Mr. Gillis:

Mr. Chairman, I too was a member of the committee that considered this bill. As a rule I like to be able to come to the house and say that I was satisfied with what was done in committee, and that all that could be done was done. However I was not entirely satisfied with one phase of this bill.

This evening the hon. member for Gaspe took more than forty minutes to make what I considered was a good basic case for the shipping industry in this country. I understand he is engaged in that business. I listened to him carefully because, coming from the east coast, I have discussed this question on several occasions with people

who are engaged in that industry, and it seemed to me that tonight the hon. member voiced about the same opinions as I have heard expressed from time to time. My reaction is that unless we do something with regard to the industry itself, we will not need a shipping act in another couple of years, so far as Canada is concerned.

I shall not take more than a few minutes to discuss the first section of the bill. I am not satisfied with the bill in that it includes a British ship as a Canadian ship, and a Canadian ship as a British ship, and grants the rights and privileges to a British registered ship to ply the coastal trade in Canada.

The hon. member for Gaspe suggested that the Canadian government was trying to be more British than the British, and that it was because of sentimental attachment to the British commonwealth that we were extending this privilege to British ships. That is not my conception of it, and I believe my view is supported by documentary evidence when I say that money is the nigger in the woodpile. I believe those who ship coastwise in Canada, and overseas, have come to the conclusion that it is much cheaper to use British ships in their transportation by water than to use Canadian ships. As a result Canada is gradually folding up her merchant service and British shipping interests are taking over, not only in overseas shipping but also along the coast.

The United States does not permit this. In their coastal trade they have regulations which state that no other ships shall ply the coastal trade of the United States. There is no fear in Canada of competition from American ships, because American wages and costs are much higher than Canadian, and it would not be profitable from a monetary point of view for Canadian shippers to use United States ships.

Great Britain does not prohibit Canadian ships from plying in her coastal trade but because of their operating costs Canadian ships are not able to take any business from the British interests. As the hon. member for Gaspe pointed out a few moments ago, Australia and New Zealand have taken steps to prohibit the participation in their coastal trade of any ships which do not have wage rates and standards comparable to those of New Zealand and Australian ships. I objected to this clause in the committee and I was led to believe that no change could be made because of the commonwealth agreement, but in checking over since and listening to the hon. member for Gaspe tonight I find that that is not true. Regardless of the commonwealth agreement, Canada is still master in her own house and can make any changes necessary to benefit our merchant fleet.

Canada Shipping Act

There are a lot of people in this country who are concerned about this matter. The merchant marine in Canada could be a great industry and it is necessary to a country that exports such a large portion of its production. I have received resolutions, and no doubt the minister has also, demanding that the Canadian government take steps to protect the merchant service of this country through means along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Gaspe.

I am afraid that the perpetuation of the rights of British ships to ply our coastal waters is a studied policy. I say that advisedly because I have in my hand the 1949 report of the Canadian maritime commission. The Canadian maritime commission was set up on the demands of the shipping industry and those in the industry that something be done to stop the trend in the loss of shipping business and the scrapping of our merchant fleet. A reading of that 1949 report would indicate that the commission, rather than attempt to devise ways and means of protecting the merchant fleet of this country, did just the reverse. I should like to quote one section which I think is pertinent to this discussion from page 44 of the report as follows:

The case for the abandonment of Canadian flag shipping rests on the thesis that the nation or nations which can give the best service at the lowest cost should conduct the carrying trades. Canada is primarily interested in selling her products abroad and it is immaterial under what flag those products are carried. The cost of operating a Canadian flag ship is the second highest in the world. The average daily operating cost, excluding fuel and depreciation, of a standard 10,000-ton Canadian deep-sea ship is $810.50 as compared to $525.46 in respect of a similar vessel of United Kingdom registry. The industry is disorganized by constant labour troubles both of a major and minor nature. If Canadian ships cannot compete in the international market, the business of shipowning should not be encouraged in this country. Moreover the present inconvertibility of foreign currencies poses major problems in securing cargoes and in the payment of freights. The volume of our export trade depends upon the ability of our customers to pay for what they buy.

