Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Lake Centre):: In the absence of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir), who is chairman of the committee, I move that the third report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 99, respecting the appointment of auditors for National Railways.
He said: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act the auditors for the Canadian National Railways are appointed annually by a joint address of both houses of parliament. We are following the usual procedure in that regard.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. CUSTOMS TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 71, to amend the customs tariff.
He said: The bill as amended by the Senate is unchanged in sense, but certain minor changes have been made.
Mr. CAHAN:: Can the minister tell us on what date these amendments appeared in the votes and proceedings?


Mr. ILSLEY:: June 5. The bill as passed by the House of Commons had appended to it no schedules. The items in the tariff that were changed appeared in the sections of the bill. For instance in section 4 there was a long list of tariff items, and in two later sections there were also lists of tariff items. The Senate thought it preferable to take the lists of items out of the respective sections and append them to the bill as schedules, and they have amended the bill accordingly.
There is also one correction of what is obviously a misprint in section 3. The word "thereof" should be "therefor," and that change has been made. I therefore move:
That the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 71, sent up from the House of Commons, intituled "An Act to amend the Customs Tariff," be agreed to, and that the
said bill be further amended in consequence of the said amendments as follows:
(1)	That the schedule or lists entitled by Senate schedule A. schedule B, schedule C, be transferred to the end of the bill, after section 7 thereof;
(2)	That section 7 of the bill be amended, on line 4 of page 19, by striking out the words "preceding sections," and substituting therefor the words "schedules hereto."
These amendments do not alter in any way the sense of the bill.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 76, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
He said: The amendments made by the senate have not changed the sense of the bill.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: On what day did they appear in the votes and proceedings?


James Lorimer Ilsley: June 11. The amendments are simply to take the schedules out of the sections and place them at the end of the act. I therefore move:
That the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 76, intituled "An Act to amend the Special War Revenue Act," sent up from the House of Commons, be agreed to, and that the said bill be further amended in consequence of the said amendments as follows:
(1) That clause 18 of the bill (on page 19) be amended by inserting in line 2 of the said clause immediately after the word "act," the words "and the schedule hereto."
The law officers inform me that it is technically necessary to make this further amendment.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance.) moved the second reading of Bill No. 77, to amend the Excise Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Schedule amended.
George Halsey Perley: Does this bill
follow exactly the resolutions as they were passed by the house? If there are any changes or additions, will the minister give an explanation?
Excise Act


Mr. DUNNING:: Offhand I do not know
of any change. I will just make sure.


Mr. STEVENS:: Clause 1 includes the
schedule. For the purpose of clarifying the matter in my own mind I should like to ask a question. The line underlined on page 2 indicates that spirits distilled from wine shall be subject to no duty of excise. Then just below, in subsection 2, definition of Canadian brandy, it says:
... shall be deemed to be Canadian brandy and shall be dutiable accordingly.
Spirits distilled from wine in Canada is Canadian brandy, is it not? How, then, can you say that spirits distilled from wine, which I think may be described as brandy, shall be subject to no duty, and then in the -next clause provide that Canadian brandy shall be dutiable? To me it seems an inconsistency, but it may be due to my lack of knowledge.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is only when spirits distilled from wine are used for a particular purpose that they are subject to no duty of excise; that is when they are used in fortifying wine.


Mr. BARBER:: During the discussion of
the tariff item the question of alcohol for use in the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines and for druggists' use generally was spoken of. The regulations set the minimum at five gallons. Representations have been made to me that it would be appreciated by the smaller druggists throughout the country if the minimum could be changed to two gallons. I think the minister said at the- time he would take that into consideration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would still be prepared to give consideration to that suggestion. Whether it can be done this session or not is another matter.


Harry James Barber: That of course will not
help much. I thought it was a question of regulation outside of the act. It just means that many of the smaller druggists, who do not care to carry in stock five gallons at a time, would be benefited. It would be of advantage both to the department and to those who use this product in manufacturing that they be permitted to secure the smaller quantity. I understood the minister to say it was a matter of regulation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a matter not of regulation but of legislation.


Harry James Barber: Where does it appear that it is limited to five gallons?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is in the main act; that
which appears in the bill is merely the schedule.


Charles Avery Dunning: Replying to the hon.
member for Argenteuil as to the extent to which this bill follows the resolution in committee of ways and means, may I say that I have now examined it and find that with the exception of the provision for Canadian brandy when used for fortifying wine, it follows exactly.


Mr. COLDWELL:: In connection with the freedom from duty of spirits used for fortifying wine, I suppose a matter of revenue is involved. But I should like to bring before the minister another point of view, namely that spirits used in fortifying wine and imported free of duty can be used to make a potent intoxicating liquor to be sold at a comparatively low price. Many of the criticisms now being made about drinking among our young people can be traced to the use of fortified wine. In my opinion anything which tends to lessen the price of this particular kind of liquor is a moral danger, if I may put it that way. In the province from which I come it was suggested a year or two -ago that the wine might be sold in -the beer parlours. Fortunately the objection was so great that the suggestion was not adopted.


Charles Avery Dunning: The representations made by the grape growers are to the effect that the making of spirits out of what is known as sick wine is a necessity to prevent great wastage in the grape growing and wine producing industry. It is represented to us very strongly, and I believe with some force, that the suggestion here made involves the removal of a definite discrimination against the grape grower with respect to this use of -his product.
I believe it has very little bearing upon the use of spirits for fortification, purposes, inasmuch as they are'used for that purpose in any event. At the present time sick wine would become more largely a waste product, from the point -of view of the industry, if it could not be used for fortifying purposes in the place of other fortifying elements.


George Halsey Perley: I suggest that
paragraph (ii) on page 2 should be changed to read "shall be subject t-o no duty or excise" instead of "no duty of excise."


Charles Avery Dunning: I believe "of excise"
is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Shall I report the bill?

Combines Investigation Act


Mr. POULIOT:: Before you report the bill, Mr. Chairman, may I direct the attention of the committee to something most extraordinary. Very often it is impossible for the comptroller of the treasury to check the revenue from each tax. In connection with some taxes the Department of National Revenue, both excise and customs branches, have difficulty in indicating the amounts derived therefrom. That is very extraordinary. It seems to me there could be a way of informing people about it. Each tax brings in a certain definite amount, and any person asking for the amount derived from a certain tax should be able to get that information. The condition is unbelievable, but I could bring the attention of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue to several returns I got last year in which there were certificates from excise and customs commissioners to the effect that they were unable to state the exact amount of one tax for several years. That is a most interesting situation, because it related to the taxation imposed by that super-genius in financial matters, the ex-Prime Minister. He was born in finance, he sweats finance and he knew everything about it. He wanted to have a special way to inform people about finance in Canada, and it was impossible for his ministers to tell the exact amount derived from certain sources of taxation. Therefore may I bring your attention and that of the committee to the importance of knowing how much the government can get from one source of taxation. It can be done, and I hope it will be done. I ask the ministers of finance and national revenue to take note of what I have said in order that they may inform the country as to the revenue derived from each taxation.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 97, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The reason for the amendment is set forth in a communication I received some time ago from Mr. Sedgewick, chief commissioner of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission. I think it well to put the communication on record. It is as follows:
Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Canada
Ottawa, May the 6th, 1936. Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, P.C., Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
My Dear Prime Minister:-
I have observed that in your statement to the house of the business to come before it this session you mentioned a possible amendment to the Combines Investigation Act. I have frequently discussed the matter of amendments with Mr. McGregor and there are a number of amendments which, in our opinion, would be advisable but we feel that there is one which is a necessity if any investigations are to be made under the Combines Investigation Act. In my opinion it -would be absolutely unsafe to go on with an investigation-at least an investigation which might be expected to result in a criminal prosecution-without an amendment to section 24 of the act. This section was amended in the dying days of the last session in the Senate and the House of Commons concurred in the amendment, very possibly without having had any real opportunity to consider it. In the result, documents which the investigator, under the Combines Investigation Act, might require to have produced to him in his investigation would be privileged and not admissible against the offender in a subsequent prosecution if section 24 remains in its present position. The section as it stands now is as follows:
"24. No person shall be excused from attending and giving evidence and producing books, papers, or records, in obedience to the order of the commission, on the ground that the oral evidence or documents required of him may tend to criminate him or subject him to any proceeding or penalty, but no such evidence or documents so required shall be used or receivable against such person in any criminal proceedings thereafter instituted against him, other than a prosecution for perjury in giving evidence upon such investigation, inquiry, cause or proceeding. 1923, c. 9. s. 18; R.S., 1927. c. 26, s. 24; 1935, c. 54, s. 17."
If your memory wdll carry you back to the Combines Investigation Act when it was introduced in 1923, you will perhaps recall that the corresponding section as the act was drafted was in substantially the form of section 24 as it now exists but as the bill was going through the house you had the section amended to strike out the words "or documents," as it appears now in line six of section 24, and inserted the word "oral" before "evidence," which latter word is now the first word in the sixth line.
I am quite satisfied in my own mind that the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission -of which I am Chief Commissioner-would not risk having an investigator require the production of any documents until this act is amended.
I hope it may not be considered presumption on my part to say the amendment suggested is indispensable to a proper administration of the Combines Investigation Act.
Yours faithfully,
George H. Sedgewick,
Chief Commissioner.
As indicated in the communication just read, there are other amendments to the Combines Act which will be necessary, but
3652	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
the government has thought it advisable to reserve them for a subsequent session. This amendment quite evidently is imperative.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 98, to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. BENNETT:: How much remains unexhausted under existing legislation?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the exact figure in mind. Last night I stated that it was expected to carry us until about July. Some time during the month of July, in consequence of treasury bill issues, the present authority will be exhausted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:	.
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend section four of The Unemployment Belief and Assistance Act, 1936, being chapter fifteen of the statutes of 1936, to empower the governor in council to grant financial assistance to any province by way of loan, advance or guarantee to an amount not exceeding the amount payable by the province for its share of the cost of unemployment relief and undertakings during February and March, 1936, and under any agreement between the dominion and the province entered into under the authority of the said act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Mr. ROGERS:: Mr. Chairman, when bill No. 19, the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936, was drafted, it was proposed to obtain from parliament authority

for the governor in council to grant, where necessary, financial assistance to any province by way of loan, advance or guarantee, of a total amount not in excess of the total amount payable by the dominion to such province under any agreement entered into under the authority of the act. The assistance was thought at that time to be sufficient to meet the relief requirements of the various provinces, and consequently section 4 of the act was so worded.
However, in the case of one or two of the western provinces no arrangement had been made at the expiry date of the Relief Act, 1935, for financing their relief requirements for February and March and applications to the dominion for assistance for those months were received too late to be dealt with under that authority. I may say that the requests were in connection with loans that were naturally subsequent to expenditures for relief and, therefore, the applications for loans for those particular months arrived at a date following the expiry of the Relief Act, 1935 In addition, representations have been made that the provincial share of relief outlays in some cases exceeded the total amount payable by the dominion under agreements entered into under the authority of the act. For these reasons it is considered necessary to establish a new criterion, as it were, for loans to be made to the provinces for relief purposes. Under the bill which will be founded upon this resolution there will be an amendment of section 4 only of the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936. As proposed in this resolution, the dominion will be empowered to grant financial assistance where necessary to any province of its share of expenditures for relief and relief undertakings during February and March 19(36, and under any agreement which may be entered into under the authority of the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936.


Mr. HEAPS:: While we are discussing this question of unemployment, could the minister tell the committee the unemployment situation at the present time? How many are on relief this year as compared to the number on relief last year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: According to the latest figures, which are preliminary figures and therefore subject to possible rectification, the total number in receipt of relief during the month of April, 1936, was 1,357,704, while the total number in receipt of relief in the month ,of April last year was 1,432,516. I can give my hon. friend the complete breakdown of that figure if he wishes it, but there has been a decrease in the number receiving relief of something less than 100,000.

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures


Harry James Barber: Can the minister give us the total cost of relief in April this year as compared with April of last year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that information before me at the present time, but when the bill is in committee I shall be very glad to supply it. The dominion grants in aid to the provinces were increased by 75 per cent in December of last year, as my hon. friend is aware, and there was a reduction of 15 per cent at the beginning of April of this year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not want to pursue the unemployment question at this time, and I shall accept the suggestion of the minister that it be discussed when the bill is in committee. I should like the minister to give a resume of the steps which the government are taking to cope with the unemployment situation. According to the figures given by the minister it would appear that the number on relief is about the same as it was last year. After all a reduction of approximately 100,000 persons is infinitesimal, having in mind the general unemployment situation. I think this committee, as well as the country, has a right to know what measures are contemplated by the government to deal with the very pressing . and grave situation with which we are faced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will inform us whether or not the securing of larger sums by parliamentary action is for the months of February and March only, or are additional months included as well?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am informed that the reference to the months of February and March arises from the circumstances which I explained a moment ago- So far as I am aware, the applications for loans covering expenditures for last year are confined to the months of February and March. My right hon. friend is aware that these loans are made not through the Department of Labour but through the Department of Finance. I think my colleague the Minister of Finance will confirm what I have just said in that regard.


Charles Avery Dunning: The applications for those months from certain provinces were not in prior to the expiry of the previous authority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What supervision will this dominion parliament or the government of Canada have over the expenditures provided for under the agreements made under the authority of the act? Since we were dealing with this legislation before I have had occasion to follow up the question which I then raised as to the supervision which the government was exercising. I pointed out that the government had removed from office one who
had been sent by the Department of Finance to check over the expenditures in Saskatchewan. I find that certain relief expenditures in that province are under the control of a disbarred lawyer who was guilty of embezzling trust funds. That would 'hardly be a highly desirable person to have in charge of the expenditure of moneys which we have to pay.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Would my right hon. friend care to name the official in question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I prefer not to mention a man's name.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is my right hon. friend suggesting that he is an employee of the dominion government or of the Department of Labour?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said he was in charge of expenditures in the province of Saskatchewan. Two others who are employed in connection with this matter are disbarred members of the legal profession. In another case recently the appointment was made to an important position of one who had embezzled tax funds in a nearby county. I mention these matters with some hesitancy, but it is my duty to do so in view of the fact that I did make inquiries when this legislation was before the house. I mentioned the necessity for a rigid check being continued, because the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Rhodes, had found it desirable. He did so, but the man in charge was removed. We now have additional accounts for the months of February and March and I should like to know from what provinces they come and what the total expenditures are to which we are now asked to make an additional contribution.


Charles Avery Dunning: As I said a moment ago, certain provinces did not get in-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I asked what provinces.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall come to that in a moment, if my right hon. friend will allow me to make my statement. As I explained, certain provinces did not get in their applications for February and March prior to the expiry of the previously existing authority. By detail, the province of British Columbia has applied for loans of $435,000 and $460,000 covering the provincial share of direct relief for the months of February and March. Applications for these loans were received too late to be dealt with under the previous authority. Manitoba submitted an application for a loan of $205,000 covering March expenditures. This application was received too late to be dealt with under the

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
Relief Act, 1935. In the cases of Saskatchewan and Alberta, authority was obtained under the Relief Act, 1935, to grant loans covering their share of direct relief up to March 31, 1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What sums were actually paid to Saskatchewan under the order in council? The orders in council passed with . respect to Saskatchewan and Alberta were orders in council that contemplated expenditures being made, and I directed attention to it at the time. How far we had jurisdiction under the Relief Act to make advances to be accounted for I am not now discussing. At one time, certainly, the law officers thought that there was no power under the act to make advances to be accounted for under the provision with which we are now dealing, although there was power to make it for certain purposes. The question I am now asking is this: What were the expenditures in the months of February and March in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and what is the comparison of the expenditures given for British Columbia and Manitoba, $435,000 and $460,000, with the same months the year before?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not that information at hand but I shall be glad to give it when the bill is in committee. With regard to the officials in question, so far as I know there were no officials of the federal government in Saskatchewan of the class described by my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I pointed out that the Department of Finance had found it desirable and in the public interest necessary to have officials check up the expenditures that were being made under provincial auspices in order that we might not be called upon to pay more money than we should. With respect to farm labour, with the best efforts that could be made at the time the services of the gentlemen in question were dispensed with, there could not be discovered within a thousand all the persons that were supposed to be receiving these farm placement advances to which the minister referred when we were discussing this matter. Subsequently the matter could not be pursued for the reason that they were withdrawn; but it is quite clear that in some instances sons in the home were receiving the benefits of this act. Whether or not that was strictly within the terms of the act, I am not now expressing any opinion. Other instances of that kind developed. I did suggest to the Minister of Labour the desirability of some check being

exercised with respect to that matter, and I should like to know whether one is being made.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Hon. members will recall that when this matter was brought up before by the leader of the opposition he was good enough to suggest that a suitable opportunity for giving him the information respecting Saskatchewan might be afforded when the estimates of the Department of Labour were before the house. I made the necessary examination and have the report as to the particular question which he had in mind. I am bound to say that to the best of my recollection the only official under the Department of Finance in the province of Saskatchewan was sent there originally for the purpose of dealing with a special accountable advance of $9,000,000, but I shall have the full report available and shall be glad to give the substance of it to the house when the bill is in committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This bill was not on the order paper and we had not contemplated that a bill that had been passed would be amended so shortly afterwards. It is an unusual course but one that is sometimes resorted to. Do I understand that no sum is to be mentioned at all and that the governor in council is to have control over unlimited funds in this regard?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend will no doubt recall that when disarmament was under consideration at Geneva some years ago a distinction was drawn between qualitative and quantitative limitations. One may fairly say that we are inserting here a qualitative limitation upon the amount of loans that may be made by the dominion government. Under the former legislation there was no such distinction. Under the legislation now proposed, we are limited to the amount which the province may pay as its share of direct relief. We did consider very carefully the feasibility of introducing a quantitative limitation, but I am quite sure that my right hon. friend, from his own close acquaintance with the administration of relief during the last few years, will understand that there were difficulties, formidable difficulties, in the way of carrying out that objective. But we have introduced a qualitative limitation which is not to be found in the relief acts of previous years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The comparison which
the hon. gentleman has instituted between disarmament and this particular matter has of course some striking features. Is the federal treasury to be disarmed for the purpose of

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
enabling raids upon it to be carried out successfully? I judged from what the hon. gentleman said on a previous occasion that it was to safeguard the federal treasury against the attacks that might be made against it that he had provided it with such heavy armament that there was no doubt the defence would be complete. I judge from what he says now, having regard to the analogy he has sought to make, that he has concluded that his armament is entirely too heavy and that he must dispense with some of his heavier artillery and some of his guns with a view to facilitating the approach of the enemy. That is the only conclusion one can draw from the observations he has made. The blank cheque does not cease to be a blank cheque because there is an ultimate restriction placed upon it. When the hon. gentleman said that my own close knowledge of the situation was sufficient to induce me to believe that the matter was a difficult one to deal with, I can only say that is quite true. But I hardly expected to have the recognition of it come from the source from which it does; that was wholly unexpected. It is an occasion for gratification to think that it took an amendment to a bill passed this session to enable the hon. gentleman to make the discovery, and I trust that as he proceeds in the administration of the department he will have some sympathy with those who were charged with responsibility on a previous occasion; and more numerous will be the instances in which he will realize that the policies which were followed by them were policies to which he himself has given and is giving adherence. The limitation placed upon armament is of course, shall I say, somewhat elastic because it leaves the expenditure with the province. Surely it would be possible to arrive at an amount not exceeding so much money in view of the known experience of, say, the four years during which one had fairly complete knowledge of what was being done by the various provinces. Would it not be possible to have such a sum, not exceeding so many millions of dollars? Would that not have been a quantitative restriction upon the amount, which would have been perhaps very valuable armament for the federal treasury as against the attacks to which the hon. gentleman has referred? And possibly the amount named would have to be such as to make it undoubted that it would meet the requirements of the situation. It will be remembered that during one of the years we did place first of all a quantitative restriction and that latterly, owing to the attitude taken by the then opposition, there was a limitation placed upon the amount that might be used for relief by the dominion.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But none upon loans.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amount that might be advanced.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But no restriction upon loans.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No restriction with
respect to loans but with respect to money that might be used, by way of loans or otherwise, for the particular purpose of direct relief. In other words, the particulars were always given by the provinces of the purposes for which they required loans, and a limitation was placed at the instance of the then opposition upon the amount that might be made available by the treasury for direct relief.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does my right hon. friend suggest that there was a restriction upon the power of the dominion to lend to the provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, certainly not, but
there was a restriction placed upon the amount that might be utilized for a given purpose. Doubtless the hon. gentleman has the various acts before him in pamphlet form. I cannot recall whether it was in 1933 or 1934, but if he will look it up he will see what the limitation was. There was no limitation placed upon the power to lend to the provinces, but in every event the Minister of Finance inquired as to what sums of money were to be utilized for specific purposes, and it will be recalled that there was that limitation placed upon direct relief expenditures to which I have referred.


