1923-04-20

OFFICIAL REPORT


Volume I:: Pages 1-1025	Volume II: Pages 1027-2045


Volume III:: Pages 2047-3044	Volume IV: Pages 3045-4005


Volume V:: Pages 4007-4756



VOLUME CLVII


[Stage Direction]
Mouse of
Commons Mefmtes
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 20, 1923
The H'mse met at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the name of Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton) be substituted for that of Mr. Shaw as a member of the select standing committee on Mines and Minerals.
Mr. SPEAKER:: By leave of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
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]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend subsection one of section six of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, chapter seventy-five of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, as enacted by section one of chapter seven of the statutes of 1922, and to provide that the words "two hundred dollars for each head of cattle" in the eighteenth line thereof be stricken out and be replaced by the words "one hundred and fifty dollars for each head of cattle"; to further provide that this act come into operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and that the minister may order compensation to be paid to the owners of animals slaughtered on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, but which had been valued and ordered to be slaughtered prior to that date, at the rates authorized by statute before the coming into force of said chapter seven; also to provide that the minister may order compensation for animals which may be slaughtered on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, but valued and ordered to be slaughtered from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two to the thirtieth June, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, both dates inclusive, at the rates authorized by chapter seven of the statutes of 1922.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: This is the usual resolution which precedes a money bill and while it was discussed incidentally a few weeks ago I think it is well to go into it further at this time. The main feature of the resolution proposes to reduce the indemnity for slaughtered animals, that is pure breds, from $200 for each head to $150. Our reason for doing that is to conform to the general reduction of values in live stock, both commercial and pure bred. The first amount is the rate that was given for compensation during the war, but we now think we have eome to pre-war prices both in regard to pure bred and commercial animals. Therefore, we are restoring the rate that prevailed immediately before the war. I may say that the estimates for this year are based upon this lower valuation.
The effect of the balance of the resolution is this: Last year when we made a similar reduction in the amount of compensation for slaughtered animals, the law being brought into force on the first of July, it was found that a great injustice was done to the owners of those animals that were appraised before that date. For instance a farmer, we will call him Jones if you like, had his animals appraised, say, on the 20th June by the government inspector. He might have had a dozen animals and a valuation was agreed upon between the inspector and the owner of the animals under which he expected, we will say, a compensation of $2,000 for the entire number. The inspector went away and the farmer returned home feeling that that was what he was entitled to. The new law came into force on the first of July before any of Jones animals were slaughtered and then the new scale of compensation came into force. Consequently if the government and the government inspectors are to keep faith with that farmer his compensation must be based upon the valuation which took place any time before the first of July. I may say that when I was in Edmonton last summer I met a number of farmers who found they were exactly in this position: They had the certificate of the government inspector assuring them that they would get compensation based upon the act in force prior to last July. Then the new act

204S

Animal Contagious Diseases
came into effect and the compensation was lowered. They said that was not fair and I believe they were right. Hence the second part of this resolution makes provision for such cases amounting in all to $4,000. I have the names of the farmers that are affected by this provision if the committee would like to have them. They are located in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, but principally in Alberta where there happened to be a large amount of slaughtering in the last few days of June.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 115, to amend The Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be read a second time?


William Richard Motherwell: Now.


Hewitt Bostock: With the consent of the House, bill read the second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. GARDINER:: What is the number of the bill?


The CHAIRMAN:: There is no number on it.


William Richard Motherwell: If the bill has not been distributed, we cannot very well go ahead with it. However, the provisions of the bill are identical with the explanation I have just given to the House. The resolution is the embodiment of the bill, and the bill is in effect couched in the same language as the resolution.


Mr. HANSON:: What is the idea of railroading it through at this rate?


William Richard Motherwell: We want to get some work before the Senate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not because the minister wants to send out the cheques to-morrow.


William Richard Motherwell: I have no desire to railroad it through.


Mr. CALDW ELL:: It is a very important matter, and I think we had better have the bill printed and distributed.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the

House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution.
Resolved, that the Governor in Council may from time to time cause an agreement or agreements to be executed by or on behalf of His Majesty the Ring, undertaking or guaranteeing that any company mentioned or referred to in chapter thirteen of the statutes of 1919 (first session), entitled: An Act to incorporate Canadian National Railway Company and respecting Canadian National Railways, and in chapter thirteen of the statutes of 1920, entitled: An act to confirm the agreement dated the eighth day of March, 1920, between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada for the acquisition of the capital stock of the said Grand Trunk Railway Company, except the four per cent guaranteed stock, will restore or make good all loss or damage to the mortgaged premises comprised in any mortgage or deed of trust (hereinafter called "such mortgage") at any time executed by any such company occasioned by fire or other casualty against which such company covenanted in such mortgage to insure, and indemnifying the trustee or trustees of any such mortgage against any consequences arising from any failure-(a) on the part of such company to comply with such covenant to insure, and (b) on the part of such trustee or trustees to take any action in respect thereof. The times and manner of the giving of any such agreement or agreements, and the form and terms thereof and the person who may sign the same on behalf of His Majesty shall be such as the Governor in Council may from time to time approve or direct.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Explain.


