1923-04-23

PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 119 (from the Senate), to change the name of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo Telephone Company to "Brazilian Telephone Company".-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 120 (from the Senate), respecting Montreal, Joliette and Transcontinental Junction Railway Company.-Mr. Denis (Joliette).	. .	. .	[DOT]
Bill No. 121 (from the Senate), for the relief of Fannie Boyle-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 122 (from the' Senate) for the relief of James Forbes.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 123 (from the Senate), for the relief of Julia Tracey Kay.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 124 (from the Senate), for the relief of Charles Philip Roy McCabe.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 125 (from the Senate), for the relief of William George Haden.-Mr. Mc-Master.
Bill No. 126 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gertrude Irene Wood.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 127 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Murray.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Bill No. 128 (from the Senate), for. the relief of James McAllister,-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 129 (from the Senate), for the relief of David Albert Clayton.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 130 (from the Senate), for the relief of Hugh Russell Fulton.-Mr. McKillop.
Bill No. 131 (from the Senate), for the relief of Maybelle Elizabeth French.-Sir Henry Drayton.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Will the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Stewart) inform the House as to whether the report in the press as to the deputy minister's return from England is correct? If it be correct will he inform the House as to whether he has entered into an agreement with the British government and whether it is the intention of the minister to table that agreement.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: I have not seen the deputy minister, but any arrangement lie has made, or any arrangement the government has entered into, will be tabled.



BANK ACT REVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. SHAW:: V ill the minister inform the House whether he has received a copy of the resolution passed by the legislative assembly of the province of Alberta, urging that the pending revision of the Bank Act be postponed for one year, and if the resolution has been received, will the government place it on the Table?


Mr. FIELDING:: Several requests of that nature have come from various organizations, I am not quite sure that one has been received from the legislature of Alberta. I will inquire, and if one has been received, there is no objection to laying it on the Table.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
SECOND READINGS	.
Bill No. 113 (from the Senate), for the relief of Jean Elizabeth Burgess.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 114 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Wesley Scott.-Mr. Chew.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	For what purpose is the Minto street barracks, Winnipeg, now being used?
2.	Are recreation privileges granted? If so, to whom and under what conditions?
3.	What is the cost of upkeep?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The Minto street armoury, Winnipeg, is used for the accommodation of the following non-permanent active militia units located in Winnipeg:-
The Winnipeg Rifles,
The Winnipeg Grenadiers.
The Cameron Highlanders of Canada.
10th Machine Gun Brigade.
10th Divisional Train, C.A.S.C.
10th Signal Battalion.
3rd Field Ambulance, C.A.M.C.
No. 10 Detachment, C.A.V.C.
13th Field Battery.
17th Field Battery.
19th Field Battery.
38th Field Battery.
11th Siege Battery.
12th Field Company, Canadian Engineers.
Cyclist Company, Corps of Guides.
Fort Garry Horse.
2nd Motor Machine, Machine Gun Brigade.
District Medical Stores.

Questions
Small quantity of Ordnance Stores.
Royal School of Artillery.
Naval Cadets.
5th Artillery Brigade Headquarters.
6th Mounted Brigade Headquarters.
20th Infantry Brigade Headquarters.
Winnipeg Highland Cadets.
2.	Yes. Non-permanent active militia units; Garrison Badminton Club, and Military Athletic Association.
The conditions covering such use for recreation purposes by other than non-permanent active militia units are,-
(1)	Without expense to the public.
(2)	That special precautions be taken to safeguard the contents of the building.
3.	The cost of upkeep of this armoury for the fiscal year 1922-23, was as follows:
Fuel	$ 9.847 98
Light	
328	82Water	
78	05Telephones	
227	10Firemen	
1,627	50Caretaking	
6,559	25Engineer Services	
742	00Miscellaneous	Services	
10	00Total	$19,420 70
. MR. P. J. O'CONNOR


Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Is Mr. P. J. O'Connor employed in the Lands branch of the Indian department at Ottawa?
2.	If so. when w'as he appointed (a) to this department; (b) to this branch?
3.	What promotions, if any, has he had since his appointment?
4.	Did he pass a regular Civil Service examination for each promotion ?
5.	What is his rank at present, and what is the date of the Civil Service examination passed by him to qualify for the position?


Hon. Mr. STEW ART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Yes.	*
2 (a). Temporarily on 15th February, 1898; permanently on 1st July, 1901; (b) in November, 1902.
3.	To second class clerkship on 1st July, 1905; 2A clerkship 1st April, 1909; head clerk, 1st May, 1922.
4.	Yes, when the same was necessary under the Civil Service Act.
5.	Head clerk; as the position was filled by competition and Mr. O'Connor was the only applicant, no examination was imposed by the Civil Sendee Commission.


FLATHEAD DISTRICT ROAD
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Did the government during the summer of 1921 commence construction or clearing of right-of-way of
road in the Flathead district, Alberta, to connect up the Waterton townsite in the Warterton lakes section?
2.	What is the length of the said road?
3.	How much money has been already spent?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to continue construction of this road?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 
DIRECTORY OF GOVERNMENT OFFICES
Mr. MAYBEE:: In view of the fact1 that no directory of the various government offices in Ottawa, with addresses, is available. will tile government consider the compilation and distribution of same, for us** of members and others?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the government are obliged to the hon. member for his suggestion, and they will give directions that such a directory be prepared:


OTTAWA-PEMBROKE PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Has any portion of the provincial highway, between Ottawa and Pembroke, been placed under agreement with tile provincial government, under the Canada Highways Act, by which 40 per cent of the Cost of the work will be paid by the federal government?
2.	Has any portion of the said highway in Carleton county been approved by the federal government?
3.	Does any agreement exist whereby the federal government agrees to pay 40 per cent of the cost of the county provincial road between Renfrew and Pembroke, via Douglas, in the county of North Renfrew?
4.	If not, has any promise covering such an agreement been made by the federal government?
5.	Is it possible for the federal government to make any such agreement or promise?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	No,
. 5. Yes; on the initiative of the province and subject to subsection " A ", section 4, 9-10 George V (Canada Highways Act), reading as follows: " Any highway for which aid is granted shall be constructed or improved, as the case may be, in accordance with the
Patents of Invention

terms of an agreement to be made by the minister with the government of the province. Such agreement must be approved by the Governor in Council and shall contain such provisions as to location, cost, description, specifications, time and method of construction, supervision and other necessary particulars as are essential to protect the public interest".



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CANNON:: 1.	What are the names of the employees of the National Railways in the county of Dorchester?
2.	What were the dates of their respective appointments?
3.	What are their duties and their respective salaries?
4.	On whose recommendation was each appointment made ?



CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES

Mr. MICHAUD:: WThat was the total expenditure for each department of the government for civil salaries, both for temporary and permanent employees, for the fiscal years from 1911 to 1922, both inclusive?
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS PRINCE RUPERT CIVIC EMPLOYEES Mr. STEVENS:
For a copy of all letters, correspondence,* telegrams, and other documents, since January last, passing between the Minister of Labour or any officer of his department and the Civil Employees Union of Prince Rupert, or any officer or any official of the municipal council of Prince Rupert, or other persons, having reference to a request for a conciliation board.



MONTREAL AND LONGUEUIL BRIDGE

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: For a copy of the report of 1923 of the Montreal harbour commission on the construction of the new bridge between Montreal and Longueuil, and also a copy of the plans prepared by the harbour commission for the construction of said bridge.



RADIOTELEGRAPH ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend The Radiotelegraph Act. chapter forty-three of the statutes of 1913, by providing that the Governor in Council may authorize the payment of a portion of the license fees collected in respect of certain prescribed licenses, to a provincial government, private company, or other prescribed party, and notwithstanding anything to the countrary in any act, to any department or employee thereof, for services given in connection with the operation of broadcasting stations and for services performed for the minister in connection with the licensing and inspection of stations.
fMr. Graham.]
He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the subject matter of this resolution and has been pleased to recommend the same to the consideration of the House
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of National Defence) moved the third reading of Bill No. 118 to amend the Militia Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Cold Storage Act. '
Mr. MARTELL I was given to understand that this bill would remain over until tomorrow, so that a conference might be held.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Yes.
Motion stands.
DOMINION FOREST RESERVES ^ND PARKS ACT AMENDMENT
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the third reading of Bill No. 82, to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PATENTS OF INVENTION

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 20, to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to Patents of Invention, Mr. Gordon in the chair. .
On section 29-Patents to be assignable:
Mr. BOYS:: I wanted to offer some opposition to sub-clause 2 of this clause; but I understood there would be no objection to striking it out. If that is the case there would not be much object in speaking at length in connection with it. I can see no reason why an assignment, even if not registered, should not be given in evidence in a court, just as much as a deed between two parties. It is perfectly true that to protect third parties registration is necessary; but as between the parties themselves if an assignment has been validly completed and executed, I can think of no reason why that assignment should not be produced in anv court of justice and given as evidence. I do

Patents oj Invention
not want to discuss the matter longer if sub-clause 2 is going to be cut out; but if not,
I will do so.


Mr. ROBB:: I can see some force in the observations of my hon. friend. This clause was inserted in connection with the Imperial War Conference of 1918; but while it has been found useful, it is not absolutely essential I therefore move that subsection 2 of section 29 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 30-Assignments in case of joint applications:
William Alves Boys: What is the intention of this section? There is no reason why there should not be a provision requiring the registration of an assignment in the Patent office, but is it the intention of this section that any assignment not registered shall be invalid? If that is the purpose of the section I think it is a mistake, and my remarks in connection with subsection 2 of section 29 would be equally applicable to this section. I can quite understand that you want to have assignments registered, and it is very proper that they should be registered. It would, therefore, be advisable to provide some penalty if assignments were not registered. I fear, however, that, the section as it stands might be constructed to mean that if assignments were not registered they would be void. There is no reason why they should not be perfectly good as between the parties to the assignment, although invalid as against third parties.


James Alexander Robb: The commissioner tells me that this section has been in the act ever since it has been on the statute book.


William Alves Boys: Even if it has, I do not think that, is sufficient reason. Can the minister tell me whether he considers the section to mean what I have indicated, namely, that an assignment is bad in any event if it is not registered ?


James Alexander Robb: We might let the section stand for further consideration.


Mr. STEVENS:: I might point out to the minister something which I know must impress him, that is, the exceedingly complicated nature of the bill, which is really a complete revision of the Patent Act. I have been trying in my own way to give a reasonable amount of study to it, but the more I see of it, the more I learn about it, the more convinced I am that I know comparatively little about it; and I do not believe that, except
for a very very few, others have a much greater knowledge of the bill than I have. If t here ever was a piece * of legislation that should go to a special committee, where the representatives of the department and, if you like, the representatives of the manufacturing interests, as well as chemists and others who are engaged in the laboratory and other investigatory work, might be invited to give their views upon it, this bill undoubtedly is legislation of that character. It is exceedingly difficult to criticize intelligently the sections of such a bill as this, the contents which have not been carefully studied, because we are met with just such answers as the one the minister has given us, which unquestionably has a good deal of force in it, if one understands it, and that is that the section has been in the act ever since we have had an act. On that account one hesitates to disturb it because it may have some other relations which we should not like to interfere with. But the minister's reply is scarcely satisfactory in view of this fact: as nearly as I can learn, in constructing the new act the draughtsman has lifted out of the British act whole sections and just conveyed them into this l^islation. I have no reason whatever to assert that they are not entirely fitting; but certainly the House is not passing intelligent judgment on that fact under the present circumstances. Nor do I know that any of us are able intelligently to criticize the bill. The only way in which we can consider legislation of this kind is to have it go to a committee who can hear the views of the officials of the department and others who are conversant with the subjects it deals with. I am afraid it wall be impossible for me to present properly the views I have in mind on several sections in the bill owing to their highly technical nature. One hesitates to speak dogmatically about a technical matter in the way we are forced to speak in the House, where one might by a little questioning get a correct understanding of ordinary subjects. But this is only one instance of the difficulties that are to be encountered in this bill. As we proceed and come to clauses 38, 40, 41 and 42, which are the main sections of the bill, I, at any rate, shall be quite reluctant to give my consent to the bill. I do not suppose that it makes much difference whether I do that or not; but certainly I cannot agree to the bill going through as it stands. I feel we are going to make errors that perhaps will be serious to many of the interests of the country; whereas if the bill went before a special committee it could be studied with some degree of that thoroughness and effect which it deserves.


Mr. HANSON:: I agree with a great deal that has been said by my hon. friend. I have
208S
Patents oj Invention

studied the bill somewhat and I believe that if it were submitted to a special committee, where there could be* free interchange of opinion with the experts of the department, the underlying reasons for certain sections would be more apparent than they are now. I da not know whether it is possible at this stage to have the bill go before a committee. Reverting to this very section, 30, if it means anything it means that assignments must be registered; otherwise they shall not be valid. I do not think there should be any such intention; the assignment should be valid as between the parties. It should be perfectly good whether registered or not, but as against third parties it should be registered. I wish the minister would give some consideration to that view.
Mr* ROBB: My hon. friend is no doubt right in so far as the assignment relates to third parties. As regards the observations of my hon. friend for Vancouver, it is a little late in the session to suggest referring the bill to a special committee, when so many committees are already at work. May I observe again what L pointed out on Friday in introducing the bill, that it is precisely the same as that introduced in 1920 and again m 1921 and which reached a second reading. It therefore seems to me that no good purpose can be served by delaying the measure. Generally speaking it has met with the approval of all interests, with very few exceptions. As a matter of fact there is no opposition before the department. While some requests have been made to me that the bill be referred to a special committee. I rathei gather that these requests have come from sources that want to tie up legislation altogether. It is not the policy of the government to introduce such a measure and let it drop again by the wayside. This is the third time the bill has been introduced, the first time before this parl ament, and twice before a previous parliament. I think we had better make some progress with it here, because it will have fair consideration in this Chamber and it can be considered fully in the Senate again. W e can serve no good purpose by delaying it.
Sii HENRY DRA\TON: I think the closing sentence of my hon. friend's remarks ' really gives the key to the whole situation. This bill is to have proper consideration in the Senate, and because it will have proper consideration there, there is no reason why we should not get rid of it, knowing little. if anything abut it.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would point out to my hon. friend that it is a very good thing when introducing legislation to know why it is being introduced. It is a pretty sound principle that the House should know why changes are being made. I asked my hon. friend the other day, for example, just exactly what the benefits of the Berne convention were to which he was referring, but he left us without any information in regard to it. I think my hon, friend ought to tell us why each change is being made so that the House may assist him in seeing that the purpose desired is being properly carried Out
At present we are discussing section 30 dealing with joint assignments. We have already dealt with the ordinary class of assignments. Hon. gentlemen from this side asked the minister as to whether or not rights inter partes are discharged unless there is registration. The minister is going to look into the question. Hon. gentlemen on this side have pointed out that rights inter partes should not be interfered with, and that the only effect of a non-registration penalty should be as against a third party. Section 30 itself looks after it. It provides that assignments shall be registered, and that they shall be null and void in the case of third parties unless so registered and all that section 30 does is to put the joint assignment in the same position as the single assignment. If we could have these sections read out at the time, Mr. Chairman, we would learn what they are. For instance, if section 29 had been read out we would have known where we were at in regard to section 30. I think the least the minister can do is to read out every change that is being made and give the reason for it so we will know something about it.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is quite right, but the clauses under consideration are old clauses and have been in the act since its first enactment. I can quite understand some hon. members opposite who have not had an opportunity of reviewing this bill, finding fault with it, but I can scarcely understand my hon. friend's criticism. He sat around the council table when this bill was considered first in 1920 and again in 1921. He was a member of the government that advanced the bill to second reading and then let it drop by the wayside. Surely he is not in a very good position to reprimand me now for introducing this measure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not blaming my hon. friend for introducing this bill

Patents oj Invention
but for the lack of information he has given us. The bill before never reached second reading, and my hon. friend knows perfectly well that these details are only worked out oh the second reading. It is no argument for him to say now that, because the former government thought this bill should be brought down and afterwards dropped it before second reading, therefore the measure was a mere matter of form. If his predecessors had considered it in such a light it would not have been dropped.


William Alves Boys: I quite appreciate the difficulties any minister would have in connection with a bill of this kind. All I am trying to do is to add a clause which anyone reading can understand. Section 30 of this bill was section 28 in the old act; but section 27 of the old act, which provided that if an assignment .is not registered it shall be null and void against any subsequent assignee, is not incorporated in the present bill. My own opinion is that section 30 in the absence of a provision similar to that contained in old section 27 would not make an assignment null and void. But why leave the matter in doubt? I would suggest that a word or two be added to clause 30 to show that the assignment is not null and void except against subsequent purchasers or assignees without notice.


James Alexander Robb: What words would my hon. frien'd suggest?


William Alves Boys: It should be null and void
as against subsequent purchasers or assignees without notice-but should not go any further. I appreciate there is a. very decided difference between the ordinary assignment and an assignment in cases of joint applications because when two parties apply for a patent you have to deal with both of them. At the same time if no notice is given to the department of an assignment, the department proceeds as if no assignment had been made, knowing nothing of such. The department is not to blame. The assignee would have to sue the two, and it would then be up to the latter to straighten out the difficulty between themselves by an assignment. If I could only find out what is the intention of the minister I would be in a better position to suggest. Is it the intention under section 30 that an assignment shall be null and void unless registered? If so, I think it is a mistake. My suggestion is that it should be null and void against subsequent purchasers or assignees for value and without notice.


