendment I have suggested, and simply say, " 'This act' means every clause in this bill E regarding shipping."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On section 2, subsection 38-Home trade voyage.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have one or two observations to make, because I believe section 120 passed when I was not in the chamber, and I may make some observations on this subsection. It has been brought to my attention that a change has been made in the description of a home trade voyage, and it is possible that some of the certificates of coastal captains may suffer thereby. I have discussed the matter with the assistant to the deputy minister who has given me some assurance in the matter, but I should like to have a definite statement from the minister who is piloting this bill through the House of Commons. I should like to know that those who have their certificates as coastal captains qualified to take ships up to the Labrador coast, or down to the Bermudas, will not be prevented from operating those boats. I have in mind the Clarke Steamship Company. I was told that with the description indicated the certificates would be issued to coastal captains with certain limitations. I should like to be properly posted. It may be that the law would apply only to the new certificates issued in future.
I notice that section 120 provides for a renewal at the expiration of the period of five years. My point is as to whether or not they will be renewed in accordance with the terms of the present legislation, or the terms of the act as it stood previously.
Mr. DURANL.EAU: That part of section 120 has been deleted.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It has been deleted?

Canada Shipping Act


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, the part limiting the life of the certificate to five years has been deleted. The certificates are not in any way affected by this bill. It affects only the future.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Do I understand that when old captains with coastal certificates come back and ask for renewals those certificates will be renewed in accordance with the terms which prevailed when they were issued?


Alfred Duranleau: They have a life certificate. They do not need renewal, except in the event of loss of their certificate. I have an amendment to subsection 38 of section 2.
I move that the words, "north of the 60th parallel of north latitude or" be stricken out from lines 47 and 48, and that at line 49, after the word "latitude" the words "or through Bering strait" be added. The question as to the Hudson bay route has been raised. By the amendment, except on the west side, the limiting line to the north is deleted. On the west side the only limitation is that a home voyage boat could not pass through Bering strait.


William Duff: If the minister can be so generous, why does he not make it the north pole? Why mention Bering strait? Certainly there is no necessity to make it Bering strait. Of course the minister would not accept my suggestion because he would not consider it proper. In moving this amendment, however, he admits that I called to his attention and the attention of the government the fact that there had been a mistake made in naming the sixtieth parallel. Now he comes along, and instead of accepting my suggestion of substituting the sixty-fifth parallel of north latitude, he mentions Bering strait. Why not go the whole distance? Canada owns the north pole; she owns all the territory north of Hudson bay. Why does the minister, on the advice of his officials I presume, not accept my suggestion? Oh, no, they could not do that, of course. That would be altogether too much to ask. That would be very humiliating to the minister and to the government. My suggestion was made to-day to increase the northern latitude to the sixty-fifth parallel, and I believe it is better than the Bering strait suggestion. Does the minister know where Bering strait is? How far north is Bering strait. What parallel is it in? Surely if any person has pluck enough to pilot a vessel to the north pole the minister should not expect him in a home voyage, to go no farther than Bering strait. Why not make it zero? Why say Bering strait? Why do
the officials talk about Bering strait? Will my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce look at the map, and if he does he will find that it does not affect the Pacific situation. It is surely much better to move the parallel from 65 to 70, or whatever it is. It just shows, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's officials are not advising him properly. I am going to ask the minister either to accept my suggestion and make it the sixty-fifth parallel or let this clause stand until tomorrow so that his advisers may advise him what is right. Why talk about Bering strait? The only thing a navigator knows is the parallels of latitude and longitude. What is the latitude in Bering strait, for instance? The minister is looking at the map. Will he please tell me-I have not a map before me-what is the latitude of Bering strait? We have now six men crowding around the minister looking to see what latitude Bering strait is in. Will the minister please tell the committee what latitude it is in? Why will not the minister accept my suggestion to move the parallel from sixty to sixty-five, which is the proper nautical way to do it. and that would make a voyage to Hudson bay a home-trade voyage? But the minister on the advice of some official in his department, who has no doubt stayed up nights trying to give advice, says that he is going to make this home-trade voyage to Bering strait. Why does he not accept my suggestion?