Mr. GARDINER:: I am sorry I was not
in the house a few moments ago, due to my presence being required elsewhere, but I understand that the leader of the opposition had some criticism to make as to the administration of relief in the province of Saskatchewan, and in connection with certain officials there. There were, of course, a considerable number of persons engaged in the administration of relief in Saskatchewan, and in fairness to them I think any criticism of the kind that I understand was made should include the names of the persons referred to. I suggest that the leader of the opposition name the persons to whom he had reference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned one person
and said he was a disbarred member of the legal profession, and that he had been guilty

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
of embezzling funds. Originally I had intended to mention the name, but I thought it might be unfair to that individual to do so. The government have seen fit to place him in a position of importance, and as far as the government is concerned I have no hesitancy about it.


Charles Avery Dunning: This government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the Saskatchewan
government.


James Garfield Gardiner: At what time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I could not give the
time, but it was since we were discussing this bill. Whether or not he is there to-day I cannot say. However, I will bring down the letter and the details of the charge at the time he was disbarred, and if it is thought desirable, though I think it is perhaps questionable, I shall be glad to give the name to the house or to the minister or to anyone who may desire it. Whether or not it should be placed upon Hansard I cannot say. When the bill is in committee I shall leave myself in the judgment of the house in that regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: What was the nature
of the position held by the gentleman?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In connection with the
administration of relief.


James Garfield Gardiner: Out in the country or
at the head office?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that he
was in a position, of some considerable authority, that he was not an ordinary administrator out in the country, that he had come into Regina and was administering from there. I will have the letter with me and will give those particulars when the bill is in committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that three persons were referred to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were two others
who were also members of the legal profession and who, according to my information, were also in the same unfortunate position.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Probably the matters to which I am going to refer should be discussed a little later but I am raising one or two points now in order that the minister may have the information at hand when we are in committee. I am quite troubled because of the intimations I am receiving from various parts of Canada with regard to the dissatisfaction that exists, particularly among the young men who were inmates of the camps-first, intimations from men

themselves, and, second, intimations from people in cities where these men are assembling and congregating. I happen to know that in some cities quite a number of these men are endeavouring to get along by seeking assistance from persons on the street, and in that connection a situation is developing which may cause this country a great deal of difficulty unless it is looked into very carefully.
There is another feature to which I should like to refer. Various types of work are being paid for at various rates. A moment ago one matter in connection with Saskatchewan was brought to the attention of the committee. To-day I received a letter from a district in my constituency where young men are engaged in the planting of trees. They are paid twenty cents an hour for a ten hour day. Young men working on the railways receive twenty-five cents an hour for a ten hour day and work beside men regularly employed who are receiving higher rates of pay. The condition, it seems to me, is one upon which this house should be fully informed, so that when we return to various parts of Canada we may discuss it with some intelligence and knowledge. Consequently I raise these points now so that when further questions in regard to them are raised, as undoubtedly they will be at the proper time, the minister may have the information before him.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be very glad indeed to discuss the matter referred to by my hon. friend. I might say, however, that information with respect to men who have left relief camps should be examined with care and a realization that some at least in the relief camps were unwilling to accept the employment that was made available. I can say also that work has been offered to all those who were in relief camps at the time of the announcement that provision was to be made for special maintenance work upon the railways. All those who have left the relief camps without accepting railway work have done so of their own accord. There was no compulsion upon them to leave, except as the projects themselves were completed. Many have left of their own volition. As to the further reference of my hon. friend, in regard to men working beside each other and receiving different rates of pay, I suggest that he could go into almost any factory in this country and find artisans working side by side at different scales of pay, because they are doing different kinds of work. I think I can assure the hon. gentleman that with respect to the extra gang work on the railways, if

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
some are receiving higher pay than others it is because they are in positions of supervision.


Mr. MacINNIS:: While we are dealing
with this matter of the men on railway work, Mr. Chairman, for a considerable time I have been asking that the agreement between the railway department or the labour department, whichever it is, be tabled. I have asked for it, but up to the present it has not been produced. I made inquiries to-day but was unable to obtain any information. In order that we may deal with these complaints intelligently I think we should have this agreement before us. It should be before members of this house in order that we may consider it before prorogation and know under what conditions work is being offered to these men. I hope the minister will try to have that agreement for us when this bill comes up for second reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have just a further
word to add. Probably the minister is not in a position to speak of this matter to-day, but it is well to give him notice so that when the bill is in committee he may be able to give us the information that is in his possession or can be secured with regard to the matter I mentioned to the Minister of Railways and Canals the other day. I find that the Minister of Labour is charged with the responsibility in connection with the work on the railways. Am I now correct about that? I was informed that it was his department that looked after the employment of these men on the maintenance of way.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think perhaps a true statement of the situation would be this: The camps were conducted by the Department of National Defence and remained under the effective administration of that department. The Department of Labour has acted rather for the purpose of demobilizing the inmates of the camps. The Department of Railways and Canals arranged, with the railway systems, the agreement under which the Department of Labour was to supply ten thousand men from the relief camps as conducted by the Department of National Defence. It has been a task which has involved close and continuous cooperation between the Department of National Defence, the Department of Labour and the Department of Railways. The agreement was executed by the proper officials of the Department of Railways with the officials of the railway company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then my first understanding is correct, that the actual paying of the men, their distribution, and the determin-12739-233
ing of the kind of work they are to do, will be done under the direction and supervision of the Department of Railways.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The payment of wages is to be by the railway company, but under the supervision of the Department of Railways. As my right hon. friend will recall, the particular item in the relief estimates which dealt with that matter was in the estimates of the Department of Railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was my original understanding, but I was told later that the Department of Labour was carrying on part of the supervision. I see now from what the minister has said that the supervision of his department was in regard to getting the men out on the right of way.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The transference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, from the camps. I think that has been made abundantly clear. I confirm what the minister said as to having been advised from many quarters that a number who were unwilling to work left the employment to which they had been taken on the right of way of the railway, and that was true particularly in western Canada. I wonder if the minister will be in a position to give any figures in respect to that when the bill is under consideration-not that it is so much a matter that will affect the legislation, but as indicative of the general conditions that prevail. He might then be in a position to indicate also what wages are being paid the various classes of labour engaged on the railway. He told us the other day that he thought the agreement was being concluded. When we get into committee on the bill I take it the agreements will be available for examination.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sure the agreements will be available. As I have explained to the committee, they are between the Department of Railways and the railway company.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I suggest, in view of the remarks of the leader of the opposition, that the minister might also bring down some information in regard to the conditions under which the men who were sent out were expected to work, which possibly had some bearing on the reasons for their leaving. I have particularly in mind the Cherry Creek camp, fifteen miles west of Kamloops in British Columbia. If the conditions were as stated to me-and the men who told me their story, I may say, were men who last summer did not participate in the relief trek, and who were regarded as good and reliable men in the camp; I checked up on them-it might be well to look into the conditions

3658	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
under which the railways are employing some of the men, and I mention this one camp particularly.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: There is another matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. When the federal government grants relief to provinces there ought to be some greater check on the action of the provinces, some assurance that the people who are in need will receive an adequate scale of relief. The provinces seem to leave the matter to the municipalities; in some municipalities at least the scales of relief are very low, and sometimes certain classes are discriminated against. I had a case the other day

if my memory serves me correctly it was from a town in western Ontario-in which relief was refused to one or two young people in the home because the mother was in receipt of old age pension. The old age pension originally of course was a matter of dominion legislation. I think it comes under the administration of the Minister of Finance as far as this government is concerned. I know the detailed administration is by the provinces. Certainly when we passed that legislation some years ago the idea was that the old people would be entitled to the benefit of that pension for themselves. In this case a poor old woman's pension was diminished on account of her having to keep one of her sons who otherwise would have gone on relief. I think in such cases the dominion government ought to insist that the purpose of the old age pension legislation be carried out, and that the giving of relief be on a scale adequate to the maintenance of something like a decent standard of living. I know there are difficulties, but some of us get a great many complaints of this kind, and I think the dominion government should insist on adequate standards and a better system of relief than prevails in some municipalities.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Has the minister had any application from the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway for help along the same?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have received no formal application myself. I take it that what my hon. friend desires to know is whether the government have received such an application. It is possible that my colleague the Minister of Railways would be able to answer.


Mr. HOWE:: No application came to my office from the T. and N.O.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rogers thereupon
 moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 100, to amend the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT, 1934

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 78, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1934.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like the Secretary of State to inform me with accuracy as to whether this bill applies solely to by-eJections. It is my understanding that this bill amends the Dominion Elections Act, 1934, only in respect of by-elections which may be held pending the general revision of the act.


Mr. RINFRET:: I can give the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George complete assurance that this amendment applies only to by-elections, and I believe section 2 makes that perfectly clear. Earlier in the session I introduced a bill to postpone the annual revision of the closed lists. The house agreed to that bill, but it was also agreed that if the special committee dealing with the elections and franchise acts was not in a position to report and recommend the adoption of a general act at the present session, we would make provision either to revise or to prepare lists for by-elections. The present bill, and Bill No. 81, which I hope may be considered in a few minutes, are for that purpose and for that only. They apply solely to by-elections which may be held before general amendments may be made to the act.


Mr. LAWSON:: Do I understand the minister to say there is another bill to be considered concurrently with this one?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes. The bon. member is aware that we have two electoral acts, namely the Dominion Elections Act and the Dominion Franohise Act. Although they are separate enactments they are applied together, and we are making amendments to both. In both cases, however, they are to be applicable only to by-elections.


James Earl Lawson: Why did we not consider Bill No. 81 before considering the present one?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I believe consideration of the bill would be facilitated if I were permitted to refer to certain sections before

Elections Act
they are called; otherwise the interrelation of the sections is such that one might have difficulty in following the amendments.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have no objection.


The CHAIRMAN:: With the consent of the committee, the hon. member may proceed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I shall not delay consideration of the measure. Section 3 refers to the supplying of copies of lists of electors and the supplying of election material, all of which is dependent upon the provision appearing at the bottom of page 2 of the bill. Paragraph (D) (4) is as follows:
(4) If the polling division is urban, the returning officer shall prepare from the geographical list of electors a separate list for each polling station established therein. The list shall be divided numerically according to the consecutive number given to each voter on the printed list of electors so that approximately an equal number of electors will be allotted to each polling station necessarily established in such polling division.
By looking at the opposite page hon. members will see that for the geographical list there is substituted another list prepared alphabetically. I wish to oppose any substitution for the geographical list. I cannot deal with the conditions obtaining in any other city; my intimate knowledge is confined to conditions in one electoral district of one city, but I do say that the geographical list as prepared and used at the polls in each polling division has to a very large extent prevented frauds. Further it has prevented impersonation. I have no hesitation in saying that in times past in the city of Montreal impersonation has been carried to an extent not known in any other city in Canada. Although I do not speak from personal knowledge, I know that following one election in which I took part an examination of the returns disclosed, to the satisfaction of competent men reviewing the situation, that at least a thousand impersonations had been carried out in the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George. That is a condition of affairs against which every possible protective provision should be enacted.
The adoption of the geographical list enables an inspection of the list to determine who are registered for each particular building or apartment house. For instance, in one of my elections, before the geographical list was adopted, an unfortunate circumstance arose in connection with an eminent clergyman, one of the most respected of the Catholic clergy of Montreal. He had provided for a hostel for young men from outside the city attending universities in Montreal. It was an enterprise which was most advantageous for parents in the country who are sending 12739-233 J
their sons either to Catholic or to Protestant schools, because in law and in scientific departments many Catholic students attended McGill university as well as the university of Montreal. When the names are on the list and classified according to letter, without considerable research it is difficult to ascertain what names appear for a particular address. In one of my elections through careful investigation we sifted out the facts and found that for this residence for students attending the universities fifty-six names had been added to the list, and they were names of persons who had not been known as residents in that place. When names are registered geographically such frauds are easily perceived, and the proper oath may be administered to the applicants for voting as they appear.
I should dislike very much to see the geographical list abandoned, either at the polls or in the preparation of the lists. Enumerators proceeding along the street can easily prepare their returns in geographical sequence, because they enter one house after the other, and turn in the names in that order. If the change at the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 of the bill means that the geographic list is to be abandoned or limited in any way, I am very much opposed to it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The objection to the act of 1934, if it had remained as it stood, was that we were afraid a general revision would be very costly and would achieve little purpose because the electors would not avail themselves of the opportunity of revision if no special election were in view in their particular constituency. At the same time the committee did not recommend local revision where a by-election is to take place. It has recommended the preparation of mew lists, and in making such recommendation the committee has had in view the saving of time. That is why in certain clauses of the bill changes have been made, to save time and facilitate matters.
I might also point out that the committee has recommended a couple of changes in Bill No. 78, which we are now considering. One restores in rural polling divisions the right of an elector whose name does not appear on the list to present himself at the poll and take oath and vote. That right did exist under former electoral acts. The other change does away with the absentee vote.
As to the particular section to which my hon. friend referred, again I wish to say that the idea that seems to have actuated the committee was to facilitate the preparation of special lists for by-elections. I have notes here on that particular section which indicate that in this case the change has been made for the convenience of election officials, and it will be noted that it will apply only to cases in which there are two or more polling stations in the same polling division. That is to say, if in a certain polling division the number of electors is too large to have it kept single, and it is necessary to divide it in two, then it is provided by this amendment that a list may be prepared in a numerical way, doing away with the more complicated system of having both numerical and geographical lists. I do not think there can be much objection to that. It will apply only in exceptional cases where subdivisions must be established by the electoral officer in one polling division, but it does not do away, if I understand the amendment correctly, with the former method of preparing lists in polling divisions at large.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Let me say to my hon.
friend that I can deal from personal knowledge only with St. Lawrence-St. George. In that district nearly every polling division has to be divided into subdivisions for the purpose of polling, but that does not necessitate any doing away with the preparation of the lists according to streets and numbers. The procedure which is followed under the existing law is that the lists are prepared street by 
street, with each number in sequence. What is the number that may be permitted for the poll? Is it three hundred?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think it is three hundred.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If it runs over three hundred, all that the official has to do is to post up a notice and say that the names on the list from such and such down to such and such, perhaps half way down the list, will vote in polling booth No. 1; and the others will vote in polling booth No. 2, and almost invariably polling booths No. 1 and No. 2 are in the same building, on either side of the hall of entry. But if you do away with the preparation of the lists of names according to the geographical sequence, you facilitate fraud in the constituencies of which I know, to an extent that has not prevailed in recent elections. It is monstrous that impersonation should be possible under any election act to the extent to which it has prevailed in some of the constituencies of which I know. It is not for me to go into local affairs, but the preparation of the geographical list prevented in the constituency of which I know the recurrence of frauds perpetrated under the local list-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does this amendment
take that away?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I might draw the hon.
member's attention to the provision in the amendment to the Franchise Act, Bill No. 81. We still make up the geographical list in the same way as the list was prepared under the original bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But what do you do with
it?


Charles Edward Bothwell: it is sent to the
returning officer. I will read the section:
Rule 3.-On a day to be fixed by the commissioner and notified to them by the Registrar of Electors, the enumerators shall prepare a complete list of all the names, addresses, and occupations of the persons who are qualified as electors and who are resident in the polling division (or part thereof)) for which they have been appointed. Such list shall be prepared in all urban polling divisions in geographical order, that is, by streets, roads and avenues, as in Form No. 7. The enumerators shall also prepare in like form a sufficient number of copies of such list to comply with Rule 5.
I am reading from the amending franchise bill.

Elections Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is Bill No. 81. Read
from Bill No. 78, the one we are considering. That geographical list is not the list used at the polling.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Section 3 (D) provides:
If the polling division is urban, the returning officer shall prepare from the geographical list of electors a separate list for each polling station established therein.
He has to take that from the geographical list.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He has not to prepare a
separate list. There is no reason in the world why he should do it. The geographical list is there; it is printed, and all he has to do is as he has done in the preceding elections, say that those on the list, from such a number down to such a number in a certain polling division will go into No. 1 booth to vote.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Does this section
change that? It is not the intention to change it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In other words, the list which you prepare from the enumerators is a geographical list, and that is the list for the elections at the present time. Here you say that although you have gone to the expense of preparing a geographical list for the purpose of voting in any polling station, which has to be subdivided into two or three polling booths, a new list shall be prepared. Instead of saving money, it seems to me that new expenditures will have to be made and that the new list will have to be renumbered. The result is that it will be almost impossible for the officials at the polling booth to keep a careful count of those who are entitled to vote and their places of residence, as registered. We are not eliminating any expenditure. At the bottom of page 2 you provide for striking out subsections 4 and 6 of section 33 of the present act, and for making substitutions therefor. I suggest that there is no need to strike out those subsections when you have the other section in the Franchise Act providing for a geographical list. If it is thought that that should be amended, let us amend it. I do not know whether the chairman of this committee represents a rural or an urban riding.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Rural.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can quite realize that the bon. member would not appreciate the difficulties with which we are confronted in urban districts.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Some members of the committee represented urban ridings.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did they come from Montreal?


