Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

The information I desire to obtain is : When an inquiry of

this kind takes place in Australia for instance, does Australia send the evidence to the Governor General of Canada to be dealt

with by this government, or does Australia send it to the Imperial government to be dealt with by them ? 1 am speaking of

course of a certificate granted by this government.

Mr. Magee tells me that he is not able to state positively what the practice is in Australia, but he believes from the correspondence that he has had with the Imperial Board of Trade that that is the form of practice laid down here. They would send it to us. As stated in the correspondence that is the practice.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I agree entirely with the hon. gentleman that it is most desirable for us to have our certificates recognized by the board of trade, but I would like to know, if, in such a case, the evidence would be sent here to be dealt with by us instead of to the Imperial government.

That is believed by my officers to be the practice and it is so stated in the correspondence with the Imperial government.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Perhaps the hon. gentleman will give us that information at a later stage.

The MINISTER OF MARINE AND

FISHERIES. I shall look into it.

Mr. MACLEAN. And insist on our

rights.

On section 24,

The MINISTER OF MARINE AND

FISHERIES. This section was suggested

by the board of trade. It is copied from the Imperial statute.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Is not the section rather too comprehensive in its terms. An investigation may be commenced in the United Kingdom and may prove to be absolutely inoperative, because the witnesses may have come to Canada. Under this section you could not proceed with the inquiry in Canada.

I did not like to interfere with the phraseology of the Merchant's Shipping Act of which this is an exact copy.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

It seems to me to be very loosely drawn.

Do you mean the language of the Imperial Act ?

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Yes. I do, because it seems to preclude an inquiry in Canada in the case I suggested, and where it may be proper to hold an inquiry. Take the case of a steamer which sinks another steamer and afterwards arrives in Great

Britain, She then leaves the United Kingdom and she comes to Canada. It might be possible to hold this inquiry in Canada as the witnesses are here, but this section would preclude that. The hon. gentleman will remember the case of the steamer La Bourgogne. She was sunk by another steamer, which came to Halifax. An inquiry was directed by the hon. gentleman. If we had to depend, as we might have had to depend upon the evidence of the sailors who were s.-tved from that ship, no inquiry could have been held in Canada, but as it turned out there were persons within Canada who belonged to the other colliding ship, which had not been sunk. That might happen in the United Kingdom. It seems to me that we should have an opportunity to hold the inquiry here.

Mr. GOURLEY.

I should like to agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax), but I think he misconceives the force of the word ' seized.' It means that if the courts in England becomes possessed of the case they hold it. If they abandon it, any other jurisdiction can assume it. The first magistrate who is seized with the jurisdiction in a criminal case excludes all others, but in case he abandons it all other jurisdictions are open to deal with. It is the same in this ?

I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gourley) is right. The idea is to prevent two conflicting inquiries going on at the same time. What my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) would suggest is: to add the words ' unless and until such investigation or inquiry in the United Kingdom has been abandoned or proved inoperative.'

Mr. GOURLEY.

That is the common law.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I do not think the section means that without some such words as the minister suggests.

The section might be allowed to pass as it is now and before the third reading we will consider it.

Mr. BRITTON.

Is it conceded that in the case of a vessel damaged in a canal it may properly be a case of inquiry ? That is rather important. In many cases, while the lock or the wall of the canal has been damaged the vessel herself has been very seriously damaged, and in one case that I know of, there was loss of life. These two points make it a casualty within the meaning of the Act: and in that case an inquiry should be made.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

What is the question-whether a canal is a navigable water within the meaning of the Act ?

Mr. BRITTON.

I understand that a canal is a navigable water. A vessel may be damaged in a canal, and in one case there was loss of life resulting from a collision.

I see no reason why the Act should not apply in such a case.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I would be inclined to think that if a vessel took ground in a canal, this Act would apply. I think it would also apply if she struck the side of a canal, and were damaged in that way.

Bill reported.