ETHIER (Two Mountains) moved 'That the additional charge levied by rule 88, section 3, subsection 3 on Bill (No. 135), from the Senate, for the relief of Hannah Ella Tompkins, and on Bill (No. 157), from the Senate, for the relief of John Dennison Smith, be refunded in accordance with the recommendations contained in the seventh report of the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
OP THE DEBATES OP THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OP THE DOMINION OF CANADA FIRST SESSION-ELEVENTH PARLIAMENT 9 EDWAED VII., 1909 VOL XCII COMP,RISING THE PERIOD1 PROM THE SEVENTH DAY OP MAY TO THE NINETEENTH DAY OP MAY, INCLUSIVE. PRINTED BY C. H. PARMELEE, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY
Douse of Commons Debates
FIRST SESSION-ELEVENTH PARLIAMENT
Friday, May 7, 1909.
REFUNDING FEES ON PRIVATE BILLS.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
I would advise my hon. friend not to press this motion to-day as I wish to look into the matter. There may be some objection to it.
Mr. SPROULEf I hope this motion will not be pressed. Under our rules ample notice is given to the world as to the time when these Bills should be introduced in order that the business of parliament may be proceeded with expeditiously. When such Bills are not introduced within the time limit theTe is a penalty of an additional fee provided, and if we remit the penalty it is better we should have no rule at all. If we once pass such a motion as this we will establish a bad precedent.
Motion allowed to stand.
CANADA SHIPPING ACT-AMENDMENT
EDWARDS (Frontenac) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 179) to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
The amendment proposed by this Bill has been the subject of negotiations between the government of Ontario and the Dominion government, and of representations on the part of the Dominion Marine Association which represents practically all the vessel owners on the inland waters of Canada. By section 477 of the Canada Shipping Act there is a 187
discrimination against vessels in the province of Ontario which appears to me, and to others who are more directly interested, to be entirely unwarranted and unjustifiable. The section referred to exempts the following vessels from the compulsory payment of pilotage dues:
1. Vessels employed in sailing from port to port in the same province.
2. Employed in trading between any one or more ports of the province of Quebec New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and any other or others of them.
3. Employed in voyages between any port or ports of any of the said provinces and the port of New York or any port of the United States of America on the Atlantic north of New York, or employed in voyages between any port in any of the said provinces and any port in Newfoundland.
Previous to June of last year, by subsection 5 exemption was granted to vessels with a draft when loaded not exceeding 16 feet and employed exclusively in voyages between any port or ports on the great lakes or any of the waters connecting those lakes, and any port or ports on the river St. Lawrence or between any ports on the river St. Lawrence. In the last hours of last session this section was repealed at a time when the Ontario vessel owners were urging their claims to have Ontario put on an absolute parity with the other provinces. Why should a vessel sailing from Montreal to Sydney or Halifax or Newfoundland or New York be exempt from compulsory payment of pilotage dues, and the same vessel if beginning her voyage at Owen Sound, or Toronto, or Kingston, or Brockville or any port in Ontario be obliged to pay these dues? Another point which makes this proposed. amendment all the more necessary is the working of by-law 25 of the Montreal Pilotage District which reads:
Every vessel liable to compulsory payment of pilot dues and moved into or out of the limits of the harbour of Montreal or from one point to another within the same shall pay such dues for the services of a branch pilot except in the case of vessels which are merely shifting their position at the wharf and attached thereto by their moorings.
Since Ontario vessels are the only ones obliged to pay pilotage dues under section
477 it follows that Ontario vessels alone come under the provisions of by-law 25, and therefore have to pay this additional tax from which the others are exempt. I wish to point out that notwithstanding this extra taxation and evident discrimination, the liability of the master or owner of the Ontario vessel is not lessened in the slightest degree, but on the contrary is emphasized. This is made abundantly clear by section 477 which reads:
Nothing in this part shall exempt any owner or master of any ship from liability for any loss or damage occasioned by his ship to any person or property on the ground either of such ship being in charge of a licensed pilot or of such loss or damage being - occasioned by the act or default of a licensed pilot, or on any ground.
This section makes it clear that Ontario vessel owners are discriminated against and put at a disadvantage in the carrying trade. I therefore propose this amendment which by inserting the word 'Ontario' in subsection 2 of section 474 will place the province of Ontario on an equality with the other provinces and will relieve Ontario vessel owners from this unfair discrimination and unjust tax. I might add that I hope the Minister of Marine will take this up as a government measure. There are many interests that want this amendment carried, there is no politics in it at all, and I hope the minister will see his way clear to have the Bill passed even at this late hour 'of the session.
I wish to suggest to the hon. member that, as the Bill may not be reached this session, he could move an amendment to the Bill which the minister has on the Order Paper. I think the Bill is in the right direction, because it deals with a little hardship which the vessel owners of Ontario are complaining of, and I would like to see the minister embody its provisions in his Bill.
As my hon. friend's Bill will not probably be reached this session, I may be permitted to inform him that an order in council has been passed lately, providing that vessels from Ontario coming through the Lachine rapids and moving into the harbour of Montreal shall not be obliged to pay entrance pilotage dues. This was done in order to meet a serious complaint made by the Dominion Marine Association. The reason why the legislation was passed was to improve the safety of navigation in the St. Lawrence, and it was done at the request of the Shipping Federation. i
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
Is there power reserved in the statute to abrogate the regulations of the order in council.
No. The dues were imposed by order in council. They are not embodied in the legislation itself.
Suppose a vessel passes through the Lachine canal, and not through the rapids, must its owner employ one of these pilots?
The complaint was only in regard to the Lachine rapids.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.