James Alexander Robb: The commissioner tells me that in his 21 years' experience such a case has
never arisen. I think we will accept my hon. friend's suggestion, but I would propose that we let this section stand so that the commissioner may have an opportunity to confer with him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Section 30 says:
In cases of joint applications or grants, every assignment from one or more of the applicants or patentees to the other or others, or to any other person, shall be registered in like manner as other assignments.
Section 29 shows how they are to be registered in connection with other assignments:
Every patent issued for an invention shall be assignable in law; either as to the whole interest or as to any part thereof, by any instrument in writing, but such assignment, and every grant and conveyance of any exclusive right to make and use and to grant to others the right to make and use the invention patented within and throughout Canada or any part thereof, shall be registered in the Patent office in the manner from time to time prescribed by the commissioner for such registration.
We are now dealing with the effect of default.
and every ass;gnment affecting a patent for invention shall be null and void against any subsequent assignee, unless such instrument is registered as hereinbefore prescribed, before the registration of the instrument under which such subsequent assignee claims.
Those positions are applicable to section 30. So when the minister is considering it, he had better consider section 29 as well.


James Alexander Robb: Will my hon. friend let me
know what he desires in connection with section 30?


William Alves Boys: I do not know that I can add anything more. If the commissioner wishes me to devote a few minutes to the consideration of the section I shall be very pleased to meet him at any time.


James Alexander Robb: Stands Section stands.
On section 40-Conditions:


Henry Herbert Stevens: Section 38 of the old act is dropped, is it not?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. Sections 3S, 39, 40 and 44 of the old act are repealed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Sections 40 and 41 are really the crux of the whole bill. Will the minister advise us whether these two sections are taken from the old British act of 19079


James Alexander Robb: Partly, with modifications to suit conditions in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the minister aware that the British act of 1907 was materially amended by the British act of 1919?
Patents of Invention


James Alexander Robb: That was represented to ine this morning by a gentleman who is opposing this measure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are points in connection with sections 38 and 44 of the old act which do not seem to be covered by section 40 of this bill. There ought to be a complete explanation of these two sections and their substitution for 38, 39, 40 and 44.


James Alexander Robb: I cannot do better than present to the committee a memorandum prepared bj' the commissioner, who has had a very considerable experience, not only in Canada but in other parts of the world, in the administration of patent acts, and who has given a great deal of study and attention to legislation respecting patents. It is true, as my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) says, that the greatest changes in the bill are found in sections 40 and 41. The memorandum says:
The sections that have been struck out were enacted for the purpose of compelling the patentee to con-tinously manufacture his invention in Canada, supply it to the public at a reasonable price, and to prevent him from importing the invention into Canada. While they have served their purpose in some respects they have failed to do so in others. It is thought that the proposed clauses will better serve the purpose of these sections and will be free from some objectionable features attaching to them. There is no doubt that it is the general desire that the law should, while assuring the inventor an adequate return for his invention, enable the public without difficulty to obtain it at a reasonable price. In the latter respect, the law at present fails. The sections impose on the patentee the obligation of supplying his invention, but they do not give the public the right to compel him to do so. The only right of action that the public have, by reason of the default of the patentee, is for the cancellation of the patent, which is not satisfactory; as in the majority of cases the person requiring the invention is not in a position to manufacture it, the cancellation of the patent is of no benefit to him.
The law requires the patentee to furnish the invention at a reasonable price. Difficulty arises in determining what is a reasonable price. Failing agreement between the patentee and the would be purchaser, if action be taken and the court finds that the price asked is too high, the patent is cancelled, although the patentee might have honestly considered he was entitled to the price whuch he asked. The law requires the patentee to continuously manufacture the invention and forbids him to import it. There is difficulty in determining what constitues manufacture and importation within the meaning of the act. In a recent case in the Supreme court four of the judges were of the opinion that the facts as established showed that the patentee had failed to manufacture and had imported, and as a consequence the patent was cancelled. A dissenting judge was of the opinion that the patentee had complied with the law in these respects and was in favour of sustaining the patent. Owing to these uncertainties it is frequently difficult to determine whether Canadian patents are in force or not. which reduces their value, as naturally there is hesitancy in investing money in the exploitation of a patent which may turn out to be void through failure of compliance with these requirements of the act. If the proposed amendments be adopted these difficulties and uncer-
IMr. Stevens.]
tainties will be removed, as in the case of disagreement the court will fix the price at which the invention is to be supplied and the patent will not be forfeited unless the patentee fails to supply the invention at that pnce within the time also to be fixed by the court.
The amendments will involve modification of the present importation provision, which absolutely prohibits the importation of the invention on pain of nullity of the patent. The amendment, while not expressly prohibiting importation, will expose the patent to forfeiture if the manufacture of the invention is not carried on to an adequate extent in Canada.
The reason that has always been given for retention of section 38 is that over 75 per cent of our patents are granted to United States citizens and it was feared that were it not for the provisions of this section the patented inventions would be imported from the United States plants and Canada would get nothing in return for the patent. It is now thought that the proposed clause will safeguard Canada's interests in this regard. Any loss that might Tesult from the relaxation of the importation provision, it is thought, will be more than compensated by the benefit to be derived from adherence to the international convention for the protection of industrial property, for which the amendment will open the way.
Then this answers the question of my hon. friend:
This convention was constituted in 1883 and is composed of the principal countries of the world.
Its whole spirit is shown in article 2 of the constitution which declares that subjects or citizens of each of the contracting countries shall as regards patents, trademarks, etc., in all other countries of the Union enjoy the advantages that their respective laws grant to their own subjects or citizens.
In some important countries, notably the United Stales, Japan and Germany, Canadians are at present under certain disabilities as compared with the citizens or subjects of these countries.
In 1900 Canada endeavoured to join the Union, but failed ou'ing to repugnancy between its importation provision and article 5 of the convention which states that introduction of the patented invention made in a Union country into the country where the patent was granted shall not entail forfeiture.
By the proposed amendment this repugnancy will be removed and the way opened for joining the Union for which there is a very general demand. (For further information re the Union see appendix A attached hereto).
In amending the act in 1903, section 44 was enacted to provide for granting licenses in respect of certain patents covering inventions which it would be unreasonable to require the patentee to manufacture in the absence of a special demand. If the proposed amendment be adopted this section will be repealed. The amendment will apply to all patents without regard to the nature of the inventions covered by them.
Under the provisions of the act the commissioner may extend the 'limited time for manufacture and importation and may place patents under section 44 at his discretion.
The commissioner is moved to exercise this discretion by formal petitions more or less voluminous and supported by affidavit or solemn declaration. These petitions require careful consideration, orders must be made thereon and there is much correspondence therewith. In some years over 5.000 were dealt with in the Patent office. These petitions would be entirely done away with by the amendments as there would be no fixed time to extend and section 44 would be repealed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As we proceed with the
sections I wish the minister would be good

Patents oj Invention
enough to supplement the very excellent presentation he has just made by applying it to these sections and showing exactly how they will work out. May I ask this? Suppose a citizen of the United States has taken out a patent for an article in the United States and has then taken one out in Canada. The present act, as I understand it, by section 38 protects the Canadian in that the patentee from outside must manufacture in Canada and cannot simply take out his patent, or possibly sell it to someone else making a similar article, and then ignore altogether the Canadian market so far as manufacture is concerned. Or he might take out a patent and not use it, manufacture the article at home and sell it in Canada. Or it might be a machine, of which there are many; what comes to my mind is a machine such as the Goodyear welting machine. I do not know that it would be applicable to machines of that general type, for which a patent might be taken out in Canada and the article be manufactured over in the United States. Now as I understand section 38, it was especially designed to protect against such cases as that. If the minister as we proceed with section 40 can show that we have ample protection, then my perplexity will be largely met. I think we ought to read these sections very carefully, not merely the marginal notes.


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend and I
understand the law alike. If I understand it aright, under the old act unless the patent was manufactured in Canada it automatically became void, or if the invention were imported and not manufactured in Canada it became void. I will give my hon. friend an illustration of how under the old act a patent, might become void in Canada. Suppose a person is manufacturing an article in Canada for which he has obtained a patent, and his property is destroyed by fire. It might take a year and a half to rebuild that property, and if during that period he imported from his United States factory the requirements to keep the business going, his patent in Canada would become void.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister argue
that that obtains under the existing act, under section 38?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It seems pretty farfetched.


James Alexander Robb: That was the explanation given to me by the commissioner and it was the judgment of the courts under the old act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under the old act?


James Alexander Robb: Under the old act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the existing act?


James Alexander Robb: Yes but under the act as we propose to amend it the commissioner will have discretionary powers to determine whether in the case of such an accident occurring they should be compelled to manufacture i:i Canada within the period, or he may give them a reasonable time to rebuild. The powers are largely within the discretion of the commissioner, and I am sure hon. gentlemen will appreciate the fact that the commissioner is not going to give a ruling that in his judgment will be detrimental to 4 p.m. manufacturing interests in Canada.
At the same time it will afford a little leeway for importation of articles from other countries if there is actual necessity for it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would it not be better to maintain the compulsory provision, that is, make it obligatory on the parties to manufacture in Canada, but in the case of such an accident as the minister has mentioned, fire, deluge, or some act of that kind, the commissioner should have nower to extend the period? But the principle is what I am after. I think we ought to retain as far as possible the principle of obligatory manufacture in Canada, making it imperative or obligatory upon the person taking out the patent to manufacture in Canada. If we remove that feature and give to the commissioner discretionary powers such as my hon. friend has just intimated, it is in my estimation altogether, too extensive a power to delegate to an official. Let it be the reverse. I think the principle of the old act is the better. However, if the minister wishes to proceed with the reading of the present section, we can probably bring these points out as we proceed.


James Alexander Robb: I was just going to say that the section really does provide for that, but in different language. If we leave in the old language, it prevents us from entering the Berne convention. If my hon. friends who are legal gentlemen will follow the section closely, I think they will find that though the language is somewhat different, all they desire is provided in this clause. *


William Alves Boys: The minister speaks of discretionary power being given to the com missioner under section 40, Under what sub-
Patents of Invention

section is there any discretionary power given to him except to refer the petition to the Exchequer Court?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, that power is given.


William Alves Boys: I would not call that discretionary power at all. A petition comes before the commissioner; the commissioner considers the petition, and if a prima facie case is made out he does nothing himself but refers it to the Exchequer Court. That involves the matter we were discussing the other night, in an effort, to get away from responsibility. It seems to me nobody should be better able to dispose of matters of this kind in the first instance than the commissioner himself, who, with the years of experience behind him, should be well able to do it.


James Alexander Robb: Before my hon. friend presents the amendment will he read section 41?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think
we can go on now with section 40. I again want to understand what we are doing it for? From what I understand from the minister, the underlying reason for the changes in the act is that the Canadian patentee does not get equal rights in the United States, Japan and Germany-


James Alexander Robb: And some other countries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Those are the
countries the minister mentioned.


James Alexander Robb: * I gave those notably. There are other places such as Brazil, Cuba and so on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Those are quite important countries. What rights are withheld from us? What do we gain by this? What specific disabilities is the Canadian under in Japan or Germany?


James Alexander Robb: I will give an instance which
came under our observation recently. Some fish were shipped down to Brazil; they had trade-mark designs exactly like this, and they refused to register this trade-mark in Brazil. Not only that,, but they pirated the trademark and threatened to expropriate any Canadian goods that were sent down with that trade-mark. The trade-marks and patents are coupled together there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
reason for that?


James Alexander Robb: We are not in the convention.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the Brazilian law the convention law?


James Alexander Robb: They are in the convention.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the United
States in the convention? Are Germany and Japan in the convention?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do these sections just follow the American sections?


James Alexander Robb: I could not say as to that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the sense of
the sections the same?


James Alexander Robb: No, this is very different.
The commissioner advises me that in the United States there are no conditions attached to the patent as regards manufacture and im, portation. They do the thing a little differently from the way we do it. We might as well be frank in regard to this. There has been a measure of protection under our Canadian law. In the United States it is wide open, and they give the protection through their custom houses. That is the difference in' the law as bewteen Canada and the United States.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the minister right in
saying that the United States is a member of that convention? I understood that country was not a member.


James Alexander Robb: Not of the copyright, but of
the patents and trade-marks it is.


William Alves Boys: As suggested by the minister,
I have looked at section 41. I cannot see how it can be coupled with section 40. Section 41 has reference to the revocation of the patent on the ground that the patented article is . manufactured or the process carried on exclusively or mainly outside of Canada. Section 40 deals with the reasonable requirements of the public, and provides that if the article is being manufactured but is not being supplied at a reasonable price, relief may be afforded the public.


James Alexander Robb: Under section 41, if the reasonable requirements of Canada are not supplied, then the commissioner has the right to revoke the patent,


William Alves Boys: That is section 40 and not
section 41.


James Alexander Robb: No, section 41.


William Alves Boys: I think possibly the amendment I want to suggest may be acceptable to the minister. I suggest that subsections (c) and (d) be deleted, and the following inserted in their place:
(c) If the parties do not come to an arrangement between themselves, the commissioner shall then consider the petition and shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.

Patents of Invention
The minister will at once see that there is the main difference. The section as we now have it in the proposed bill gives him no jurisdiction. He simply finds out if there is a prima facie case and if so, he sends it to the Exchequer Court. This provides that he shall have jurisdiction and shall hear and determine the matter. Then the amendment proceeds-
And if it is proved to his satisfaction that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied the patentee may be ordered by him to supply the patented article within reasonable limits at such price as may be fixed by him, and in accordance with the custom of the trade to which the invention relates as to the payment [DOT] and delivery, or to grant licenses for the use of the patented invention, as may be fixed by him in either case within and after such time as may be fixed by him and on pain of forfeiture of the patent.
(d) Any decision of the commissioner under this section shall be subject to appeal to the Exchequer Court.


James Alexander Robb: In considering the amendment I wish to bring to the attention of the committee the sections that it is proposed to delete, namely (c) and (d). Subsection (c) reads:
The commissioner shall then consider the petition-
That is when representations are made to him that the goods are not manufactured in Canada-
The commissioner shall then consider the petition and, if the parties do not come to an arrangement between themselves, the commissioner, if satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out, shall refer the petition to the Exchequer Court and, if the commissioner is not so satisfied, he may dismiss the petition.
It will be observed that in the first instance he takes upon himself the right to dismiss the petition, but if there is any doubt about it he refers the matter to the Exchequer Court, and there the interested parties go before that court and submit evidence for and against. I submit to my hon. friend that if his amendment prevails it means no more and no less than establishing a second court within the Patent office, and adds enormously to the machinery of public service in this country, and, in my judgment, adds quite an unnecessary expense. There might not be more than one or two cases develop during the year, but you would require all the machinery of the court to sit there waiting for such cases to come up. The Exchequer Court is a fair method of arbitration for all parties to go before and to bring their witnesses. There may be many witnesses to be heard; there may be long records to examine, and in the interest of economical government and fair play to all interested parties, as well as in order to do justice to all the people of Canada, I do not
think my hon. friend should press his amendment. It seems to me that the present method is a fair one. The commissioner explains to me that in the early nineties they had the machinery which my hon. friend now proposes to reintroduce; but experience proved that it was too cumbersome, and they had to abandon it. That is why at this time they have decided to refer all these cases to the Exchequer Court. That is what the Exchequer. Court is for. If there are not enough men on that court, let more be put on, but why establish a court within the Patent office?


William Alves Boys: I should like to say at once that in proposing this amendment, I had no thought of putting anybody, not even the government, to expense. My thought in suggesting this amendment is the very reverse. I do not think persons interested in patents, where there is room for some little dispute, should at once be drawn into the law courts at great cost and delay. It might be interesting to know just how many cases, such as are involved in the matter we are now discussing, have arisen in the last twenty years. I do not suppose there are many, but surely when a question arises whether or not an article is being supplied at a reasonable cost to the public,* the commissioner, without a string of officials, without a great deal of expense, can read the , petition, hear the persons interested in the patents, and then e"d there determine whether or not the public are being supplied with the article at a reasonable cost. If he thinks they are, he dismisses the application; if not, he says so, and he imposes such terms as he thinks proper. For argument, in the case of an article selling at a dollar, he will say: "You have here an article that costs five to ten cents to manufacture; you ought to supply it to the public at fifty or seventy-five cents," whatever he thinks proper. He gives his judgment accordingly, and I venture to say that, in most cases his judgment, will be accepted by the parties. But in case any injustice may be done, let an appeal to the Exchequer Court be reserved to protect the party who fails. You have then the ordinary machinery of that court to follow. How the minister can think this is going to involve an army of employees or even an extra employee, I cannot see. This will not increase expense; it will diminish it. It is going to keep applicants for patents out of litigation. This may seem a peculiar thing for a lawyer to suggest; but my interest in this matter is as a member of parliament, and not as a lawyer. I am speaking in this case as a member of parliament. I certainly desire, as
Patents oj Invention

a representative of the people of Canada, to do all I can to keep them out of law. I am going to read a comment which has reached me in connection with this clause. I do not desire any credit for this amendment. It was handed to me by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who, being unable to be present, asked me to take charge of it. This is the comment; with which I entirely agree:
These are framed to reduce the necessity for suit before the Exchequer Court. There is strong feeling against throwing a'l'l doubtful cases at once into the law courts and compelling litigation on questions which may well be determined within the Patent office. In fact, there is a strong feeling that without the passage of such amendments the Patent office will be receiving fees without earning them, and as the bill stands at present the Commissioner of Patents is stripped of his proper functions-	*
With that I absolutely agree.
-which are handed to the Exchequer Court, while the patentee may at any time find himself forced into legal procedure which might be properly avoided.
The only answer made by the minister to that is the imaginary expense it is going to lead to. Let us see what this clause contemplates. The public think they are being called upon to pay an extravagant price for an article the manufacture of which is patented. They present a petition to the commissioner setting out their grievances, I presume, giving some evidence that the article cannot cost more than 20 to 30 per cent of the selling cost, and stating that there should b* a reduction in price. When the commissioner receives the petition, he then decides whether or not it should be granted or dismissed. As the minister says, he can dismiss it under the proposed legislation. I want to go a step further and to meet the case when the commissioner, after consideration, is of opinion that the article is being sold at too high a price. He may then say so, and add what he thinks it should be sold for. to supply the public with the article at a reasonable price. He gives his judgment accordingly. Where is there anything cumbersome, troublesome or expensive in that procedure? The commissioner is given many powers in this legislation. Why not give him an important power in this connection, and keep people out of law, if possible. If they must have law, they can appeal to the Exchequer Court from his decision. I must say the minister has not said anything which makes me think this amendment should be withdrawn. I do not present it for the purpose of embarrassment at all; I present it in the hope that the minister may think it is reasonable; that the provisions of this
fMr. Boy3.]
measure will be improved, and that the cost connected with patents will be lessened. In no other spirit do I offer the amendment to the minister. If he just views the situation which might arise under it, I do not see how he can imagine for a moment that the troubles which he has anticipated will occur. I agree with the comment I have read that if you do not give the commissioner such a power as this, the Patent office will be actually receiving fees without earning them. We do not want a commissioner, a man of experience and ability, to merely receive and file papers, and to tell people, if they ar^ not satisfied, to go to the Exchequer Court. We have a commissioq-er, as far as I know of considerable capacity. He is paid with that in view. Give him some responsibility in connection with the enforcement of this legislation. Do not strip him of responsibility and send everything of any doubt or trouble to the Exchequer Court, which, I think, is fairly well loaded up with work at the present time.


