Mr. REID:

I will endeavour to explain why I should like this subsection to stand. Yesterday when I moved an amendment to the definition of subsection 13 perhaps I should have elaborated my remarks in that connection. If I may say so, subsection 13 is correlated with subsections 35 and 41. Subsection 41 deals with navigable fresh waters and subsection 35 designates salt water. That was why yesterday I endeavoured, in connection with subsection 13, to have New Westminster or the Fraser river included. The fresh water and the salt water are clearly defined in subsections 35 and 41.

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. gentleman of course realizes that those exceptions are made because these are ports that have been long established under particular statutes. Vancouver is not mentioned; neither is Saint John or Halifax, or other harbour commission ports. I suggest that possibly the hon. gentleman might take his representations to the minister, who tells me that he would be glad to receive them. Then if there are any difficulties we can perhaps meet them later.

Mr. REID:

If the subsection stands I should be very glad to make those representations.

Subsection stands.

Subsection 36 agreed to.

On subsection 37-Home trade ships.

Mr. REID:

This subsection should stand.

Mr. BENNETT:

Surely there cannot be any difficulty about this subsection. It states merely this:

"Home trade ships" are ships engaged in home trade voyages.

There may be some- difficulty about home trade voyages but there cannot be about home trade ships. *

Mr. REID:

I understand that this subsection was copied from the British act, and that in

that act there are two definitions, one pertaining to a foreign voyage, and the other to home trade. Home trade in the British act does not mean trade simply around the British Isles, but includes trade going as far as Lisbon, French ports and other points in the particular section. We have embodied in this subsection the term home trade appearing in the British act. I suggest that home trade when it relates to foreign trade is a very important point. My information is that under our home trade system a ship leaving the port of Vancouver and, for the sake of the discussion, going to Montreal would be engaging in home trade just so long as it remained on the Pacific coast. But if it went through the Panama canal and up to Montreal it would be engaged in foreign trade. That is the information I have before me. I understand the term "home trade' is copied from the British act.

Mr. BENNETT:

There is no reason why subsection 38 should not stand, but surely there is no reason why 37 dealing with home trade ships should stand. The definition of home trade ships could not be changed in any way, no matter how long it stood.

Mr. STITT (Nelson):

In connection with subsection 38 is it intended that vessels engaged in home trade voyages shall not enter the waters of Hudson bay? I should like an answer.

Subsection stands.

On subsection 39-Hull.

Mr. CANTLEY:

With all due deference to the compiler of the bill I would suggest that subsection 39 is not properly worded. It reads as follows:

"Hull" means the body of a vessel including the masts and rigging and all parts of its structure.

I submit that it should read:

"Hull" means the body of a vessel including the structure, spars, rigging and tackle.

I suggest that the word "spars" is much more comprehensive than the word "masts", because there are spars in addition to the mast. I believe, further, that rigging and tackle should be included in the term "hull".

Subsection 39 stands.

Subsections 40 to 88 inclusive agreed to.

On subsection 89-Sailing ship.

Mr. MYERS:

I should like to say a word about subsection 89. May I draw the minister's

Canada Shipping Act

attention to the fact that down around the maritime provinces we have a number of small sailing ships ranging from 50 to 150 tons. Although they are sailing ships, most of them are fitted with auxiliary engines. Am I right when I say that there is nothing in the bill to interfere with them operating as they now are?

Mr. DURANLEAU:

That is right.

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. member will

notice that in the last part of the subsection appear the following words:

And which, in addition, is provided with mechanical means of propulsion.

Mr. MYERS:

But only with an engine of

three nominal horsepower.

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes.

Mr. DURANLEAU:

But that is actually

brake horsepower.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I suggest

the minister should give some consideration to the clarification of this definition. The last clause might be amended to read "So as to include". I believe that is the idea, namely to include a vessel having mechanical power of not more than three nominal horsepower.

Mr. BENNETT:

I think the word "and"

should be "or".

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I am not quite sure as to what the amendment should be but 1 do suggest that at the present time it does not read correctly.

Mr. DUFF:

It is all wrong. The whole

thing is wrong.