Alfred Duranleau: Just a word of explanation. The question of the Hudson bay voyage was raised in this house and we thought we could allow' a voyage on the Hudson bay route as a home-trade vovage, under regulations passed by order in council. The parallel sixty has been eliminated because there is no other voyage to the north on the Atlantic side, and we did not see any reason why we should limit a voyage on the Atlantic side to the sixty-fifth parallel. But on the west coast, after considering the matter, a ship going through Bering strait and as far as the Mackenzie river, let us say, would have to go across deep water, across the sea, and then it becomes a foreign voyage where the hazards of navigation are greater. That is why the limitation on the home voyage on the we'stern coast is the passage of Bering strait. I do not think my hon. friend can have any objection to that, for he knows perfectly well that Bering strait is between the sixtieth and seventieth parallels, and if he will read the amendment I am sure he will find it is quite proper under the circumstances.

Canada Shipping Act


William Duff: The minister admits that I am right. He says that Bering strait is between north parallels sixty-4ive and seventy. Why then does he not accept my suggestion to make the parallel sixty-five both on the west coast and on the east coast? Why name Bering strait? If I want to leave Nova Scotia and go to the north pole I will go further than the sixty-fifth north parallel.
The minister says that the Mackenzie river voyage would !be a foreign voyage. Surely he does not mean that. No voyage in Canada, and of course the Mackenzie river is in Canada, is a foreign voyage. The minister is being badly advised. I say that all he has to do is to accept my suggestion. I am the one who brought it up, because, due, I will not say to the stupidity of the lawyers who drafted this bill, but to lack of knowledge of the members of the committee in the other house, they deliberately in the clause which we have to consider in this bill limited the home-trade voyage to the sixtieth parallel of north latitude. That means that a voyage to the Hudson bay would not be a home-trade voyage. Once you get fifty miles away from cape Chidley on the Labrador coast you are outside of the home-trade limits, and you are on a foreign voyage. The hon. member for Nelson agreed with me in that because he immediately asked the minister that this clause should stand for further consideration. Let us be fair about this thing. Why should we not make this clause read in a proper manner? Why should we say Bering strait? The suggestion I made to the minister this afternoon was that the home-trade voyage should include Canada, the United States, Mexico, the territory of Alaska, Newfoundland, Labrador, St. Pierre and Miquelon and the West Indies, in the course of which a ship does not go north of the sixty-fifth parallel of north latitude. No ship wants to go north of that, and the minister admits that Bering strait is within that definition. Why does the minister not accept the suggestion I made? Surely he must admit that I have a little knowledge of marine matters. I do not want to embarrass the minister. I am trying to help him. But just because the officials of his department have made a mess of this thing the minister will! not admit that a mistake has teen made. I say that it is not right for him to come in and move this amendment. He admits that the clause is wrong because he wants to amend it, and I say that he should accept my amendment and that the north latitude should go to the sixty-[Mr. Duranleau.j
fifth degree, and so far as the south latitude is concerned instead of going to cape Hatteras it should go down to British Guiana which is five degrees north of the equator.
I am simply trying to be fair, Mr. Chairman. The minister must admit that I have no axe to grind. There is no politics in this thing, because if there were, I would simply let the bill go through holus bolus and then go out and say to every mariner in this country that this bill is a mess, and I would show them why it is wrong. All I am trying to do is to show the minister that this clause drawn up by somebody, I do not know whether it was his officials in the department or someone else, is all wrong.
Let me draw the attention of the committee to the definition of a coasting voyage under the old act. A coasting voyage is being changed by this bill to a home-trade voyage. Now under the definition of a coasting voyage under the old act a ship could go on a coasting voyage down as far as Buenos Aires. But under a home-trade voyage, where does the minister want a ship to go? Not to Buenos Aires, not to Pernambuco, not to British Guiana, not to the British West Indies, not to Bermuda-no. Where? To cape Hatteras. Is that fair? Why this distinction? What does it mean?
I call the attention of the Minister of Railways particularly to this matter because the hon. gentleman wants the Canadian merchant marine and the national steamships to make money, and I say to him and to the Minister of Marine and to this committee that this clause, instead of reading the thirty-sixth north latitude, which is cape Hatteras, should read the fifth north, which includes the West Indies and British Guiana. Why does not the minister accept my suggestion? I do not want to talk all the time about this thing, but surely the minister, instead of taking the advice of his officials who stayed awake nights trying to give him advice, should admit the reasonableness of my argument. Let the home-trade voyage go down to British Guiana where the Canadian National steamships go and where the vessels from Nova Scotia go. Why say that they can go only as far as cape Hatteras? Whoever heard tell of a Nova Scotia vessel going to cape Hatteras? She may pass the cape but she does not stop there. However, a vessel may go to British Guiana or to the Barbadoes or to St. Kitts or Bermuda. In order to justify the position taken by some of his officials the minister refuses to accept my