Charles Edward Bothwell: One member did.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In view of the conditions which prevailed in the city of Montreal I cannot understand why any urban representative should ask for a change. I do not think any representative from the city of Montreal can stand in his place and say, so far as the preparation of the lists and the administration of the electoral acts were concerned during the last general elections, they were not administered with a propriety and exactitude and fairness unprecedented in the recent electoral history of that city. Why break down these barriers to fraud and misrepresentation?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If I thought that that section would have the effect that my hon. friend thinks it will have, I would not endorse it. I hope the committee understands my position. This bill was not prepared by myself or by the officials of my department; it has been recommended unanimously by a committee of the house consisting of both urban and rural members from all parties. I must say that I fail to see in this section the danger pointed out by my hon. friend. We are discussing this bill in somewhat piecemeal fashion, but let me point out that the lists will be prepared-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Geographically.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In geographical order. Where the lists are prepared and at the last moment, perhaps a few days before nomination, the returning officer finds that in a certain polling division he has more than the required number of electors, he is allowed by this section to prepare a numerical list for that subdivision or polling station. My hon. friend says that in his constituency that procedure would be pretty general, but I believe in most of our city ridings this would not happen more than about once in forty or fifty polling divisions.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not agree with that.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Section 3 provides for the preparation of special lists for a by-election. The committee has recommended that a polling division shall be the polling division adopted on the occasion of the dominion general elections held on October 14, 1935. A writ is issued and lists are prepared according to the polling divisions which obtained at the last general election. The enumerators do their work and lists are prepared a few days before nomination day. The returning officers have to subdivide a certain number of polling stations. I disagree with the hon. mem-
Elections Act

ber for St. Lawrence-St. George as to the number of stations in connection with which this would be necessary. From my experience I believe this will happen in only a few oases. In order to save time the returning officer can prepare numerical lists for voting. I cannot see any danger in procedure such as that, because it will be only exceptional. I believe that the committee in submitting this bill and the one that follows had in mind the fact that it might be preferable to make this experiment in a by-election to incorporating the changes in the general act when it is revised. This is not my proposal; it is a proposal unanimously recommended by a committee composed of members from all sides of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Like my colleague, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), I had some doubt about this, but I think if one reads it carefully he will see that the geographical list obtains.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, in the first preparation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: First of all we have provided that the same polling divisions shall obtain in a bynelection as obtained in the last general election. That is number one; that is settled. Second, the Franchise Act provides for the preparation of lists, and it follows the same provision with respect to geographical locations as were followed in 1935. I thought there was some doubt about that, but it is clear beyond peradventure. We come now to the next point about which we had some doubt. The returning officer, whose duty is defined by the statute, receives the list. Some confusion arose, at least in my mind, as between a polling station and a polling division. The polling division has not been changed from what it was in 1935, but the polling station may be. It states on page 3 of the bill:
_ The list shall be divided numerically according to the consecutive number given to each voter on the printed list of electors so that approximately an equal number of electors will be allotted to each polling station necessarily established in such polling division.
That is, there may be 300 in a division and the effort of the returning officer may be to divide that into two stations of 150 each, or into three stations of 100 each. On the opposite page appear the details as to how the list is made up by the franchise officer. The geographical conditions of the Franchise Act are continued and have not been changed.
I think that is fairly clear. At first I had some doubt about it, but I think it is clear.
fMr. Riafret.]


Mr. MacNIOOL:: May I give an explanation of this section? I had some part in drafting it and to me it is clear. It is the same procedure that was followed in the last general election. The lists are prepared, and where there are more than 300 names at any poll the returning officer divides it in two. In my own riding, if I remember rightly, there were 131 polls, but on election day the returning officer, finding over 60 of these polls with more than 300 names, divided each of these in two- On page 28 of the franchise bill we find a sample page of a voters' list. In many of the polling subdivisions in my riding there were over 400 names and the lists were divided as on page 28. If we take that as an example, that page has only 50 names. If the allotment per poll were 50 instead of 300, and if the returning officer followed the procedure of the last election, dividing the poll in two, each poll would have 25.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I can clear that up in a moment. This is only a sample, and it is not intended to apply to 50 names. Fifty have been given merely as an illustration, but the list would contain many more names than that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The list may have anywhere from 300 to 500 names. It is provided that if the polling substation is urban the returning officer shall follow the geographical list. There is no intention of changing from the present geographical method; that remains in the act. He has to prepare a separate list for each polling subdivision and these shall be divided numerically. That is the way it was done the last time; I do not see any change.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I appreciate the fact
that to have the general aspect of both pieces of legislation it might have been advisable to do what we have been doing so far. But we are not only going from one section to another but from one bill to the other. Perhaps now that we have discussed the general principle the chairman will call the sections one by one. This discussion has taken place on section 1, the short title, which I suppose carries.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Amendments to apply in the case of by-elections.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Section 2 provides that all amendments in this bill, the provisions of the general act, "are not amended, repealed

Elections Act
or otherwise affected by the provisions of this act except in so far as the holding of byelections is concerned."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-By-elections.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This section provides that the polling divisions shall be those established for the last general election. Paragraph (B) permits the transfer of lists and copies of lists from the franchise officer to the returning officer without the necessity of sending them to the central office in Ottawa. That is to save time in remote parts of the country. Paragraph (C) proposes some minor changes in order to make the general act apply to by-elections. Paragraph (D)(4) is the one we have been discussing, and I understand it has been agreed to. Paragraph (E) does away with the disposition which was necessary in the general act and which should not apply in by-elections, the provision whereby, when an elector moved from one constituency to another, if he were not qualified to vote in the new one he would retain his right to vote in the constituency he had just left. In by-elections, the committee has suggested, no one should be qualified to be on the list unless he has resided three months in the polling division where the by-election is held. Paragraph (F) reestablishes the principle whereby in rural constituencies an elector who is not on the list may come to the poll and be vouched for, a note being made that he is entitled to vote. Paragraph (G) strikes out all the sections with respect to the absentee vote. The committee did not regard it as having been a great success, but no matter what opinion one may have on that point I think we can all agree that there should not be absentee votes in a by-election. Paragraph (H) modifies four different forms so as to make them applicable to the purposes of this bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think that the
explanations given by the minister are altogether satisfactory. What I am insisting on is that the list of voters for each polling station, which is used by the officials at that polling station, shall be a geographical list. In the elections which were held in some of the cities at the last general election I should think that at least sixty out of ninety polling divisions were found to include a larger number than three hundred, which I believe is the limit, and therefore a division was necessary. No separate list was prepared in a different numerical order, but the deputy returning officer took the
printed list and counted down to half of that list and then gave the first half to a polling station which he called polling booth "A" and the other half to another polling station which he called polling booth "B," which were both usually in the same building. But the geographical sequence of the names was continued for each list so dealt with and no separate printing nor separate typewriting for the urban district was necessary at any time. Paragraph (D) on page 2 reads:
If the polling division is urban, the returning officer shall prepare from the geographical list of electors a separate list for each polling station established therein.
What I wish to make clear is that such list Shall be prepared geographically and divided numerically according to the consecutive numbers given to each voter on the printed geographical list. From the time the first list is made up in geographical order to the time of polling, the list prepared for the officer in each polling booth should be geographical. Otherwise it is impossible to protect the polls. If my hon. friend is prepared to admit that this list shall be prepared geographically and then divided numerically according to the consecutive numbers in that printed list, I am content.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Perhaps I might explain. At page 36 of the Franchise Act the geographical list is dealt with, and every voter gets a number on that list. The voters are numbered consecutively. When it comes to dividing that list as between polling stations the returning officer simply takes the first half of the list, we shall say-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is what he should do.


Charles Edward Bothwell: That is exactly what is intended by this section.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, we took particular pains in the sections which are being repealed to show that this subdivision must be made in such a way that when divided the lists would be geographical. Now you have struck that out. If you will make it clear that this list so divided shall be a geographical list and divided numerically according to the printed geographical list, I am content, but to leave it in doubt-


Charles Edward Bothwell: I do not think there is any doubt.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps my hon. friend will agree to this proposal: This bill applies only to by-elections, and for all we know there might not be one by-election in an urban centre during the year. The committee
Elections Act

was unanimous in recommending these amendments, and I may say that the chief electoral officer informed me that this would mean a considerable saving of time, as well as being a much simpler way of dealing with the matter. There might be very few polling stations, perhaps none, where this would apply during the coming year. My hon. friend has registered his protest. It is possible that the committee may have overlooked his point, but I believe the committee went into these questions pretty carefully, and these amendments were recommended unanimously. My hon. friend differs in opinion with the committee. Why not try this out? As I say, it will apply only in exceptional cases; it is intended to save time, and it has been recommended not by one party but by representatives of all parties. I should be averse to making any alterations of such a kind in a bill which has been unanimously recommended by representatives of all sides of the house. Of course my hon. friend has a perfect right and is quite in order to discuss every section of the bill, but apparently his views on this point, though strong, are to some extent personal. He has registered his protest and made his remarks, and now perhaps the committee will agree to pass the bill as it has been recommended. If we find that there is actually any point to my hon. friend's remarks, when the committee deals with the general act next year they may pay heed to the representations which have been made this afternoon.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the statement made by
the hon. member for Swift Current, who was chairman of that committee, is correct, then my suggestion simply makes very clear the purpose and intent of the committee which prepared this amendment. There is no doubt about that. I am not urging any change in the intent and purpose of this amendment as stated by the chairman of the committee, and therefore I do not feel that in pressing for a clarification of these two lines I am attempting to disparage the deliberate judgment of the committee. I have no such intention. The hon. gentleman says that he proposes to save some expense by not carrying out my suggestion. There is no possibility of saving expense-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I said that time would
be saved.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is no possibility of
saving time if the view of the hon. member for Swift Current, in which I concur, is correct. But if I find a meaning different from that expressed by the chairman as being the will and opinion of the committee, why not

clarify these two lines in order to make it clear that this separate list also shall be a geographical list and that the geographical order shall be followed? The hon. gentleman says that this is a personal matter with me. I am simply giving my experience. It is not personal. As a matter of fact, if my personal ambitions are carried out probably the hon. gentleman will have an opportunity of contesting a by-election in the constituency of St. Eawrence-St. George under this very provision. But I have seen in past elections, so much of fraud and impersonation which is utterly disgraceful to the electoral system of this country, that all I desire is to see this clause clarified so that hereafter there may be no opportunity for fraud of that kind. If it is made clear that this list for each polling booth is to be a geographical list, numbered consecutively according to the geographical list first prepared, I shall accept it, but I think I might fairly ask to have this line amended in order to make that perfectly clear.


Frederick George Sanderson: My record shows that sections 1, 2 and 3 have been passed.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is true.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Section 3 has not been
passed.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I did go from one section to another, but I shall not press that objection at all. In passing may I be permitted to say that although we seem to disagree upon this minor point I hope this bill will never be needed for a by-election in St. Lawrence-St. George. I consider my hon. friend one of the most distinguished members of this parliament, and certainly we want him here right along.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What I do say and ask
is this: It is only fair, if there is any doubt in this connection, that the purpose and intent of the committee should be carried into effect by the express words used. You would need to put in only one word, I think. If you would make it clear that the separate list for each polling section is to be prepared as printed geographically, that is all I ask. That polling list for each polling station should show on its face that it is prepared geographically, in the order of the streets and numbers. If you make that clear, I am content.


Mr. CAMERON (Cape Breton):: I think
it is as clear now as it possibly can be. I am sure that was the intention of the committee. The list must be prepared by streets, and each name as it appears must be numbered. If the polling division contains more

Franchise Act
than three hundred voters then the proper officer will make the list. But he must make it in numerical order. Suppose we have Bay street containing eight names, he will have to take those eight, and take Bronson avenue with fifteen, and so on until he gets 300. If there is a remainder of 100 or 150, he must take them in their numerical order, which must be the geographical order too.


Mr. STEWART:: As a member of the
committee, I wish to assure this committee that we endeavoured to preserve the geographical feature of the list, believing it had value. I think the matter may be clarified by looking at page 36 of Bill No. 81, in which will be found the geographical feature and the numerical feature as well. In subdividing you just go on down to the number you subdivide, which does not destroy the geographical feature.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. '
Frederick George Sanderson: Shall I report the bill?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, I object to reporting
the bill, because the point to which I have referred should be made clear, and to my mind it is not. If the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Cameron) had been through as much trouble as I have, if he woke up next day after an election to find that a thousand impersonations over which he had no control, had taken place in his district, he would feel differently about the matter.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I assure the hon. member that if I thought for a moment this was not sufficiently clear I would agree with him. I do not wish to see any impersonation. It cannot be done unless the officer fails to do his duty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest that by changing
one word you could make it clear; in the third line of page 3, which reads:
The list shall be divided numerically according to the consecutive number given to each voter on the printed list_
If the word "geographical" were inserted-


John Ritchie MacNicol: The printed list itself is geographical.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If the change is made the section becomes useless, because it was intended not to do that. At the same time if we can clarify the matter and satisfy my hon. friend, as long as the members of the committee do not disagree I shall not offer any further opposition.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then I move that the
word "printed" in the third line on page 3 be
struck out and the word "geographical" inserted in lieu thereof.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Why not just add the word "geographical" after the word "printed"?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am content.
Amendment withdrawn.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Then I move:
That the word "geographical" be inserted after the word "printed5' in line 3 page 3.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will accept that amendment if everyone will agree on that.


Mr. NEILL:: Should it not be before the
word "printed"?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, after the word "printed."


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 81, to amend the Dominion Franchise Act (Dominion by-elections).
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This includes many paragraphs. Perhaps we had better take the first one.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes; we had better take
them one by one.
On paragraph (a).


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This does away with a
section in the general act which would have no meaning in this by-election act.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On section 2, paragraph (B).-Qualifications.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I see a little trouble with this paragraph. Paragraph (c) reads:
(c) has been ordinarily resident in Canada for at least twelve months and was ordinarily resident in the electoral district in which the pending by-election is to be held not less than three months before the date of the issue of the writ of such by-election

How can we say that?
*-and has continued to be ordinarily resident therein until polling day.
Franchise Act

He might know about the polling day, but could not know he would remain at that particular spot until such time as the byelection is held. Is there not a contradiction in this instance. How can we say that he has continued to remain resident until polling day when his name goes on the list three months before polling day.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My right hon. friend is right in his contention. I understand he does not object to the principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: His objection is to these words?
-and has continued to be ordinarily resident therein until polling day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think the right hon.
gentleman is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The paragraph does not make good sense, in its present form.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Of course it was printed and prepared strictly in accordance with the recommendations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am inclined to think that the last line should be stricken out.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The only explanation I can give of the peculiar wording is that in rural districts a man may vote, although his name is not on the list. He can be vouched for. It was apparently with the idea of covering that situation that this particular wording was used. I must admit, however, that it seems awkward.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the section
might be permitted to stand until we have discussed other paragraphs. Members of the committee and the minister would have a chance to look into the matter.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall paragraph B
stand?


Alan Webster Neill: Before we let it stand may I say that the period of three months is too long. First, we have three months before the issue of the writ, and a time after that which is very often as long as sixty days, making five months. In a place where there is a large floating population'-and I have in mind the logging camps in my constituency-an unfair situation is created. It means that large numbers will be disfranchised. Prior to the act passed in 1935, a period of sixty days before the date of election was provided. That was considered a reasonable and fair

time. But if we make it three months before the issue of the writ I suggest the period is too long, and many people will be disfranchised.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I believe the committee considered that it should not depart too much from the act of 1934, in which the period of three months is indicated. Of course at the time of a general election, if an elector cannot qualify in one constituency he does in another. In this instance the special provision is that unless he has resided at a certain place three months before the issuing of the writ in the constituency where the by-election is held, he is not qualified to vote. I think there is some wisdom in not drifting too far from the general act, except as to adapting it to by-elections. Evidently that is the reason the three months' qualification has been retained. Possibly when the general act is drafted the qualification as to residence might be modified, but I should not like to recommend that we make a change in respect of by-elections when a different circumstance would exist in the general act. May I point out that inasmuch as time will be saved between the date of the issuing of the writ and nomination day, to a certain extent the qualification period will be reduced.


Alan Webster Neill: The point may not be of such great importance in by-elections, and I assume the act will be redrafted before another general election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill refers only to by-elections.


Alan Webster Neill: But the principle is the same. If the committee saw fit to adopt a three months period in connection with by-elections, it would probably adopt the same provision with respect to general elections.


Charles Edward Bothwell: No.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister said that he did not wish to get away from the spirit and word of the 1934 act. I have met many people in British Columbia who think the further we get away from the spirit of it, the better.


Charles Edward Bothwell: In considering the byelections bill the committee endeavoured so far as possible to adopt all the provisions of the original act. It was not the intention in any particular to change that act. Those changes will be made at another time, if they are deemed advisable. Possibly there will be a general revision next year, or at some later period. However, in the present instance we have endeavoured to provide for byelections, and so far as possible to adopt the provisions to the original act.

Franchise Act


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: May I point out that we have just passed a bill in which there is a similar provision. The clause under discussion corresponds with one we have already passed, and I suggest that we should not drift away from a decision we have made.
Paragraph (B) stands.
On paragraph (C), part II (14)-Registration material.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This paragraph covers the whole preparation of the list.


Charles Edward Bothwell: It is the same as section 14 of the original act.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (C), part II (15)-Notice and form.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change, I take it, in any of these?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No, except as to adaptation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (C), part II (16)-Commencement of registration.
John Ritchie MacNicol: The change there is that there are to be enumerators in rural ridings; am I correct?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: And they are to be
appointed in the same way.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (D), part IV (32)-Right of appeal.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Under the Dominion
Franchise Act, 1934, there was an appeal to a judge from any decision of a registrar of electors sitting as a revising officer, but only the judge himself could hear and determine the appeal, and as there was no need for haste, a time for hearing convenient to the judge could be appointed. It was found that this procedure might be inconvenient in the matter of a by-election, so provision has been made that if the judge cannot himself hear the appeal within five days limited therefor, he may appoint a barrister of not less than ten years' standing to hear the appeal in his stead. Section 32 of the act is altered to make room for that provision.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I believe that is a wise provision, in any case. I found in the revision in the St. Lawrence-St. George constituency enumerators attested that within one moving period there were 5,300 changes, and of that
number all but 1,800 were either dead, beyond doubt, or had removed to other electoral districts in which they were entitled to be registered. In a city like Montreal, where the apartment houses are so numerous and so many apartments contain so many residents, the changes run into thousands on October and May moving days, and it is impossible for the chief justice in such an event to hear all the appeals which may be made from either side. I think that provision for the appointment of some barrister to represent him may be a very useful one, although I would rather have a judge to represent the chief justice, but otherwise to have a barrister of reputable standing would facilitate the appeals very greatly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would it not be well if we had some description of the barrister other than ten years', service at the bar. The judge should appoint an impartial barrister, not a barrister actively interested with one party or the other in connection with the election. That would be very bad. Some adjective could be inserted that would indicate the type of barrister, other than simply to say a barrister of ten years' standing.


