Mr. PREFONTAINE.

It has been represented by the shipping interests and the board of trade of Vancouver and Victoria, that under the present law seamen cannot be engaged in British Columbia ports because the shipping masters will not accept the legal fee of 50 cents per head. Ships are now obliged to go to United States ports and pay very large sums to secure crews. It is asked that under certain conditions the shipping master shall have authority' to appoint any one to act in his stead and receive whatever remuneration may be fixed by the Governor General in Council. There may be objections elsewhere. but under existing conditions in British Columbia there would appear to be

no objection to the boarding-house keeper acting as an agent to hire sailors. I understand why the law was made so strict a few years ago when it applied to the province of Quebec, but the conditions are not the same in British Columbia as they were then in Quebec, and in my opinion this Bill is in the public interest.

Mr. B. L. BORDEN.

As it stands at present the remuneration is unlimited until the Governor in Council fixes the fee.

Mr. PREFONTAINE.

That will be done at once.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Why should you depart from the usual form which says that the person who is to receive the fees shall be entitled to such fees as are appointed by the Governor General in Council ? We all know that eventually the remuneration to the shipping master is deducted from the wages of the sailors, and although the Bill is an improvement on the one originally introduced, it could be still further improved by simply providing that such fees should be paid as would be appointed by the Governor General in Council.

Mr. PREFONTAINE.

I do not think there would be any objection to that amendment.

Mr. MACPHERSON.

The leader of the opposition suggests that in the end these fees are taken out of the pockets of the sailors, but as a matter of fact on the Pacific coast these fees are paid by the shipowner or the shipping company which owns tlie vessels. Ships sailing from Vancouver or any other Pacific port cannot at the present time get a ci'ew in our province, because nobody will act as a boarding-house keeper, it being forbidden to keep sailors and ship them under the existing law.

Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the fee does not eventually come out of the pockets of the sailor?

Mr. MACPHERSON.

It does not. Suppose a man is running a boarding-house and keeps five sailors for six weeks, their indebtedness to him would come out of their wages, but the fact is that the fees to-day paid by ship-owners on the Pacific coast for shipping crews, is much in excess of what the seaman's wages would be.

I know some instances in which ships have paid as high as $50 per man for a crew, and my hon. friend can easily realize that the seaman's wages would not stand a charge like that. I know one instance where $100 per man was asked in the city of Portland, but that was an excessive charge and it of course drove the ships from that port. To-day. in Vancouver. Victoria, Nanaimo, Westminster, or wherilr. PREFONTAINE.

ever a ship may come, she will load her cargo of lumber or fish, and then, having enough men on board to take her to Port Townsend, she will go there to ship her crew and buy her provisions. It thus happens that every ship that leaves Vancouver without purchasing supplies will spend anywhere from $10,000 to $15,000 (according to the length of the voyage) at an American port. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) will easily see that under the present law nobody will take any particular interest in getting crews for the shipping masters at 50 cents per head. It is quite true that danger might occur by allowing indiscriminate rates to be changed, but tbat it is not at all likely because there is more or less competition with the American side. In the meantime the present law works to deprive British Columbia ports of quite a considerable amount of trade in supplying outgoing ships. If this Bill is passed it will remove the grievance in so far as British Columbia is concerned, and no bad results will follow even if ships have to pay $10 or $12 per man. because they would not go to the American side and pay sometimes five times as much. At ail events it would preserve to the British Columbia ports the trade of supplying ships.

Mr. FOSTER.

At first sight this legislation seems objectionable because it is removing one part of the country from the operation of the general law, and you need a very strong argument to justify that. I do not see how this Bill is going to better the thing unless it betters it at the expense of the sailor.

Mr. MACPHERSON.

Not at the expense of the sailor.

Mr. FOSTER.

Mr. MACPHERSON.

Mr. FOSTER.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Why ?

Mr. MACPHERSON.

Because under the Act he cannot take remuneration as shipping master. 1

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

That is not remuneration as shipping master.

Mr. MACPHERSON.

Of course not, but he dare not do it.

If you are going to pass a statute which is to be used for a purpose that is not apparent on the face of it, that is the strongest objection for passing it. We are dealing with the question

of the remuneration of a shipping-master. If we mean something else, let us say it. If we mean that the boarding-master may deduct the sailor's wages, let us say so; but not let us lend ourselves to the project of deducting from the sailor's wages the amount which he owes for boarding and doing that under the guise of paying the shipping-master.

Mr. MACPHERSON.

That is not what I said. According to the Bill introduced, a shipping-master will have the power of saying to the boarding house keeper : I appoint you my deputy. Then the captain may come along and get his crew.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

You mean that he will be taking his pay for board under the guise of remuneration as deputy shipping master.