Canada Shipping Act
suggestion. I am not talking politics, I am talking business when I say that a ship has a proper right to be considered on a home-trade voyage when she leaves Vancouver to go down the western coast to Panama, then through the canal and up to Halifax. Instead of referring to the Bering strait, which does not mean anything, the minister should use the sailor's term of latitude. I contend that the sixty-fifth degree will meet the objection raised by the hon. member for New Westminster. Under the section as it now is no ship could go into Hudson bay on a home-trade voyage; it would have to be a foreign voyage. Let the minister be fair and decent about this thing. He should not mind his officials. I admit that they have made mistakes, but this parliament is more important than the officials of the Department of Marine. I say to the minister that he should adopt the suggestions which I gave this afternoon. Such a voyage should be permitted to the sixty-fifth parallel of north latitude and down to the fifth. This would mean that a ship could go the Hudson bay and down as far as British Guiana. Such an amendment would be in the interests of the seamen and the shipping of this country.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: Does the minister
intend to amend subsection 38?


Alfred Duranleau: The amendment is
before the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like the minister to
tell us what led him to make such a substantial change in the coasting area allowed to this class of certificate. The present limits are forty degress south and it is now proposed to change them to thirty-six degrees north. That makes a difference in the trading area, so to speak, of 4,400 miles. As the minister is aware from the telegram I read this afternoon and from hon. members who have spoken, the men concerned on the Pacific coast ask that this should be made 10 degrees south, or at least far enough south to permit Pacific Canadian coasting ships to use the Panama canal. Can the minister give us any explanation as to why it was thought necessary to treat these men as if incompetent? Is there any objection to changing it to allow them to get through the Panama canal?


Alfred Duranleau: This bill does not
affect the certificate of a master.


Alan Webster Neill: Who does it affect?


Alfred Duranleau: Those who have their
certificates at the present time are not affected. The reason for the change from forty degrees south latitude to thirty-six degrees north is the hazards of navigation. A ship starting from the St. Lawrence and going down to Buenos Aires, which is only about thirty-six degrees latitude, would have to pass through the deep sea and would encounter hazards of navigation. This is done in order to protect life at sea. Any ship having to go upon the deep sea must be considered as being on a foreign voyage.


Alan Webster Neill: If these men are fit to go
down to thirty-six degrees north, it seems to me they are equally fit to go a few degrees further south. Do I understand the minister to say that this ruling will not apply to men who have existing tickets as long as they live?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, as long as they
live.


Alan Webster Neill: Where does the minister find that in the bill?


Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon. friend will find that under section 121 existing certificates are protected.


Alan Webster Neill: Existing certificates may not
be interfered with, but the area in which they can be used is interfered with.


Alfred Duranleau: My information is that the area is not affected.


Alan Webster Neill: I think the scriptures say:
Oh, Lord, we are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made. I do not think we could find a better description for this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On subsection 89-Sailing ship.
Alfred Duranleau: There is an amendment to be made to this subsection. I move to strike out the whole of subsection 89 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(89) "Sailing ship" (except as may be provided under the load line rules) means a ship propelled wholly by sails and includes a ship not in excess of one hundred and fifty tons gross tonnage, provided with masts, sails and rigging sufficient to allow her to make a voyage under sail alone, and which, in addition, is provided with mechanical means of propulsion other than a steam engine.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Dominion Elections Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 167-Agreements with crew of home-trade ships.
Alfred Duranleau: I move that the word "superintendent" in the second line of subsection 2 be deleted and the words "shipping master" be inserted in lieu thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT moved the adjournment of the house.
Ernest Lapointe: It is quite proper that
we should adjourn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are outward and
visible manifestations of a state of mind in this chamber.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is an outward and visible sign.


An hon. MEMBER:: Some victory.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some victories may be
bought at a high price; remember that.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Wednesday, June 20, 1934