That repQrt definitely recommends the abandonment of the Canadian merchant fleet on the grounds of cost. If that suggestion is followed through, why not go to Japan or some other country where costs are still cheaper? Why is not the same recommendation made in connection with every commodity imported to or exported from this country? There is no use trying to fool ourselves. As long as we leave the Canada Shipping Act as it is now we are not going to have a merchant fleet.

I am interested in this because a large portion of the section of the country from which I come is directly affected. That is one reason. Secondly, I am a Canadian.

Canada Shipping Act

Despite the fact that we are in the commonwealth of nations I am not going to consent to the standards of any section of the Canadian people being pulled down because we can get something a little cheaper from some place else. The trend in this country and on this continent is to build up standards. Time was when those who operated ships in this country used to use Japanese and Chinese crews because they could get them more cheaply, but since the industry has been organized they cannot do that any longer.

But another trend is developing and British registry ships are being permitted to operate even though the wages they pay are fifty per cent of what we pay and their operating costs are much lower. The result is that our own ships are being beached because these other ships can be obtained -much more cheaply. I realize that there are difficulties in the handling of exports to and imports from other countries, but I say it is definitely 'the responsibility of the Canadian government to protect coastal shipping in Canada.

The hon. member for Gaspe has suggested two ways in which that can be done. Under the commonwealth agreement the Canadian government has the right to make regulations along the lines of those passed by New Zealand and Australia so that ships plying our coastal waters would have to conform to the standards and wage rates enjoyed on Canadian ships. If that were done there would be no more difficulty because British ships would not be able to come in and underbid on cargoes as they are doing today.

This country needs a virile merchant marine. We trained a lot of sailors during the war. Until such time as the thinking of those who make policy for the government in the matter of building up and maintaining our merchant service is changed, we are just going to continue to go on and on and our merchant fleet will peter out. There has been a terrific loss in the last couple of years. If we go on for the next couple of years as we have been there will be no need for an act at all.

I do not want to take up any more of the time of the committee but I submit that the minister should seriously consider bringing in regulations to protect our coastal trade, and as soon as possible. On the other hand there is the second alternative suggested by the hon. member for Gaspe, namely, that the commonwealth nations should be notified that a year from now we intend to ask for revisions and changes in the commonwealth agreement. The thing seems so ridiculous. First of all you hold a meeting of sixteen nations where wages, working conditions and

[Mr. Gillis.l

safety regulations are discussed. Then the convention is taken to the respective governments and an act is passed in the different countries embodying its contents. We write an act that practically hands over our shipping to British interests because they are not conforming to the standards maintained on the ships of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

I think it is a wrong principle in the year 1950 for the government of any country, so far as any of its industries are concerned, to start to lower standards in order to enable another country to take your business from you, thus causing the scrapping of what should be a large industry in Canada. I hope the minister will consider these two recommendations and see what can be done for the protection of our coastal trade. I have not much quarrel with the remainder of the bill. It is merely a matter of incorporating safety provisions adopted at the 1948 convention, and then there are some minor matters which needed adjustment. As to the protection of our coastal trade, however, referred to by the hon. member for Gaspe, I think the government should do some serious thinking and take immediate action.

Mr. Herridge:

Mr. Green:

Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will see fit to accept the amendment. As the section in the bill now reads, there is no restriction whatever. It gives the governor in council the power to make regulations providing for the licensing of all vessels equipped with outboard motors. In the committee it was explained that the department in drawing up the regulations might not

Canada Shipping Act

go that far and might not include all outboard motors, but surely it is a wrong principle for the department to take power which is wider than needed. It is admitted that they do not need such wide power. There is no reason why outboard motors of small horsepower should be licensed. They are not the ones that are causing the trouble.

It was made clear in the committee that the difficulty arose because some of these faster outboard motors were constituting a hazard for traffic on the crowded waters of Canada such as the Detroit river and the harbours of some of the large cities; but there must be hundreds of thousands of outboard motors in use in Canada on thousands of lakes. Canada is a country of lakes, and I submit it is not sensible at all to have a law compelling the licensing of all outboard motors. Surely all we need to do is meet the problem, and that problem is raised by the fast boats.