James Alexander Robb: Probably my hon. friend might be right in many arguments that would come up; but there are some cases where, I think, I could almost convince my hon. friend that it is quite necessary that this should go to the Exchequer Court. The commissioner has recently pointed out a case that came before him in connection with a system of recovering ore at the Cobalt mines, a ver' complicated matter, where royalties would run into millions of dollars. My hon. friend can understand that if the commissioner undertook to hear cases of that kind, they might extend over quite a long time and tie up the work of the office. My hon. friend has not yet persuaded me that it is best to establish a court within the Patent office. He will not deny that it will be necessary to equip the Patent office further, if they are properly to hear all evidence in connection with appeals that arisp from time to time. May I again remind my hon. friend that the system he suggests was in vogue prior to 1890?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is objecting to the establishment of a court within the Patent office; but he is establishing a court by this clause. He is empowering the commissioner to say, no, but he forbids him to say yes. He empowers the commissioner to dismiss a case; but if the commissioner does not, dismiss a case, he must send it on with a sort of "God bless you" to the Exchequer Court Let me read the clause, and the minister will see where his argument is without foundation at all;

Patents of Invention
The commissioner shall then consider the petition, and .... if satisfied that a prinia facie case has been made out,-
But how can he determine that, such a case has been made out unless he hears the evidence? How can fie determine that a prima facie case has been made out if he has not read the petition and heard or read the evidence and given it his consideration; in other words, unless he has sat upon the case as a court?


James Alexander Robb: He need not necessarily act as a court.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Follow me a step further. The section goes on:
-and, if the commissioner is not so satisfied, he may
dismiss the petition.
You deny the petitioner the right of appeal if the commissioner says no, but you send the case to the Exchequer Court if he says yes. Why, the thing is really preposterous. The minister says in effect that the commis sioner cannot try these cases because he has not the equipment nor the time. But a petition comes before him and he is empowered to say, "You have no case;" and there is no right of appeal, no safeguard at all. But has not the commissioner considered the case if he dismisses it? If he has not, then this law is a travesty on justice; it is only an insult to the intelligence of the people. My hon. friend will certainty have to amend the section because I cannot see how he can escape it. Let us read the clause carefully:
The commissioner shall then consider the petition and,
. . . . if satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out, shall refer the petition to the exchequer court-
For purposes which are determined in the next section. But, mark you, he must determine first whether a prima facie case has been made out.
-and, if the commissioner is not so satisfied, he may dismiss the petition.
If the commissioner is not satisfied, after having given due consideration to the matter, he may say to the petitioners, "You have no case, go away," and that ends it. They have no right of appeal. Now, that is a dangerous power to put into the hands of the commissioner.' We do not ask that; we say, let the petition go before the commissioner; and we ask him to do what you are asking him to do here, namely, to consider it. We say that if [DOT] he considers a prima facie case has been made out he shall refer the matter to the Exchequer Court; and if, on the other hand, he considers that no prima facie case has been established, then we ask that, if the 134



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
petitioners, or either party, are not satisfied, they be given the right to appeal to the court.
James Alexander Robb: That is not what the amendment says.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Virtually it is; that is exactly what we mean.


William Alves Boys: It does say that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As far as I know it does; that is what we are asking. I think I have made that point perfectly clear, and there can be no possible escape from that reasoning. But let us look for a moment at another phase of the matter. The cost question has come up several times and the minister has expressed the opinion that we are going to add to the cost if we adopt this amendment. It does not matter where the case is decided, whetfier in the Exchequer Court, in the Patent office, in the Justice department or anywhere else, it must be given consideration and there must be cost. There must be cost in maintaining the Exchequer Court, because there have to be clerks, judges, registrars, etc.; and there must be cost if the matter is, to be considered in the Patent office. In short, wherever the case is considered cost is involved. For the commissioner to say that he will just simply unload all his work on the Exchequer Court in so far as decisions are concerned, and thereby effect economies in the administration of the act, is absolutely nonsense, because if the Exchequer Court is in such a condition to-day that case after case can be referred to it without adding to its cost, there must be something wrong somewhere. It may be argued by the minister that the parties appealing to the courts will pay their own costs. That is a point to be considered; but I want to point out that they have already paid their costs to the Patent office. If I remember rightly, and, of course, I am subject to correction, the Patent office now has a revenue of over $200,000. These fees are paid to that office for just such cases as this, where there is a difference, where there is a ruling, where there is a search wanted. All these things are the reasons for the fees that are paid into that office. I would say, if the minister argued on the basis of cost, that he at once reduce the fees to applicants, because the Patent office never was intended as a profit-making institution, I cannot see, therefore, that my hon. friend has made an adequate defence at all in regard to this section. On both these grounds I appeal to him again, supporting my hon. friend who presented the amendment. Let the commissioner have the reEDITION
Patents of Invention

sponsibility of deciding the case and let an appeal be allowed in both cases to the Exchequer Court.


William Alves Boys: There is one further observation I would make. If I understand the section rightly it is reallyfor the benefit of the public that it is being enacted, and not for the benefit of the patentee. Well, analyze that situation for a moment. If a petition is presented it comes only from the public: it is a petition from the public to have the article supplied to them at a reasonable rate. The commissioner passes upon that, having heard, I presume, the evidence only of the petitioners. In other words, it is a prima facie case that has been made out; he does not hear the defence. Having heard what the petition sets out he is permitted to say to the public, the petitioners, "I do not consider that you have made out a prima facie case," and there is an end of the matter. The public have no chance to go further. Is that desirable? In one breath you say you do not want to give the commissioner the responsibility or the power except to refer a petition to the Exchequer Court, and in the next breath you give him the opportunity of deciding that a prima facie case has not been made out, and then you refuse the public the right of appeal. The proposed amendment provides that the commissioner shall reach a decision, whichever way he thinks right, in the first instance, and either party being dissatisfied may go to the court for relief, and there the matter shall end. If the minister wants to protect the public it seems to me he should accede to the amendment, because it is only in the interests of the public that it is intended. As a matter of fact the section itself is meant to protect the public, and if the commissioner is given in one instance the responsibility I have referred to, I do not see why he should not be given the dual power of both rejecting or admitting the petition and granting relief.


Mr. BRISTOL:: Has this section as drawn been copied from any other act? I can see what is in the commissioner's mind as well as what is in the minds of my hon. friends.
1 hey want to have the commissioner determine the case one way or the other. As the section -is now drawn, all that he determines is whether there is a prima facie case; and I think that is open to this objection. There aie tremendously valuable and intricate patents to-day in connection with radio and electrical inventions of one kind or another, and if you are going to ask the Commissioner of Patents to go into the merits of any case he would Have to have expert assistance and really (Mr. Stevens.]	.
set up something like an Exchequer Court. But as I understand the section the idea is that the commissioner would say whether on documents submitted to him there was a prima facie case, and if he jaid there was, then it would go to the Exchequer Court, to decide whether in fact there was a case on the merits. That court is equipped for the purpose and specially intended for the trial of patent cases, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. It seems to me that everything my hon. friends desire to do could be accomplished if there was the same right of appeal front the commissioner's decision that there was not a prima facie case Otherwise it puts this tremendous power in his possession, that in perfect good faith he might say that in his opinion there was not a prima facie case, and possibly enormous interests might be involved, but there would be no opportunity of proceeding to the Exchequer Court. It seems to me it would be perfectly right and proper if the person presenting a petition for a patent was thrown out of court by the commissioner on the ground that he had not established, a prima facie case that there should be a right of appeal from the commissioner to the Exchequer Court. That is the only suggestion I should like to make. If you are going to throw the responsibility of some of these tremendously important cases upon the commissioner, then there will certainly be a very expensive procedure incurred, which is not in the interests of the patentee, who usually has not very much money to spend on securing a patent for his invention. He is usually up against very powerful interests who will go ahead and fight the case through to the Supreme Court. The amount of money collected by patentees for damages in the last ten years is less than a million dollars, while the value of the patents involved is hundreds of millions of dollars. Do not put more expense and difficulty on the poor patentee in protecting his rights. I do think that if his petition is thrown out by the commissioner on the ground that no prima facie case has been made out (he patentee should be allowed to appeal to the Exchequer Court.


Mr. McMASTER:: I think perhaps there is a way to meet the objections which have been raised by the hon. and learned member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) and also to prevent too. great an accumulation of appeals.
I have listened with a great deal of attention to what the hon member for Centre Toronto (Air. Bristol) has said, and with it. I am in almost entire agreement. What I understand is desired by the minister is the avoidance of

Patent.s of Invention
a multiplication of vexatious appeals. He wishes to prevent this stituation: A man pretends that the patentee has not provided for the reasonable requirements of the public; he brings a petition before the commissioner, who finds he has no prima facie case at all and turns him away. Now the suggestion of the hon. member for South Simcoe is that that man should be put in precisely the same position as is the man in connection with whose application a prima facie case has been held to have been made out by the commissioner and that the applicant who has been turned down by him should have the right to go to the Supreme Court also. That is what I understand is the position taken by my hon. friend.


William Alves Boys: To the Exchequer Court.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, I mean the Exchequer Court. Would it not be possible to meet the desires of the member for South Simcoe and the desires of the minister by making this provision? Where the commissioner thinks a prima facie case is made out he refers the matter to the Exchequer Court, which is equipped to deal with it. I see force in the argument that we do not want to establish a court that will go into the whole matter; it might involve the commissioner in months of work and the office might more or less be retarded by the fact that he was tied up on the case just as our courts get tied up with cases lasting weeks; and that where a prima facie case is made out the commissioner transmits the matter to the Exchequer Court immediately. If the commissioner does not believe that a prima facie case is made out, and rejects the application. I would not want to deprive the applicant of any recourse whatsoever. But I would say to him: You have failed to make out a prima facie case; you may go to the Exchequer Court, but you must go on such terms as will assure your opponent that you are not resorting to that court vexatiously. Therefore I would suggest this course to the minister: That where an applicant has had application turned down by the commissioner, and wishes to go to the Exchequer Court, he should put up security for the costs that will be involved in his application. That will meet the views of the hon. member for South Simcoe. It will not put the commissioner in the position where he can arbitrarily turn down an application which perhaps has more merit in it than he thinks, but it will allow the applicant, on giving security, to go to the Exchequer Court. At the same time the fact that the applicant whose application
has been turned down has to put up security will discourage people from making frivolous applications before the commissioner and before the Exchequer Court.


William Alves Boys: I am very slightly convinced perhaps in one connection by the remarks of the member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol). I can conceive that occasionally a case of a highly technical nature might arise which would lead perhaps to a prolonged investigation and would require expert testimony. As a way out of the difficulty would it be improper to make this suggestion: While you put upon the commissioner the responsibility I have already indicated, you might add a proviso that in cases of a highly technical or unusually difficult nature the commissioner could, with the approval of the minister, refer them to the Exchequer Court. The effect of such a proviso would be that in all ordinary cases the commissioner would give a quick decision and, I venture to say, nearly always a satisfactory decision, at very little cost and with very little delay; but when he finds himself involved in some of the highly technical cases suggested, he will have the power to say, " This is a case of a highly technical nature and unusual difficulty and, with the approval of the minister, i shall refer it to the Exchequer Court ", This would protect everybody; it would protect the public and it would protect the patentee, and besides this protection the costs in the majority of the cases will be kept down to the minimum, there being no necessity for an extra staff in the department. I think this would meet the objections advanced by the member for Centre Toronto. If I were permitted I could very easily add such a proviso to my amendment. Possibly it is a matter of such importance that the minister will let the section stand and so afford us sufficient time to draft what is necessary by way of amendment. I think this would save time in the end.


James Alexander Robb: Stands.


Edmund James Bristol: Before this is done I would suggest to my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Boys) consideration of this aspect: Whether instead of doing what he suggests where the commissioner said no j^rima facie case had been made out, it would not be better to let the applicant appeal to the Exchequer Court provided the Exchequer Court gave leave. He really gets a hearing then before the commissioner, and if he succeeds, then he should: if he does not succeed, then the thing is ended.

Patents of Invention


William Alves Boys: That does not meet my main purpose in submitting this amendment, which is, as I have said, to get an inexpensive and a quick decision on the part of the commissioner. I should be losing the entire object that I have in view if I adopted that suggestion.


Mr. FORTIER:: I am in favour of the provision as contained in the bill. In the discussion of this matter we should not lose sight of the petition itself, which is a special petition, from, we will say, a third party who contends that the price of a patented article is too high. He represents himself as an interested party, but he is looking after the interests of the public, and he presents his petition to the commissioner. Of course, he comes up against a condition of affairs that has existed for some time, involving certain vested rights. Well, when he goes before the commissioner and asks that a change be made, it is my opinion that the commissioner is in a perfectly good position to say prima facie that the petition should not be entertained. It is wise that the commissioner should have the power to decide whether or not the petition is well founded. If he does not do so, and if he renders a judgment equivalent to the granting of the petition, which asks for a change in the price of an article, that is where the difficulty comes in. Would he be in a position to protect the public by making a change in the price without going into a long enquete, without hearing experts, without having engineers before him, and so on? The holding of such an enquete, is not within the jurisdiction of the commissioner, and therefore it is wise that the matter should be referable to the Exchequer Court. The question of costs is involved; the petitioner will be obliged to incur certain costs if the investigation is held before the commissioner, then, if appeal is taken to the Exchequer Court there is what one might call a double trial.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He has no appeal -if the commissioner says, no.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: So much the better; I am not in favour of an appeal. I say the bill is wise in giving power to the commissioner to have this matter placed before the Exchequer Court at once with a view to their deciding on the merits of the petition. That may involve not merely the granting of the petition itself but the fixing of a price in order to protect the public. It is only after a full trial before a court that the matter can be dealt with satisfactorily to the public.


James Alexander Robb: I was disposed to allow the item to stand but before finally deciding that

I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Boys) if he would accept the clauses as they are, with the addition of these words:
Any decision of the commissioner under this section shall be subject to appeal to the Exchequer Court.
That would give them the right of appeal.
I think my hon. friend is almost convinced that the hon. members for Centre Toronto Mr. Bristol), Labelle (Mr. Fortier) and Brome (Mr. McMaster) are right.


William Alves Boys: The minister evidently thinks that all I am striving for is an appeal, but that is not the case. . It is not an appeal I want; it is a quick decision, and the minister's suggested amendment will not help that at all.
I do think an appeal is necessary. I do not think it is proper to give the commissioner the power he has under this section without providing for an appeal in case the petition is refused. But the real purpose of my amendment is not that at all; it is to get a quick decision in all cases.


Edmund James Bristol: Which amendment is the hon. member speaking to, his own or the one the minister has just read?


William Alves Boys: We are dealing with both.


Edmund James Bristol: It seems to me that if there is the right of appeal when the commissioner decides that there is no prima facie case, then the public will be protected. I cannot see how you can get a quick decision one way or the other, because each case depends upon a great number of circumstances. Some cases may be extremely simple and some very complicated, and only to be interpreted with the assistance of experts. That is really the gist of this whole situation, as I view it-the right of appeal in either case. That is what I would like to see; any amendment along that line would be fair to everybody.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend wish the section to stand, or will he accept my amendment?


William Alves Boys: I am not personally interested, Mr. Chairman, but I have reason to believe that there is a large class of persons who do feel interested in the matter, and this amendment is perhaps the result of their wishes. Apart from that, it makes no difference to me at all I do not recede from the position I have taken that in the ordinary case the commissioner can easily decide the matter. Let me add one observation, and I am through, whatever happens. Take the ordinary case of litigation in the courts: I venture to say that not more than one case in fifteen goes

Patents of Invention
to appeal; a decision is rendered and the parties, as a rule, accept it Appeal is taken in a limited number of cases, and so it would be in respect to these petitions. It is perfectly proper to protect the public by appeal, but I think that in the other way you would get a decision much quicker, and you would not heap upon the Exchequer Court every case in which there was any doubt at all

and that must be the result here. The commissioner would have no power except to dismiss the petition. I do not imagine he would be inclined to dismiss unless he was very certain about it; therefore, wherever there is any doubt you throw the people interested into litigation in spite of themselves, although they might be willing to lay their views before the commissioner and accept his decision.