Frederick George Sanderson: We are still on clause 2.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What subparagraph deals with the judge, Mr. Chairman?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It is on page 21, subparagraph 4, reading:
In the event of the judge being for any reason unable himself to hear and determine the appeal within five days after the notice of the appeal given he may nominate and appoint in writing a barrister of not less than ten years' standing and resident within the electoral district to hear and determine the appeal within the said five days.
Do I understand my right hon. friend to suggest a judge instead of a barrister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I am only suggesting that some word might be used before the word "barrister." My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) suggests an independent barrister of not less than ten years' standing. Perhaps we should say a practising barrister or an independent practising barrister.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I hardly think the word "independent" would be descriptive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; there is a difficulty about that. Should it not be in any event a practising barrister?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Of course, that was really the intention. We understood it would be a practising barrister. I imagine that the judge in appointing a barrister of ten years' standing would appoint someone who was qualified for the position.
Franchise Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Judges as well as the rest of us are deceived at times.


Charles Edward Bothwell: It might be advisable to say a practising barrister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that would be better.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the word "practising" be inserted before the word "barrister" in line 14 on page 21 of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (E) (39)-Liability of revising officer.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In the schedule we have passed it is provided that the registrar, instead of doing the whole revision himself, may appoint revising officers so that the work may be done in a parallel way in order to save time. Paragraph 39 substitutes, wherever necessary, the words "revising officer" for the words "registrar of electors." It is merely a clerical amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Has paragraph 39 been carried, Mr. Chairman?


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.
On paragraph (E) (46)-King's Printer to print lists.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This provides for the printing of lists in urban centres. The committee has recommended that in a by-election it may not be necessary to print the lists in rural sections.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph (F) agreed to.
On paragraph (G) (53)-Vote under Canada Temperance Act.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is a special disposition. It covers the Canada Temperance Act, an act for taking local option in certain parts of the country. This used to be under the chief electoral officer, and this amendment brings it under the dominion franchise commissioner. It has seldom been used, as my hon. friends know, but the committee has recommended that it be placed under the dominion franchise commissioner.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (H)	(54)-Dominion Franchise Act not affected by this act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot think that paragraph 54 is a very sound one as it reads. It says:
[Mr. Bothwell.l
The provisions of The Dominion Franchise Act, 1934, are not amended, repealed or otherwise affected by the provisions of this act, except in so far as the preparation and revision of lists of electors to be used at dominion by-elections, and matters incidental thereto, are concerned.
Should we not put it the other way?


Charles Edward Bothwell: As a matter of fact, we did not have that paragraph in at all. We thought the first paragraph made the matter amply clear, but objection was raised to our particular wording, and that paragraph was inserted by the law officers of the crown.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my hon, friend will agree that it is a pretty poor paragraph as it stands. It says:
The provisions of the Dominion Franchise Act, 1934, are not amended, repealed or otherwise affected by the provisions of this act, except in so far as the preparation and revision of lists of electors to be used at dominion by-elections, and matters incidental thereto, are concerned.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I must admit I was surprised to find it there. A plebiscite under the Canada Temperance Act might be incorporated with a by-election at the same time. If there is any objection, personally I would not insist on the retention of the section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What you want to say is that the provision of the Dominion Franchise Act, 1934, except as amended by this bill, shall remain in full force and effect.


Mr. POWER:: That is all we want. There is no necessity for saying any more.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I think that is all that is necessary there. I am not taking any responsibility for this particular paragraph.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. member
move an amendment then?


Charles Edward Bothwell: We have to consider
clause 4. It might be well to redraft that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: You mean 53 and 54?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That could stand until
you redraft the one with which we are going to deal.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We might let that stand.


Frederick George Sanderson: Paragraph (B) of section 2 will stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That can stand and the other matter can be fixed up during recess.
Paragraph stands.

Canada Shipping Act
On paragraph 65-Bringing into force.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I can explain that. It was thought that this bill might come before the house at a time when a by-election was pending. In that event we would have proposed to bring the measure into force only on a certain dat-e. I would suggest an amendment to delete those words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Paragraph 55 will be
deleted.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I move that on page
24, line 27, the following words be deleted, "this act shall not come into force until."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On paragraph (I).
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Paragraph (I) strikes out *certain forms and substitutes others therefor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will be a new paragraph 55?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Paragraph 55 would
have been part of paragraph (H). Paragraph (I) strikes out certain forms and substitutes others therefor to conform with these amendments. I do not suppose the committee desires to go through these forms. I understand that one section is to stand, so perhaps we could move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The forms have been
gone through carefully. We appointed a subcommittee of legal men to go through them and we endeavoured to bring them into line.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Could the hon. member
state generally any important changes which have been made?


Charles Edward Bothwell: The only important
change is in connection with the voters in rural areas who are vouched for.


Mr. STIRLING:: Swearing in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A neighbour has to
come who knows the voter.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The forms are practically the same.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think you had better
ask for leave to sit again this day in view of what the minister has said.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 101, to incorporate the Order of Italo-Canadians-Mr. Denis.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday June 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 53, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934- Mr. Howe-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister
appreciates the fact that this creates a difficult situation. This bill confers upon him the powers which I mentioned yesterday and, taken in conjunction with the other provisions of the act, places him in the invidious position of having to decide for or against the applications which he will receive for the declaration of certain areas as sheltered waters. Not that that in itself is so very important, but it lays the foundation for the application for temporary certificates for navigation. It is not the thing itself; it is what the thing lays the foundation for. Another section provides for an extension for five years of the time mentioned in the act for the qualifying for a certificate. Then there is a provision providing for temporary certificates to be based upon the right to navigate in sheltered waters, which waters are declared to be sheltered by reason of the action taken by the minister. The minister has said that certain action is taken in other places with respect to that and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has said that it applies only to ships of small tonnage. The new bill refers to ships of tonnage larger than five tons; in fact temporary certificates may be issued in connection with ships as large as twenty tons. What has been said with respect to small vessels under the control of those who have local knowledge, of course is true. However, sometimes that knowledge is not unlike that of the man who undertook to take a large ship up a narrow river. The master of the ship said to the pilot, "You have a very intimate knowledge of this river?" The pilot said, "Yes, I know all the sand-bars in it; this is one now." Just then the ship struck a sand-bar. This lays the foundation for great abuse, and it is my duty to point it out. I know the minister, in view of what he said yesterday, will not care to adopt the only remedy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I quite appreciate that the Minister of Marine is being given very great power, but I really see no alternative. In fact, I think very few people understand the power that the Minister of Marine has in this case. For instance, all the inspectors in Canada can declare a ship to be unseaworthy,
Canada Shipping Act

and the minister can declare it to be seaworthy. The minister has the power of licensing everyone that has to do with the sea.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And suspending.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And suspending. As I see it, this matter of minor waters must be regularized. For the last twenty-seven years we have been administering a great number of harbours on the east and west coasts as minor waters without a vestige of authority for so doing. For instance, on the British Columbia coast we have Burrard inlet, east of the First Narrows, and the northeast arm of Quatsino sound inside Limestone island, and the eastern channel, Barclay sound. On the Atlantic coast there are some twenty harbours and waters of various kinds which have been administered as minor waters, although by every law in the statute books they are major waters and can be navigated only by mariners having deep sea certificates. In both England and the United States this same authority is vested in one man, and if my right hon. friend could suggest a better way for Canada we should be glad to consider it. Through a curious anomaly the lighthouse board, a board of departmental officials, have authority under the law to declare certain coastal waters minor waters for the purpose of administering the life saving act. But there is no authority whatever for declaring coastal waters minor waters for the main purpose of the Canada Shipping Act. The only purpose of this clause is to correct an anomaly in the act, and I think we are doing this in the only practical way.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister and the
committee are losing sight of the real reason why very great care should be taken in a measure of this kind, namely, the safety of passengers carried on ships. Apart from that, the matter is a comparatively insignificant one. I do not know whether I can make myself clear, because there are many technicalities involved which I am not qualified to discuss. But the point I wish to make is that for the purpose of meeting the convenience of the owner of a small boat operating in an enclosed water, certainly, in my opinion at any rate, we ought not to give this sweeping power to the minister to declare an area a sheltered water. I say that for this reason. The only criticism which the owner of a small boat has is that if he wants to carry passengers he must have a certified officer if his boat weighs more than five tons. If it weighs 4-99 tons he may carry thirty or forty passengers. Both these conditions are wrong. It does not make it any safer for passengers, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) pointed out, if the boat is 4-99 tons than if

it is five tons. As the hon. gentleman suggested, the owner might remove some of the upper structure so as to bring the boat within the required measurement. In my opinion the measurement of the boat should not be the basis upon which the owner should be allowed to carry passengers. That is the first point I make, and t.he second point is that we certainly should not make it possible for an individual to carry passengers on a boat, which at present he cannot do, simply by declaring that he is operating in minor waters. I shall use the very citation which the minister gave last night and to which he has referred to-day, namely, Burrard inlet. Burrard inlet, stretching from the First Narrows some twenty-five miles into the north arm and into the head of the inlet, is one of the most important seaways in this country. I do not believe there is a port in Canada, not even Montreal, through which a larger number of deep sea vessels pass during the year. For seven months of the year there may be more vessels in some of the other ports, but I mean throughout the year. These deep sea vessels go through the narrows, operating in the first two or three miles of the harbour, now described as minor waters. Deep sea vessels, and particularly coastal vessels that operate like passenger trains on fixed schedules, come in by the dozen every day and operate in that harbour very often in a fog, when the only direction for vessels is the signal given by blowing the whistle. Yet we are allowing persons who have no master's certificate, no deep sea experience, very little knowledge of deep sea signalling or navigation, to carry passengers, provided their boats are under five tons. Under this proposal, because this area is declared to comprise minor waters, the owner of a boat under five tons may be allowed to carry passengers, though the area is highly dangerous.


Alan Webster Neill: With a certificate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not necessarily, if the area is declared, as this amendment makes it, a minor water. If it is a minor water he may carry passengers. What I am driving at is this: Above everything else we ought to safeguard the lives of people, and if a man has a boat and wishes to carry passengers he ought at least to undertake the responsibility of having a certified officer on board. The owner of a small boat may know the waters well; he operates here and there along the coast; and on a holiday he wishes to carry a few passengers and cannot do so. The argument may be that he knows more about handling that little boat than anybody else. Usually that class of boat is used for roustabout purposes at logging camps or round a cannery or

Canada Shipping Act
some small settlement in an inlet, and for such purposes, carrying a little freight, it is perfectly satisfactory. But the moment the owner wants to carry passengers even, as suggested by my hon. friend from Comox-Al-bemi, across the inlet, I do not care under what conditions, we cannot be too careful in seeing to it that such a person is licensed only under such terms as shall ensure the maximum of safety and efficiency. That is the reason I question this method.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman overlooks section 122 of the shipping act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I suggest to the minister, therefore, that whether or not he drops the words with regard to sheltered waters to be specified by him-and I think they should be dropped-we should specify more clearly the conditions under which any ship may carry passengers, whether it be a vessel of fifteen tons or over, or five tons or under. There have been tragic accidents in years gone by, partly through inexperience. While it is all very well to say that there are many men who have masters' certificates, though they have not been at sea, although that sounds well, there are those who may operate their vessels recklessly, and I submit that recklessness should not be allowed in the carrying of passengers, no matter whether the waters are declared minor or otherwise.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 42, respecting The Trust and Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Vein.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Madeleine St. Clair Peacock Mi'lroy.-Mr. Plaxton.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Bella or Bessie Laurie Wozik, otherwise known as Bella or Bessie Rabinovitch.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Agnes Hannah Wright.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Margery Brun-hilde Morphy Dunton.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Mania Leizer-son Oberman.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Milton Sanford Enoch Chase.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Jessie Dansky Glazer, otherwise known as Jobeth Dansky Glazer.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Mildred Eileen Champion Webster.-Mr. White.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 53, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934-Mr. Howe-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Henry Herbert Stevens: At six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I was practically through what I had to say. I should like to remind the minister, however, of the point I was making, namely that taking power to declare certain waters on the coasts of Canada as minor waters, such power being vested in the minister, was not the proper basis upon which the whole problem should be considered. I had pointed out that in my opinion the attention of the committee and of the minister and his officials should be focussed upon the fact that the carriage of passengers is really the crucial point. I am aware that under section 122 of the main act provision is made for temporary certificates to be issued to individuals in charge of vessels not over twenty tons and not carrying more than twelve passengers. But in my opinion that does not meet the ease. An excellent suggestion has been made by the Canadian Merchant Service Guild in Vancouver. They say that these small boats could be classed as ferries, and that one of the qualifications for a certificate for a man operating a ferry under fifteen tons should be that the applicant has had at least twelve months' service on a coasting or ocean-going vessel under a certificated master, so assuring that he has had some experience and training. Now, that is a limited request. A man who operates a small ferry in minor waters, which minor waters, to take Burrard inlet as an illustration, may be daily traversed by dozens of coastwise and deep sea ships, in fog or stormy conditions or where tidal currents prevail-a man operating a ferry under such conditions should at least have a working acquaintance with coastwise or deep sea practice.
That approach to the question is, to my mind, the correct one. I would plead with the minister earnestly not to take it amiss that we suggest that this is perhaps the wrong way of dealing with these minor waters. It is no reflection upon him to say so. As he said himself this afternoon, ministers are sometimes clothed with extraordinary authority, but it is generally understood that they exercise only that authority on competent advice. He very properly says-and I appreci-
Canada Shipping Act

ate it-that he has no idea of using that power in any reckless way. No one suggests that at all. But in my opinion it will not meet the situation which is in the mind of those who are urging this amendment. So I conclude with just these observations: first, it is unwise to leave the naming of minor waters wide open in that way. I think there should be greater restrictions in that respect. If possible it should be a statutory matter. The other point, which to my mind is much more important, is that in regard to the complaints or requests of those who operate casually what we may call small boats in what they allege to be minor waters, their case should be considered only or chiefly in the light of the safety of passengers. I appreciated the words of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) the other evening and I am quite well acquainted with the circumstances which I think he had in mind, in the remoter sections of the Pacific coast, with its innumerable inlets. Men who unquestionably are well skilled in handling boats may occasionally get an opportunity to carry pasengers. While I have a great deal of sympathy with the suggestion that men of that type should be assisted in every way, nevertheless I lay this down as extremely important, that the question of safety must be kept in mind. I can easily understand how a man who might operate one of these small boats in freighting, roustabout work, in the language of the trade, might be quite efficient in that, and he takes his own chances, but it is a different matter when a man' of that type is entrusted with the lives of ten or twenty or thirty passengers. I find myself very strongly of the opinion that the suggestion of the Canadian Merchant Service Guild should be given very careful consideration.
My hon. friend spoke of his experience with the Indians in canoes. It is, I think, forty years ago that I was largely responsible for navigating a small vessel for four or five hundred miles up the coast. We got along very well; there were four or five of us on board; we went hither and thither without charts or much equipment of that kind, but no one could argue that the fact that a person acquires in that way a knowledge of the coast and of the general handling of a boat, qualifies him to have the responsibility of carrying passengers in such a boat. It is from that angle that I have presented these arguments, and request the minister to give consideration to the suggestions of the Canadian Merchant Service Guild as well as my own.
[Mr. Stevens.!


Mr. GREEN:: Will the minister tell the committee what the requirements are for a certificate of competency for a master of a steamship in minor waters?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A certificate of competency is based chiefly upon experience. A master must have some years of service; he must have good eyesight, knowledge of the rules of the road, knowledge of steamships generally, and elementary knowledge of navigation.


Howard Charles Green: That is required in minor waters?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. There seems to be an impression-I think the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has it-that no certificate is required for minor waters. I assure the hon. member that there is a very rigid certificate for minor waters. Provision is made for temporary certificates, but I am informed that in the history of the department only five temporary certificates for minor waters have ever been granted on the coasts. The matter that the hon. member for Kootenay East is speaking of is the regulations, which have nothing to do with this section, because the department can make the regulations anything they like, independently of this section.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not wish to delay the committee, but surely the minister cannot mean what he says. He says that the department can make the regulations anything they like. They can make the regulations only subject to the provisions and powers in the act; they cannot make the regulations anything they like.
One word more before I cease pressing this point. It is obvious that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the minister to give any attention to it, because he did not even deign to answer me-


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend did not bring up anything new. We have all these representations.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so. I am just going to say this and then I am through. I believe that when we are studying an act of this kind in committee of the whole house, at the least we owe it to the people of this country to give reasonable consideration to their views. I may be all wrong, but I say that all persons- I do not care who they are or where they come from-who represent the people of this country and have some knowledge of the situation, are entitled to the courtesy of consideration. That is all I have to say to the minister.

Canada Skipping Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: The representations made by the hon. member were duly received by the department. I assume he received a copy of the letter I have in my hand. They were fully considered by the technical officers, and I will say this for the technical officers of the Department of Marine: I think they constitute one of the finest branches of the service. My hon. friend says that it is not possible to regulate. I assure him that minor waters could be made anything the department officials recommended for the approval of the governor in council. This bill has nothing to do with regulations in connection with minor waters. It simply corrects a practice which has been established for the last twenty-three years of illegally operating in certain coastal waters under minor waters regulations. It is, in my opinion, a very necessary part of the act.


Mr. MacNEIL:: How are the waters east of Prospect point in Burrard inlet classified?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I say, for the last twenty-three years the practice of the department has been to operate under minor water regulations.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does that permit the issuance of temporary certificates to masters or mates on vessels navigating those waters? May they have temporary certificates with qualifications lower than would be necessary in home trade waters.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The qualifications are to some extent less than those required for open waters. A man cannot take a ship across the Pacific on a certificate which would be suitable for his operations in Burrard inlet. As I say, only five temporary certificates have been granted for the Pacific coast.