In committee one of the hon. members pointed out the effect that licensing would have on the tourist trade in Canada. As everyone knows, that is one of our main industries. Thousands of Americans come here in the summer, and many of them bring outboard motors. If this general power is taken to license all vessels with outboard motors, those Americans with small motors also will be subject to registration.

Much more could be said, but I urge the minister to agree to make some change in the bill. If eight horsepower is too high, perhaps a different figure could be fixed, but to simply take general power to license all outboard motors is going too far. I hope the minister will see his way clear to accept the suggestion and agree on some definite figure.

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

May I add

just a word before the minister gives a negative answer to this. I really believe he may be going to co-operate, but I just want to add this. I suppose every man passes through a time of life when he is a reactionary, and personally I think it is very much open to question whether the inventor of the outboard motor was a benefactor to humanity. However, that is just something on the side and quite irrelevant to this discussion, merely a matter of personal prejudice. I suggest to the minister, who is a real lawyer, not just a half and half lawyer like myself, that there is a Latin maxim which covers this point. It is de minimis non curat lex, which I believe means that the law does not take care of tiny things. So I hope he will see his way clear to fall in with this suggestion.

Canada Shipping Act

Mr. Thomas:

I support this amendment wholeheartedly. I believe the section as it now stands is entirely too far-reaching. The average one and a half or two horsepower outboard motor is useful only to those who desire to go fishing, who travel at slow speeds. The boats that should be licensed and have some identifying number or mark are those that travel at high speeds. Personally I do not know whether or not eight horsepower is where the line should be drawn, but I do think the line should be drawn somewhere so that boats which are actually menaces on the waterways of the country can be identified in case they have broken any rule or law or have endangered other boats or swimmers, but I do not think it should apply to the small outboard motors.

Mr. Higgins:

With all due respect to my learned colleague the hon. member for Greenwood I do feel that small things, in the sense of outboards, are very important, at least in the part of the country now recognized as the tenth province. Definitely in my province small motors, up to eight horsepower, are a very important part of the routine proceedings of the ordinary day in the summer, and in fact most of the year. To suggest that they must be licensed, that people must go through the routine of applying to a collector of customs and painting a number on their boats, and all the rest of it, seems a bit ridiculous. I am sure the minister is not going to impose that upon us. I understood the intention was to give the minister power to make these regulations if he deemed fit; but, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said, these powers are rather sweeping. I should hope the minister would agree that a boat no longer than sixteen feet, with an outboard motor of not more thaji eight horsepower, cannot do very much damage to anybody and is not likely to be careening around the water at such high speed that traffic cops would be needed. This is only going to inconvenience a great many people. I do not think only of Ontario and Quebec when I speak of a tourist program. The newest province has a big tourist program in view, and if we have to go through this licensing and numbering and all the rest of it, the next thing may be a regulation requiring all boats equipped with outboards to carry tail lights and running lights.

I hope the minister will not regard these remarks as at all facetious, because I am quite serious. I believe outboard motors up to eight horsepower should be exempt from this provision, as the hon. member for Kootenay West has suggested. I quite agree that high-powered boats such as those in

which the moguls of Toronto run around the lake should be licensed in some way. In the poorer provinces, however, that should not apply to small boats up to eight horsepower. I am sure the minister has the same thought in mind, living as he does on the greatest river in the world. I am sure he would not want his people to be put to this inconvenience under the act.

Mr. Noseworthy:

In committee we were given to understand that while the minister was asking for the power outlined in this section it was not intended to use that power to require the licensing of all classes of boats with outboard motors. In committee we tried to get from the minister and his officials some information on the nature of the regulations that would be made. We were unable to get that information; apparently neither the minister nor his officials were very clear on just what they should be.

My objection to this clause is an objection to giving the governor in council power to require that every boat equipped with an outboard motor shall be registered, if the minister should so decide. I object to that sweeping power, and favour the amendment. If the amendment does not meet the requirements the officials have in mind, it is still open to them to impose other limitations. At least the amendment would assure that no boat with an outboard motor of less than eight horsepower would require to be licensed. I do not want to have to get a licence for the little outboard I carry around in the back of my car, and which I stick on probably fifty different boats during the course of the season. I would have a happy time doing that, I am sure. That may not be the intention, but I object to the principle of giving such sweeping power to the department.