James Alexander Robb: In the hope that at six o'clock the commissioner and the legal gentlemen may get together and introduce language that would suit all, I suggest that the clause stand.


The CHAIRMAN:: Section 40 and amendment thereto stand.
On section 41-Revocation of patent time limit:


William Alves Boys: We see at once, right in this section, the very thing we have been striving for in the last. I cannot understand this: in one section you give the commissioner certain power and in another section you run away from it; in another you come back again to it, and then run away from it. In the last section we were trying to give the commissioner the power a man of his ability and experience might properly be vested with, but we were met with the suggestion that, it was too great a power. Now. here is subsection 2 of 41:
The commissioner shall consider the application, and, if after inquiry he is satisfied that the allegations contained therein are correct, then, subject to the provisions of this section, and unless the patentee proves that the patented article or process is manufactured or carried on to an adequate extent in Canada, or gives satisfactory reasons why the article or process is not so manufactured or carried on, the commissioner may-
Not refer it to the Exchequer Court, but may do something himself, and to find out whether he is going to do that something or not, the case has to be proved before him. How does he do it? I suppose a court, as the minister suggested, would be required in connection with the last section. Witnesses come before him, are examined pro and con, and when all that is done and satisfactory reasons are given the commissioner then comes to a decision. It is not a case of a prima facie proposition in which he refers it to the Exchequer Court, or dismisses it; he
reaches a decision. Now what is the difference between this and my contention in connection with the last section? Absolutely none except with regard to perhaps highly technical cases. They impress me, I admit. In some very difficult cases it might lead to a prolonged investigation. It will lead to that anyway before the Exchequer Court, and I should imagine the commissioner of patents ought to be just about as well able to dispose of matters respecting patent rights as a judge of the Exchequer Court., who may be very able, but is not, at all events, confining his attention to one line all the time as the patent commissioner is. So here in this section we have adopted what was rejected in the last. I can see no reason whatever for its rejection except in technical cases.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister must realize the sanity of my hon. friend's suggestion sanity that is in comparison with the obvious -what shall I say-not insanity, but bordering on it of these two sections when one is compared to the other. Not only is what my hon. friend (Mr. Boys) has said true, but it will be noted that the power given to the commissioner in this section is to revoke a patent, cancel it, to take from a man all rights he has in it. It is the ultimate power, one might say. But not only that, the commissioner must be in a position to understand all the details of all treaties of this country with other countries. This is a power infinitely wider than the power in section 40. Perhaps we had better have the two sections stand until after six o'clock in order to have them harmonized. Let the powers whatever they are be the same in both cases and run in some degree of harmony.


James Alexander Robb: How would it be to pass this section? Then we shall have a precedent, for what is suggested by my hon. friend for Simcoe.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will have to look at the powers of appeal.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The section provides for power of appeal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That ought to make this section a model for the other.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall subsection 2 carry?


William Alves Boys: If this carries with a view to amending section 40 to meet it, I can understand it, but surely you do not want one section contradicting the other. I think the committee has to decide whether you are going to have a commissioner in the patent office who is to have responsibility com-
Patents oj Invention

mensurate with the importance of the office.
or whether you are going to
5 p.m. have merely a clerical officer there That is the first thing to decide. If you are going to have a commissioner in the true sense, and that is what I want, then give him these powers-don't empower him under one section and refuse power under another, but give him power throughout, reasonable power subject to appeal. Either do that or abolish all idea of him being a commissioner and get down to a clerical basis.and let everything go to the Exchequer Court. I do not think we should pass this sectiou unless the minister is really disposed to adopt the principle involved here in the last section also.


Edmund James Bristol: 
James Alexander Robb: The only provision in section 'II is for taking evidence by affidavit. There is no provision for examination of witnesses.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall subsection 2
carry?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is with the understanding that section 40 is to be remodelled and harmonize with section 41.


James Alexander Robb: No, I would prefer them both to stand.
Section 41 stands.
On section 43-Tariff of fees:


James Alexander Robb: There are some slight changes made in the present tariff.
An item is added to provide a fee for proceedings in new sections 16, 23, 40 and 41; also an item for the fees on drawings, which were provided for by a repealed section. The fee payable on the patent which the patentee has allowed to lapse has been made the same as the original fee, which is thought to be only reasonable. Since the present

tariff came into force there have been several cases of hardship through failure to pay the final fee within the fixed time. It is thought it would be well to provide for relief from forfeiture on payment of the prescribed fee, which is really a penalty.


William Alves Boys: It is rather hard to digest all this in a hurry. The old fee for a patent good for a term of eighteen years was $60. Now the fee for a patent is to be $15 on filing application for patent-


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend must have the wrong tariff. I will read to him the tariff of fees. The fees are provided by the act of 1921.


William Alves Boys: What about the tariff of fees provided here in section 43 now under consideration? The list appears there, and what I am trying to find out is whether or not the fees there are correct. This scale provides for $15 on filing an application for patent and a fee of $20 on the grant of patent, which would be $35 altogether, whereas the former fee was $60. Is that correct?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 47. subsection 1-Restoration and revival of patent:
Mr. ROB®:	This section is entirely new
and gives the commissioner the power to revive lapsed patents, which heretofore had to be done by parliament. The commissioner now has that power.
Henry Herbert Stevens: In other words this will
remove the necessity of passing special private bills for reviving patents?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 6-Right of appeal:
Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a point in subsection 6 that requires some attention.


James Alexander Robb: I desire to strike out the
words "within six months from the date hereof," in the fourth line of this subsection. That is to meet an objection raised by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys). We provide for that in another section.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 48-Government may use patented inventions:


Henry Herbert Stevens: Suppose one of the employees of the government in one of the departmental laboratories should make a dis-

Patents of Invention
covery-I care not what it may be-is there any provision in the act protecting him?


James Alexander Robb: I think that is provided for in section 23.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The reason I think we
should be very sure of that is because this section provides-
The government of Canada may. at any time, use any patented invention, paying to the patentee such sum as the commissioner reports to be a reasonable compensation for the use thereof.
While I do not wish to dispute this point, I think that in the case of employees of the government, for the sake of encouraging them in their work, there should be some definite allowance made to them. I understand there is some understanding, but whether it is incorporated in the bill or not I do not know.


James Alexander Robb: I think that is provided for in section 23, which says-
Every patent granted in respect of an invention made by a person while employed in the public service of Canada-
And so on. I think it is fully covered by that. My hon. friend for Simcoe had some suggestions to make in regard to that section. We propose to go back to section 23, my hon. friend suggested that the following words be added:
Any decision of the commissioner under this section shall be subject to appeal to the Exchequer Court.


Edmund James Bristol: It seems to me that provision should apply all through the bill. I think it should be a matter for the Exchequer Court to say what is reasonable. Section 48 says-
The government of Canada may, at any time, use any patented invention, paying the patentee such sum as the commissioner reports to be a reasonable compensation for the use thereof.


James Alexander Robb: What does the hon. member suggest?


Edmund James Bristol: I think there should be an
appeal to the Exchequer Court as to the amount of that compensation. It seems to me that, with all the work the commissioner has, he should not have to render an absolute decision for the government, but that there should be an appeal to the Exchequer Court.


James Alexander Robb: There is no objection to that; it is reasonable. Will the hon. member move the amendment?


Edmund James Bristol: I will move an amendment to that section, similar to the amendment which is being made to the other section.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We might enact a general section providing that in all cases where
an appeal is not provided for in the act an appeal would be permitted to the Exchequer Court. There should be no objection to a general section.


James Alexander Robb: The commissioner tells me he thinks they were all covered as we went along. There would be no objection to that general section, to cover any omissions. That would probably be the better way.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A section at the end covering everything.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is moved that the following words be added to section 48
And any decision of the commissioner under this section shall be subject to appeal to the Exchequer Court.


James Alexander Robb: We will accept that.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 52-Inspection by the public:


Edmund James Bristol: I have not had an opportunity of examining this bill with special care. Is there in it any provision of this character? As soon as an application for a patent is filed, assuming that a patent is granted subsequently, perhaps one year or two years later, is the patentee protected from the date of his original application or from the date of the issue of the patent? For instance, supposing a patent is taken out in the United States as frequently happens, and an application is not made in Canada until some time later. A Canadian or American manufacturer or some other competitor may manufacture in Canada as fast as he likes until the patent is actually issued. Assuming that a patent is issued a year after the application is filed, can the patentee claim damages during that period, or does the patent simply speak from its date?


James Alexander Robb: From the date of issue.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 57-Register of attorneys:
James Alexander Robb: This is new. For a number of years there has been a desire on the part of patent attorneys, particularly in Canada, for a provision for the registration of patent attorneys. Since this bill has been introduced, further pressure has been brought to bear to insert in the bill a clause of this kind and the Patent office is in favour of this proposal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there any objection by any person competent to make an objection as representing the public?

Patents of Invention


James Alexander Robb: The experience of the department is that to protect the public there should be a register, so that the public may know who the attorneys are.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That has not been the case in Canada before.


James Alexander Robb: No, but it is the case in all other countries.


Mr. BAXTER:: I know from a little experience that a register is kept in the United States, and I can well understand the reason for that. ' There are, however, some difficulties in the way of a Canadian being registered in the United States as a patent attorney. I think it would be well, not because of any desire to promote hostilities between the two countries, but because of the enormous number of persons who are members of the various bars of the United States, that this clause should be limited to patent attorneys resident in Canada. The department could keep a record of them and find out as to their standing. I agree with the minister that the whole point of this clause is that only reputable persons shall have charge of the prosecution of applications for patents. I do not think this is for the protection of the public; I think it is for what is more important, namely for the protection of the applicant for a patent who, if he gets into dishonest hands, may have very important information given out. The idea of the United States Patent office is as far as possible to guard the applicant so that he will be in the hands of a person trustworthy as to moral character and having some reasonable experience in the business in which he engages. There is nothing, as I understand the matter, to require a man to have an attorney at all. If he chooses to sign the papers himself and to forward his application, he can do so; but if he has an attorney, he must have one who is on the register.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is in accord
with the commissioner that there should be a register of patent attorneys. I think, however, I can convince him that it is not desirable that we should limit this to Canadians. I am told that our Canadian patent attorneys are very well used at Washington, the capital of the United States, and we do not wish to do in this country anything that might lead to retaliation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: All'right.	.


Mr. PARENT:: I do not know whether I
understand this clause properly; but as I read it, it seems that a lawyer would have to regis-

ter with the department here in order to appear on behalf of somebody who was applying for a patent. If a lawyer has a right to appear before the Exchequer Court, he should have the right to appear before the commissioner for any claim he might put forward. The clause as it reads now requires that the lawyer must register with the department. I do not suppose that is the spirit or the idea of the law.


James Alexander Robb: Any member of the Canadian
bar will be' put on this list.


Georges Parent: If that is the idea, I suppose there will be no harm in inserting an amendment to that effect.


James Alexander Robb: This is governed by the
regulations. It will be put in the regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 58-Patent agent or attorney:
James Alexander Robb: This is new.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It is quite right, though.


James Alexander Robb: Then no explanation is required.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 65-Repeal:
James Alexander Robb: This is new. It is simply to provide for cases of impeachment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
section, 5A, reserved?


James Alexander Robb: That is the section establishing the status of the Commissioner of Patents.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 67-R. S. c 69 not to apply:
James Alexander Robb: I desire to move an amendment to this section for the purpose of adding the following subsection:
(2) Nothing in this act shall affect any suit or proceeding now pending or judgment existing which may be prosecuted, continued, completed, and enforced, as if this act had not been passed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under section 65 the status of patents already issued stands as established by the laws under which they were issued. They are subject to cancellation, or they may be enforced or upheld by the courts, without regard to this statute but by virtue of previous acts. Section 67, however, provides that on the coming into force of this act patents issued prior thereto shall cease to be subject to the provisions of the Patent Act. Perhaps what my hon. friend has

in mind is that so far as the administration of patents already issued is concerned, that is to say, with regard to the payment of fees, or returns, and so forth, these matters shall be subject to the new law, but that the validity of patents already issued under previous legislation shall stand as established by the laws under which they were granted.


James Alexander Robb: That is the idea.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not expressed clearly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: To meet the wishes of the hon. member for Simooe (Mr. Boys) I have another amendment to offer:
Whenever an appeal to the Exchequer Court from the decision of the commissioner is allowed under this act, notice of such decision shall be mailed by registered letter addressed to the interested parties or their respective agents, and the appeal shall be taken within six months from the date of the mailing of such notice.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the use of the word "decision" is unfortunate.
Whenever an appeal to the Exchequer Court from the decision of the commissioner is allowed. . . . notice of such decision shall be mailed.
" Notice of such decision " does not refer to the former " decision ", but to the fact that an appeal has been allowed from the decision of the commissioner. That is what the commissioner has in mind, I believe.


Edmund James Bristol: Is it the intention to give a period of six months within which appeal may be made?


James Alexander Robb: That is the intention.


Edmund James Bristol: Would that be reasonable? If seems to me that a person is entitled to know, within a reasonable time after the commissioner has decided that the patent is in litigation, that appeal is going to be made. To have it open for six months would be n serious thing for the owner of a patent. Surely appeal can be made within thirty days. No court that I know of gives any such period as six months. Patent rights are not of much use unless they are exercised promptly.


James Alexander Robb: I am told that this is similar to a section prepared by the Justice department.


Edmund James Bristol: A patent is no good until it is granted, and if an inventor can be held up for six months by an appeal he is going to be seriously handicapped. As a matter of fact, it is a very serious matter now, owing to the congestion that exists in Canada and the United States, to get a patent issued promptly, because new radio inven-
Patents oj Invention
tions are being made from month to month; and if a man cannot get his patent promptly his invention is going to be infringed right away by imitators, so that when he does get his patent, in a year's time perhaps, the invention is no good because it has been copied in the meantime, and he has had to fight the imitators. This is one matter particularly in regard to which the law's delays entail a very serious hardship.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: While we should no doubt expedite the granting of patents, we should not forget on the other hand that many inventions come from people in the community who are not blessed with abundant means, and we ought not to make the act so rigid that a poor man who is the real inventor of any device might be deprived of all right and benefit of his brains because, having to appeal within so short a time, he could not get the necessary money to take action. I quite agree that there should be no unduly long delay in granting a patent, but we should give a man who thinks he has rights a chance to vindicate them; and he may need a reasonable time in which to secure help.


James Alexander Robb: Section 20. already passed, provides:
Every applicant who has failed to obtain a patent by reason of the objection of the commissioner aforesaid may, at any time within six months after notice thereof has been mailed by registered letter, addressed to him or his agent, appeal from the decision of the said commissioner to the Exchequer Court.
This was drawn up especially at the request of the Department of Justice, and the present section follows the same line.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no objection to the section the minister has just quoted. We are trying, however, to find out just what is meant by the section we are now considering. The reading here is:
Whenever an appeal to the Exchequer Court from the decision of the commissioner is allowed under this act-


James Alexander Robb: Permitted.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is very much better than "allowed," because the allowance of the appeal generally means the appeal is granted. That is one of the things I was going to point out. The section is improved by the change. It now reads: Whenever an appeal to the Exchequer Court from the decision of the commissioner is permitted under this act, notice of such decision shall be mailed by registered letter.
Is it notice of such decision, or is it notice of the permission that is to be mailed?


James Alexander Robb: The intention is that the notice of the decision of the commissioner is
Patents of Invention

to be mailed. If my hon. friend feels that the language is not clear we are prepared to accept any suggestions from him to remove the obscurity.


Edmund James Bristol: With reference to the decision of the Department of Justice as to the right of appeal under section 20, I think it is absolutely reasonable. That is a case where a patentee has been refused a patent; therefore he is not being oppressed. He is simply allowed further time in which to get help to go on with his appeal. But this is not the case with 67a. I am quite in accord with the amendment made by the Department of Justice, but I do not think it is reasonable that the man contesting a patent should be allowed six months to proceed with his appeal. I think he should proceed promptly-say, within thirty days. After the applicant has been granted his patent he ought to be allowed to go ahead and get the full benefit from it.


James Alexander Robb: Why not make it three
months?


Edmund James Bristol: I am quite content.


James Alexander Robb: I will substitute three months.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure ol the committee that the word "six" be stricken out and the word "three" substituted? Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Several sections were allowed to stand.


George Newcombe Gordon: Section 5 was allowed to stand. It is moved by Mr. Murdock:
That section 5 be stricken out and there be substituted the following:
The commissioner shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed upon him by this act subject to the minister and in the absence or inability to act of the commissioner any officer or clerk named by the minister to perform the duties of the commissioner may, as actin'g commissioner exercise such powers and shall perform such duties.
Clause as amended agreed to.


George Newcombe Gordon: Section 11 was allowed to stand.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, to meet the desires of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) I beg to move:
That clause 11 be amended by adding after the word "commissioner" in the fourteenth line thereof the following words:
After such notice as he may deem requisite and sufficient.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: The hon. member for South Simcoe had some objections to section 23, which we proposed to amend in accordance with his views. I beg to move therefore that the following words be added:
Any decision of the commissioner under this section shall be subject to appeal to the Exchequer Court.
Mr. BAX 1 RR: It would be well to insert some limitation of time.


James Alexander Robb: All these appeals are limited by 67a to three months.
S*r HENRY DRAYTON: Is there anything new in this section at all?


James Alexander Robb: The clause is all new. It was put in at the request of the Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this their clause?
Mr. ROBB. Yes.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall clause 23 as
amended carry?
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 30-Assignments in ease of joint applications:
.	t


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) made some objection to that. What is his desire?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Boys).