Charles Grant MacNeil: My chief interest is in the ferries operating from Vancouver to North Vancouver, and through the First Narrows to West Vancouver. The minister must appreciate that the navigation of those waters is extremely dangerous, particularly in foggy weather. We must assure the travelling public that men in charge of such vessels have the highest qualifications. I should like to have some assurance from the minister that the most rigid and highest possible standard of qualifications will be maintained in issuing certificates to masters and mates in such vessels. May I point out that because of the dangers of navigation through the First Narrows it would seem quite as important to have well qualified mates as to have masters with those high qualifications. Particularly is that so when they are confronted with the extraordinary conditions of navigation which face them in the First Narrows in time of fog.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assure the hon. member that those qualifications will be observed.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister considered whether or not it might be preferable to use the expression "smooth waters" instead of "sheltered waters." After all, this question is of vital importance to us on the Pacific coast, because most of the mainland coast might be considered as Sheltered by Vancouver island or the Queen Charlotte islands. Then, we have very large inlets, which are really great arms of the sea. I think the expression "sheltered waters" is too wide. "Smooth waters" would be much better. I suggest that this provision is particularly important as it applies to the waters around the city of Vancouver, because there are many thousands of people travelling on those waters. The situation is quite different from that in Comox-Alberni where people will know those operators who understand boats and those who do not. On the other hand many people will be carried as passengers on the ferries operating around Vancouver, believing that they are protected by government regulations and are being transported by duly qualified men. I would suggest using the expression "smooth waters" instead of "sheltered waters," and considering the possibility of deleting the word "inlets." It is a really serious question on the Pacific coast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It makes no difference what we call them. We declare what they are by law. In England it is the practice to call them smooth waters, while in Canada and in the United States it is customary to call them minor waters. But they are neither one nor the other unless they are so declared by departmental regulations. It does not matter whether they are sheltered or not; if they are declared sheltered by the department, they come under those regulations.


Howard Charles Green: Then, it is not the intention of the minister to declare as sheltered waters the large inlets on the Pacific coast?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, not at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I have in mind a matter which should be considered in connection with this bill. To a great extent the Canada Shipping Act has been copied from the British Shipping Act, but there is a great difference between Canadian shipping and British shipping. The British Isles are in the middle of the Atlantic ocean-


Harry James Barber: When were they moved?


Jean-François Pouliot: They are not in the
middle, but they are in the Atlantic ocean.

Canada Shipping Act

In Canada we have an entirely different situation, because we have inland navigation. For these reasons amendments concerning minor waters are of great importance. A certificate is required from captains, and in the issuance of such certificates the experience of the captain in matters of navigation should be the chief concern. When it is proved satisfactorily that a man has been in charge of a boat in such minor waters of Canada for several years, and he has shown his competence as a captain, I do not see why his certificate should be refused on technical grounds.
There is another point to consider, something which in my mind is just as important as the competence of the captain in charge of the ship. My point is that in inland waters where navigation takes place there should be lights on all wharves. May I bring anew to the attention of the minister the following facts: One of those minor waters of Canada is lake Temiscouata, a body of water twenty-seven miles long and a mile and a quarter wide. On the lake there are five wharves, and back of it, in the back country there are many settlements. To reach those settlements one must cross the lake, first from Cabano to Squatteck, and, second, from Notre Dame du Lac to St. Juste du Lac. In connection with the latter point there are two wharves, one being at St. Juste du Lac and the other at Route Centrale. Navigation is more difficult because there are no lights on those wharves. So much money is expended by the government that I suggest lights should be put on those wharves to facilitate navigation at night. I see the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) in his seat. He is familiar with the geography of that part of the country, and I say to him that if the government is ready to spend a lot of money for delivering mail in the winter time to people who live far away, I do not see why there should not be better facilities for those people who have to cross the lake. As I said previously, there are two ferry services, one between Cabano and Squatteck for the settlement of Squatteck and for people in other settlements east of Squatteck in both Temiscouata and Rimouski constituencies. The nearest doctors are at Cabano, Notre Dame du Lac and St. Louis, west and north of lake Temiscouata. They have to cross the lake to reach those people, and at the present time there are no lights on any of those wharves. When I asked the minister to see to it that lights should be put there, his answer was that nobody would have accepted the position of wharfinger last year. There is a very good reason for that, and it is because all the traffic there is done by the
[Mr. Pouliot.l
settlers, who carry away all their products at once and leave nothing on the wharf. They cannot pay any wharfage charges at all, and no remuneration can be expected from that wharf because the storage amounts to nothing. May I ask the minister if he will kindly see to it that lights are put on those wharves at the expense of the Department of Marine in order to facilitate navigation in minor waters like lake Temiscouata?
May I -also say to the minister that the same thing can be said of the channel between Notre Dame de 1'Isle Verte and the mainland. There are not enough lights on the wharves at Isle Verte and none at Notre Dame de lisle Verte. It is an island on which there are several people; in fact, there is a parish, and the people are engaged in fishing. There are two wharves, the eastern and western wharves, at Notre Dame de 1'Isle Verte, and there are very small lights. There should be lights across -also. In conclusion, may I ask the minister to see to it that lights are put on all those wharves which serve inland navigation?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I hesitate to take up any
more time of the committee, but I wish to impress upon the minister that this is a matter of vital importance to many people along the north shore of Burrard inlet, and we feel that so-me greater measure of protection should be given to the travelling public no matter what the size of the vessel may be.
We are particularly vitally concerned as to how these waters may be classified. The minister was good enough to give me some information, but I am still not clear about the matter. He states that these waters must be actually sheltered. That term may be applicable to the waters further north, but not to Burrard inlet, and particularly the waters adjacent to the First Narrows, where there are the dangers of heavy seas, congested sea-going traffic, and fog- The minister also states that it could reasonably be said that Vancouver harbour east of Prospect point-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend permit
me to interrupt? I had forgotten where Point Atkinson was. Only that part of Burrard inlet east of the First Narrows, is considered sheltered waters, so my hon. friend may disregard the part outside the First Narrows.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Reference has been made
to the Canadian Merchant Service Guild. I know the members of this guild. It is comprised largely of the deck officers of coastal vessels and ferries plying in and out of the harbour of Vancouver, the very men who are most familiar with the hazards of

Caiuida Shipping Act
navigation in that area and who have to take the risk of meeting other craft in charge of inexperienced masters. I think the evidence submitted by this guild should not be disregarded, however expert a knowledge the technical officers of the department may possess. The guild say in their statement to the minister:
We desire to bring to your attention that under the provisions of such an act all the coast of British Columbia, with the exception of a few comparatively short reaches, could be classed as minor waters, which would leave the way open to abuses which could be far-reaching and very dangerous to the sea-borne travelling public; in fact it could be construed in such a manner that the whole effect of the Shipping Act relating to the qualifications and experience necessary to operate coasting vessels would be nullified.
Undoubtedly the act would be administered while the present local officials and administration are in office more in accordance with the intent than the letter of the act, but we think that now is the time to protect and safeguard the future and if possible avoid an undesirable precedent.
You can readily see that, under the provisions of the proposed amendment, Bill 53, the inlets which might, or might not, be classed as minor waters would depend on the opinion of the minister in office, and as it is not likely that successive ministers would always hold the same opinion in this regard, certain inlets might be classed for a period as "minor" and again as "coastal" waters, with the result that there would be detrimental confusion, and it would create continued controversy, with the resultant annoyance to the department officials and all other interested parties.
As a case in point, the harbour of Vancouver, for some unknown reason, was illegally declared a minor inland water about twenty years ago, with the result that this automatically entitled men, whose experience on board a vessel might have been confined almost exclusively to collecting fares, to obtain minor water certificates and to take charge of passenger vessels carrying sometimes as many as five hundred passengers per trip, plying across waters where there is continually a heavy traffic of all kinds of craft, including many ocean liners and fast coastal vessels, under which conditions we consider the highest qualifications and experience is essential.
We do not think it is necessary to elaborate on the seriousness of such a situation in the event of an emergency, such as a collision, and the importance of proper training and experience where the lives of passengers are at stake.
Another view we take is that as long as a person or company complies with the letter of the law, they could successfully contest any action taken to prevent them from so operating.	*
We strongly urge that paragraph one of Bill 53 be withdrawn, as we consider it dangerous, for the reason that it could be construed to permit men without the necessary experience in these coastal waters to operate large passenger vessels almost anywhere on this coast.
It appears to us that the reason for the proposal to have "sheltered arms of the sea" classed as "minor" waters is to overcome the difficulty of providing for certificates for small
12739-234 }
vessels carrying passengers and mail in some of our inlets. It seems to us that this has been, or could be, taken care of through the fact that it is proposed to create a new class of certificate for "steamship licensed as a ferry." Subsection P, paragraph 3, Bill 53.
These small boats could be classed as ferries and the rules could provide for certificates valid for ferries of over fifteen gross tons and for ferries under fifteen gross tons, respectively.
They go on to say:
We are firmly of the opinion that only responsible and experienced persons should be allowed to be in charge of a vessel carrying passengers for hire or gain, no matter how small the vessel may be, as it is. known that a number of these boats measured to register 4-90 to 4-99 gross tons frequently have as many as forty, or even more, passengers on board, crossing dangerous waters, in charge of only one youth employed by the owners of these vessels to act in the dual capacity of master and engineer. These youths apparently do not understand the risks they are taking, and it is safe to say, seldom have even a rudimentary knowledge of the rules of the road, nor could they be expected to handle an emergent condition such as a collision, or sinking as a result of overloading or stress of weather. Under the present laws such a person has nothing to lose and is not responsible to any marine authority.
We think that our suggestion that a certificate be provided for vessels of fifteen or twenty ross tons and under is the solution to this eretofore difficult matter, and should not work a hardship on anyone, while at the same time it would provide reasonable protection for the men, women and scores of children who often use this class of craft for transportation, sometimes over a distance of twenty miles, or more, across treacherous waters, they apparently having little or no understanding of the danger.
I submit that evidence coming from this source should be given great weight. I know the members of the guild have given this legislation and their brief their very earnest consideration, and are anxious to serve only the public interest and the public safety in this matter. I should add, in conclusion, that there is no longer any difficulty in securing certificated masters of the required standard and qualifications for work of this kind. Plenty of them are available for employment. I see no reason why this classification should apply in such a way as to lower the qualifications of masters or mates in charge of passenger carrying vessels.


Alan Webster Neill: I had not intended again to take part in this debate, but I really cannot allow some of the statements that have been made to go on the record without protest. We all know of the guild referred to by the hon. members and it would seem that either they do not understand the situation or else they are making a very ex parte statement. The association to which the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) referred
Canada Shipping Act

is an association of masters and mates. The members of this guild are quite naturally and properly looking after their own interests. Their interests are to see that a master and a mate are on every boat that goes out of a harbour on any occasion, but I do not know that we all look at this matter from their point of view. This will not mean that there will be more of them employed; it means that there will be fewer of them employed. That seems a broad statement to make, but it will work out like this: The law is and always has been that any vessel up to five tons does not require any certificated officer; anyone can take it out. Several of these small boats serve points where a man or a woman going to market wants to cross with three dozen eggs or something like that. Such a traffic will not stand a certificated master and mate. What would happen? They will get a boat of 4-9 tons and jam it full with all the people they can get on. The new provisions in the bill are intended to help to preserve the safety of life because men will be encouraged to use larger boats. I have heard men say that if it were possible to get a temporary certificate for a boat larger than five tons, they would build a bigger and safer boat with more powerful engines. Men will be encouraged to go after these temporary certificates and then they will be able to run larger and safer boats.
The hon. member has referred to a boy who usually takes up tickets being placed in charge of a boat carrying 500 passengers. Section 123 of the act describes who shall get temporary certificates, and it states that they shall be limited to people in charge of a boat carrying twelve passengers or under. That is what the section says, but 500 passengers has a much more pathetic sound. It is also limited to boats of twenty tons, not 8,000 tons. As the minister says, these boats are not going to be entrusted to someone who knows nothing but the taking up of tickets. The regulations call for an eye test, a hearing test, a colour blindness test, a knowledge of the rules of the road and some knowledge of signals.
Much has been said about the necessity of having a navigator to handle a boat in fogs, that there should be a man in charge capable of taking the boat anywhere in this hemisphere. During the war a lot of men from the Pacific coast served on the merchant ships taking troops to the old country. It was remarked by British seamen, than whom there are no finer or more expert in the world, how these men from the Pacific coast were able to find their way in total darkness. This was done by what is known as catching the echo. They would blow their whistle and then they

could tell from how long it took the echo to come back just where they were. Apparently this method is not studied on the other side and it was considered to be a very remarkable thing.
During the last campaign I had occasion to travel some fifteen miles at night in a fog so dense that I would have preferred to stay where I was. However I was very anxious to get away and the fog was so thick that when we had got ten yards from a wharf where there was a steamer of perhaps 9,000 tons, very brightly lighted, we could not see it. The man in charge of the boat upon which I was travelling probably did not have a master's ticket, but he knew every yard, so to speak, of those waters. He carried us along in good time without slackening speed except when there was danger of running into fishing nets. In a fog as bad as anything I have ever seen on the coast he landed us at the exact place we wanted to land. He was able to do this because he was familiar with this echo system. He could catch the echo and he knew when he had reached a certain place. He could make a turn when he should make a turn. That sort of local knowledge is worth far more than the ability to shoot the sun. When you are crossing a bay five miles in width you do not need to be able to shoot the sun.
The minister has told us that this practice has been in use for twenty-seven years and that at the present time there are not more than five temporary certificates on the Pacific coast. Apparently this practice has been going on illegally under a misapprehension, and it is now proposed to make the thing legal. I do not think there is any real danger such as has been suggested. The same men who have prescribed these regulations for inland or safe waters during all these years will presumably continue along the same lines. If we are going to be so fussy about these things, let us devote ourselves to something more practicable. Under section 133 of the act, a pleasure yacht does not need any master or mate. Any millionaire can put on a white cap with gold braid on it and call himself a captain. He very soon promotes himself to commodore. He can take his friends aboard and can sink the whole lot of them without any restriction whatever. He can ram a fishing boat or any other boat, but because his boat is a pleasure yacht he does not need to be a qualified captain. It does not matter whether his boat is five tons or 500 tons, he is free to go where he likes and do anything he likes. He does not need to have even

Canada Shipping Act
a boatswain on board. We might better deal with these questions instead of these other petty matters.
I can assure hon. members that instead of having certificated masters and mates on these boats making these short trips, they will not use boats of any size at all. They will be forced to use boats of 4-9 tons, and I know from personal experience that that size of boat is very uncomfortable when the water is a little rough. I give full credence to the good intentions of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) and the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). I have the greatest regard for this particular guild and I have fought their battles in this house when I thought they were right. However, they are looking at things very much from their own point of view and I am sure they will not be deprived of any means of livelihood by this amendment. It will only give the travelling public a safer means of travel.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention of the
minister to use temporary certificates, or will he make the men who operate these boats in minor waters get proper certificates under the act? Apparently there is quite a difference in the test which they have to pass. If they will all be working under temporary certificates, that would not seem to be a very sound practice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) was arguing on the principle that they had to get ordinary certificates. As I say, only five temporary certificates have been granted on the Pacific coast.


Howard Charles Green: It is not the minister's intention to grant a lot of temporary certificates?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What qualifications will
be required for mates? W'e have had some serious accidents around the First Narrows at Vancouver and I think it is very important that there should be efficient mates.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Boats navigating through the First Narrows at Vancouver must carry masters and mates with deep sea certificates. They must have at least home trade certificates, which is an entirely different matter from a minor water certificate. In future a man with a minor water certificate could not go through the First Narrows at Vancouver without breaking the law.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What qualifications would be required for mates on the ferries operating from Vancouver to North Vancouver across Burrard inlet?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Practically the same regulations that I have described. That is, they must have their sight and hearing, tested; they must know the rules of the road; they must have an elementary knowledge of seamanship and must have had a course in reading the compass. In addition, the examiners of the department pay particular attention to licences with regard to ferries on minor waters. They are reluctant to give any man a licence for a ferry unless he is very well qualified.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Am I right in assuming
that the qualifications required of these men are lower than those required of men serving as mates on ships in home trade waters?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I do not wish to take
issue with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, particularly with reference to navigation in waters within his constituency. I have reference to conditions in and around the harbour of Vancouver, where men in navigating through a fog must not only utilize the echo signal system but have an expert knowledge of navigation and be able to find their way by compass reckoning and have an accurate knowledge of the charts and tidal conditions for that area. It is with particular reference to waters in and adjacent to Vancouver that we are concerned.


Angus MacInnis: There has been considerable discussion on this point. I think the minister should give serious consideration to the matter before the bill passes-


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may interrupt the hon.
gentleman, perhaps I can shorten the discussion. My hon. friend from Vancouver North described exactly the knowledge which men in these different categories are required to have. The difference is that the man with the home trade certificate must have greater knowledge than one holding a minor waters certificate. He must use the sextant to shoot the sun, and must have much of the knowledge that a deep sea certificate calls for. Surely it is not necessary to shoot the sun in crossing an inlet.


Charles Grant MacNeil: We have had some accidents that have caused us some alarm even in the North Vancouver ferry service.


Angus MacInnis: If the minister will turn to the hon. gentleman just behind him he
Canada Shipping Act

will give the information with regard to the difficulties of navigating in the entrance and in the harbour of Vancouver. Last year there was an accident in the First Narrows. One of the West Vancouver ferry boats was sunk and life was lost.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They did not have the
minor waters certificate.


Angus MacInnis: Were the certificates
thej had higher than those of minor officers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, home trade certificates.


