Mr. GOURLEY.

Just one question, and if that is all right, I have no objection to the Bill. Supposing that we conform to the English practice and procedure, and appoint a judicial officer, will they acknowledge our right to cancel their certificates or not ?

No.

Mr. MACLEAN.

I do not like the indication from what the minister has said that he has surrendered a Canadian right without making a fight for it.

No, I did not.

Mr. MACLEAN.

Fracticaly, that is what the hon. gentleman said.

Mr. COWAN.

Wrong again.

Mr. MACLEAN.

No, I am not wrong. The hon. minister has surrendered a Canadian right without any proper effort to maintain it. This government has claimed that on several occasions they have vindicated Canadian rights, and they have claimed credit for it. Here is a very important matter affecting our shipping. I have known, in an off-hand kind of way, that the British authorities claimed jurisdiction over our shipping, and that we had not full control of it. I should be sorry if that is the case. But I would not be a party to surrendering any right possessed by Canada without fighting to the last ditch to retain it.

Hear, hear.

Mr. MACLEAN.

The Solicitor General evidently approves what I say. I have been trying to find out in what respect we come under their jurisdiction and law and are not in supreme control of our own affairs. If this is one of those cases, I, as a Canadian, object to a surrender being made until after every means has been exhausted to vindicate our rights in this matter. [DOT]

It is merely a construction of the old statute. We held that that statute gave the minister power to deal with matter coming on appeal to him and relating to the certificates of the officers of vessels on which a casuality has occurred, and to deal with the officer holding a British certificate as well as with the officer holding a Canadian certificate. The Department of Justice held the view held by myself and my predecessor. But the Board of Trade of Great Britain decided that they would not hold our Act valid, and the British Crown law officers supported them in that. So, what could I do ?

Mr. MACLEAN.

Has Canada no head of appeal from an arbitrary action of the British Board of Trade ?

I did not suppose that we were desirous of doing it.

Mr. MACLEAN.

We do not want to surrender anything.

But here is the position-we grant certificates to officers on ships, as captains, ns first officers, second officers and engineers. Nobody questions our right to cancel the certificate of any officer holding our certificate who commits an offence or is guilty of negligence. But if a British officer comes here and a casualty occurs to his ship, our statutes allows us to hold an investigation. We hold it, the court recommend that the captain's certificate be cancelled. Then you must send the evidence home, with a report of the court, and they say : If we concur in it, we will cancel the certificate.

Is not that reasonable ?

Mr. MACLEAN.

But take the converse of that. Suppose a Canadian officer is sailing in British waters and an accident happened, and the matter is tried by the officers of the British Admiralty-do they take away his certificate ? Or do they send back their finding for the confirmation or revision of the minister-have they admitted that ?

No.

Mr. MACLEAN.

Then, they have put Canada in an inferior position.

Mr. COWAN.

What clause is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) discussing ?

Mr. MACLEAN.

I am discussing the principle of the Bill.