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend raised the objection, I believe.


Sir HENRY DRAT  TON@: I pointed out afterwards what the effect of section 29 was; that is all.


James Alexander Robb: There is no objection, then.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought I was helping the hon. minister.


James Alexander Robb: The commissioner points out that for fifty years the provision has caused no particular trouble. We might as well put it through.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: Section 40, and the amendment thereto by Mr. Boys.


James Alexander Robb: I would not like to have this passed in the absence of the hon. members for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) and Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). There was an understanding that they should confer with the commissioner with respect to some minor language in the bill.

Inspection of Fruit


George Newcombe Gordon: Stand.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



SALE AND INSPECTION OF FRUIT AND FRUIT CONTAINERS

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 11 to regulate the Sale and Inspection of Fruit and Fruit Containers, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 5.-Regulations, publications, forfeiture and penalties:
William Richard Motherwell: I wish to propose a small
amendment to this section, inasmuch as we have no authority to regulate packages of imported fruit. I propose, after the word "prescribe" in the fourth line of section 5, to add the words " packages and ". The purpose is to regulate packages of imported fruit.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9-Fruit overfaced, fruit below grade, notice to packers:


William Richard Motherwell: Subsection (3) has been amended in committee by adding the words "notice of such action having been, taken by the inspector".
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-Packages:


William Richard Motherwell: Since this bill went through the Agricultural committee it has been brought to our attention that there is a certain demand for cherry boxes of a smaller size than that provided for in the bill, that is the half size or ten-pound box. I therefore move that after the word "inches" in the last line of paragraph (j) there be added the following words "or three hundred and eixty-four and a half cubic inches." That would be the half box of cherries. That "eight hundred and eighty-two" in paragraph (j) should be "seven hundred and twenty-nine," Mr. Chairman.


Mr. BROWN:: I do not remember that
change.


William Richard Motherwell: That was changed in committee.


Mr. LEWIS:: Are all these boxes of the
regulation size now in vogue in Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: They are almost
identical except in the case of plum boxes dealt with in paragraph (i).


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was this bill threshed out before the Agricultural committee?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes, it was gone into very carefully by the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: While on boxes, did the minister manage to get anything done in the committee recommending that the bottom of a strawberry box should be at the bottom and not half way down?


William Richard Motherwell: We have not been able to get that far yet.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 14-Prohibition :
Arthur John Lewis: Suppose, for instance, you
know a person in British Columbia and ask him to send you two or three boxes. Would he come under this just the same?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Richard Motherwell: Before you report
the bill, Mr. Chairman, I might answer a halfjocular question put by the hon. member for West York. The berry packages are larger. They are made in conformity with the American boxes and this indentation is only a sort of camouflage to catch the eye of the purchaser.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not like the indentation.
Bill reported.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 116, respecting the Canadian National Railways.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Agreements to restore or make good loss or damage by fire or other casualty to mortgaged premises, and indemnify trustees:
C.N.R.-Mortgaged, Premises
Mr. GRAHAM:: This bill provides the
machinery for the Canadian National Railways carrying their own insurance, as discussed the other day. When the resolution was before the committee I was asked to furnish information as to the rates of insurance charged by the companies. I have that here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister might put the statement on Hansard.


George Perry Graham: This is the statement:



[Stage Direction]
Memorandum re Insurance
-	Name of brokers	Name of firms carrying insurance	Rates
Railways			
Canadian Northern Railway	Toronto Insurance	Western Ins. Co. who reinsured	System.	& Vessel Agency.	with the following:- Globe & Rutgers	
London Guarantee & Accident. British American Insurance. Commercial Insurance Co... General of Perth	
Norwich Union Ins. Co	
Royal Assurance Co	
Home Insurance Company.. Fireman's Fund	
Hartford Insurance Co	
St. Lawrence Underwriters.. Pennsylvania Insurance Co..	[DOT]{See Statement attached.Grand Trunk Pacific Railway	Hare & MacKenzie.	Union Insurance Co	
Lloyd's London	See StatementCornhill Insurance Co	attached.Grand Trunk Railway System...	Dale & Company...	Globe & Rutgers	
Alliance Assurance Co	
Motor Union Insurance Co... London Guarantee & Accident Co. London & Lancashire Fire... Union Society of Canton. . . Western Assurance Co	
United British Ins. Company. Northern Assurance Co	
Liverpool London & Globe Ins.	See Statement attached.Marine	Canadian Government Merchant	Willis Faber & Co.	Various English Insurance	Marine.	Companies and a small percentage with American Companies.	See Statement attached.Grand Trunk Pacific Coast Steam-	Hare & MacKenzie.	Various English Insurance	\See Statementships.	(Willis Faber & Co.(	Companies.	/ attached.Canadian Northern Railway	J Toronto Insurance)	Vicious English Insurance	See StatementFloating Equipment.	j& Vessel Agency) (Dale & Company)	Companies.	attached.Grand Trunk Railway Floating	(Willis Faber & Co|	[DOT] * *Equipment.	\ Dale & Company. [*	Various English Insurance	{[DOT]See Statement1Hare& MacKenzieJ	Companies.	attached.
[Stage Direction]
C.N.R.-Mortgaged Premises
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS Memorandum Relative to Insurance
[DOT] . -	T otal Insurance	Premium for Year 1922	RateCanadian Northern Railway System	$ cts.	$ cts.	112,246,238 00	493,616 00	0-447,736,314 00	75,638 00	0-9834,629,591 00	74,362 00	0-21Total	154,612,143 00	643,616 00	0-42Grand Trunk Pacific: Railway	23,002,600 00	99,876 00	0-433,211,780 00	10,176 00	0-327,793,830 00	20,491 00	0 * 2634,008,210 00	130,543 00	0-38Grand Trunk Railway System	29,991,931 00	263,715 00	0-88Specific Insurance	10,249,500 00	25,250 00	0-2549,912,207 0C	48,153 50	0 0990,153,638 00	337,118 50	0-37Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd	41,155,812 00	1,318,448 00	3-20Grand Trunk Pacific Coast Steamship Co	2,024,750 00	y l,48 i uO	4-81Canadian Northern Ry. Floating Equipment	1,165,000 00	24,923 00	2 14Grand Trunk Rv. Floating Equipment-	3,200,000 00	73,008 50	2-28Fund	75,000 Ofl	937 50	1-24Total	47,620,562 Of	1,514,804 00	3-18Grand total	326,394,533 Of	2,626,081 50	0-80
Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose this clause has been decided upon by the trustees, so that it is absolutely in order and carries out only what we were discussing the other da\


Mr. GR  AHAM@: It is simply carrying out the object which we discussed the other day, and it is in the form agreed upon between the solicitors of the trustees and the solicitors of the Canadian National Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 85, to amend the Naturalization Acts, 1914 and 1920.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Definition of Natural-born British Subjects:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


Mr. COPP:: If my hon. friend will refer to the notes on the opposite page of the bill as printed, he will find that this simply describes the status of a British subject in order to make our law uniform with the law that was passed by the Imperial parliament in 1922. At the conference that took place between representatives of the Imperial government in Great Britain and representatives of the various Dominion governments, it was arranged to make entirely uniform the status of a British subject, and this clause is an exact copy of the clause in the Imperial statute passed last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like a further explanation from the minister as to the effect of naturalization under this clause and as to the status of a British subject, naturalized or coming within this definition, who comes from a different part of the Em-
Naturalization Acts

pire. What is the effect of the legislation upon his status in Canada?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The status would be the same. This is simply bringing into effect the arrangement made between representatives of the Imperial government in Great Britain and representatives of the British dominions, to have a uniform naturalization act. If my hon. friend will read the description of the status of a British subject as given in clause 2, he will find that this corresponds exactly with the Imperial act that was passed last year. This is simply to keep the law uniform as arranged by the different Imperial conferences held fom 1902 down to 1911.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says that the status will be just the* same in Canada as anywhere else. Just the same as what? Take for example naturalization papers given in South Africa under their Naturalization Act. What is the Canadian status that is thereby obtained, or is there any?


Arthur Bliss Copp: A person applying for naturalization in Canada has to follow the same procedure and reside here for the same length of time as a person has to do in Great Britain. The first, subclause is a description of a British subject. If my hon. friend will refer to the notes on the side of the bill, he will see exactly what the object of the bill is. The side note reads:
The object of this bill is to provide for the continuance, under certain conditions, of the British nationality of successive generations of British descent born abroad.	.
This was changed, as my hon. friend knows, in 1914 and 1920. This is to bring again into effect the law as it was prior to that time, and to provide that British subjects, who are naturalized in Canada are British subjects the world over, the same as if they were naturalized in the old country. I do not think I can say any more than that.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Has the Minister the Naturalization Act before him? Clause 2 reads:
Paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of section 1 of chapter 44 of the statutes of J914, an act respecting British nationality, naturalization and aliens, is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor.
Could the minister inform the committee what paragraph (b) of subsection 1, that is proposed to be repealed, contains?
Mr, COPP: Paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of the present Naturalization Act reads:
Any person born out of His *Majesty's Dominions and whose father was a British subject at the time of that 
person's birth and either was born within His Majesty's allegiance or was a person to whom a certificate of naturalization had been granted; or had become a British subject by reason of any annexation of territory, or was at the time of that person's birth in the service of the Crown.
That is the whole of paragraph (b) in the original act.


Hugh Guthrie: Except for the change in
subsection 5 which the new paragraph enacts, I do not see that there is much difference. For my part I see no objection to the section.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: One thing puzzles me. 1 see by the memorandum that in England apparently they have taken a date in 1915 to affect the rights of the second generation. The memorandum states:
Under the existing law British nationality by descent ends after the first generation (or in the case of persons -born before 1915, the second generation) born abroad.
In subclause 5, there must be, the memorandum states, two conditions:
Any person bom out of his Majesty's dominions, whose father was at the time of the person's birth a British subject and who fulfils any of the following conditions-
One of the conditions is:
His birth registered at a British consulate within one year or in special circumstances, with the consent of the Secretary of State, two years after its occurrence, or, in the case of a person born on or after the first day of January, 1915, who would have been a British subject if born before that date, within twelve months after the first day of August, 1922;
What becomes of those in a similar degree of relationship who were born before the first day of January, 1915? Suppose a Canadian citizen went to the United States and his child was born before 1915, and while the child was still a minor the father took out letters of citizenship in the United States. Does that child's British right still subsist? There is no provision for his registering and he might be at the present time only, say, nine years old. It seems to me that there should be some way for such a child to claim British nationality if he felt that his father had not chosen the better part by becoming an American citizen.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Before he comes of age?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: When he comes of age. I am left under the impression that while this subsection is a verbatim copy of the British act there is probably something else in that act which has not been copied into this and which may be needed to make the bill effective. I may be wrong, but the memorandum leaves that impression on my mind.

Naturalization Acts


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have the British act before me. My deputy is not here, but I am informed by him that this is an exact copy of the act passed by the British parliament last year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Repeal:
Mr. NEILL:: Apparently this abolishes the system formerly followed of candidates for naturalization going before a county court judge. What is proposed to be substituted now?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is a new section and provides for a different method of application for naturalization. Originally naturalization applications were made to judges of the courts who either issued or refused certificates as they thought fit. But in 1914 a change was made by which persons desiring naturalization were required to go to the clerks of court in the different localities in the various provinces and file with them a petition for naturalization. The clerk posted the application in his office for three months, at the end of which time the applicant would be advised of the date at which the court would meet. The applicant would then present himself personally before a judge who, upon inquiry and investigation, either approved or disapproved of the application, forwarding his report upon the same to the Department of the Secretary of State. The department in the past few years has found in the large majority of cases that after the application had been investigated by the judge a further inquiry was necessary. I may remark here that the applicant pays a fee of $5 when he files his application with the clerk for naturalization. The practice has been for the Department of the Secretary of State to refer the application to the Immigration department to ascertain whether or not the applicant entered- the country legally in the first place, and has since spent the required period tilerr-in, prior to application. The matter is then referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for investigation and report, upon which we act. W hile I have had personally only one year's experience of this matter, I am informed by my deputy that it has been found almost invariably that these so-called investigations by the judges have been inadequate, and that the department cannot act upon the reports made by the judges without further investigation. We therefore felt that it was in the interests of the applicant. as well as of the country that there should be a uniform method of granting naturalization, by providing an opportunity
for all those seeking naturalization to make their application direct to the State department. The practice of having judges investigate these applications has proved in the pa.it to be a waste of time. W'c have found that a great many applicants, particularly in the West, rvhere the bulk of the applications come from, have to drive great distances to the court, and sometimes an applicant fails to receive notice of the day the court is to sit. This method is altogether unsatisfactory and we considered it best to provide that all applications should be made direct to the Department of the Secretary of State, thus obviating the employment of counse'. Lnder the system now proposed the application form will be filled in and forwarded to the State department and the investigation carried on from that source.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister's last words gave me the information I wanted; that is, the man now applies direct to the minister.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: 4 hut is what I \v;mi ed to know. I heartily agree with the provision to do away with the old system of applying to the county court judge. It resulted in a great deal of hardship to people desiring naturalization. Not only had they to go once before the judge-very often at an extremely inconvenient time because of the short notice given
but they also had to come again and take some oaths before the registrar, which meant sometimes a journey of two hundred miles twice. And I know of cases where owing to the way the boats ran the applicants for naturalization did not arrive until after the judge had concluded the sittings and would not again hold court at that particular place for another three months. I am entirely in accord with doing away with this system, ivhich was expensive and inconvenient to the alien. I am quite in favour of increasing the restrictions surrounding naturalization, if necessary, but there is nothing to be gained by making it personally expensive, and very often it meant a cost as high as $200 before the applicant could become naturalized.


Mi. LI  CAS@: Y hat is the cost to the applicant?


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is a matter of regulation, and has not been decided. Personally I have felt that the present fee of $5 which is paid to the clerk should be paid directly to the Department, of State. These fees would provide the carrying charges for the whole Naturalization branch.
Naturalization Acts


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think the question I asked is partly answered by referring to sub-section 3 of section 1 of the act of 1914, which provides that-
Nothing in this section shall, except as otherwise 'X-pressly provided, affect the status of any person bo*.n before the commencement of this act.
But if we see fit to adopt clause 5 of section 1 of this bill, which provides for the registration of birth within one year at a British consulate in the case of a person born on or after the 1st January 1915, members will see that it will affect the status of a person born before the commencement of this legislation. The fixing of time is always an arbitrary matter. In England no doubt their Naturalization Act of 1922 is adapted to the times that were fixed in some previous acts which were being consolidated. I would suggest that the date should read the 1st January 1924, computing the seven-year period from that time so that no person born before this biU becomes law would be prejudiced. The only difference it would make between us and the Mother Country would be the adoption of a later date here; and where w'e have so many people living in the neighbouring republic whose status would be affected, I think we should be rather careful to keep the door open for British citizenship wherever it is possible to do so.
I would make one other suggestion to my hon. friend, the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp). I think it very unwise to have such a complicated measure as the Naturalization Act partly in one volume and partly in another. consisting of references and cross-references. I am fairly well accustomed to comparing statutes, but in the few moments at my disposal I cannot say that I have got hold of everything bearing on the point I have just dealt with. What does this mean'.' We scarcely ever have to deal with the question of British citizenship except in two cases; one, to advise whether a particular person is qualified to be the owner of a British ship- and that is extremely important-the other, to decide whether a particular person is entitled to the franchise in this Dominion. We know when we get into the heat of an election all sorts of people will put forth all sorts of opinions with regard to the Naturalization Act. Each side wants to get every possible voter, and I am afraid some horribly unsound law is uttered around election times, but I could readily acquit any reasonable practitioner from trying to serve a party purpose in the opinion he might express on the ground that he would be lost in the morass of provisions that have been repealed or partly amended. Would it not be much more

simple to consolidate these acts? The law is not likely to be changed again for a good many years I trust. There are provisions here in regard to the status of alien enemies which I do not want to discuss to-night as I have not found their bearings yet. For all I know the provisions may be quite satisfactory. We could have what is proposed to be the whole naturalization law of Canada consolidated, and so greatly simplify reference to this law', which at best is difficult enough when embodied in one well-drawn statute. At present these statutes are in a very awkward condition for the ordinary practitioner to deal with them.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I quite agree with my hon. friend that the acts should be consolidated, and I made a suggestion to my Under Secretary the other day to this end. He told me he had the matter in mind and as soon as this bill was accepted by parliament he would make a codification of the whole law and have it published in pamphlet form for distribution to those who cared to apply for copies.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I appreciate the intention, but I do not like it. I want to be able to go to the statute myself; I do not want someone else's compilation; and that is the general experience of the profession. A very excellent deputy may pass the work over to a very competent official, but the result will not be an act of this parliament, and conceivably errors may creep in. It is just as easy for the official to prepare a consolidated bill for passage now; then we will have every phase of the question before us. I do not raise this point in a spirit of captious criticism, but 1 want to get this very important legislation put in the very best form possible, and I would strongly urge my hon. friend to take a little more time and adopt my suggestion.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have no objection if the committee feel it important that the consolidation should be done now, but it seems to me-although I do not wish to press my views upon the committee-that as there are only three or four amendments they might be accepted now and the act could be properly consolidated afterwards. The consolidation of the statutes could not very well be done during the present session.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no doubt a great deal of force in what the minister says about the consolidation of all the Dominion statutes. This consolidation is long overdue. The work was commenced a year and a half or two years ago, but from information I