Angus MacInnis: This section leaves very
wide powers in the hands of the minister. As the Canadian Merchant Service Guild pointed out, while these powers may be very well administered we have had difficulties in this regard before and may have difficulties again. I would give a great deal of consideration to the recommendation made by the Canadian Merchant Service Guild for the reason that, in connection with the amendments which are before us in this bill, this is the only point with respect to which they suggest there should be a change. They say very wisely that the rest of the bill could be allowed to pass without serious discussion and we could wait and see how it worked out, but that considering there is a principle involved here this should not be allowed to pass in its present form. I submit that the minister should give some attention to this matter, for it is of considerable importance. Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Grades of certificates of competency.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: In order to bring the bill into conformity with the reprinted copy I move that the bill be amended by the insertion of a clause to be numbered clause 3, substituting for clause 3 in the present bill the following:
3.	Paragraph (b) of subsection one of section one hundred and thirteen of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
"(h) Ships solely employed in fishing, and other ships principally engaged in fishing not exceeding one hundred and fifty tons gross tonnage, not carrying passengers, and employed on the waters within the area within which a home trade voyage may be made."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will explain what it means.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This means that fishing boats are exempt. This allows the fishing boats to do a little freighting in the off season.
[Mr. Maclnnis.l


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not passengers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Requirements for certificates of service as masters and mates.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In conformity with the reprinted bill I move that the bill be amended by substituting, for the present clause 4, clause 3 in the present bill, reading:
4.	Subsection four of section one hundred and fifteen of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
"(4) In the other grades certificates may be granted for the following classes:-
(a)	Steamship;
(b)	Cargo steamship;
(c)	Tug;
(d)	Sailing ship;
(e)	Fore-and-aft rigged sailing ship;
(f)	Steamship licensed as a ferry."
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Requirements for certificates of service as masters of certain non-passengers steamships.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In conformity with the reprinted bill, I move that there be substituted for the present clause 5 the following:
5.	Paragraph (b) of section one hundred and sixteen of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor: -
"(b) The holder of a home trade certificate, on waters within the limits of home trade, provided that the minister may, in his discretion, authorize the holder of such certificate to act as master or mate, as the case may be, of a sailing ship or a sailing ship fitted with auxiliary power, making voyages from places on the Atlantic coast of Canada to places in the West Indies."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister not think that the government is going rather far in this? Let it be remembered that this is a standard act. Perhaps I might recite briefly the history of the act. The general form of it was settled by the preceding administration. We employed counsel and drafted a bill which I toiok to England. I asked that the advisers of the crown on the shipping side go into it and make such suggestions as they thought would be helpful to us. This is a section the value of which we are destroying, leaving it to the minister to exercise a discretion that never, never was intended Should be exercised. I shall not go into the matter at length beyond saying this. There are two forms of certificates in the statutes. One is a certificate of competency, which is a man's ticket obtained by service and examination. The other, as will be observed, is

Canada Shipping Act
not a ticket of competency; it is a temporary certificate known as a certificate of service. That depends upon his having served a period of time during a preceding number of years in a capacity for which he now seeks to obtain a certificate, but he has to undergo an examination.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I interrupt my right hon. friend for a moment; I think he is on the wrong section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. What the minister is doing is amending section 116. No notice was given of this. It is not in the bill; it is not in the votes and proceedings, and it vitally affects-	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are inserting this in place of another section 116; that section comes in later on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the section the minister is inserting in its place is an entirely different one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But we have the old section 116 in there as well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly; I have section 116 before me, providing for the rights of holders of certificates. There are the four certificates, foreign-going, home trade, inland water and minor waters certificates. I was out of the chamber for a moment, but when we were dealing with the preceding section I was going to point out to the minister that there is nothing with reference to the physical ability of the man, his ability to see and to observe colours and signals. Surely that is of first consideration, but I notice that it is not in the bill. This is not a reflection upon the minister, of course-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is in the regulations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point exactly; it is in the regulations, but the other factors that are in the statute cannot be modified by ministerial regulations. Doubtful cases of this sort sometimes warrant the old maxim that bad cases make bad law, and cases of hardship sometimes make very bad administration, especially in a democracy. The point I am making at the moment in this connection, however, is that we should not go too far in our endeavour to meet cases that come to our attention. You cannot generalize in order to meet particular cases. I know that two years ago, when we passed this statute, cases were urged upon us, and we felt that when we provided for a man having satisfactory service for a period of one year during the ten years prior to 1931, we were going as far as we could within reason. I notice that in the new section the date has been made January 1, 1936.
In other words, if at any time since January 1, 1926, the man is able to prove that he has been a year in any of the several classes of service mentioned; if he has certificates,- issued under the regulations but not under the statute,-as to sobriety when he has been on board, as to satisfactory vision and ability to discern and read signals, and if he passes the prescribed examination he may get a certificate of service, which is not one of competency. It does not permit him, fortunately, under some of the sections, to be in charge of vessels that have to do with passengers, except in a very limited sense. Without following the matter up at any greater length for the time being, I suggest that we are going rather a long distance by placing in the hands of the minister a discretion which I think he himself would be the first to wish he did not possess. This is a new provision, as my hon. friend beside me notes, as far as the discretion is concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might say that there is always a little hardship in changing regulations. Today the possessor of a home trade certificate can go as far south as the fortieth parallel, which takes him well down in South America. We are changing the law and limiting him now to voyages as far south as cape Hatteras. It has been represented to us that there are not more than about five boats that make occasional trips to the West Indies which would be concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What class of boats?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sailing boats, or boats
carrying sails and auxiliary powers. It is a temporary situation, and in order to avoid hardship in those few instances we felt that for the time being they should not be cut off overnight.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Load line ships.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have
an amendment to this section.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is moved by Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) that Bill No. 53 be amended by substituting, for the present section 6, section 4 in the present bill, reading as follows:
6.	The first seven lines of section one hundred and eighteen of the said act are repealed and the following are substituted
therefor:.-*
"118. Every British subject who

(1) served as a master or mate of a foreign-going or home trade sailing ship of over seventy-five tons, gross tonnage, before the first day of January, one thousand^ nine hundred and thirty-six, for a full period of
Canada Shipping Act

twelve months within ten years immediately preceding the date of his application for a certificate of service;"


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is just as it is now in the statute?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only change is the year, bringing it up to date. It has been brought up to date from time to time. I think the first year inserted was 1870, if I am not mistaken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the former act made it 1931. I have not had time to satisfy myself on the point, but I think that is done throughout the empire. I think that matter should be looked into, because it will be remembered that the statute was not passed until 1934, and we made the date January 1, 1931. I had an impression that this provision, 1931, prevailed in other countries as well as our own. We did not make it January 1, 1934; we made it 1931. That was the year from which the time was counted. As the matter stands now, we have added greatly to our numbers having added five years, or half the originally specified period. We are now going back to 1926 as the year; we are therefore conferring a right which the original statute had no intention of conferring when the limit was made the first day of January, 1931.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I point out to my right hon. friend that the section says "prior to."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, of course; ten years prior to that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The nearer the date the more expert the man; would that not be so? I am told that the explanation for 1931 having been inserted in the act of 1934 is that that date was carried over from the act as last revised. In other words, it was carried into the 1934 act more or less in error. It should have been brought up to date in 1934, because it has been the custom of the department to advance the date by revising the act from time to time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it has no universal,
application I am satisfied.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7-Application of load line provisions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have
an amendment to section 7, to make it conform to the reprinted bill.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is moved by Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) that Bill No. 53 be amended by substituting, for the present section 7, section 5 in the present bill, reading as follows:
[The Chairman.]
7.	The said act is further amended by inserting after section one hundred and eighteen the following section:-
"118a. livery British subject who-
(a)	served as a master of a home-trade sailing ship of over seventy-five tons, gross tonnage, or steamship of over ten tons, gross tonnage, or served as a master of an inland waters or minor waters sailing ship of over twenty tons, gross tonage, or steamship of over ten tons, gross tonnage, before the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six, for a full period of twelve months within the ten years immediately preceding the date of his application for a certificate of service;
(b)	produces satisfactory evidence of his sobriety, experience, ability and general good conduct on board ship; and
(c)	passes the prescribed examination; shall be entitled, on payment of the prescribed fee. and according to the waters served in, to either a home-trade, inland waters or minor waters certificate of service as master of a steamship of over ten tons, gross tonnage, and not exceeding one hundred and fifty tons, gross tonnage, and not carrying passengers. Such certificate shall not be valid on tugs."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I direct the minister's
attention to the fact that this is an entirely new section, and introduces an entirely new principle with respect to this particular class of ship. But its safety lies in the fact that it precludes the handling of passengers, on the one hand, and tugboats on the other. Nevertheless I put this to the minister as a suggestion; if I were practising my profession and had a man whose physical condition might not be very good, I would compel the issue of a certificate if he had passed the examination and had these other qualifications, for in the section there is not a single reference to a regulation. It prescribes the conditions precedent to his obtaining the certificate-of service, not of competency- and there is no mention of physical condition.


Alan Webster Neill: It says that he must pass an examination.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it does not say
physical examination. The examination is a prescribed examination. I feel quite certain, because there are authorities on the point, that where conditions are laid down in a statute and there has been compliance with them, the man's rights have accrued. This does not safeguard the minister, neither does the other section, and it is perhaps responsible for some of the difficulties that have arisen. It is no good to point out that the regulations may be made in this way or that; these are the conditions laid down by which a man gets a certificate of service, and if he has complied with them he is entitled to the certificate. I suggest that something further should be added, such as "and complies with the regulations of the department"; that he passes

Canada Shipping Act
the prescribed examination and otherwise complies with the regulations-are they regulations of the minister?-the regulatidns, whatever they are.
I have said all I intend to say; it is a matter of indifference to me.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my right hon. friend will look at page 118 of the 1934 act he will find that is taken over without change.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that; it is bad in that act too. That is what made it clear to me that the act as it stands does not contemplate regulations entering into the matter; it is purely compliance with conditions, and upon the fulfilment of those conditions the right accrues. It is because the minister has been advised that the regulations govern that we should say "and complies with the regulations of-" I do not know whose they are.


Mr. REID:: In this new section, where it says, "such certificates shall not be valid on tugs," does that mean that if a man serves on a tugboat that service does not count for a certificate as master or mate?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no certificate of
service for a tug. He must have other qualifications than the fact that he has been running on tugs.


Thomas Reid: What is going to happen?
We have large tugs in the Fraser river, and the men are very competent, after years of service and navigation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely they have certificates.


Thomas Reid: Not necessarily; they may
start as deck hands.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Certain ships exempted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have an amendment to clause 8. I move:
. That Bill No. 53 be amended by inserting in place of the present clause 8 a clause reading as follows:-
8.	Paragraph (b) of subsection one of section one hundred and twenty-two of the said act is repealed and the following substituted
therefor:-
"(b) a steamship of not more than thirty-five tons, gross tonnage, employed in fishing operations (including the carrying of fishermen, their wives and children, and fish and fishing supplies used in connection with their operations) plying within specified limits on the inland waters of Canada or on waters on the sea coasts of Canada."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That, Mr. Chairman, of
course confers upon the minister the right to issue a temporary certificate based upon
experience and knowledge, but it does not prescribe any method by which the minister is to satisfy himself concerning that. Now we are extending it beyond its reasonable limits by applying it to the sea coast waters of Canada. We observe that it involves the lives of passengers, because the wife and children of the fisherman can be carried in the ship. It is a pretty loose sort of certificate, based upon experience and knowledge. It reminds me of the method once reported by a distinguished minister of the crown who went up to be admitted to the bar of Ontario. He was met at the station by the treasurer of the law society who on the way up asked him, "What do you know about the laws of Ontario?" The minister replied, "Nothing at all," with a few more genial words. The treasurer said, "That satisfies me that I can certify that you possess the requisite knowledge to be admitted."
The minister will experience just that sort of thing. The certificate is excessively loose, and inland waters are defined as all these little series of lakes, from Superior and Michigan down to St. Peter's.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was in the old act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does my hon. friend
mean the one before 1934? It was not in the 1934 act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; we have simply added
the words "on the waters of the sea coasts of Canada."


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a vastly different
thing to deal with the seaboard of the Atlantic or Pacific ocean, and from permitting passengers to be carried, namely, the family.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They carry them anyway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly the
reason I prefer not to give the sanction of the law to the practice. In the one instance the minister will be charged with dereliction of duty; in the other he simply says: They violated the statute and are the authors of their own injury.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9-If not propelled by steam power.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have
an amendment to section 9.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say in explanation,
in connection with sections 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, that we asked the Department of Justice to help us straighten out the legal position regarding penalties to pilots. There was a difficulty that there was no provision permit-
Canada Shipping Act

ting the disciplining of a pilot by the pilotage authorities. They found the provisions regarding pilots very badly worded so we straightened out all the pertinent sections at the same time. There are no material changes except that the department is allowed to discipline pilots for minor offences, as they do at present.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move:
That Bill No. 53 be amended by inserting in place of the present clause 8 a clause reading as follows:-
9.	Paragraph (f) of section three hundred and nineteen of the said act is amended by adding the following:-
"and without restricting the generality of the foregoing make regulations with respect to every licensed pilot or apprentice pilot who, either within or without the district for which he is licensed,-
(i)	lends his licence; Or
(ii)	acts as pilot or apprentice pilot whilst suspended; or
(iii)	acts as pilot or apprentice pilot while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs, while on duty or about to go on duty; or
(iv)	is guilty of insubordination, misbehaviour, or malingering, or who pilots a vessel beyond the limits of the pilotage district without the consent of the pilotage authority; or
(v)	refuses or delays, when not prevented by illness or other reasonable cause, proof of which to the satisfaction of the pilotage authority shall lie on him, to take charge of any ship within the limits of his licence, upon the signal for a pilot being made by such ship, or upon being required so to do by the master, owner, agent or consignee thereof, or by any officer of the pilotage authority of the district for which such pilot is licensed, or by any chief officer of customs; or
(vi)	refuses, when requested by the master to conduct the ship on board of which he is into any port or place into which he is licensed to conduct the same, except on reasonable ground of danger to the ship; or
(vii)	quits the ship which he has undertaken to pilot, before the service for which he was hired has been performed, without the consent of the master."


Richard Bedford Bennett: This will not modify the obligations imposed by the pilotage authority to act by by-law. The by-law is to be approved by the governor in council, and this extends the powers. This does not permit the simple procedure of making regulations in the sense of just making them; it must be by by-law. The section contains this expression, "shall, within its district, 'have power from time to time, by by-law confirmed by the governor in council." If that is perfectly clear, I have no objection.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I do not wish to delay the committee, but I belong to that school of thought which abhors the process of putting the burden of proof on the accused.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member has defended too many prisoners.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I suggest that paragraph (v) should not contain this expression, "proof of which to the satisfaction of the pilotage authority shall lie on him."


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no change in that wording.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I understand that, but a custom has grown up through which we have adopted the French criminal law. It is an easy process to put a man in the dock and say to him; You are guilty, prove yourself innocent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who could prove a pilot was ill, except the pilot himself.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: There are many cases mentioned, in addition to illness. The section refers to "other reasonable cause," and other offences are enumerated. They are run together, separated only by the word "or." The proof is put on the pilot. The good old British fashion is that if you charge a man with a wrong ytou must prove it. In these cases, however, we shift the burden, and this is a process which seems to have become very popular not only in this parliament, but in the legislatures. I protest against it.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-Duties of courts, et cetera, re British ships not registered in Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move:
That section 10 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
10.	Paragraph (g) of section three hundred and nineteen of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor: -
(g)	"make rules for punishing any breach of any regulation made pursuant to the provisions of this section by penalty or by the withdrawal or suspension of the licence or certificate of the person guilty of such breach and notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this act, impose, recover and enforce any such punishment."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister look at the proposed new section, and then turn his attention to section 11, and the proposed new section 320. The same power is therein conferred, namely,-
Every pilotage authority may, by by-law made according to the provisions of this part of this act, provide for the imposition of a fine not exceeding in any case Two hundred dollars for the breach of such by-law, and may further so provide that suspension or dismissal at the discretion of the pilotage authority may ensue.
That refers to the dismissal of the man himself. The early part of the new section 10

Canada Shipping Act
(g) is merely a repetition of what occurs in section 320 as rewritten, but deals with the certificate that the pilot must render on dismissal. But in both cases the by-law is essential. I think there is some contradiction in terms. Section 320 covers the situation in all cases, except with respect to individual pilots' licences.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We found the earlier act much involved, and we left it to the law officers of the crown to straighten out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then, if this is what they gave you, they will have to take the responsibility.


Alan Webster Neill: This is the principle I objected to last year in connection with another bill. In this instance we are handing over authority to make penalties and to create offences to some body which is not legislative in character. Apparently they have not even to be O.-K'd by the governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; they have to be
approved by the governor in council.


Alan Webster Neill: Presumably the pilotage
authorities are pilots. They may have no legal training and may not have the best training to draw up regulations and make penalties. Like my hon. friend next to me, I object to handing over to some other body a wide-open door authority to create offences and to impose penalties.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that the pilotage
authority is the minister.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought it was a local
body in the provinces.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it is the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But with respect to
section 319 it is a local pilotage authority.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; but the pilotage authority for Canada is the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, for Canada.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-Repeal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move:
That section 11 of the bill be deleted, and the following substituted therefor:
11.	Section three hundred and twenty of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
"320. Every pilotage authority may, by bylaw made according to the provisions of this part of this act, provide for the imposition of a fine not exceeding in any case two hundred dollars for the breach of such by-law, and may further so provide that suspension or dismissal at the discretion of the pilotage authority may ensue."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the proposed section 320 been generally agreed upon by the mercantile nations of the world?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is my understanding.
There has been no change in the act of 1934. This is simply to sort it out and make it more readable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In this instance we are
putting on a limitation of $200. Section 355 states:
A pilot deprived of his licence or suspended or condemned to pay a penalty for having caused damage to a ship shall not be entitled to any pilotage dues if the amount of such damage is equal to or exceeds that of such dues, or, if it is less, to more than the excess of the amount of such dues over that of such damage.
We are now placing a limitation upon the liability for damages. I have only this to say about it-and by the way, was this the opinion of the Department of Justice?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because the inference is
that this section which sets the measure of damages which may accrue is ultra vires, unless it is said to be ancillary to the exercise of shipping and pilotage. However, if the Department of Justice has made the ruling, I cannot say anything.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a section in the
British act which limits liabilities to $500; we have made it $300.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course they have no division of jurisdiction such as we have here.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 12-Coming into force.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move, Mr. Chairman, an amendment to section 12 to make it conform with the reprinted bill, as follows:
12.	Section three hundred and fifty-five of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:-
"(2) No pilot shall be personally liable in pecuniary damages beyond the amount of three hundred dollars for any damage or loss occasioned by his neglect or want of skill."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I doubt our ability to do this.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We had a case a short time ago where a pilot was sued for $3,000 damages, and had it not been for the fact that negligence was not proved the pilot would have been made to pay far more, of course, than he could afford. I think a man working for moderate fees should not put his entire fortune in jeopardy every time he acts as pilot.
Canada Shipping Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have some doubt about parliament having the power to enact this clause as it deals with property and civil rights. Undoubtedly, if it is ancillary to the powers relating to shipping, we would have the power, but when you say that the measure of damages shall be restricted by this parliament in a civil action brought under provincial jurisdiction where the legislature has complete control over matters of this kind, I think it would be difficult to say that it is ancillary to the powers relating to shipping.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I agree entirely with the leader of the opposition. I do not think it is competent for this parliament in this section to limit the amount of damages in case of damage or loss occasioned by a pilot's neglect or want of skill. I am quite convinced that it is entirely beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament to make that inroad upon "property and civil rights," and besides that, I think it is an unfair limitation. In section 11 you provide by the new section 320 for a maximum fine of $200 for a breach of an ordinary by-law, and it seems to me entirely disproportionate to say that the maximum amount to which any pilot shall be liable for damages occasioned by his want of skill or negligence should be limited to $300. I do not believe that you can put a limit on it at all because, as the leader of the opposition has pointed out, it is not necessary for the purpose of properly administering your authority in regard to shipping.
Section as amended agreed to.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move, Mr. Chairman, that, to conform with the reprinted bill, section 13 be added as follows:
13.	Subsection one of section three hundred and sixty-one of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
"361. (1) Every licensed pilot or apprentice pilot who, either within or without the district for which he is licensed,
(a)	commits any fraud or offence in respect of the revenues of Customs or Excise, or the laws relating thereto; or
(b)	is in any way directly or indirectly concerned in any corrupt practices relating to ships, their tackle, cargoes, crews or passengers, or to persons in distress at sea or by shipwreck, or to their moneys, goods or chattels; or
(c)	employs or causes to be employed on behalf of any ship of which he has the charge, any ship, boat, anchor, cable, or other store, matter or thing, beyond what is necessary for the service of such ship, with the intent to enhance the expenses of pilotage for his own gain, or for the gain of any other person; or
(d)	upon being signalled or required, attempts to make any special bargain for salvage; or

(e)	unnecessarily cuts or slips, or causes to be cut or slipped any cable belonging to any ship;
shall be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, and, in the event of a conviction, the proper pilotage authority may suspend or cancel the pilot's licence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The new words are "in the event of a conviction the proper pilotage authority may suspend or cancel the pilot's licence."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I understood from the minister a few minutes ago that the pilotage authority is the minister, but there is also a local pilot authority. Is it the practice in any of the ports where we have a pilotage authority to dispense with apprentice pilots?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have apprentice pilots nearly everywhere. There is authority to admit apprentices when required, but steps have to be taken to see that there are not too many pilots.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: There are no apprentice pilots in the port of Sydney; at least I am assured there are not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: they could have them if they were required.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I think there are no apprentice pilots permitted by regulation or by-law in Sydney harbour, and I was wondering why that regulation should exist.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister was in unconscious error with respect to the pilotage authority. Pilotage authority is defined by paragraph 70 of the interpretation clause of the Canada Shipping Act, as follows:
"Pilotage authority" means any existing pilotage authority and any persons authorized by the governor in council to appoint or licence pilots or fix or alter rates of pilotage; if the pilotage authority is the Minister of Marine, it includes the Deputy Minister of Marine.
The minister is not in all cases the pilotage authority. In many cases he is, but not on the St. Lawrence. They have one of their own, according to my recollection.


