Mr. HOWE:

This bill has to do with amending the Canada Shipping Act of 1934, and has nothing to do with the sale of the ships mentioned by my hon. friend, so I hardly think this would be the occasion to discuss that matter.

Ll._

Mr. (FINN: I might say that all I could hear of what was said was the word "shipping." I am satisfied that this bill has nothing to do with the matter I mentioned, as the minister says. But I could not hear; the articulation of some hon. members of the government is of such a kind that you cannot hear what is said and the only way you can find out is to rise to your feet. You do not make a mistake, but they think you do.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

On section 1-Definitions.

Mr. CHURCH:

This includes the great lakes. I had intended at this session to introduce a bill to place shipping on the lakes, which is in a precarious position, under the control of the board of railway commissioners. I understood the minister was going to bring down a bill. There exist on the lakes conditions which are not creditable. Men are working on these ships for a few cents an hour. Besides that, labour conditions are bad and in breach of the health laws of the provinces. I think the minister should give some undertaking that something will be done during the coming navigation season. What is shipping coming to? A number of the boats are tied up. There should be some regulation. We know that there were armed gunboats on lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron, in breach of the Rush-Bagot treaty, smuggling stuff into a friendly country. The shipping industry needs some government support to try to revive it.

I hope that during the recess the minister may see fit to look into the working conditions on these lake boats.

Mr. BENNETT:

This section is objectionable for a reason that has been frequently urged in this chamber. It gives the minister power to determine what are sheltered waters on the sea coasts of Canada. Such a power is not usually granted by any statute. It is a very important matter. Paragraph 55 of section 2 reads:

"Minor waters of Canada" means all inland waters of Canada other than lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron (including Georgian bay),

Superior and Winnipeg, and includes all bays^ inlets and harbours of or on the said lakes and said Georgian bay.

It is now proposed to modify that by a new definition reading:

"Minor waters of Canada" means all inland waters of Canada other than lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron (including Georgian bay),

Superior and Winnipeg, and includes all bays, inlets, and harbours of or on the said lakes and said Georgian bay, and such sheltered waters on the sea coasts of Canada as the minister may specify.

Canada Shipping Act

That is, it clothes one man with authority to decide what are minor waters of Canada, on both Atlantic and Pacific sea coasts, regardless of any other consideration. I think that is an intolerable condition, if I may use language which sounds harsh. It is intolerable that in a country such as this one man may be clothed with that power, having regard to the purpose for which it is to be exercised. The purpose is abundantly clear in the explanatory note, which reads:

The object of this amendment is to give power to the minister to include under the expression "minor waters of Canada" as defined in the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, such waters on the coasts of Canada as he may consider comparable with the minor waters described in the said act. This will allow the masters of ships working in such waters to be men holding certificates for minor waters and in some cases temporary certificates. The only change in the paragraph is the addition of the words underlined.

The real crux is contained in this sentence:

This will allow the masters of ships working in such waters to be men holding certificates for minor waters and in some cases temporary certificates.

In other words, the minister has the authority to determine whether or not a given bay or inlet on the coast of British Columbia or on the Atlantic coast of Canada is a minor water. The same would apply to Hudson bay. Assuming that he decides a certain body of water is a minor water, as he alone may determine, he then has the right to accede to the request made that a man holding a certificate for minor waters, one who is not a navigator at all in the broad sense in which the term is used in the Shipping Act, or a man holding a temporary certificate, may take command of a ship that sails to and fro in those waters.