Naturalization Acts
have received I would judge that it is proceeding very, very slowly indeed. The last consolidation of the Dominion statutes was as far back as 1906, and when one has to determine a question under the Naturalization Act, the Criminal Code, the Patents Act, the Copyright Act, or any of the dozen other enactments that might be enumerated, it is necessary to have practically a complete set of the statutes from 1906 down to the present if one is to be sure that no amendment is overlooked. The Naturalization Act is one of the most difficult acts we have to interpret, and there is a great deal of force in the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John City (Mr: Baxter) that a consolidation of the present law be made, to include any amendments the Secretary of State now proposes. I fancy the Under Secretary of State could do it in a day or two; I undertook to do it once as .Solicitor General, but that act is not in force now. If that were done we would have an up-to-date act which would embody all the legislation on the subject and obviate the necessity of going into all the enactments as we now have to do when any difficult question has to be determined. Just one other point: the discussion of clause 4 of the bill which we are now considering, will occupy some considerable time. I know that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), who is not in the city to-day, would like to be present when the discussion of this section proceeds. The minister realizes that the present proposal is a subversion of all the past practice in this country in regard to naturalization. I think as far back as our law extends the matter of the naturalization of aliens has been investigated and passed upon before some judicial tribunal. The old system-the oldest I remember-was one under which the applicant made his application to some officer of the court, different officers being named in the various provinces. The application was read in open court on the first day of the court's sitting, and during those sittings any person had the right to offer objections to the naturalization. If no objection was taken during the entire sittings of the court, a formal certificate was granted and a man became a British subject. But it was a judicial proceeding, notwithstanding the informal manner in which it was conducted; it was a matter in which the courts of Canada were called upon to exercise judicial discretion. My hon. friend now proposes to remove from the courts of the country that discretion and practically place it in his own hands. Under section 4 of the bill he proposes to change the 135
whole system of naturalization as we have had it in Canada since confederation and take it into his own department. It is provided that the Secretary of State will be the person to say whether this man or that man shall or shall not be naturalized, shall or shall not have the right to vote for a candidate for election to this House. That is a serious proposal; it would clothe the minister certainly with a great deal of new power. If the present system has proved unsatisfactory in any way; if it has proved costly or expensive or inconvenient, there must be a method of remedying the situation without placing in the hands of a minister of the Crown the sole right to say whether the hundreds of people whom we expect to come to this country shall or shall not have the right to vote. I for one, so far as I understand the matter now, would feel compelled to oppose such a proposal to the very utmost of my power. However, what I would ask the minister at the present time is that he allow us a short time to consider this very radical change in our naturalization law. It may be suggested that we were wrong in the past, but I am not impressed with the conviction that we were nor am I impressed at this time with the propriety of the proposal made in this bill. If my hon. friend will let the matter stand for a couple of days and in the interval consider the question, which is one of great importance, of consolidating the whole law, the bill that we are to pass this session will be one of tremendous advantage to the profession to which I belong as well as to the people generally. I know from a discussion I had with the Under Secretary of State, within a couple of years, anyway, that he could without very much effort, through his intimate knowledge of all these acts, produce a consolidated act which would be of the very greatest advantage to us all.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I assure my hon. friend that I do not introduce these proposed changes with any idea of taking into my own hands the jurisdiction respecting naturalization. The clause my hon. friend refers to has been suggested by officials of my department who have had this matter in hand during the last few years and who have, I think dealt with it very successfully indeed. I agree that this is a very radical change from the present system. But I would point out that the Secretary of State has discretionary power to-day either to grant naturalization or to refuse it, and that the Secretary of State under 9 p.m. this provision is not taking upon himself any more authority than is provided for in the very act that my hon.

Naturalization Acts

friend himself was responsible for putting through this House a few years ago. The original system of conferring naturalization was, as my hon. friend points out, through application made to the courts and heard in open court, and the notice was there from the first day of the sitting of the court until the last, so that anybody who wished to object to any application for naturalization might have an opportunity to do so. But the system is changed entirely; to-day the application is made, to the clerk of the court and the notice is posted, not in any public place, not by publication in any newspaper, but simply in his own office. It may have been with the idea that any who wished to oppose the naturalization of a given applicant would go into the clerk's office to see whether or not the application was being made. The experience of the department is this: while one judge in a particular locality will hold an investigation, write on his report "approved," and pass it on to the State department, another judge, possibly upon exactly the same evidence, will write on a similar application, "disapproved."


Henry Lumley Drayton: That happens in everything.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is a lack of uniformity; so that the responsibility is placed upon the department of making inquiries for themselves. We have to make that inquiry. The judge's report is practically of no advantage to the department. As to the suggestion of my hon. friend regarding the proposal made in this section, I would not for a moment object to allowing the matter to stand over so that his leader may be here when the discussion proceeds. I am very glad indeed to have had this discussion if only for a few moments, and I would like the members of the committee to think it over whether it is not wise to have this change made; not because I ask the committee to vote confidence in me in regard to naturalizing a man or not, for I hope the department of any government in power in this country would be beyond any suggestion of not acting properly in the matter. I am sure my hon. friend did not mean to suggest that I would use my office to naturalize people who were going to vote in a particular way.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend forgets
that according to rumour he may be succeeded very soon and become a judicial ornament.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If that good fortune comes to me more quickly than it did to my hon. friend, I sincerely trust that somebody will

be selected to fill the position I now occupy who will endeavour to carry out the duties of his office in the same honest and straightforward way that I have attempted to discharge these duties. I have no objection whatever, if my hon. friend desires it, to having the matter stand over until the leader of the Opposition is here, and I would like hon. members of the committee to think the matter over because I feel that the more they do, the more they will be induced to come to the conclusion to. which I have come after a very great deal of thought, that this is the proper method of carrying out our naturalization. In the meantime I might say to my hon. friend for St. John that if we could get a consolidation promptly, without delaying the House, if this matter is allowed to stand over I should be very glad to consider his suggestion.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am very glad that the
hon. Secretary of State has taken that position. I have been trying to run over the statutes now and I think it would not be a very long job. There would not be many sections.
I would not continue the discussion now if it were not that the Secretary of State wants hon. members to think the matter over. There is one subject to which I would like to call his attention in order that he may think it over before he comes here with his proposals. If I gather the structure of what will be the new bill correctly, all the applications through judicial offices will be eliminated and it will simply be an application to the Department of the Secretary of State. I am in entire accord with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) who says that in some cases men have travelled over a couple of hundred miles and been put to great expense in getting their naturalization. I am sure we would all agree that the test in making a man a British subject ought to be his fitness, and not the distance he travels or the expense he is put to. What I want to call the attention of the Secretary of State to is this: By cutting out all that machinery he leaves apparently section 25 of the act of 1914, which puts practically the whole act in the hands of the Governor in Council by the making of regulations. Now I think there are matters there important enough to be prescribed in whatever Naturalization Act we are to have, that is, the functionaries who are to do things and the people who are to make the examination. The department ought to be able, I think, to suggest in the legislation the particular class of functionaries who are to make the examination, whether it is to be by the Mounted Police or whatever body it may be, rather than leaving it to be done by regula-

Naturalization Acts
tion. In a matter so important to people's rights as this I do not think that order in council legislation, as it is commonly termed, is quite desirable. It was perhaps very necessary during the trying period of our country's history, but now in time of peace it is unnecessary to take emergent powers, and there ought to be some plain line marked out in the statute itself to which any intending applicant can refer, and he ought to feel some certainty that that mode will only be changed by the actual deliberation of parliament. I do not say that, certainly not, with the slightest intention of reflecting on my hon. friend. I do not mean that at all, but I do not think it is a proper power to have in the hands of any Secretary of State or of any government, because governments are all liable to temptation, and my hon. friend who appreciates the strenuousness with which political lists are often fought in the Maritime provinces will realize how in a certain province not unknown to us it has been sometimes impossible to get a justice of the peace appointed of a certain political faith while the other political faith held the keys to power. Both have sinned in precisely the same way, and yet we know that to get a man on the electoral list you have to have an affidavit before a justice of the peace. Now if by regulation made by the Governor in Council you could have some particular functionary, and very few of them, you may have just as much difficulty in getting a man to the proper functionary to swear to a simple fact as in the case described by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi where a man had to travel a couple of hundred miles. I do not say the Secretary of State is going to do anything of the kind. We have too much personal confidence in him to think he would do it, but we have not the same confidence that he will be everlastingly in his position. I do not know whether so good a reward as has been suggested is coming to my hon. friend or not. I should be very glad to see him get it, but we do not know who may come after him; we do not know what government may come after him. It may be that some day this party would be rather unwilling to do anything for those on his side of the House, so he had better be prepared.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend's idea is that the officials to whom we should refer these naturalization questions should be set out in the statute instead of the matter being left to regulation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would prefer that.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I may say that we have always referred these questions to the Mounted Police in the different sections.
135i


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It would be better to put that right into the bill, whoever it be.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I would like a little information from the minister before we leave this question as to whether there could not be co-operation between the Dominion department and the provincial local subdivisions. I understand that the intention is to do away with the present procedure of applying to the district judge for naturalization papers, and that the application is to go direct to the department. I was wondering if it were possible to make use of our provincial clerks or secretary-treasurers. I find that in our western country the applicant for naturalization is usually a foreigner with very little English; he understands very little about writing, or whom to send a letter to, and the initial steps he should take towards getting his naturalization papers. Even though he may have been in the country five years or more he usually goes to the secretary of the municipality, that is the smallest local subdivision, and makes all kinds of inquiries of him as to what he should do and how he should do it. Sometimes he gets this official to do the work for him. Would it not be possible for the Dominion department to co-operate with these provincial units and use the rural secretaries as a medium between the applicant and the department to take the applications and transmit them to the department for consideration?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Any official could be referred to. At the present time the work is being done, by the clerks of the courts. I do not know that it would be any great advantage to specify that the rural secretaries should take the application. If the applicant wants to get into communication with the department in regard to naturalization and cannot write himself, he must go to somebody. That would be left entirely to himself. The suggestion made in the bill now before the committee is that the application come before the department, and it would not matter whether the application came through a municipal clerk, a lawyer, doctor, clergyman or anyone else whose services were used to make out the application papers. If the suggestion that is now in the bill be carried out, then so far as the department knows the application comes direct from the man himself. He can get anyone he likes to assist in filling out and filing his application.
Progress reported.
Narcotic Drugs Act



NARCOTIC DRUGS ACT AMENDMENT BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BEL.' iND (Minister of Health) moved the second reading of Bill 72, to amend the Narcotic Drugs Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Definitions, "drug," "opium," "prepared opium" "imports" or "imported":
Henry Lumley Drayton: Before we go into the sections of the bill, I think it would assist us if the minister told us what is being done by this bill, whether it is a modification of the existing law, or an enlargement, and what the aim of the bill is.


Mr. BELAND:: When I introduced the bill I attempted to explain in a few words that this was only a consolidation of the different acts passed by this parliament on four different occasions, I believe. I also mentioned that there would be a slight addition, to which we will come as we proceed with the examination of the bill. The new features are in connection with an appeal in certain cases, and with the identification of those who are detained after a charge has been brought against them, or after they have been convicted. This is provided for at the end of the bill. The other provisions of the bill are mainly a consolidation of the different acts, in an endeavour to make some sections clearer for the interpretation of the courts.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I notice there are some new sections. Does section 2 enlarge the definition?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Subsection (c) gives the definition of "prepared or smoking opium." This provision is designed to carry out a special recommendation of the Opium Conference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is an enlargement.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This part is new and the remainder is the same.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is an enlargement of the definition of "drug." Are you contracting the definition, or making it broader?	,


Henri Sévérin Béland: We are making it broader. Paragraphs (b), (e) and (f) are the same. Paragraph (g) is new and gives the definition of "Minister" as follows: '
, (g) "Minister" means the minister presiding over the Department of Health of the time being.
In the former interpretation section, there was no definition of the word " minister," and

all through the act we had to make it read "The minister presiding over the Department of Health".


Henry Lumley Drayton: And the Dominion analyst?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is the same, and the provincial analyst is the same.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is marked new here.


Henri Sévérin Béland: (h) and (i) are new.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Minister may issue - licenses, make regulations therefor, and prescribe fees:
Mr. MANION:: I think the section should be read.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is new.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is exactly the same section, except the last two lines, which are added to the former section. I have no objection to the section being read.


Robert James Manion: I think these sections should be read. They are important, and it will only take a moment or two.


Henri Sévérin Béland: By all means.


George Newcombe Gordon: The new sections?


Robert James Manion: All the sections.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee the bill should be read section by section?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Robert James Manion: The only new part in section 3 is in regard to "smoking opium," is it not?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Exactly.


Mr. ANDERSON:: No change in the license fees.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no change at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Importing or exporting drug without license, etc.:
Robert James Manion: Paragraph (e), is important. I think this is an additional section. I do not think it was in the act last year. That is in regard to whipping. Whipping at the discretion of the judge. That was put in last year, was it not?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this the section referred to by one or two of the chiefs of police as

Narcotic Drugs Act
section 21 of the preceding year? Is it included in this section? It was left out of the bill last year, inadvertently, was it not?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is further on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister, I presume, has covered the point in the bill?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Persons to whom drugs may be sold:
Henri Sévérin Béland: There are added to this clause only two words, the second and third word at the top of page 4: " and dated ". The balance is the same.


Robert James Manion: Does this prevent the refilling of any prescription by a physician for any of the drugs in the schedule, without another order by the physician?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Unless the prescription does not contain any larger quantity of drug than can be filled lawfully.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does that mean?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That means two grains of opium to the ounce, one-fourth of a grain of morphine to the ounce, one-eighth of a grain of heroin to the ounce, or one grain of codeine to the ounce.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is that defined?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is defined in this bill in clause 9. When we come to clause 9, my hon. friend will find the exact description of preparations which, although they contain some of the drugs which are forbidden, can be lawfully sold because they contain only small quantities.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Unlawful for physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist to prescribe, give or sell drugs*except for medicinal purpose:
Henri Sévérin Béland: No change at all.


Robert James Manion: The question of what is considered proper for medicinal purposes is left entirely in the hands of the physicians, is it not?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is left altogether to the attending physician.


Robert James Manion: For example, if a doctor considers that a man.who has been addicted to one of these drugs is in such a nervous condition that he requires some of the drug, that is left entirely to the physician?


Henri Sévérin Béland: You cannot prescribe smoking.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Not keeping record:
Henri Sévérin Béland: There are only a few words added to this clause. On page 5 in the first, second and third lines these words are added:
or to furnish to the Department of Health any information required by that department.
This is added to make the clause clearer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In connection with this clause, there is just one point as regards which I should like to ask the minister his opinion, because I know the point I raise is a very delicate one. If I read the clause aright, it means that physicians, dentists and such like are called upon to furnish information only when required to do so by the minister.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has the minister considered the advisability of inserting in the bill a provision that they shall give information when asked to do so by the attorney general of a province or the Crown prosecutor or the police authorities? That may seem to be extending the matter too far; but there is no doubt great difficulty in getting proper information for the local authorities to prosecute and to carry out the provisions of the law satisfactorily. I am not prepared to press for this; but I submit it to the minister, and perhaps he can tell the committee whether it has been considered and what his opinion is.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is in almost every province a provincial law covering this point. For instance, in Quebec, the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the College of Pharmacists have special legislation of their own which would meet exactly the object raised by, my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad the minister makes that statement, because I was not at all clear as to the advisability. If that is the case, then certainly it would be desirable that it should be made perfectly clear in this act that the police have the right to request the information, especially as this act is looked upon as perhaps, the most important piece of legislation, either provincial or Dominion, of its kind dealing with this class of offence. The suggestion is made that the doctor or the druggist can always be subpoenaed. That is not the point so much, nor is it sufficient that they can get this under some provincial act. The minister, I know,
Narcotic Drugs Act

will agree with me, and I am sure anyone in this House who has been watching the unfortunate progress of this evil, will also agree that everything possible must be done to suppress this traffic. I have noted in some articles and speeches and, I think, in statements by police authorities that there has been considerable difficulty with irresponsible practitioners, not necessarily physicians, but particularly veterdnaries. ,1 have heard on several occasions the opinion expressed, or, indeed, the assertion made positively that they were circumventing the law.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend refers to practitioners regularly practising.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What are referred to in this bill as physicians, veterinaries, dentists, druggists, and so forth. My suggestion is that we should enlarge this clause to provide that they shall give the information when requested to do so, not only by the minister, but by recognized police authorities-I am not particular as to the wording-administering the law in any municipality. I submit that to the consideration of the minister.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Would the minister explain a little more definitely what is meant by the words "giving information"? Before taking a step such as has been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), we should consider very carefully the question of giving up professional secrecy unless the matter is properly safeguarded.


