Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to inform my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that I have observed some intimation in the public press, and I have had some private advice, that there are two vacancies, one on the judicial bench of Ontario and one on the judicial bench of Manitoba, one of which has been vacant for some time, I refer to that one in the province of Ontario, the chief justice of the Exchequer Court division of the High Court of Justice. I was not aware there was any vacancy in the Supreme Court of Manitoba, the Court of King's Bench, but I observe a reference to it in the press. Would the Minister of Justice be good enough on some future occasion to inform the House how long these vacancies have been existing; anfi would he be good enough at the same time to give a statement as to the vacancies that exist on the bench of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia since the resignation of Chief Justice McDonald, in the month of January, 1904 ? I have intimated my intention of discussing the vacancies in the Mr. FOSTER.

Supreme Court in Nova Scotia, but since that time I understand the only vacancy on the bench of that court has been filled. At the same time I would like to have information of this precise character; I would like to know, from the commencement of 1904 up to the present time, during what periods any vacancies have existed, and what they have been; and the same with regard to the courts of Ontario and Manitoba. I am not aware of any other vacancies in the superior courts of justice in this country at the present time; but if there are any others, perhaps the Minister of Justice would also intimate what they are.

Mr. FITZPATRICK.

The vacancy in Manitoba has been caused by the death of Mr. Justice Bain. The judge died a few weeks ago. As to the vacancy in Ontario, I think it could hardly be called a vacancy, because there has never been provision made for the appointment. The position has never been filled.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

I would rather call that an accentuated vacancy.

Mr. FOSTER.

I would like to give notice to the Acting Minister of the Post Office Department that to-morrow I propose to bring up a question which has been placed in my hands by the Toronto District Labour Council. It has to do with certain allegations that have been brought to the attention of the government with reference to the close connection between a gentleman by the name of Leopold, and W.

T. R. Preston, Dominion Government Agent, by means of which connection, as the allegation states, mechanics and skilled workmen' are sent out to this country under a promise of employment which has not been fulfilled, and that great injustice is done to these men and great suffering is incurred by them; and also that the proceeding is not in the true interest of labour.

Mr. MONK.

Before the Orders of the Day are called I would like to remind my right hon. friend that it is now some time since the correspondence with the imperial government was called for in regard to the establishment of a branch of the Royal Mint in Canada. I think we will require it in a few days.

Mr. FOSTER.

Can the minister say on what date this measure was discussed before ?

Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).

This Bill is

to replace Bill (No. 38), which has been withdrawn. The first Bill contained only one clause, and met with a good deal of objection, as it did not provide for certain eventualities. This Bill covers entirely the ground for which the measure was asked by the shipping interests of British Columbia. I could not explain the Bill better than it explains itself.

Mr. B. L. BORDEN.

What is the real difference between this Bill and the Bill that was introduced before ?

Mr. PREFONTAINE.

The first Bill meant simply that the dispositions of the Seamen's Act did not apply to the province of British Columbia, without giving further explanations. This Bill gives all the explanations and the way in which the measure will be acted upon.

Mr. INGRAM.

Does it refer to employing British subjects ?

Mr. PREFONTAINE.

No, the Act does not mention anything about that. It provides that the shipping master, instead of being obliged to do this work, may appoint another person to make these arrangements with the seamen.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

I think the Minister of Justice took some part in the discussion of this Bill when it was previously before the House. If he has drafted it, I have no doubt he could explain to us precisely what its effect is.

Mr. AMES.

In looking at the Seamen's Act, chapter 74 of the Revised Statutes, to ascertain the full meanings of the three sections which it is proposed to make not applicable to British Columbia, I find that section 7 reads as follows :

No person who sells any spirituous liquor's, and no tavern keeper or boarding-house keeper, shall be eligible for the situation of shipping master or deputy shipping master.

If this section does not apply to British Columbia, it would appear that any saloon keeper or seller of liquor may be a shipping master or a deputy shipping master, it has hitherto always been considered inadvisable to have that class of persons acting in this capacity. What special reason has induced the minister to make them eligible in British Columbia for this important position ? Then, under clauses 16 and 18, the fees established elsewhere are 50 cents on engagement and 30 cents on discharge ; but in British Columbia these limits, which protect both the seamen and the captain, are to be abolished, and hereafter any fee may be charged which may be considered mutually satisfactory, subject to the Governor in Council, replacing that of the schedule. There must be some reason for making these important changes.

Mr. PREFONTAINE.

The reasons I gave when the Bill was last before the House. As regards section 7 not affecting British Columbia, if power is given to a shipping master or deputy shipping master to appoint any one to act as an intermediary to hire seamen, it makes no difference who makes the engagement. At present in British Columbia the shipping master gets only 50 cents, which is not a large enough remuneration to induce the proper men to make up crews, and the result is that the masters are obliged to go to Seattle or some other part of the United States to secure crews. They have to pay $25 or $30 to American agents to get the proper crew, because under our law they can get nobody to engage seamen. It is necessary to make the provision as broad as possible, so that anybody can do this kind of work. It is provided in section 2 that the Governor in Council shall establish a rate of fees. Of course, the Governor in Council will be guided by the recommendations of tlie boards of trade. It is at the request of the board of trade and the shipping interests of British Columbia that this is done. I understand perfectly well that the first Bill did not go far enough, and would probably have been ineffective, while this one, after being considered by the Department of Justice, has been found to meet the case.

Mr. AMES.

While I can see that there may be conditions in British Columbia which may make it necessary to pay more than the stipulated price for the engagement of seamen, I have not as yet heard any reason advanced which, to my mind at least, is sufficient why a certain class of persons who for good and obvious reasons have been considered in other provinces ineligible to act as shipping masters, should be permitted to act in British Columbia. There are reasons all over the world why it is inadvisable that men who engage sailors shall be saloon keepers. Is there any special reason why in British Columbia it is necessary that this class should be considered eligible ? The dangers are considered that a man who runs a boarding-house or a saloon or an hotel, should be the person who would supply sailors for an outgoing vessel. For my part, unless there be some very strong reason to the contrary, I should have to record my vote against section 7.