Charles Gavan Power: Two of their own, at Montreal and Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are separate. The minister is the pilotage authority in some other sections of the country but not in all. I cannot speak of the Pacific coast, but my memory is that he is not the pilotage authority there.

Canada Shipping Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: At least I sign the licences for all pilots on the St. Lawrence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move, Mr. Chairman, that to conform with the reprinted bill, section 14 be added as follows:
14.	Subsections one and two of section four hundred and twenty-three of the said act are repealed and the following are substituted therefor:-
"423. (1) For the purposes of this part of this act relating to load lines, ships of one hundred and fifty tons, gross tonnage, and upwards, which carry cargo or passengers between any place in Canada and any place not in Canada, or between any places not in Canada, which are not by subsections two or three of this section exempted from the provisions of this part of this act relating to load lines, shall hereafter be referred to as load line ships, and load line ships belonging to countries to which the load line convention applies shall hereafter be referred to as load line convention ships.
(2)	The provisions of this part of this act relating to load lines shall not apply to ships engaged solely in fishing or subject to the provisions of section four hundred and twenty-three A of this act to ships making voyages between Canada and the United States of America on any lakes or rivers."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the minister
upon reflection does not think this is a rather improper thing to do. You are doing away with the load line, which is Plimsoll's line, in connection with the carrying of passengers between ports in Canada and the United States and between one port in Canada and another. You have to read the two sections together:
423.	(1) For the purposes of this part of
this act relating to load lines, ships of one hundred and fifty tons, gross tonnage, and upwards, which carry cargo or passengers between any place in Canada and any place not in Canada, or between any places not in Canada, which are not by subsections two or three of this section exempted from the provisions of this part of this act relating to load lines, shall hereafter be referred to as load line ships, and load line ships belonging to countries to which the load line convention applies shall hereafter be referred to as load line convention ships.
Then:
(2) The provisions of this part of this act relating to load lines shall not apply to ships engaged solely in fishing-
That was the.law, and always has been:
-or subject to the provisions of section four hundred and twenty-three A of this act to ships making voyages between Canada and the United States of America on any lakes or rivers.
Then follows a description. This contemplates these boats carrying passengers, and the abrogation of the rule with respect to
the load line I feel quite certain would not be living up to the obligations that have been accepted by the other nations of the British commonwealth in matters of this kind. Apart from that, if the minister will look at this section and then at the succeeding one, he will see that it permits regulations to be made, and the part which I think we should consider a little more carefully is this:
"423a. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section the provisions of sections four hundred and twenty-three to four hundred and forty-three, both inclusive, of this act, in so far as they are applicable, shall have effect in respect of ships of one hundred and fifty tons, gross tonnage, and upwards, which carry cargo or passengers on voyages from any place in Canada to any other place in Canada or between Canada and the United States of America on any lakes or rivers: Provided that the provisions of subsections one and two of section four hundred and twenty-five of this act shall apply to a ship constructed after the thirtieth day of June nineteen hundred and thirty-six . ..
We can leave that, but these are the words that indicate what the conditions are:
-and provided that the governor in council may on such conditions as he thinks fit exempt from the provisions of this section ships plying on such voyages if he is satisfied that the sheltered nature and conditions of the voyages make it unreasonable or impracticable to apply the provisions of this section to ships so plying.
That is asking the minister to undertake a responsibility which I think no minister would be anxious to discharge. On the next page we have the conditions under which the recommendations are to be made and definitions of "salt water," "proceed to sea," and other definitions and regulations. The subsection with reference to local load line certificates reads:
A local load line certificate in lieu of a load line convention certificate provided for in subsection one of section four hundred and twenty-eight of this act shall be issued for the purposes of ships coming within the provisions of this section. Such local load line certificates shall be issued under like conditions as load line convention certificates are issued.
It is only my duty to point out that this is a very great departure from the general rule with reference to load line convention certificates that ships plying between Canadian and United States ports and carrying passengers and cargo have been compelled heretofore to observe. The mark made upon these ships is not of the same type as is made upon what are known as deep sea ships, but the certificate is of the same kind and is determined in the same manner. I should like to know just who asked for this change. Perhaps the minister could give us some indication of that and we might be able to have a fairer appreciation of things.
Canada Shipping Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my right hon. friend is quite mistaken about the purpose of this section. Section 14 is merely to clarify the old act. This section reads in part:
[DOT]-which carry cargo or passengers between any place in Canada and any place not in Canada.
The old act was indefinite. The purpose of the change is to provide that a boat, say, coming from the United States to Canada must also have this line.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We cannot compel
American boats to put on Plimsoll lines but we can refuse to clear them from our ports unless they have them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are making sure that they have them when they come back.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have no jurisdiction when they get their clearance from an American port, but when they reach our ports they cannot clear again unless they have a certificate as to the load line. It must be conceded that this parliament cannot confer jurisdiction over an American ship in Seattle, but it can confer jurisdiction over that ship once she is tied up at our docks. We can refuse to give her clearance to leave our port unless she has complied with our regulations with respect to load line.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I want to make it quite clear that this bill refers to Canadian boats. Should a Canadian boat go to an American port, we want to make it perfectly clear that before it leaves that American port for a Canadian port it must comply with the same load line regulation. That was not clear under the old act and the purpose of this amendment is to make it clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For a British ship.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Or a Canadian ship.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has not the federal government of the United States recently enacted load line regulations that go to some extent further than ours?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that ours is a little stiller than the load line law adopted by the Americans to apply to the inland waters.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that, to conform with the reprinted bill, section 15 be added as follows:
15.	The said act is further amended by inserting after section four hundred and twenty-three a new section as section four hundred and twenty-three A, as follows:
"423a. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section the provisions of sections four hundred and twenty-three to four hundred and forty-[Mr. I. Mackenzie.!
three, both inclusive, of this act, in so far as they are applicable, shall have effect in respect of ships of one hundred and fifty tons, gross tonnage, and upwards, which carry cargo or passengers on voyages from any place in Canada to any other place in Canada or between Canada and the United States of America on any lakes or rivers: Provided that the provisions of subsections one and two of section four hundred and twenty-five of this Act shall apply to a ship constructed after the thirtieth day of June nineteen hundred and thirty-six and a ship constructed before the first day of July nineteen hundred and thirty-six, respectively; and provided that the governor in council may on such conditions as he thinks fit exempt from the provisions of this section ships plying on such yoyages if he is satisfied that the sheltered nature and conditions of the voyages make it unreasonable or impracticable to apply the provisions of this section to ships so plying.
(2)	The governor in council may, in respect of ships employed in making such voyages on lakes or rivers, by regulation,

 _
(a)	make aplicable to such ships in lieu of the load line rules such rules as in his opinion may be safe having due regard to all the circumstances;
(b)	make special provision for ships not registered in Canada and which are not marked with load lines.
(3)	For the purposes of this section the expressions, "salt water" and "proceed to sea," shall, in respect of ships employed solely in making voyages on lakes or rivers, have the following meanings:-
(a)	"salt water" where used in this part of this act shall mean the water in which the ship is actually floating.
(b)	"proceed to sea" where used in this part of this act, shall mean proceding from one place to another place.
(4)	A local load line certificate in lieu of a load line convention certificate provided for in subsection one of section four hundred and twenty-eight of this act shall he issued for the purposes of ships coming within the provisions of this section. Such local load line certificates shall be issued under like conditions as load line convention certificates are issued."


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an entirely new section in the form in which it now appears.
I wonder if the minister will not agree with me that to place upon the minister the responsibility of lives in the way in which this section does is a responsibility that should not be placed upon any minister. The section reads:
-and provided that the governor in council may on such conditions as he thinks fit exempt from the provisions of this section ships plying on such voyages if he is satisfied that the sheltered nature and conditions of the voyages make it unreasonable or impracticable to apply the provisions of this section to ships so plying.
Subsection 3 reads:
For the purposes of this section the expressions, "salt water" and "proceed to sea," shall, in respect of ships employed solely in making voyages on lakes or rivers, have the following meanings:
Subsection 4 deals with the issuing of a local load line certificate. For the past few

Canada Shipping Act
years the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has been directing attention to what happens almost every year on the great lakes towards the close of navigation. In many instances these ships proceed to sea in an overloaded condition, and now we are going to say that this may be done legally if the minister satisfies himself that the sheltered nature of the voyage and other conditions are satisfactory.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is taken from the 1934 act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole of it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Entirely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I looked at it, but I shall look again.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be found on page 1700.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it is, that does not
make it any better; it makes it worse. This section is new.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is taken from the international convention and it is in the old act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The act reads:
The governor in council may, on such conditions as he thinks fit, exempt from the provisions of this part of this act relating to load lines,-
(a)	Any ship plying on international voyages between the near neighbouring places of two or more countries, if the governor in council and the governments of those countries are satisfied that the sheltered nature and conditions of the voyages make it unreasonable or impracticable to apply the provisions of this part of this act relating to load lines to ships so plying, and
(b)	Any ship plying on any other voyage between near neighbouring places if the governor in council is satisfied as aforesaid.
That is a vastly different thing from this section. If the minister thinks that the acceptance of this responsibility by the governor in council is adequate, I am not going to do any more than direct attention to the matter.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like an explanation
as to the dates mentioned in this section. I do not understand about a ship being built after June 30 and before July 1 of the same year; what does that mean?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A ship built before June 30
is considered as an existing ship, while one built after that date would be a new ship. There is to be no exemption whatever for new ships from the load line provisions, but there are exemptions in certain cases for existing ships.


Alan Webster Neill: This section states that the
provisions of subsections 1 and 2 of section
425 shall apply to a ship constructed after June 30, 1936, and a ship constructed before July 1, 1936. You will not build many ships between June 30 and July 1.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the Minister of
National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) does not want this amendment to carry. Look at what it says:
Provided that the provisions of subsections one and two of section four hundred and twenty-five of this act shall apply to a ship constructed after the thirtieth day of June nineteen hundred and thirty-six and a ship constructed before the first day of July nineteen hundred and thirty-six, respectively.
That means that it applies to ships constructed both before and after June 30; it applies to all ships.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that the only
change is in the date. In the old act it was 1932 and we have changed it to 1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does the minister
mean by the old act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Section 425 of the Canada
Shipping Act, 1934, reads:
No load line convention ship registered in Canada, being a ship constructed after the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, shall proceed to sea unless-
(a)	the ship has been surveyed by a steamship inspector in accordance with the load line rules; and
(b)	the ship complies with the conditions of assignment: and
(c)	the ship is marked on each side with a mark (hereafter in this act referred to as a "deck-line") indicating the position of the uppermost complete deck as defined by the load line rules, and with marks (hereafter in this act referred to as "load lines") indicating the several maximum depths to which the ship can be safely loaded in various circumstances prescribed by the load line rules,


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who is responsible for
urging this section?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is simply being brought
up to date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is far more than that; there is a substantive change in the law.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose is to make the
load lines applicable to the great lakes and to the coastal trade. It was not possible to do this without discriminating against our own people until the American government did it.


George Halsey Perley: The proviso
reads:
Provided that the provisions of subsections 1 and 2 of section 425 of this act shall apply to a ship constructed after the thirtieth day of June, 1936, and a ship constructed before the first day of July, 1936, respectively.
Canada Shipping Act

That is to say, it shall apply to all ships, to those constructed after the thirtieth of June and to those constructed before the first of July. In other words, they are both exactly the same, and there are two statements about the thirtieth of June and the first of July which are identical. There is some mistake in the wording, because as it stands it does not make sense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What happened is that
in the transcription of this a line has been left out: "Provided that the provisions of subsections 1 and 2 of section 425 of this act shall apply" to a ship constructed before the thirtieth day of June, 1936, and not to a ship constructed after the first day of July, 1936. That is what the minister said, in the light of the paragraph that has gone before. What you are doing is to make an exception in section 423A. Now you are adding a new section 423A. The minister explained a moment ago that we had made an arrangement with the United States, they having adopted an act generally similar, and that certainly clears up one difficulty. But it does not clear up the whole of it. The new section reads:
Subject to the provisions of this section, the provisions of sections 423 to 443, both inclusive, of this act, in so far as they are applicable, shall have effect in respect of ships of 150 tons, gross tonnage, and upwards, which carry cargo or passengers on voyages from any place in Canada to any other place in Canada or between Canada and the United States of America on any lakes or rivers.
That meets the difficulty to which the minister referred.
Provided that the provisions of subsections 1 and 2 of section 425 of this act

That is to say, subsections 1 and 2, to which reference has been made:
No load line convention ship registered in Canada, being a ship constructed after the thirtieth day of June, 1932-
It is now made 1936.

shall proceed to sea unless-
That is, unless certain conditions are fulfilled. That is clear up to 'that point, and that is what the minister intended to say. The section states that the provisions of the two subsections in question shall' apply to a jffiip constructed after the thirtieth day of June, 1936, and a ship constructed before the first day of July, 1936, respectively. "After the thirtieth day of June" and "before the first day of July" are the same thing.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I do not think there is any need for the two; you can make the dead line anywhere and cover both.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My officers have gone into the question in great detail and they assure me that the section is all right and that unless it reads as it stands it will not work.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: Subsection
1	of section 425 applies to any ship constructed after the thirtieth day of June, and subsection
2	applies to any ship constructed' before the first day of July, so that both subsections
1	and 2 apply to the same ships.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
word "respectively" applies to the different subsections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 425 provides that no load line convention ship registered in Canada, constructed after the thirtieth day of June, Shall proceed to sea unless certain conditions have been complied with, and subsection
2	provides that no load line convention ship registered in Canada, constructed before the first day of July, shall proceed to sea except under certain conditions. All you have to do is to put them both in; but you have merged them into one and made them unintelligible.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The word respectively makes it clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You have ships divided sharply into two classes, those constructed after June 30 this year, which may go to sea under certain conditions that are set out in the statute, and those constructed before the first day of July, which may go to sea under certain other conditions mentioned. Whoever drafted this thought he would take a short cut and save words, but in my judgment it is absolutely senseless.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the bill be amended by adding section 16 as follows:
16.	Subsections one and two of section four hundred and seventy-six of the said act are repealed and the following are substituted therefor:-
"476. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection two of this section steamships in excess of five tons, gross tonnage, and not in excess of one hundred and fifty tons, gross tonnage, which are not passenger steamships, shall be exempt from the provisions of this part of this act relating to annual inspection, and in lieu thereof shall be inspected every fourth year: Provided that such steamships, if propelled by steam, shall, in addition to such inspection every fourth year, be subject to inspection of their boilers and life saving equipment annually in like manner and as if they were steamships in excess of one hundred and fifty tons gross tonnage.
(2) Steamships not in excess of fifteen tons, gross tonnage, which are not passenger steam-

Canada Shipping Act
ships, shall be exempt from inspection, except that Eueh steamships, if propelled by steam, shall be subject to inspection of their boilers and life saving equipment as provided for in subsection one of this section."
Section agreed bo.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following as section 17:
17.	Subsection four of section four hundred and seventy-six of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
"(4) In respect of steamships not propelled by steam the provisions of this section shall not have effect, in the case, of steamships in excess of forty tons, gross tonnage, until two years after the date of the coming into force of this part of this act, in the ease of steamships in excess of twenty-five and not in excess of forty tons, gross tonnage, until three years after such date, and, in the ease of steamships not in excess of twenty-five tons, gross tonnage, until four years after such date."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister say why section 476 appears in this form?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is purely a matter of mechanics. There are over 7,000 boats of that class, of which 5,000 are on the Pacific coast. It has been decided that the only practical way to inspect them is to divide them into classes and bring in a certain number each year. In that way it will be possible to inspect them every four years where it is not possible to do so every year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the bill be amended by inserting the following as section 18:
18.	Subsection one of section seven hundred of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor: *-
"700. (1) Every fine paid by a licensed pilot or apprentice pilot, for an offence against the provisions of part VI of this act, or a breach of any rule, regulation or by-law made thereunder, or breach of any rule, regulation or bylaw made by any pilotage authority prior to the coming into force of this act, shall be paid into and form part of the pilot fund of the pilotage district in which the offence or breach is committed."


Clarence Decatur Howe: This simply puts in a sentence that was left out of the old act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following as section 19:
19.	Subsection one of section seven hundred and ten of the said act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
"710. (1) Where by any enactment, before or after the coming into force of this act, the parliament of any part of His Majesty's dominions other than Canada shall have provided or shall provide, in terms which extend to ships registered in that part whilst they 12739-235
are in Canada or before or after they have been in Canada, or whilst they are at sea, with relation to any matter touching or concerning such ships, their owners, masters or crews, or any thereof, that any court, officer of a ship belonging to His Majesty, registrar of British ships, officer of customs, shipping master or other officer or functionary in or of Canada may or shall execute any request, exercise any right or authority or perform any duty or act with relation to such ships, their owners, masters or crews, or any thereof, such court, officer of a ship belonging to His Majesty, registrar of British ships, officer of customs, shipping master or other officer or functionary in or of Canada may and shall so execute, have such right or authority and so perform as if such enactment were by this act enacted."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The explanation given for this section, Mr. Chairman, would seem to indicate that it contemplates legislation being enacted by other parts of His Majesty's dominions. What is the real explanation of the section, in practice, into which we are putting these new words? I have been following it as carefully as possible. Has this come about by reason of the new legislation in Great Britain and Australia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The previous wording of the act made it refer only to future legislation. It has been reworded so that it refers to past and future legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that, the bill he amended by inserting the following as section 20:
20.	The thirteenth schedule of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following:
"R.S. c. 195, Radiotelegraph Act, section 4 (b) (e) (g) and (1);
Sections 6, 7, 9 (2) and 11; in so far as they concern the establishing, installing or working of radiotelegraph equipment in ship stations."


