Explain.

Mr. ILSLEY:

It will be remembered that earlier in the session a bill was introduced to amend the Customs Act and that a number of sections were withdrawn. This bill is designed to serve the same purposes as it was intended those other sections would serve. This bill defines the word "officer" as used in the Customs Act and contains a definition of Canadian waters and Canadian customs

waters. It imposes certain obligations on ships and masters in Canadian waters and in Canadian customs waters. It confers upon the preventive officers certain powers and1 defines other powers of these officers. Generally it is designed to strengthen the preventive arm of the customs service.

Mr. CAHAN:

Do the definitions apply exclusively to the administration of the Customs Act, or does the bill define Canadian waters for purposes other than for the purposes of the Customs Act

Mr. ILSLEY:

I do not think the terms

"Canadian waters" and "Canadian customs waters" are used in any other act than the Customs Act. The terms used in other acts are such terms as these: "the territorial waters of Canada," "the waters of the territory of Canada," "the three mile limit," "the marine league," and so on. But here we are framing definitions for the purpose of use in the Customs Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Explain.

Mr. HOWE:

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of

this bill is to repeal the Carriage of Goods by Water Act of 1910, and to substitute for it an act modelled on the British Carriage of Goods Act of 1926. The United States has recently adopted the British act instead of its former Carriage of Goods Act, and there seem to be many reasons why Canada should do likewise. I may say that every shipping interest in Canada has applied to the government to take this action. The position has been accentuated by the Samiadoc case, in which the owner was not able to collect insurance due to the insurance company taking advantage of the "seaworthy" clause in the act, although "seaworthiness" had no relation to the nature of the loss.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

With respect to question answered on April 27 last, regarding the retirement of Mr. Anderson from the farm loan board at Regina:

Questions

1. In what detail were his services not satisfactory?

2. Were any loans made through the Regina office from the first of January to the date of Mr. Anderson's dismissal?

3. If so, were they not confirmed by head office?

1. The board has nothing further to add to the information previously furnished on this matter.

2. Yes.

3. A number of the loans so made were approved by head office on the recommendation of the Regina office.

1. Has the postmaster at Villemontel, Chapleau county, been discharged?

2. If so, for what reasons, and on whose recommendation ?

1. Removal authorized but not yet effected.

2. Unsatisfactory management; decision based on findings of district director of postal service.

1. How many cords of fire wood (cord wood) Were exported from Canada to the United States during the months of January, February, March and April. 1935, and for the corresponding months in 1936?

2. What was the average price per cord paid by the purchasers?