Robert James Manion: I might mention that in Ontario, we are fully covered as regards ordinary medical practitioners, just as the minister explained in connection with Quebec. I cannot answer for the veterinary surgeons or the dentists, but I believe they are covered also in this way. Supposing some medical practitioner or veterinary surgeon or dentist prescribes a large quantity of the drugs in the schedule. Immediately the Department [DOT] of Public Health writes to him because the druggist makes a report to the department regularly. If a report went in that a large quantity of a drug was prescribed by a certain physician, dentist or veterinary, and from the quantity of the ding prescribed the department were of the opinion that it was not being used for medicinal purposes, then they would write the doctor, veterinary or dentist concerned and ask for an explanation. I believe, therefore, that the act covers the situation so far as Ontario is concerned, and I have no doubt the same thing applies to the other provinces. But suppose a medical practitioner were pulled up by the department and 
condemned to pay a fine or be otherwise punished for some offence under the act; it would be the duty of the provincial authority mentioned by my hon. friend, the Medical Council, to deal with that practitioner. But so far as reports are concerned, I think the point made by the member for St. John (Mr. Mae-Laren) is a good one. No doctor would care to hand in to any policeman or police magistrate any information regarding his patients; he would not consent to do anything of the kind unless he were subpoenaed. The department can look into the matter and deal with any practitioner who is prescribing drugs improperly, and can deal with him as they see fit if a satisfactory explanation is not given.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend has perfectly explained the situation as it exists in practice. Subsection (a) covers the manufacturers as well as the druggists, wholesale and retail. As regards the duly authorized practising physician, it is not deemed advisable that he should be subjected to investigation on the part of a peace officer or a policeman. As my hon. friend has pointed out, it is rather an easy matter for the department to ascertain the quantities of drugs a doctor has been able to procure through the wholesale or the retail druggist, and it is always open to the department to institute an inquiry if they have reason to believe that a doctor is dispensing a large quantity of any forbidden drug. If there is some reason to think that he is using it for other than purely medical purposes we can follow him up, and that has been done in many instances. The hon. member for St. John has brought to the attention of the committee another feature of the subject that should be given consideration and that is that medical men be allowed to exercise professional discretion without being interefered with unduly by the powers that be, and I think that the law has been framed to meet such cases. As my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre has'said, the law is important as it is severe, the only difficulty being as to where to draw the line. We have attempted, as our predecessors did, to devise legislation that would suppress the illicit traffic in drugs, but our object is difficult of realization. The law as presented to the House to-day contains very severe and drastic provisions and I do not think it could be made more stringent than it is without indeed unduly interfering with individual liberty. At all events, I believe the section covers the points brought up pretty well.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Narcotic Drugs Act
On section 9-Liniments, ointments, and other preparations excepted:
Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no change in this section, but my hon. friend for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) wanted to know whether the quantities of a certain drug I referred to in a former explanation were to be found in the act. That matter is dealt with in this section, which states that preparations can be sold lawfully though they contain some of that drug.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Smoking opium:
Henri Sévérin Béland: The penalty under this section is increased from $50 to S100.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Being in opium resort:
Henri Sévérin Béland: The penalty in this section is increased from one to three months. Section agreed to.
On section 14-Onus of proof on charge of importing, exporting, manufacturing, selling etc., without license:


Henri Sévérin Béland: This section and section 15 might, I think, be cited in answer to the observations made by my hon. friend for Vancouver.


Robert James Manion: Section 14 provides:
Where a charge is laid under either paragraphs (a), (d) or (e) of section four of this act, the onus shall be upon the accused to establish that he had lawful authority to commit the act complained of, or that he had a license from the minister authorizing such act. (1921, c. 42, s. 1 (f).)
I am not particularly taking exception to-the section but I notice in this country at the present time, and recently too, an increasing tendency to depart from the old British dictum that a man shall be considered innocent until he is proven guilty, and to establish instead the principle that a man shall be considered guilty until he is proven innocent. Now, many of the inspectors, not under this act, perhaps, but under similar ^legislation, are more or less irresponsible; and any irresponsible inspector can make a charge against a citizen and in this case accuse him of breaking the law, and it will be incumbent upon the citizen to prove that he is innocent of that charge. I believe in a general way that it is a very dangerous thing to put into any law such a provision as that. I think that the good old British dictum of a man being considered innocent until he is proven guilty is better than the opposite principle which is coming increasingly into effect, of
considering a man guilty until he is proven innocent. That is the principle in this case. Can the minister tell us how long it has been in force?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It was inserted in 1921 and retained last year. It is now a repetition of two former enactments.


Robert James Manion: Without referring to this clause particularly, I wish to put myself on record in a general way as being absolutely opposed to any change of the old principle.
I think that this country and the various provinces of it might well hesitate before changing a rule of law which has been good enough for our forefathers for generations, and which I think is absolutely sound. Let me repeat, a man who is perfectly responsible may be put into a very difficult and expensive position because, with all due respect to my legal friends around me, it costs money to defend one's self against any criminal charge. Therefore I believe it would be well for this and any other department of the government to consider such a clause very seriously before embodying it in any proposed legislation.


Mr. LADNER:: I submit from the wording of the clauses it is apparent that the government has considered the point very thoroughly. I think the hon. gentleman would appreciate the necessity of such provisions if he had knowledge of some of the revelations that have been made of late in Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg and other of our cities. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that these clauses are absolutely essential, for you cannot catch this class of people unless you enact such provisions. We are not legislating to give such a finesse of protection to the scoundrel who goes about the country creating ruin that is hardly equalled by any other evil-doers. I submit that these clauses should remain exactly as they are. They are quite practical and will serve a good purpose. The general principle here is proved by the exception.


Robert James Manion: I wish to take exception to my hon. friend's remarks because of the implication they contain that some of us are anxious for this "finesse of protection" that he speaks of. I presume there is no member of this House, whatever may be his party affiliations, who is not just as eager as my hon. friend to do away with the illicit use of any of these habit-forming drugs; but I wished to state the principle which should underlie criminal enactments, and I have no reason for retracting any of my words. I
Narcotic Drugs Act

believe that any government should hesitate about insisting that a man is guilty until he proves himself innocent; rather the reverse should be the attitude.


Mr. MARTELL:: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). It is quite true, as has been stated by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), that drastic measures are needed to stamp out the drug habit, but I understood the hon. member for Fort William to be interposing an objection to taking away the onus probandi from the informant or the accuser.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Lewis Herbert Martell: It is an old principle of British law that he who alleges must prove. There has been a tendency during the last few years in this House, and also in some of our legislatures, to relieve the accuser or informant of the burden of proof. The old principle of the common law to which I have referred should always be the permanent feature borne in mind in drafting any statute, and should not be departed from except in extraordinary cases. I believe that the protest of my hon. friend for Fort William is well taken. A similar protest was made last year by the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter) in connection with the Fisheries Act. Everyone is beginning to realize that the sooner we get away from making convictions easy the better it is for the observance of the law, because we have so much paternal and freak legislation today that people are apt to be considered guilty upon the mere allegation of some official who presses for a conviction because he gets a portion of the fine imposed. While in this case it may be necessary for the minister to have the most efficient machinery possible at his command, yet I think he as well as all other ministers should as far as possible refrain from departing from the old legal procedure.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Would the hon. gentleman suggest that this clause should be struck out?


Lewis Herbert Martell: No, certainly not, because the conditions probably are bad and demand drastic treatment. I only rose in my place to emphasize and support what was said by the hon. member for Fort William whom, I thought, was somewhat misunderstood. I believe he is right in demanding that we adhere to the old British principle. I think the public are becoming sick and tired of paternal legislation.
IMr. Manion.]


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There appears to be a slight mistake in the drafting of section 14. Two answers are put in the mouth of the accused by this section. One is that he had lawful authority to commit the act complained of: the other is that he had a license from the minister authorizing such act. The license from the minister would seem to apply to clauses (a) and (e). As to clause (e), I do not think the accused can very well set up that he had "lawful authority to commit the act complained of because the charge is that he unlawfully sells, gives away or distributes any drug to any minor." You cannot have lawful authority to do an unlawful act. I would be very much pleased to see some provision inserted by which a little mercy might be exercised where a man believing he was doing a lawful act sold a drug to apparently a man who turned out to be a minor. But it is unlawful to sell, give away or distribute a drug to a minor. You cannot have the authority of the minister to do that, neither can you lawfully do it. I think there is a mistake in the reference to the subsection.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Looking over paragraph (e) of section 2 I see that "export" or "exporting" means and includes the taking or conveying, or causing to be taken or conveyed, out of Canada of any drug. In order to meet my hon. friend's objection, I think we might very well dispense with the references to (e) in clause 14, and leave the paragraph (a) and (d).


George Newcombe Gordon: (a) or (d).


Mr BAXTER:: (a), (b) or (d).


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no objection to including lb). Section 14 would then read:
Where a charge is laid under either paragraphs (a), (b) or (d) of section 4 of this act,-
And so on.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I would ask the minister to reconsider his decision, for he is eliminating a section that is most important in the interests of our young people-the very one which is taken the greatest advantage of by the drug dealer. If there is a class of men upon whom the strongest penalties should be imposed it is those who deliberately go out and sell drugs to minors. Now the minister is practically giving them a new lease of life, because the chances of proving a case in the event of sale to a minor are very small indeed.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Which subsection does my hon. friend refer to?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Paragraph (e) of section 4.
I understand the minister proposes to elimi-

Narcotic Drugs Act
nate paragraph (e) so that people who sell to minors-the worst, of all these offences, in my opinion-are not subject to the same extent of penalty as those committing other offences under the act.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The onus should be on the accused to establish that he is not guilty of the offence, because he might not have lawful authority to commit the act complained of, he might not have license to do it, he might not in point of fact have done it. An innocent man should be given a chance to present his real answer, namely, that he did not do it; but you shut that out.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That suggestion may be
valuable, but this is a question of shifting the onus of proof, and as the section is now worded a man is not deprived of the privilege of proving his innocence; in fact, it lays upon him the onus of proving it. That is all that section does.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: No, it does not do that. It puts the onus on him to establish that he had lawful authority to do it or had license to do it. But suppose he actually did not do it?


Leon Johnson Ladner: That would not affect him; that -would only be a question of evidence. In any event, I strongly urge the inadvisability of allowing those to be let off above all others, who sell to minors.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I confess that the clause could be made to read more smoothly from a strictly legal point of view, but I do not fear any difhcult3^ at all so far as carrying out the spirit of the act is concerned, with the clause drafted as it is, and with the addition of paragraph (b) so that section 14 will cover paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e). The hon. member for Vancouver South is right when he says that the sale to a minor is one of the worst charges that could be levelled under this act.


John Livingstone Brown: I hope that the minister will seriously consider before he yields to the suggestion to strike out (e). The offence is one of the worst that could be committed under the act, and to remove that clause would be a great mistake.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Would the addition of the words " or did not commit the offence " cover the point?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Put them in after the word " establish ",


Henri Sévérin Béland: Then I would move that the clause be amended so that it will read as follows:
Where a charge is laid under either paragraphs (a), (b), Cd) or (e) of section four of this act, the onus shall be upon the accused to establish that he did not commit the offence, or that he had lawful authority to commit the act complained of, or that he had a license from the minister authorizing such act.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: I think the minister is certainly going too far in this amendment. As the clause stands there is no pre-
10 p.m. sumption of guilt; there is only the obligation upon the accused to prove that he had lawful authority to commit the act complained of or that he had a license from the minister authorizing it. We now completely change the clause and put the presumption of guilt upon the accused. I never saw an instance of that kind in any law. A man who is accused of a crime before a tribunal cannot be presumed guilty until he is proved guilty. I know of no case in any federal law where a person accused be-before any tribunal is considered as guilty before he has had the privilege of putting in his defence. I am against such an amendment.


Murray MacLaren: While we agree with
the general principle that a man is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty there are cases where that principle cannot be followed. That is particularly the case in the matter of drugs; there are difficulties in proving violations of the act in many cases unless we approach the subject from the point of view of this proposed provision. The hon. member (Mr. Fortier) has suggested that this position has not been taken in other acts, but if the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) were here I think he would tell us that that is the position taken as regards smuggling: that men who are found in the possession of contrabrand can be and are called upon to explain their position. I have no doubt that there are other instances where it has been necessary to approach the matter from this point of view.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 17-Certificate of Dominion analyst evidence of content of drug:


Robert James Manion: Should not the certificate of the Dominion analyst when put in as evidence be put in under oath? It does not say so. If that certificate is going to be accepted as evidence it should be submitted as an affidavit or given under oath.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think it ought to be regarded as prima facie evidence.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I was just about to make the same suggestion as my hon. friend for St. John. It is possible that the Dominion analyst was wrong when he gave the certifi-
Narcotic Drugs Act

cate and a man could bring a perfectly good analyst to prove that he was wrong, but a'c*-cording to this section that evidence would not be admissible. I think provision should be made whereby it would be admissible. It says now that the certificate "shall be accepted as evidence." I do not see how you could get around that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Power of peace officer to search for drugs:
Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no change here but I would like to move to add the word "vehicle" in the forty-first line after the word "vessel." The word "vehicle" has inadvertently been omitted.


Robert James Manion: Has there always to be a warrant before a search?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Only in the case of a private residence.


Robert James Manion: There must always be in that case?


Henri Sévérin Béland: In that case, but not otherwise.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 24-Except in cases tried before two justices, no appeals in cases taken under section 4, (a), (d) and (e):
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Why, may I ask, is that provision here? I do not want to throw any safeguards around people engaged in this illegal traffic. On the other hand, I do not want to throw any unnecessary protection around ignorant and prejudiced justices of the peace who sometimes try cases in the courts. No matter what offence a man is charged with, I can scarcely see why an appeal should be allowed to one class* of offence and refused to the same man if charged with something different. If he has been wrongly convicted he ought to have some way under the law of getting rid of that erroneous conviction, and if rightly convicted I would not mind if you put a heavier penalty on him through the agency of the court of appeal, whatever it may be. But I do stand for giving a man the right to be heard in a British court of justice against what ^appears to be error or sometimes intentional wrong-doing, and these small tribunals are not always fit to be trusted with a man's property or a man's liberty. In what I am advocating I do not wish to throw the slightest protection around the drug fiends who are debauching communities, but what I want is to have a little safety for the man convicted in the teeth of the law 
by ignorant people, by people who seek a victim and believe they have one. Now let us be fair.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Last year there was some
debate in this House upon this very clause, but ultimately it passed this House without any division. Unhappily, in my estimation at least, the clause was rejected by the Senate. As I tried to explain last year the presence of this clause in the act is most important. In many, many cases an appeal is taken for the only purpose of extending to some of the most important witnesses a chance to get away out of reach, and it is to meet that very thing that the appeal is denied except on a question of law. An appeal is not permitted on the question of facts if the facts are established before a regular magistrate-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: But this does not make
any distinction between matters of law and matters of fact. It does make a distinction between cases tried before two justices and cases tried by a magistrate on the other hand.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend will admit
that a question of law can always be discussed without witnesses being present should an appeal be taken, but as to a question of fact, if the principal witnesses are not at the disposal of the Crown , prosecutor my hon. friend will realize that he would be at a great disadvantage in case of an appeal.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would suggest this:
Leave this clause as you have it, but take out the clause taking away certiorari. Certiorari does not depend upon witnesses, but I do not like that quite as well myself, because I do not want a man to escape by a legal technicality. But I do want him to have some better chance than a magistrate who may err in his decision on the facts.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I hardly think it would be possible to do away with this. I might say that a similar provision exists in the Criminal Code with regard to disorderly houses.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It exists in too many cases. It exists in every prohibitory act in the country.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I suppose I should not
say, thank God I am not a lawyer, but I am not versed very much in the science of the law. However, I know that a provision of this kind is to be found in the legislation of many of the provinces. I think it is to be found in the Ontario Temperance Act; it is to be found in the Quebec law regarding disorderly houses, and in the Criminal Code also. My impression is that if we do not afford to those in

Narcotic Drugs Act
charge of this law all possible means of suppressing this traffic we are not doing what we should do. We must afford them all possible means of meeting a situation which is most serious, and I know that my hon. friend agrees with me in that regard. Some of the old principles of English law seem to be denied in this legislation. That is true, but still the case is altogether extraordinary.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I sympathize with the hon. minister, and I would go further. I would not criticize the section that puts the burden of proving innocence upon the accused, because that is practically necessary in certain classes of offence, but I may say that the tendency of legislation is running a little too far towards taking away an opportunity of correcting an error that may be made by the first tribunal. The minister has spoken of the Ontario Temperance Act. I do not know much about it, but I know something about the prohibitory law in New Brunswick which I introduced and put through the legislature. I have bitterly regretted the fact that I put it through, because instances of undoubted cases of absolute brutal injustice have come to my knowledge, where magistrates convicted innocent men, simply because these magistrates were worse than partisans-they were absolutely blind. No man could come before them who would not be presumed to be guilty and condemned as speedily as possible. That is the spirit in which it has been done, and I have always regretted that I ever allowed my hand to be put to anything that deprived a man of the chance of getting justice. At the same time, I do not want to throw any safeguards around criminals, or permit any loopholes of escape for them in legislation of this character. But I want to see enough in the act to ensure that a really innocent man shall not be punished, and we ought to be able to frame legislation that will affect both of these objects, so that an innocent man shall not be tyrannously punished, and yet that a guilty man shall not have too great an opportunity of escape.


