A.—4.

419

19 June, 1911.] British and Foreign Shipping. \llth Day. Mr. BUXTON : But it was a consolidating Act, and there was no intention of either limiting or extending the existing powers. Sir WILFRID LAUEIER : Be it that it was a consolidating Act, we take up the position in Canada that we were given plenary power to legislate on shipping. Whether it be a consolidating Act or another Act, I understand that in consequence of that Act our power to legislate would have been impaired and reduced. Of course the British Parliament which has given us our constitution can take it away at any time they please, but I am not prepared to admit the proposition that unless a statute is passed specially taking away from us any of our powers, any court of law would construe any statute as taking away those powers. If it is stated in so many words, "We have given such a power to one of the Dominions, but we take it away from them here," that would raise a very big issue. I did not understand, nor do I understand now, that the Imperial Act of 1894 ever contemplated anything of the kind as to take away from us any of the powers we had. Dr. FINDLAY : It applies to Canada as well as to New Zealand. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Possibly. If that was so, that seems to have been an infringement of our power granted to us by our Dominion Act, and I would like to have a judicial interpretation as to whether that is so or not, and this makes me all the more anxious to have this question pushed further to see how we stand with regard to it. Mr. BRODF2UE : May I give you an instance, Mr. Buxton, of the effect of the legislation passed in 1894 by the Imperial Parliament? In 1867, as Sir Wilfrid has said, we were given the power to legislate with regard to shipping. Acting upon this power which was granted to us, we proceeded to pass a Merchant Shipping Act, and we incorporated in our statute almost the same provisions as the ones you have in the Act of 1854. 1 might give you an instance of one of those provisions, the one with regard to collisions. I think the old section of the Act of 1854 declared that there was liability in the case where the accident was occasioned by the violation of the regulations. That was the Act of 1854. In 1894 the Imperial Parliament proceeded to change the Act in that respect, and they declared by—l do not remember the exact number of the section —that if any of the regulations were violated the ship was liable. The burden of proof consequently in both cases is absolutely different. What was the effect then of this change in the Merchant Shipping Act? It was simply to repeal our own provisions in our legislation, which was a copy of your own provisions of 1854. We have also the same provision with regard to the assessment of damages. Ido not remember exactly the number of the section, but it was declared in the old Act that the assessment of damages would be made upon the gross tonnage, including the engine room. We have incorporated that provision now in our legislation. Now by your section of the Act of 1894* you have changed the assessment of damages. What is the result? The result is that our own legislation, which was based upon the Imperial Act of 1854, is null and void, and in that regard our power to legislate has been seriously curtailed. Dr. FINDLAY : You recognise that the Act of 1894 overrides you \ Mr. BRODEUR : Yes. Mr. BUXTON : May I say in reply that this is a point which I think Mr. Brodeur raised the other day. I am no lawyer, and I am not able to give a legal opinion with regard to it, but I understood that the Memorandum I sent

* Note.—The reference appears to be to Section 69 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906.