To a substantial degree that would cover *the coastal trade of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. As the paragraph now reads, without any limitation, it would cover the coastal trade on the Pacific coast. I protest against conferring such a power upon any man, however eminent he may be. So far as I know I have not seen any such power as is here contemplated conferred upon any minister. Just think what it means! One man is to determine that the inlets on the Pacific coast of British Columbia are minor waters. John Smith, a man with no certificate for deep water sailing, comes to the minister and says, "I have a minor water certificate. I am going to sail a ship and become master of a boat which has to do with trade in those waters." Or a man with a temporary certificate may approach a member or a supporter of the government, and that member or supporter

may say, ''Yes, I can fix you up," and in turn would say to the minister, "All you have to do is to declare that this is a minor water." The provision is supplemented that even with a temporary certificate one may operate a vessel in those waters, some of which are most dangerous. Nevertheless, that power is to be given. Had the former government attempted to do such a thing I believe I would have heard some hon. members now sitting in front of me speaking, from their then places in the house, about autocratic and dictatorial powers. This power does not cease to become that because it is exercised by a Liberal government; it is just as vicious in the one instance as in the other. To clothe one man with that authority is, I believe, a negation of the whole theory upon which the shipping act is based. After all, it deals with technical matters, with the lives as well as the problems of many people. When we clothe one man with authority to declare that a bay or an inlet on either the Atlantic or the Pacific coast is a minor water, and when in another section we confer upon him further power to clothe-putting it within the terms of the act-only reasonably qualified persons with power to be masters of ships going to and fro on those waters, the government are carrying their power to an extent which is not usual, and which I should assume very few men would seek to exercise.

Mr. HOWE:

There is no sinister purpose

behind the provision.

Mr. BENNETT:

I do not suggest that

there is.

Mr. HOWE:

This is a power exercised by the secretary of commerce in the United States and by the board of trade in England. The effect of the act as drawn is that a man running a ferry across Burrard inlet is acting illegally because he has not deep sea papers. Similarly a man running a ferry at Sydney is acting illegally.

Mr. BENNETT:

We have dealt with

that in another section.

Mr. HOWE:

Nevertheless it is a fact that a man navigating a vessel on Burrard inlet must have deep sea papers. Surely that is not the intention. In England the board of trade have similar regulations, but they refer to smooth waters, rather than inland waters. We have the anomaly that the St. Lawrence river at Father Point comes under the provisions of the minor waters regulations, despite the fact that at that point the river is thirty miles wide. Yet any inlet on our Atlantic or Pacific coasts, or any harbours

Canada Shipping Act

thereof, is a major water, and a man going across is on the deep sea, according to the Canada Shipping Act.

Surely we are making only a necessary provision. As I say, one man will exercise power here, and by the law of the United States one man exercises power in that country. But they would not exercise it without obtaining the expert opinion of their shipping experts.

Mr. BENNETT:

One man does not

exercise this power in Great Britain, and any one familiar with the manner in which the board of trade exercises its power in this regard will realize that it has magnificent machinery to deal with the matter. I suggest that when the minister states that the condition in England is comparable with the exercise of power by one man he is making an unfair comparison. That is equally true with respect to the United States. The minister has said that the secretary of commerce can exercise a similar power, but I would say it would be almost as bad there as it is here.

When the minister speaks about deep sea navigators he forgets that we had an extensive discussion in this chamber when section 118 of the act was passed, at which time we discussed the "requirements for certificates of service as masters and mates." We declared that:

Every British subject who (1) served as a master or mate of a foreign-going or home-trade sailing ship of over seventy-five tons, gross tonnage, before the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, for a full period of twelve months within ten years immediately preceding the date of his application for certificate of service-

-could be a master or mate. That subsection caused a great deal of discussion. It must not be forgotten that while we are an autonomous community exercising our rights to the full, so far as this parliament is concerned, nevertheless the shipping act stands in a position different from that of other legislation of this house. Representatives of one government under the same 'premiership as the present one, and those of the successor to that government endeavoured so far as possible to secure uniformity in the shipping laws of the British empire.

I am objecting to the power being exercised by one man, whoever he may be. My objection has nothing to do with the present minister, but has to do with the question of power being exercised by a single individual.

Mr. HOWE:

We are not departing from

English practice. All powers of the British

board of trade are concentrated in the chairman of the board. The other members simply advise. The chairman of the British board of trade, the secretary of commerce in the United States and the Minister of Transport in Canada have the same power, in their own territories.