Robert James Manion: I may say, in a general way, that I do not want the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) to accuse me of sympathizing at all with any of the illicit drug peddlers, but I wish to associate myself again, for the reason I gave a moment ago, with my hon. friend for St. John (Mr. Baxter). The minister quoted the Ontario Temperance Act. There are many who think that act has done a great deal of good, but I have certainly seen cases under the Ontario Temperance Act conducted by some magistrates who took exactly the attitude outlined by the hon.
member for St John, especially in dealing with foreigners. There has been a tendency amongst some magistrates-I have seen it occur-to too quickly accept the word of some police officer and absolutely ignore the word of a foreigner in this country. I personally have a good deal of sympathy for these foreign people who come to the country and wish to become citizens and have become citizens, when some careless, irresponsible magistrate finds them guilty of an offence, practically without giving them a trial. Let me give an instance to illustrate that. I am not speaking without some reason for what I say. There was an instance-and it had to do with this Dominion government-about a year ago, where an excise officer visited a place, and found a little bit of home-made brew of some kind in the man's house. The man's wife was sick in bed, his children were very young, and they were far from any neighbour; yet the excise officer sent out some Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers and had this man brought into the city. In this case I do not blame the magistrates, but I blame the law that permitted this to occur, because the magistrate claimed he could not come to any other decision than the one he rendered. The magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of $700 which the man could not by any stretch of the imagination pay, and at the same time his wife and children were lying in a shack out in the wilderness. I took up the case with the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) who looked upon the matter in what I considered was the proper light, and ultimately the heavy fine was remitted, and a nominal fine was imposed, because technically the man had committed a crime. We should avoid as far as we can putting on the statute book legislation which, no matter what kind of a crime we are dealing with, too quickly proves the man guilty, and does not give him a chance to prove his innocence in some other court if need be.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Referring to the proposition of placing the onus upon the accused, and of limiting the right of appeal, from a legal standpoint, of course, it is an extraordinary course to pursue. My hon. friend for St. John said, with reference to the temperance law in the province of Nova Scotia, that the right of certiorari has been taken away. I think it has been taken away in probably every province in the Dominion in regard to the Temperance Act, and I quite agree that cases have occurred where the right of certiorari has been taken and an injustice has been done. We all know the circum-
Narcotic Drugs Act

stances under which legislation of that character is enforced, but no one has seriously questioned that parliament did a wise thing when they took away the right of certiorari in regard to cases of persons keeping disorderly houses. These matters are almost invariably tried by recorders or stipendiary magistrates in the cities, who are well qualified to deal with legal questions when they arise and also determine the facts. In regard to this particular matter, whatever we might say in regard to temperance matters, or any other matters that come within the purview of the criminal law, we are all agreed that this nefarious traffic, which saps the mind and body of the people, can only be dealt with in the strongest possible way. I am instructed that in the city of Montreal, out of 68 appeals that were taken, I think, during the last six months, 40 of the appellants, when the cases came on to be heard in appeal, never turned up, which indicates that the parties who were appealing had put up the necessary security merely for the purpose of gaining time, and evading the penalties which the law had provided and were willing to pay the money in order to escape. It is a well-ascertained fact that the traffic which is going on in regard to these drugs is one which, in the interests of the nation, must be dealt with with the same severity as if we had the application of military law. I think the sense of the House and the sense of . the committee would be that in proceedings against a physician, or registered druggist, or a veterinary, full rights should be preserved to the defendant in the case, but we are only doing our duty when we declare that no technical objection, or no ground which might be used by way of certiorari should be permitted to interfere with carrying out in a stern way the law which ought to be enforced in the interest of the nation and of our people.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I fully concur with the viewpoint of the last speaker (Mr. Macdonald). In the course of last year, after careful inquiries from reliable sources, I found that practically all the offences which would come under these subsections (a), (b) and (c) of section 4 were committed in the larger cities. That is in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Montreal, but there were very few cases in the city of Ottawa or Quebec; in fact nearly all the cases were in those large cities and just as one hon. member has stated, they generally have lawyers in those cities who are trained men, acting as police magistrates, and they are quite competent to render justice to people charged with these offences.


Lewis Herbert Martell: It seems to me that the accused under this section 14 is absolutely presumed to be guilty at the beginning. LTnder that section as it has been amended the presumption of guilt is against the prisoner. In fact, he is said to be guilty. When the prosecutor comes into court, it is simply necessary to have the magistrate read the information; then the prisoner pleads not guilty, and he has to proceed and prove himself not guilty. If that magistrate is, as often happens to be the case, a prejudiced person, the accused person is so to speak	convicted before he	arrives	in
court, and the man has no right of appeal. If the party does not establish his innocence, the onus of proof being placed upon him, surely the Crown or the informer does not suffer by giving him the right of appeal. He has to put up a bond of probably double the amount of the fine and sufficient security to pay the costs, and he comes before the court. Then the judge has an opportunity of trying the case de novo; he is judge of both the law and the facts. If you take away this right of appeal, you first declare that the onus is on the man to prove his innocence. Then, if he does not establish that to the satisfaction of a prejudiced magistrate-and magistrates in the country are not the same as the trained lawyers we find in the cities and larger towns- he is denied the right of appeal. If you have the man convicted and you have his bond for double the amount of the fine if he is fined, how does the Crown suffer? Then you take away the right of certiorari. In the Nova Scotia legislature some eight or ten days ago a bill was introduced by the provincial Attorney General, who is probably the best criminal lawyer in that province, to give in an application for a writ of certiorari, power to the judge to look at the depositions to see if a prima facie case is made out. Formerly if a conviction was complete and regular on its face, the judge could not look at the evidence; he had to confirm the conviction. By virtue of this bill, if it becomes law in Nova Scotia, where a provincial act is concerned, the judge before whom the matter comes will look at the evidence in order to see if a prima facie case has been made out, and if not, he has authority to make the rule nisi absolute. That is the experience of Nova Scotia under the Temperance Act and other drastic acts of the province. In this case you are taking away the right of certiorari absolutely. If a conviction happens to be a complete conviction on its face, no matter whether there is

Narcotic Drugs Act
evidence enough or not to substantiate the conviction, the judge has no power on certiorari. The man is haled before the court; if he is in the hands of a prejudiced magistrate, he is found guilty and he has no right of appeal. This is most dastardly legislation. It is true that very drastic remedies are required to cope with this drug evil; but they should not go so far as to take away every principle of British justice. While we are all agreed that drastic measures should be adopted in order to stamp out this evil, when you are amply protected, for heaven's sake give the accused a chance for his life.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I remember very well last year when this legislation was before the House, I took the view, as was expressed by several of the other members, that our legislation was becoming rather drastic. It seems to me that the effect of this legislation is to deprive an accused person of a remedy which he might have in law, that is, by reason of the abolition of the certiorari right. We are also depriving him of his right of appeal, so that if he happens to be unjustly convicted, because of a misunderstanding of the facts, he has no remedy, and if there is an error in law, he similarly has no remedy. It seems to me that we should preserve to an accused person some means of satisfying the courts of his innocence, and while I have no sympathy whatever with those who commit offences against this particular act, yet it, may be possible, owing to inexperience of justices of the peace, that injustice may be done in which even an innocent man may be foreclosed from securing the right to which otherwise under British law he is entitled. The matter should be seriously considered before even, in this legislation, it is allowed to become part of our criminal law.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 25-Convicted alien subject to deportation:


Archibald M. Carmichael: Some few days ago while I was in conversation with a party who was very conversant with Chinese matters, he advised me that a convicted alien might be either fined or imprisoned, but that deportation proceedings followed only a term in prison. It looks to me as though clauses 25 and 4 overcome that weakness, if it were a weakness; that by the two clauses 4 and 25, the minimum penalty that a judicial body may impose is both fine and imprisonment, and that deportation is sure to follow on any conviction. Is that the case?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Mr STEVENS:: Why limit deportation to paragraphs (a), (d) and (e) of clause 4?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Those are traffickers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Paragraph (b) reads:
Imports into or exports from Canada any drug. Paragraph (c) reads:
Exports any raw opium or any drug that is not packed and marked in such manner-
And so on. That party would be a trafficker just as much as the other, and it might. be possible to catch a very notorious trafficker under paragraph (c) and not be able to catch him under one of the other paragraphs. If he is convicted under paragraphs (b) or (c),
I do not see why he should not be deported. Why not say under the whole of clause 4?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It would appear that paragraph (a) would cover all the cases, and (b) is only an explanation of what ports should be named by the minister. When the preparation of the bill was under way, this feature of it was very carefully looked into, and it was the opinion that clause 25, as it is now drafted, would meet all possible emergencies. If my hon. friend thinks the clause should be made broader, I have no objection to adding anything he suggests, but in the opinion of the officials of the department and also of the officials of the Department of Justice, that would cover the cases that we want to reach, that we have in view. I may say further that the administration of a similar clause incorporated in the bill last year did not give entire satisfaction. The principal reason is that under clause 10 (b), I think it is, of the former act, too much discretionary power was left with the magistrate. In many cases where an alien was convicted, deportation could not take place because the magistrate interpreted the law in a different manner from what we thought the intention of parliament was at the time of the passing of the act. Moreover, if I may explain, I think a decision has been handed down by a court in British Columbia. There the court held that a person sentenced to pay a fine and, in default of payment of such fine, to a term of imprisonment, not liable to deportation under the act. I am informed that some 49 cases of deportation have been stopped by that decision of the court. The section which has been prepared is supposed to cover all possible cases, and if the committee will read it carefully with me perhaps my hon. friend will share my opinion:
Notwithstanding any provision of the Immigration Act, or any other statute, any alien, whether domiciled in Canada or not, who at any time after his entry into Canada is convicted of an offence under paragraphs (a), (d) or (e) of section four of this act shall, upon the expiration or sooner determination of the imprison-
Supply-Indian Affairs

ment imposed on such conviction, be kept in custody and deported in accordance with the provisions of the Immigration Act relating to enquiry, detention and deportation. (1922, c. 36, s. 5, 10B.)
It is thought that this section will meet all cases.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Suppose the accused is only fined?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Under section 4 of this act it is provided that he must not only be fined but also sentenced to imprisonment. My hon. friend will find, in section 4, line 26, that not less than $200 and costs as well as imprisonment is the penalty imposed, and further down it is provided that the court shall have no power to impose less than the minimum penalties "herein prescribed," and shall in all cases of conviction impose both fine and imprisonment. It is assumed therefore that this clause will meet all cases of deportation.
On the schedule:


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is a new drug in the schedule.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

INDIAN AFFAIRS	'
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Indians-Nova Scotia, $50,140.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much
money was spent under this item for the last fiscal year?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that we spent the whole amount last year, $53,140, and we are asking this year, $50,140. The difference is explained in the vote required for the Truro highway which was completed, and a similar amount will not need to be voted this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought we gave a special vote last year of $3,000 for some dyking.


Charles A. Stewart: We have an item for dyking this year. The vote, for Nova Scotia is very much the same as last year, with the single exception that on carefully scrutinizing the estimates some changes will be found which I will deal with as we come to them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The vote for Nova Scotia of $50,140 has been continued for some time I think, but last year the I Mr. BMand.]
minister brought down a supplementary estimate which added $3,000 to that vote. As he says, that was for repairs to roads and for dyking.


Charles A. Stewart: For the last fiscal year $3,000 was voted for the main highway through the Millbrook reserve in Colchester, and as the work is now completed a similar vote is not necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Brunswick, $29,334.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What has been spent on this item?


Charles A. Stewart: We have not the complete audited accounts of the expenditure, although the amount is exactly the same as we asked last year. It covers practically identically the same vote as formerly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there a balance on hand this year?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under the new act the accounts are closed on the 31st March.


Charles A. Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that so far as the departmental accounting is concerned we have used all the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario and Quebec, $196,635.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the expenditure under this head?


Charles A. Stewart: There is a very considerable decrease in the expenditure on road building and repairs to roads, bridges and drainage. That is accounted for principally by the fact that last year the good roads' programme in Ontario had passed through a considerable number of reserves.
I think that little or no payments had been made for two or three years and it required a very large sum to clear off the account. That has all been paid for and so far as I know there are no commitments. This is arrived at by the estimates made upon the roads which passed through the reserves and payments were made accordingly and certified to by our own engineers. They cut down the expenditure too much, and we will possibly have to ask for an additional sum in the supplementary estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much of this is for roads?
APTfTT, 93	1993


Charles A. Stewart: I am speaking of the item of $15,900, which last year was $58,180. There is a decrease of $42,280 over last year's appropriation there, and that comes out of the large appropriation for repairs to roads, bridges and drainage. The other items are the same as last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are they?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is not quite correct in stating that the other items are the same. There is an increase of $15,000 for relief, and while speaking on this let me draw his attention to this most extraordinary coincidence right through. The increased relief in Nova Scotia of $14,000 more than doubles the vote; the relief in Ontario and Quebec represents an increase of $15,000; and in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta the increase for supplies and so on is $18,000, and for hospitals, medical attendance, etc., $16,-
000.


Charles A. Stewart: ' The increased relief in Ontario is made up by a corresponding reduction in the general vote. It is a changing of the allocation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As far as Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are concerned, that is . not so.


Charles A. Stewart: The increase of $18,962 in Manitoba and Saskatchewan is accounted for by the additional supplies provided to meet treaty obligations with the Indians of the Great Slave and Mackenzie river district numbering 3,000 souls. It is the first time we have issued relief to these Indians who have come in under treaty obligations made by Mr. Conroy some two years ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why the increase in Ontario?


Charles A. Stewart: There is a decrease of $15,000 in the general vote. It is simply a transfer for book-keeping purposes taken from the general vote and applied to Ontario for relief purposes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much was spent last year?


Charles A. Stewart: These transfers are confusing and give rise to difficulty in making explanations, but I am told by the accountant that although the $15,000 has not been voted direct for relief purposes it has been paid out of this fund for years. It appears now directly for relief purposes for Ontario and Quebec rather than in the general item number 278.


Mr. FORKE:: Mr. Chairman, in referring to the Indians of Manitoba I do not suppose I am likely to say anything that the hon. minister does not already know, but I think it well to make a statement as to their condition. I live near a reserve, and some twenty miles distant, near Brandon, we have a much larger reserve. The condition of the Indians on these reserves is deplorable; there is no denying that fact. While I was at home at Easter I received a deputation of eight or ten Indians who told me, in a dignified and intelligent manner, the story of the conditions that exist upon the reserves. We hear a great deal about the hard times among the farmers in western Canada, men who have long been acquainted with that sort of work, who come down from generations of farmers, yet are hardly able to make a living. I found Indians on the reserve without stock, without implements, without anything with which they could make a living; yet they have been existing. It seems to me that we are slowly starving these people to death. It is all very well to talk about the Indian and his characteristics, his lack of ability to take care of himself under modern conditions, but that is perhaps a rather hard-hearted way of looking at it. We have come into the country and taken the place of these Indians, people who have been used to a nomadic life, who from generation to generation have lived the life of the hunter, knowing nothing of modem conditions of agriculture. They are put in a reserve and told to make their living.
I remember a statement made to me by the late Glen Campbell, at one time a member of this House. He was commissioner of Indian police with jurisdiction over the Indians from the Great Lakes to the foot of the Rockies. I once had the pleasure of going with him over the Sarcee Indian reserve at Calgary, a splendid reserve, with good grazing facilities, capable of taking care of a great many cattle and stock of all kinds. I remember while admiring the reserve and the desirable place the Indians had there that he made the statement to me that were it not for the red tape at Ottawa he could make all these Indians rich. I wonder if there was any truth in that statement? I do not know, but that was what he said. Perhaps the Indians are ruled a little too much by red tape, without the application of any great knowledge of the conditions that prevail on the reserves. 1 am satisfied that it is no use to supply the Indians-the ones I know, anyway-with stock and seed and implements and then expect them to take care of their stock and make a good living for themselves. As long as these
Supply-Indian Affairs

reserves are managed and operated from an office the business of which is characterized by nothing more than red tape and accurate bookkeeping, we are going to have a continuance of the present conditions.
Remember, I am not finding fault with any of the officials, nor am I directing any special criticism against the system that exists, but it is not the proper system. The agent on a reserve should be something more to the Indians than an official; he should be their adviser and their friend; even more than that, he should almost be a father to them by giving his advice and assistance in all matters pertaining to their work. As those who know them are aware, the Indians have an almost childlike temperament. I do not say they are deficient in intellect; in fact, in intellectual ability they will compare with the white man. But they lack the white man's persistence, his sticktoitiveness, his going about his work day after day and carrying out his agricultural activities. I also know that if the agent on a reserve has the confidence of the Indians they will take his advice and be guided by it, and until the government appoint agents who will be something more than officials, who will do something more than carry out simply what the law requires them to do, so long will the condition respecting the Indians continue as it is in Manitoba.
I think it is a disgrace that Canada should allow its wards to be in the condition that they are in at the present time. It was almost pathetic to listen to the stories of some of these men. They went back many years and told me of the arrangement made whereby they became the wards of the government. They told me of how loyal they had been; that when the war broke out they sent their young men over to the front some of whom laid down their lives for Canada. Those who returned went back on the reserve;.they have made a bad mess of it; they are unable to make a living and it is no exaggeration to say that they are starving; the people who live near them know the facts. At my own place we often feed the Indians because we know they are really hungry and need something to help them along. Now, I want the government to get acquainted with the facts; to look into the conditions that exists on the reserve; and when the inspector goes around, let him do a little more than enter the agent's office and see that the books are properly kept. I would like to see him get in contact with the Indians, find out what their complaints are, learn of the actual conditions under which theV are living, and see whether something cannot be done to make life a little
TMr. Forke.]
more pleasant for them. In the harvest time the Indians will go out and work well for a month or six weeks, and get big wages, but when they get a little money they go into the town and buy all the canned goods they can get hold of. They are improvident, 11 p.m. there is no use denying that, and that is why they need some looking after, someone to take care of them. I have no doubt that the minister is aware of these facts and is anxious to do something to help the Indians, but I want to make this appeal on behalf of the Indians as I know them: that the country do a little more for them; that something be done to help them to help themselves and get them into the way of making a fairly decent living and not actually starve as they are doing at present on the reserve.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we should hear from the minister; it is news to the committee that we have starving Indians.


George Newcombe Gordon: The item is for Ontario and Quebec.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There may be some in Ontario and Quebec, though I do not know any.


Charles A. Stewart: I had intended to make a statement with respect to the Indian department generally. The matter is a very important one to which I have given some considerable attention, and I am prepared to say some things with respect to the Indian department that I think the House should know. I am asking for a very considerable increase in the appropriation for Indian education. I believe that is necessary, in view of what I discovered last year in visiting a considerable number of the western reserves. I cannot speak with authority as to what has happened in eastern Canada because I have not visited those reserves. But as my statement would take at least half an hour, I might better give it to a fuller House to-morrow.


Robert Forke: I am sorry that I anticipated the minister's statement.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, the House adjourned at 11.03 p.m.

Agricultural Conditions
Tuesday, April 24, 1923