Mr. Chevrier:

If I may be permitted to say a word in reply, I think I said once before that I was anxious to be co-operative in all these matters, but unfortunately tonight I cannot meet the suggestion of my hon. friend. One of the reasons is perhaps that given by the hon. member for Kootenay West, when he said he had perfect confidence in the officers of the Department of Transport, and particularly those who gave evidence before the committee where this matter was specifically discussed. My hon. friend said he had full confidence in those people, and I am sure he will have confidence in them still, when I tell him they have advised against accepting this amendment for reasons which I shall give in a moment. Another reason that prompts me to oppose this is that given by the member for Greenwood, who says there is a Latin maxim de minimis non curat

lex. There is another Latin maxim having to do with the law, which is far more pertinent than the one just quoted and I am sure my hon. friend knows it, and that is res ipsa loquitur, and that has great application in this case. Our officials feel that, for the reasons given to the committee, the time has come when there should be licensing of these motorboats.

I gave the reasons in the committee why I thought it was difficult to distinguish between a regulation which would cover horsepower and one which would cover length. Then again there comes into the picture the question of speed. You may have an 8-horsepower engine in a small boat travelling at high speed, whereas an 8-horsepower engine in a boat of more than sixteen feet would travel at slow speed and would not be a danger to other craft using the same waters.

There is nothing extraordinary in the powers taken here. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asks why we should take powers wider than we need. That has been done repeatedly, not only in the Department of Transport but in other departments. I call attention to the fact that the Canada Shipping Act of 1948, under section 488A, gave the minister power to exempt ships from having certain qualified officers and mates, and also from the steamship regulations, which is far more important than this.

Mr. Green:

You will be regulating bathing suits next.

Mr. Chevrier:

Need I say there is no intention to regulate bathing suits. Neither is it the intention to create a nuisance. As I indicated in the committee, from the studies that have been made thus far it is not possible to say upon what basis the dividing line should be drawn. I gave the assurance to the committee that we would not attempt to enforce regulations which would act as a nuisance to the public, particularly tourists and other people who use our lakes and who have these small outboard motors.

From the studies that have been made thus far, I would not think it would be proper to regulate motorboats of five horsepower and under. Neither would I think it would be a proper thing to regulate a boat of sixteen feet long or under. But from the information at hand I would not like to go any further than that, because the officers who are giving the matter their consideration are not able to say where the dividing line should be. They would like to get this power in order to study the matter. It will not come into force this year. There is no charge involved by the regulation. It is for the purpose of 55946-256

Canada Shipping Act

licensing and marking boats, and it is also for the purpose of protecting the public. It was mostly on that basis the officers proposed it, so with respect, Mr. Chairman, I have to say I am not able to accept the amendment.

Mr. Herridge:

The minister just said that I had stated I had every confidence in the officers of his department, and so I have. I have every confidence in the officers' technical ability, but I have not confidence in their ability to express the opinion of the people of Kootenay West.

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

Did I understand the minister to say that the regulations would not be administered this year in such a way as to be a nuisance to anyon^?

Mr. Chevrier:

I am saying that the regulations cannot be put into effect in 1950. They will not come into effect until 1951.

Mr. Hodgson:

Under this regulation you are leaving it up to the officer of the law to determine the law. Who is going to enforce this law? Is it going to be the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?

Mr. Chevrier:

May I interject that it is not an officer of the law who will interpret the law. The governor in council will make the regulations.

Mr. Hodgson:

Yes, that is quite true; the

governor in council or some individual in the department will draw up the regulation and make the law. When you come to enforce the law, it has to be done by the provincial officers or the game warden. It cannot be done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, because those officers are stationed so far apart. You are putting an officer of the law in the position of having to determine the law, determine whom he should arrest and whom he should not arrest. When he arrests one person, for instance, he has to arrest all. He cannot let one man go and arrest another. Who is going to determine when he is speeding and when he is not?

Amendment negatived; yeas 27; nays 44.

Mr. Green:

Mr. Chairman, it is eleven

o'clock.

Section stands.

Progress reported.