Mr. BARKER.
The minister has omitted the new offence that he has put in section 8, that is, ' or has failed to render assistance and to give information.' That is not carried into subsection 2.
Subsection 1 gives authority to the minister to authorize this investigation to be held where he believes that any master, mate or engineer is from incompetency or misconduct unlit to discharge his duties, or has failed to render assistance, and to give any information in case of collision. Then the court so appointed is authorized to hold a formal investigation.
Mr. BARKER.
In section 2 is there any power to inquire into a failure to render assistance and to give information ?
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
In order to make it conform with section 1, it would be better to add the words 1 where the minister has reason to believe.'
Subsection (e) meets the first suggestion my hon. friend made as to failing to render assistance or to give information. The first part of the section states the conditions under which you are authorized to initiate the inquiry, where you have reason to believe so and so. The other part follow's the Merchant's Shipping Act, I would not like to alter that.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
I do not see why the hon. minister uses the same expression
in one case and an entirely different expression in another case. In subsection 2 you say :
A court so appointed as aforesaid is authorized to hold a formal investigation.
Where a master has been charged with incompetency or misconduct. When you come down to subsections d and e you do not say where he is charged, but you say where he ' fails.' You do not say where he is charged with failing, but where he does fail.
I would suggest that I do not think this is so important as to desire a change, inasmuch as it follows the exact phraseology of the British Act.
Mr. REID (Grenville).
I would like to understand from the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, what would be the meaning of the word ' incompetency.' For instance, if an engineer were to make a mistake in the bell and if the vessel ran ashore that would be incompetency and his certificate would be taken away. Am I right in that ?
I would not like to enter upon a judicial interpretation of these words. The object of the Bill is to appoint a judicial officer to listen to the evidence and to decide such points after being advised by two experts.
Mr. REID (Grenville).
Would the provisions of the Bill not apply to an accident in a canal as well as to one elsewhere ? If the engineer takes the wrong bell and an accident happens in a canal, or, if the captain is not doing his duty, or is under the influence of liquor, and an accident happens in the Welland, or in some other canal, would there be an investigation held and the certificate of the engineer or captain be taken away ? Why should the Bill not apply to this case ? You have never had any investigation yet into any accident that has happened on the Welland canal, and there are more accidents happening in the Welland canal than on any of the inland waters.
It may be a subject-matter deserving of consideration whether these merchant shipping inquiries should not apply to the navigation of the canals as well as to the navigable waters of Canada. So far it has not been deemed advisable to apply the provisions of the law to the canals. However, I shall take note of what the hon. gentleman suggests and talk it over with my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair).
Mr. REID (Grenville).
If these accidents were included it would perhaps make
Perhaps it might get ns into more difficulties ?
Mr. REID (Grenville).
No, no-it might make captains more careful, and in addition it would result in putting the blame where it really belongs.
I will consider that point.
Mr. KAULBACH.
The owners of ships are placed in a peculiar position. When an investigation takes place there should be a marine expert appointed who is thoroughly versed in marine matters, and in that way the owner of the ship would have justice which he would not have otherwise.
If my hon. friend (Mr. Knul-baeh) will wait until the next section is read he will see that the point which he mentions is covered.
On section 9,
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND
FISHERIES. This is a new section taken from the Imperial Act, and it meets the views of my hon. friend, that there should be skilled assessors to advise the court.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Are these sections from the Merchant's Shipping Act, 1894 ? *
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND
FISHERIES. Yes.
On section 10,
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND
FISHERIES. The first part of section 10, down to line 21, ending with the word ' publicity,' is old, and the words added are new :
And such court shall have all the powers conferred by section 478 of the (Imperial) Merchant's Shipping Act, 1894, on any court authorized by the legislature of any British possession to make inquiries as to shipwrecks or other casualties affecting ships or as to charges of incompetency or misconduct on the part of masters, mates or engineers of ships.
Subsection 4, relating to penalties is new. The others are old.
On section 12,
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND
FISHERIES. That is new and in conformity with the Merchant's Shipping Act, 1894.
On section 13,
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND
FISHERIES. That is based on the Merchant's Shipping Act, 1894, and is at the suggestion of the Imperial Board of Trade.
On section 14,
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND
FISHERIES. That is suggested by the Mr. REID (South Grenville).
board of trade and is in conformity with the Merchant's Shipping Act, 1894.
On section 15,
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND
FISHERIES. That is the same.
On section 16,
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND
FISHERIES. That is from the Merchant's Shipping Act, 1S94.
On section 17,
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND
FISHERIES. Section 17 is old, excepting the three lines relating to the penalties which are new.
On section 18,
The MINISTER OF MARINE fCND
FISHERIES. This is substantially the old law, but more concisely stated. There is really no change. That has reference to cancelling or suspending the certificate. Complaints were made by the captains, mates and others implicated that when the court held an investigation it did not render its decision in open court but perhaps delivered it in Halifax or some other place a fortnight afterwards. The captain or mate was not present and had no means of knowing what the decision was. It is claimed that the decision should be rendered in open court so that they may know what the decision is.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Where a certificate has been issued by the Dominion of Canada it may be dealt with by the minister, where it has been issued by the board of trade, it has to be forwarded with a report of the evidence to the board of trade, and where it has been issued by any British possession other than Canada it shall be sent to the Governor of such British possession. I suppose that other British possessions have similar enactments. What is the practice between ourselves and other British possessions in respect to the cancellation of such certificates ?
Other British possesions are governed by the provisions of the Imperial Act. That is most of them are-the Crown colonies. I do not remember that we have ever had any cases from Australia or the Cape. The British government will not accept our Canadian certificates unless we give them control over them, and as it is of greater importance that our certificates should be accepted than that we should retain exclusive control, we give them control.