Mr. BENNETT:

It is the president of

the board of trade in England.

Mr. NEILL:

There is one point the leader of the opposition has not appreciated. In 1934, when the shipping act was being amended, I was one who again and again begged the then Minister of Marine, the Hon. Mr. Duranleau, to permit the bill to go before the committee dealing with marine and shipping matters. It was a large bill, indeed, one of the largest ever placed before the house. The minister would not accede to my suggestion, but expressed his determination to jam it through in committee of the whole house, where no adequate debate could take place among those familiar -with the subject. The result was that there were surprisingly few blunders that have to be corrected this year, but this is one of them.

The leader of the opposition states that this is a technical matter and1 he does not like to see the power placed in the hands of the minister, but just because it is a technical matter it will be dealt with not by the minister alone but by his experts, men who from long years of experience out on the coast as inspectors, surveyors, and in positions of that kind are in a position to judge, men whose reputation and livelihood are at stake and who are not going to allow themselves to be used for any political purposes the minister might have for the moment. The minister cannot possibly make the decision himself in these matters because it is of so technical a character.

Mr. BENNETT:

He is the man who

does it just the same.

Mr. NEILL:

Yes, in the same way that he does a great many other things, on the advice of his responsible officers.

The situation was this. It is a dual one. It was not altogether the fault of the last act, but the situation was this. Under the act that was in force before the act of 1934 the minister had power to grant what were called temporary certificates, and it was highly desirable that he should do so. The leader of the opposition talked about an intolerable position, but there has been an intolerable position created by our failure to adjust these

Canada Shipping Act

things in the act of 1934. In the act prior to 1934 the minister was not given power, although we thought he was, to give temporary certificates, the character of which I shall deal with in a moment. For many, many years, partly from laissez-faire or a desire not to open the act, it was always interpreted that the minister had that power under that section, and for many years the practice was for the minister to grant these temporary certificates. In the act of 1934 we more or less copied the same language, but the act was not to come into force until it was proclaimed. Then in virtue of that, as the act was not proclaimed, we kept on working under the old act subsequently to that date, under which we thought the minister had the power, and which in practice he had for many years. Then some smart man in the department perhaps took it to the Justice department and suddenly discovered what was very palpable, that the wording of the old act in no way justified the minister granting any temporary certificates at all, and those who were entitled to them were then left utterly up in the air. The result was that the order went out that no more would be granted. The act of 1934 did not help it any, and this is an attempt to remedy that situation.

Now I speak of the necessity of these things. Perhaps the leader of the opposition has the picture in his mind of some man who has very little marine knowledge taking a big steamer through some narrow passage, but that is not the picture at all.

Mr. BENNETT:

No; that is not what

I have in mind.

Mr. NEILL:

Picture a bay, a mile and a half across, and somebody taking an eighteen foot launch across. It goes just above the five ton limit. If it is under five tons he can put forty people into it, and go to Jamaica, and there is no one to say him nay, but if it is over five tons, and therefore a larger and more comfortable, bigger engined and safer boat, but especially a safer boat-and a great deal depends, not upon the length of the boat, but upon the housing on it-then according to the act of 1934 he must have a certificate that would entitle him to take the boat through the Panama canal if he wished. He cannot afford to get a ticket like that; he cannot afford a master's certificate, and therefore the public are greatly inconvenienced because they do want to get across this bay. The result is this, and I have seen it happen more than once: He cannot afford a master's certificate; he cannot afford to hire a man with a master's ticket, and so he says: I shall have to cut down the boat so that it comes just to 4-99 tons,

just under the five ton limit, and then he can take all the people that he can crowd on board, in utter defiance of all rules of safety. There were some rules about having a life belt for each person, but he did not need to know anything about running a boat or about the rules of the road or anything of that kind. You may say: Why didn't he go and get a master's certificate or get a man with a master's certificate? Well, the work won't stand that, and if they have to do that it simply means that they will fall back on a smaller boat under five tons, where there are no restrictions and much less safety.

