I suppose that this is a misprint for ' thirtieth.'

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

This applies to officers, and officers may make option. Now, suppose an officer is 29 years in the service, and would have paid his 5 per cent only one year, would he still be entitled to all the privileges of this Act ?

I do not think there is one officer in that category. There are only two officers who have been in the service over 25 years.

1 'rogress reported.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Perhaps the Minister of Justice would tell us the effect of the change he makes in the present Act.

The change is very simple. It has for its object to extend the operations of the Pilotage' Act as it now stands with respect to vessels navigating between the maritime provinces and the Atlantic seaboard north of New York, to vessels that may navigate between Ontario and the great lakes and the ports on the St. Lawrence within the limits of the province of Quebec. As we have it now under chapter SO, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, section 59, it is provided that a certain class of ships shall be exempt from the compulsory payment of pilotage. Amongst these are :

Ships propelled wholly or in part by steam employed in trading from port to port in the same province, or between any one or more of the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island, and any other or others of them, or employed on voyages between any port or ports in the said provinces or any of them and the port of New York or any port of the United States of America on the Atlantic north of New York; except only in the ports of Halifax, Sydney pilotage district, Miramichi and Pictou-as respects each of which ports the-pilotage authorities of the district may, from time to time, determine with the approval of the Governor in Council whether any, and which, if any, of the steamships so employed shall or shall not be wholly or partially, to what extent and under what circumstances, exempt from the compulsory payment of pilotage dues.

That is to say, under the law as we bad it previous to 1900, a vessel trading between any one of the Atlantic ports of the United States north of New York or file ports of the maritime provinces, and any port in the province of Quebec was exempt from compulsory pilotage. Then in 1900 the provisions of this section declaring vessels to be exempt were extended to vessels trading from any place in Newfoundland to any one of the provinces I have mentioned. But the committee will notice that there is no pro-

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

vision here for vessels trading between the province of Ontario and provinces mentioned. A vessel trading from Ontario or from any of the ports on the great lakes, down to the maritime provinces, would not be exempt, because there is no reference to the province of Ontario in the Act at present. The amendment therefore is intended to extend the exemption of vessels trading between Ontario and the province of Quebec, or between any port on the great lakes and the province of Quebec. It extends the exemption to vessels trading downwards as well as to vessels trading upwards.

Hon. Mr. I-IAGGART. Is it intended to exempt from compulsory pilotage ? It looks as if it did so.

Yes.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Then a vessel coming from the United States or one of the eastern provinces up to the port of Montreal, or going further up to the great lakes, if it is propelled by steam, or partly by steam, It is not compelled to employ a pilot.

If it goes from a port in the maritime provinces to a port in Quebec, but if it goes into Ontario, the statute does not provide for exemption. Exemption will apply all over now.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

In other words, if I understand the minister aright, it allows vessel owners to employ any pilot they choose.

Yes, it is in the direction of free pilotage.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) I understand from the minister that the intention of this Act is to enable a vessel propelled wholly or in p:yt by steam, coming from the maritime provinces to Ontario, to be exempted from pilotage dues.

As the law stands now, a vessel coming from the maritime provinces and going up into any port on the St. Lawrence within the province of Quebec is exempt. The object of this Bill is to exempt in the same way vessels that may trade from the great lakes or from any port in Ontario with the St. Lawrence or the other ports below. Vessels trading between Ontario and ports on the great lakes with the other provinces, are to be exempted from compulsory pilotage, as those are now that trade between the maritime provinces and Quebec.

On section 1,

That is the law as it now stands.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

I notice the Bill does not apply to trans-Atlantic steamers. The principal object ought to be to apply it to them because the general complaint

2497 APRIL 10, 1902

that is made by the owners of steamships coming from the other side of. the Atlantic is, that, as they are compelled to use pilots, and. as they have to pay for them, they ought to be allowed to make a free choice of pilots. The provisions of the Bill ought to toe extended to steamships coming from the other side.

Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask some explanation in regard to the last paragraph of that section It seems to me that an exception is made in favour of the port of Halifax, the Sydney pilotage district, Miramiehi and Pictou. In these pilotage districts, pilotage dues may be charged or vessels may be exempt wholly or partially from the payment of dues. What is the reason for that distinction ?

I think it would perhaps be wiser for me to ask the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costi-gan) to enlighten me as to the intention because this is the law as I found it on the statute-book for many years, and I have simply re-enacted it.

Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.

I do not think 1 could give the explanation, because, in my ignorance, not being a lawyer, I read what I saw before me, and I read that a certain section had been repealed and that the following had been substituted therefor. I may be too dense to comprehend this if there is no change and the same law is substituted.

Mr. COCHRANE.

I do not think the hon. Minister of Justice gave a very good reason for the Bill he has introduced. If he does not understand the Bill he introduces or the statute that lie proposes to amend, then, he ought to submit a Bill that he does understand so that we can understand the information he gives us.