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the change in
this section?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This section was inadvertently left out of the other act. It should have been there.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move
that the bill be amended by inserting the following as section 21:
21.	This act, except section fifteen thereof, shall come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council published in the Canada Gazette, and the said section fifteen shall not come into force until a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council published in the Canada Gazette.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why is section 15 not
being brought into force? Does that mean section 15 of the general act or section 15



Veterans' Assistance Commission
of this act? Section. 15 of this act deals with the registry of ships, and I should like to be clear on that point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is simply to allow us a little more time to put the mechanics at work in order to enforce the load line provisions, on the great lakes only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman should put it the other way-so as not to enforce the load line provisions. That is what the section says.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall said bill be
read a third time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As there are very few
amendments I would ask unanimous consent to move third reading now, and I so move.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it should reach
another place as rapidly as possible.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



VETERANS' ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Heatlth) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 28, to assist towards the employment of former members of the forces.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Duties of commission.
Mr. MARSHALL:: Mr. Chairman, to me,
as to all hon. members of the committee, this is the most important of the three bills which deal with the problems of the returned men. This problem forms a very large part of the entire problem of unemployment; if we can solve one I believe we can solve the other, although I am not suggesting for a moment that the problem can be solved in its entirety. As we all know, many returned men would never seek pensions, never seek hospitalization, never seek assistance of any sort if it were not for the fact that the cards of life have been stacked against them. They played the game to the best of their ability, but through the peculiar trend of economic conditions are now the losers, and find themselves to a certain extent on the economic scrap heap. I have known of men who left Canada to fight for England in the Boer war; to-day they are nearing the end of life's trail, but

because they lived a few years too soon they were ineligible to take part in the war of 1914-18 and to-day are faced with poverty and starvation; yet they do not come under this act. It is, of course, very true that Canada has no responsibility towards these men. But they are good Canadians nevertheless, and I hope the Minister of Pensions will intercede very strongly on their behalf with the British Minister of Pensions when a favourable opportunity presents itself.
Then, again, there are men who served during the war of 1914-18 who were discharged as medically unfit; they went on farms; they have fought weeds, grasshoppers, drought, hail, and low prices, and to-day they are broken in health. They are a splendid class of citizens, and I think their problem should have the careful consideration of this commission.
One thing I find it difficult to understand is the reason for so many commissions being appointed by the present government. Ottawa has always been known as Ottawa the beautiful, but I think it will soon be known as the city of commissions. Really I think we are drifting into government by commission rather than government by executive council. In 1932 the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking to a resolution regarding the Salary Deduction Act, said:
I think we might well forego immediately the carrying out of some of the investigations that are being held at public expense.
I am wondering if he referred to commissions. However, we of this party are not offering any serious objection to this commission. We feel that this commission will be beneficial to the returned men. We feel that it differs from the regular type of commission, in that it has been given a definite mandate. It has been given a definite sum of money, approximately half a million dollars, and it is hoped that it will try out some project or projects, on a small scale perhaps, and at the end of twelve months show us a small working model of one of these plans. The members of this commission, by the nature of their appointment, can be very practical, while the other commission, the national employment commission, will have to be more or less theoretical. We hope that this half million dollars will not be squandered upon some silly experiment, but will be utilized on projects which will be really beneficial.
Finally I would urge upon the chairman of the commission that when he feels like making a peroration in public he refrain from copying the chairman of the national employ-

Veterans' Assistance Commission
ment commission. This gentleman in his first public utterance said:
Our government believes, and the national employment commission believes, that Canadians are ready to move out of this atmosphere of doubt and criticism. More, that they are prepared to take their part in a nationwide cooperative effort to face squarely the problems before us, and to make such sacrifices as will bring about their solution.
I want to stress that word "sacrifice." When I read that I thought there are very few sacrifices that the people of western Canada can make to-day. I felt like saying to the chairman of that commission, who is reputed to be a very rich man: "Go thou and do likewise."
For the next twelve months we shall watch with interest the work of the commission. We shall endeavour to refrain from criticizing, for we know they have a most difficult task and one that will tax their ingenuity and ability to the utmost.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Might it not be well to fix a period of time within which this statute should be in force, in view of the fact that we have an employment commission? This bill refers to investigations only; the commission is not intended to do more than investigate; apparently, although one section seems to indicate that its powers can be greater than that. It deals with men who are not Canadians, men connected with other forces. Under those circumstances might it not be well to provide that this measure [DOT]shall expire on a given date? I make that suggestion to the minister.


Charles Gavan Power: Section 3 states that they "shall be appointed by the governor in council, and shall hold office for one year; provided that the governor in council may, on the recommendation of the minister, extend the tenure of office of the commissioners for a period of six months." In any event the amount of money voted to provide for the expenses of the commission is $500,000. That amount appears in the supplementary estimates, and it expires on March 31.


George Halsey Perley: It could not be longer than eighteen months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not quite the correct way to put it. The act may continue, because the powers exercised by the commission may be extended by the minister. At the end of a year the commission would go out of office, but the act would still be in force. The governor in council 12739-235*
may extend it another six months, but the act would still continue at the end of six months, and would be administered by the minister. Would it not be well to say that the act shall expire on January 1, 1938?


Charles Gavan Power: The safeguard there is that the moneys provided will expire on March 31 of the next year, and in order for the operation of the act to continue it would be necessary to vote more money. I think that is the strongest safeguard we could have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid not.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 26, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Number of members.
George Halsey Perley: Will the minister please explain the significance of this section?


Charles Gavan Power: For the purpose of cleaning up as expeditiously as possible the many claims which are now pending it was thought advisable to ask the authority of parliament to name five additional ad hoc commissioners who would hold office for a year or less.


George Halsey Perley: In addition to the twelve?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Residence.
James Earl Lawson: Is this in pursuance of the recommendations of the committee?


Charles Gavan Power: The bill as it now appears is a reprint as it passed the committee. The original bill is altogether changed and modified, and for the benefit of the house the committee ordered a reprint. The report on the bill was unanimous.


Grote Stirling: Is it the intention that these commissioners shall travel, or will the seventeen of them sit in Ottawa?


Charles Gavan Power: There will be some modification of the present system. It will be seen from section 3 that the chairman shall reside in Ottawa, and that the other commissioners shall reside at such places as the

Veterans' Assistance Commission
chairman may from time to time direct. It is proposed that the commissioners shall be divided among different districts. For instance, there will be two quorums in Toronto, so that they may get the work cleaned up. There will be a quorum on the Pacific coast. It will obviate the expense to which commissioners have been put of travelling from Ottawa to the Pacific coast or to Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Jurisdiction of commission.
Mr. MacLENNAN:: I do not know whether my observations should be made at this point, but I wish to say one or two things about an instance which came to my attention, and I am suggesting that some provision should be made against such contingencies. The soldier I have in mind went overseas and performed the duties of a soldier in France. After being gassed or wounded he came back and was not in receipt of a pension. In order to seek a livelihood he went to the United States, in which country he died not long ago. In order to prevent his being buried in a pauper's grave certain friends of his in my constituency borrowed the money to defray expenses of his burial. I have written the minister stating these facts and he replies that there is no provision whereby the friends of a soldier, once he has been buried, may obtain any money from the last post fund. In this instance a friend borrowed the money -and I know this, because I endorsed the note-in order to prevent the soldier's burial in a pauper's grave. Now the minister says, *"Oh, he is buried; we cannot touch it." I am asking the minister if he could reimburse the friend who had no legal obligation to bury the soldier. I am just wondering why a person who spends money in this way should not be reimbursed, and if he is not I wonder why the last post fund was created. It will not do for the minister to say that there may be abuses. In the particular instance I have cited I really do not see why some provision could not be made. I am fully aware of the overreaching of certain people because they were soldiers overseas, but I think the particular instance I have mentioned should not be barred.


Charles Gavan Power: I regret, Mr. Chairman, that the instance mentioned by my hon. friend from Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacLennam) would not in any event come up under this legislation. As he is well aware, the last post fund is a fund which is not directly under the control of the government. A large num-

ber of very generous citizens have devoted their time and have raised large sums of money for the purpose of seeing to it that no ex-member of the forces is unable to find proper burial. This fund is operated under certain regulations, and I am glad to say that we have been able to make arrangements for the burial of our soldiers in the United States, which hitherto has not been possible. I had an instance some years ago similar to that mentioned by my hon. friend, and I was unable to obtain repayment of the amount whidh had been expended on the burial of that soldier. Perhaps, if that matter could be looked into and pressure brought to bear on -the last post fund, something might possibly be done, but I hardly think we could do it under the Pension Act.


Donald MacLennan: I wanted to bring the instance before the minister to see if something could not be done, for I am sure if he were seized of the facte he would be sympathetic because in this instance they really couldi not afford to borrow the money to bury this soldier. Possibly some rule prevents anything being done in this instance, but sometimes rules are very illogical, and on this occasion the rule was not very logical. If this man were above ground he would be buried by the last post fund, but the moment he goes underneath the ground he does not come under the fund.


George Halsey Perley: Subsection 2 of section 5 provides that if a pension has been improperly given, but not as a result of fraud or misrepresentation, and if a veteran has been -receiving the pension for not less than five years, it will not be cancelled if the commission considers that cancellation would result in hardship. What is the reason for this new provision? Of course, cancellation of a pension would always result in hardship after a man has -been receiving it, and it seems to me extraordinary that simply because a man has been receiving a pension improperly for any -reason at all, he should continue to receive it when it is found out that he ought never to have had it.


Charles Gavan Power: In the early days of the work of the pension commission the number of claims that came in was, as one can readily understand, very great. T-hey were dealing with hundreds of claims, in fact, a hundred applications a day, away back in 1919 and 1920, and it can be readily understood that in some instances it was impossible to give them proper consideration.


George Halsey Perley: Certainly.


Charles Gavan Power: Persons have been in receipt of a pension possibly ever since that time, and then owing to some accident or perhaps some review it was found that the pension was awarded and paid in error. Some instances which would have involved very considerable hardship were brought to the attention of the committee by the chairman of the commission himself. He felt that in some instances he could not cancel awards which had been made through error, and in order to make it quite clear that where undue hardship might ensue from cancellations, the commission would have discretion to continue the payment, and also to legalize the action of the chairman, the committee thought it was the proper thing to do to insert this amendment in the act. It is a departure, I quite admit, from ordinary legislation, but it must be remembered that this is remedial and beneficial legislation passed with the intent of bringing the greatest possible measure of justice to the ex-soldders and their dependents, and it was thought that a provision such as this should be recommended to parliament.


George Halsey Perley: Have there not been instances where a veteran has been found to be receiving a pension larger than he was entitled to, receiving perhaps forty dollars a month when he should have received only twenty, and when the facts were ascertained has, not a certain amount been deducted from his pension each month until the overpayment had been returned to the government? Have there not been such instances?


Charles Gavan Power: I think it is well known to hon. members that within the last two or three years there has been a large number of reviews of pensions and pension assessments, and a number of pensions have been decreased, but in no case of that kind was reimbursement required from the applicant. There have been claims, and quite a large number, for reimbursement when the payment had been received through fraud, but not when it was due to an error or when there had been an overassessment.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In the first line of page 4 of the reprinted bill has the word "five" been substituted for "ten"?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; in the reprinted bill it is five years.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I am not rising to raise any objection to this clause, but I would like .to say something about instances of real 'hardship that have come under my own observation quite frequently *of men who had undoubtedly served overseas and quite evidently sustained disabili-
12, 1936
Veterans' Assistance Commission
ties, but who through some error on the part of the soldier or some officer would be found disentitled to pension. Where there was some error or mistake on the part of the soldier or some officer, the soldier would be found to be disentitled to any pension. The rules have been carried out very strictly against a number of men known to me personally. If those who are entitled to pension but who do not come within the provisions of the law were treated with the same leniency as is contemplated by this section to be shown to men who are paid too much, I think this would remove a great deal of the dissatisfaction among soldiers. Within the week I had a letter from a man who served through the war. He was in the big drive of 1918 and came home badly wounded and suffered considerable hardship in the hospital in Halifax. I know he is not exaggerating his condition, but he is getting only a miserably small pension because of what I believe was a faulty examination in the early history of his application. To my mind that is a clear case of underpayment, but I cannot find any such lenient treatment as seems to be exhibited to those who are paid too much.


Grote Stirling: As a result of the
revision to which the minister has just referred, was there not a considerable number of instances where the pensions were stopped, not where pensions had been fraudulently granted but where they had been granted by mistake?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; there was a considerable number.


Grote Stirling: This revision having taken place in 1934, those pensioners have not received their pensions, but where the discovery is made in 1936 and subsequent years, they will continue to get their pensions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know of a large number of instances in which pension was discontinued because of error in the application and I .think there were instances in which the money was returned. I only want to ask the minister if it is dear that in no case where a pension was awarded by error had there been any return of money to the department. If that is so, then that difficulty is cleared up. I cannot help but refer to the point raised by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). I am sure that the result will be that applications will be made to continue these men on the pension list. That will be the inevitable result of this legislation.

Veterans' Assistance Commission


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think they could
come under this legislation, but I recognize that there is a possibility of such claims being made. Those instances were not brought to the attention of the committee. We did not deal with them, but perhaps that is no excuse for not taking them up at .this time. Had the members of the committee been aware that there was any considerable number of claims, such as .those mentioned by the bon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), perhaps provision would have been made for them.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the minister say that
he is advised that in no instance has there been a claim made for the repayment of pension?


Charles Gavan Power: In no instances of overpayment in error.


Alan Webster Neill: There have been claims
made for repayment?


Charles Gavan Power: Not in instances of error;
there have been claims made in instances of fraudulent misrepresentation.


Alan Webster Neill: But where it was done innocently?


Charles Gavan Power: I am informed, no.


Alan Webster Neill: That is different from my information. There are quite a few instances within my knowledge, many of which arose in connection with the claim of a wife who could not produce the death certificate of her husband.


Charles Gavan Power: We are now entering into another subject altogether, the so-called disputed marriage cases. In a large number of these, where the wives were asked for marriage certificates, it was found that there had been no marriage. Payment should never have been made, but that was not an error of judgment on the part of the commission that awarded the pension; it was just a matter of misrepresentation, although perhaps in good faith. In certain instances good faith was shown, such as a remarriage in the anticipation of a divorce which had not yet taken place. In nearly all such instances the commission awarded pension, and in others repayment of moneys overpaid was not asked. I think there are some sixty odd cases remaining for disposal out of a total of 800. Most of them have been definitely settled.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Mr. Bennett.1
On section 7-Four members.
George Halsey Perley: Will the minister explain the reason for adding another member to the appeal court?


Charles Gavan Power: Representations were made by certain ex-soldier organizations that the appeal court was giving a too strict and too narrow interpretation to the law. As my right hon. friend knows, this court is composed of two lawyers and a former judge of the supreme court. It was thought that the presence on the board of a man familiar with medical questions might be of some assistance to the board and might serve to mitigate what was considered to be undue severity on the part of the board. Perhaps this does not refer to this particular section, but I should like to say a word or two about this appeal court. This court has had a very difficult task to perform. When cases reach them they have been before the pension commission. Sometimes a case may have been considered time and time again by the commission before being sent to the court. In most instances when a case does reach the appeal court it is very difficult of decision in favour of the applicant. As is well known, there has been throughout the country considerable criticism of the appeal court, and it was felt that if a member of the medical profession were placed on the court he might be in a position to understand better the medical questions which are very often the principal factors in arriving at a decision.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it permissible to ask who the minister proposes to appoint to the court?


Charles Gavan Power: I have been too busy trying to get this legislation through and discussing matters with members of the committee to consider the appointment which will follow the passing of this bill.


George Halsey Perley: What will happen in a court of four when they are divided?


Charles Gavan Power: Only three can serve at
one time. There will be a spare member of the court. Section 67, subsection 1 reads:
Any two members of the court shall constitute a quorum and may lawfully hear and dispose of any appeal brought before the court.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-When disability pension act not to be awarded.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the section be amended by substituting the figures 1940 for 1938 in the last line.

Veterans' Assistance Commission


Charles Gavan Power: This is to make it conform with the first part of the subsection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be remembered that in England-I heard the Minister of Pensions himself say so-they attributed the success of their operations entirely to the fact that having arrived at a period they stuck to it,


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With certain exceptions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have changed it in every parliament.


Charles Gavan Power: I believe that from 1919 the date has been changed at least five times, and in 1930 the time limits were removed altogether, so that every man who had had a claim, whether it had been passed upon or not, whether he had been debarred or not, was allowed to make a new application and put in a new claim. They have had six years in which to put these claims before the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what made the duty of the appeal court so difficult.


Charles Gavan Power: Exactly.


Alan Webster Neill: It must be remembered that in Britain while they had a fixed date, they were always ready to consider any applications-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was left to the discretion of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which he seldom exercised.


Alan Webster Neill: Paragraph (b) has a proviso:
Provided always that the appeal division may, in its discretion, with respect to this class, grant leave to have the application entertained after the first day of January, 1938.
It is now 1940. What is the significance of this?


Charles Gavan Power: The commission has the discretion to grant leave. Unless a dead line were put in, every claim would be entertained. Now, a claim can be entertained only after leave is obtained from the commission.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 12-In case of relief or retroactive increase.


George Halsey Perley: Exactly what does this mean?


Charles Gavan Power: This is to provide for the case where there has been a payment of relief to a person who afterwards obtains retroactive award of pension. It is proposed to take some of that money to cover the amount paid in relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In praotice that is done now?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: That is what I thought the intention was, but I fail to see that the wording conveys clearly that understanding. I suppose it has been carefully considered.


Charles Gavan Power: The wording has been carefully considered and very much discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-Pension continued for minor children on death of wife.
Thomas Miller Bell: This is the only clause that relates to section 22 of the bill. Some time ago I called the attention of the minister to the fact that there were a few instances of returned soldiers having no children of their own, who had adopted foster children. There is no clarification by the amendment, but I am again urging that subsection 4, which gives the commission discretionary power in the awarding of pensions in respect of any children entitled, in the opinion of the commission, to be maintained by a member of the forces in respect of whom pension is claimed, shall be liberally interpreted to include such instances, and particularly in regard to education. I know of several men who, having no children of their own, adopted foster children and the foster children have been debarred from the grant to aid them in obtaining education.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Restoration to pension.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This may involve retroactive payment.


Charles Gavan Power: For six months.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 15 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
On section 29-Section nineteen of chapter forty-five of the statutes of 1932-33 is repealed.
George Halsey Perley: What is the section repealed?


Charles Gavan Power: It appears on the other page. This is really reenacted, with some small changes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is covered by preceding clauses in the act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 30 and 31 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
National Parks
Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister have the bill consolidated', for the convenience of the public?


Charles Gavan Power: I am informed that that is always done.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Monday, June 15, 1936