I understand that the department has in contemplation-I forget whether it is provided in this act or in the regulations-that these men who are applying for temporary certificates shall have some reasonable qualifications. They will have to pass a test for sight and hearing, know the rules of the road and the elementary rules of signalling, which will make it reasonably safe. For my part I infinitely prefer to cross these comparatively sheltered waters, or semi-sheltered, waters in a boat that is run by a man who has not much deep sea knowledge but who does know the waters. That is the all-important thing. A man with the deep sea knowledge to take a boat from here to China has not the knowledge of the local waters that the local man has, and that is why it is desirable to give a temporary certificate, renewable from year to year, to the man with local knowledge, because local knowledge is infinitely more valuable for the purpose than the deep sea knowledge that would enable a man to take the Queen Mary to England.

I remember on one occasion being stormbound up the coast. Something had happened to the steamer; I think the propeller had dropped off, and I proposed to go down by means of Indian canoe. There was a bishop stranded in the same way, and having a kindly feeling for the cloth I offered to take him along, but, no, he would go on his own. I started off next morning with the Indians I had selected, and went half way on my journey; then I discharged those Indians and took on another bunch for the remainder of the distance, some fifty miles, local Indians who would know the local currents and how to navigate the local waters, and as a result I succeeded in getting home in two or three days. The bishop, strong in his religious convictions, took a bunch of Indians and they went all the way through, but not having the local knowledge required for the latter part of the journey they upset in running across a current coming out of some side river, and the bishop would have been drowned if it had not been for somebody coming along

Canada Shipping Act

with a launch. I mention that only as an illustration. One Indian was just as good as another, and possibly the bishop's bunch was better than mine spiritually, but they had not the local knowledge that brought me safely home-I hope for the advantage of Canada. It is the local knowledge that counts. Give me a man who can run an engine and has the local knowledge of the waters, a man who can pass a test for sight, hearing, colour, and elementary signalling, and he will not endanger the lives of anybody. That is what I want to impress on the leader of the opposition, that the very fact that we can get these men with temporary certificates makes it so much safer to travel. Otherwise we are compelled to go in a boat that measures 4-99 tons where there are no restrictions whatever. It is really an advantage. There is no danger of their exceeding what is reasonable, because a government employee whose job depends upon his vigilance will see to it that no one who is not entitled receives a ticket to cross unsafe waters; for if any accident happens both his reputation and his job are gone. I admit that as the leader of the opposition put it, it would seem that too great a power was being placed in the hands of the minister. Hut this is once that we can trust it to him, not because of his personality but because m the very nature of things, this being a technical matter, he will get technical advice and see that a wise use is made of the regulations.

_ Mr. FINN: No one in this house or outside it knows exactly where we stand1 in connection with the shipping laws of Canada. There is a shipping act which has been passed but which has not yet been proclaimed; it is to be proclaimed in August next. This is an amendment to an act which is supposed to be on the statute books, the Canada Shipping Act of 1934. Would one be right in assuming that the act has been proclaimed?

I have looked at the sections at the back of the bill and I do not see anything about the proclamation, so that I would gather from that fact that the act is already in force.

Mr. HOWE:

No; the act has not been

proclaimed.

Mr. FINN:

This act of 1934 has not been proclaimed?

Mr. HOWE:

No; but it is the intention

to proclaim it as of August 1 of this year.

Mr. FINN:

I submit, then, that the

amendment which has been offered by the minister is not valid. The act has not been proclaimed; it is not law, and therefore it

cannot be amended, because you cannot amend an act that is not in force unless it is specifically stated that you are amending an act which is to be proclaimed. This amendment presupposes that the act is already on the statute books, but as a matter of fact the act is not on the statute books in so far as its being operative is concerned. It has no force and effect and-I speak subject to correction-I do not think we can amend something that is not an act but merely an enactment which will be proclaimed in August. Perhaps the law officers of the crown will be able to inform me whether or not the point I take is correct.