Mr. GRAHAM:: The object of this resolution is simply this: The Canadian National Railway Board, with the consent of the government, has decided to carry its own insurance. In the mortgages given a covenant was included that insurance should be carried for the protection of-


Sir HENRA DRAYTON:: Perhaps we can shorten it a little. The resolution is rather a long one. If the minister says that all the resolution does is to enable the government to carry the insurance, we have no objection.


George Perry Graham: That is all it does.
Mr. HANSON; What about the bond holders? They have some rights.
Mr. SPEAKER. The matter will be fully
explained in committee, I presume.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister
should give the committee some information as to the experience of the company with its insurance. What has been the result of the insurance that has been carried by the Canadian National Railways through these years? I understand they have had one system of insurance applicable to their densely populated or densely trafficked areas, and another system with differing rates for other

C.N.R.-Mortgaged Premises
areas, and I believe some area not insured, in which they carry their own insurance the intention of the insurance, of course, being to provide for cases where( if a loss occurred by fire in the densely trafficked section, the money would be at hand to pay the loss. The property would have to be repaired at once. It could not be allowed to stand, and there would be no money to do it with, if they had no insurance fund. The minister is providing some other way whereby there will be authority to pay the money out of the treasury. I would like if the minister would tell the House what has been the result of that insurance. Has it been a loss to the company? Has the company been recouped by those with whom it insured against these losses, equal to, or nearly equal, to the amount of premiums paid, does that differ in each of the areas, and has the minister any comment to make on the rate of insurance the company was able to obtain, whether it was fair and reasonable, low, or too high?


George Perry Graham: The experience of the
company in insuring its property has been that a large profit has accrued to the insurance companies. I forget the exact figures, but I think the amount of insurance all told is three hundred and some odd million dollars, and if we were to include the Intercolonial railway, that has not been insured, the total would approximate $400,000,000. Those in charge of the insurance have taken into account all the valid circumstances, and they have come to the conclusion that with the experience in the various roads during the past ten years and the. amount of premiums paid, there could be a saving of about three quarters of a million dollars per annum by carrying our own insurance.


Arthur Meighen: What were the companies with whom the insurance was placed?


George Perry Graham: The insurance was placed, I think, with two companies of insurance brokers who distributed it amongst various companies. I cannot bring to mind the names now.
Mr. MEIGHENThey were not brokers; they were companies.


George Perry Graham: These companies do not carry the entire risk for the risks are very large.


Arthur Meighen: They reinsure.


George Perry Graham: Yes. As I understood the matter, they were insurance brokers, but I may be wrong about that. They, at least,
131 Jf
distribute the insurance. The question was raised if it would not be wipe to carry part of the insurance, perhaps in more densely populated areas. If that were done and our insurance were not spread over the lean areas, as well as the better portions, we were informed that the rate would be so much higher. As a matter of fact, the new president of the company procured a gentleman to go into the question of insurance in reference to the Canadian National Railway Board properties, and it was decided and the recommendation made that money could be saved by the government carrying its own insurance. Some years ago on the Intercolonial road, on which there was no insurance, the plan was inaugurated of the government putting aside each year from the returns from the road a certain amount for insurance. Our experience at that time was that that amount, although it was comparatively small, fully carried all the fire risks. The Grand Trunk, and, I think, one of the other lines have large insurance funds on hand now. I think the total of the two amounts is, at the present time, something like cash in hand of $2,000,000, so that the government insurance fund starts out already with a nucleus of about $2,000,000. It is not intended that, in the case of fire, the money should be taken in that particular way; but from the receipts of the system each year a certain amount will be put aside, approximately if not the same amount as would be paid under the ordinary rate of insurance.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister tell us what rates the Canadian National secured and what rates the Grand Trunk secured, the government road as against the privately operated road?


George Perry Graham: I have not that with me at the present moment. I shall have it at the second reading of the bill.


Arthur Meighen: I would ask the minister to get that.


George Perry Graham: I did not expect the bill
to come up this afternoon, and I do not have that information with me. I do not intend to go any further than the first reading of the bill this afternoon.
The other day the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) asked me two questions which I had better answer now. When the resolution was first introduced, I think the leader of the Opposition stated, if I remember correctly, that the words "restore or make good'' were redundant. The instruments held by the trustees, in which .instruments the covenants are made, contain two different forms of

Northwest Territories Act
covenant. One form says "shall make good." The other form says "shall restore." This resolution is merely to conform in identical terms with the other instruments held by the trustees, and this form of resolution has been agreed upon between the solicitors of the trustees and the solicitors of the Canadian National Railways.


Arthur Meighen: I first of all have no
objection at all to the new plan of insurance. With the much increased railway mileage and extent of property, it would seem to me the part of wisdom for the company now to carry its own insurance. I wish, however, information to be made official in this House as to the rate which the Canadian National Railways secured as compared with the rate which the Grand Trunk secured, and if the minister sees fit-I would not press for this-the rate which the Canadian Pacific secured. I have made some inquiries myself, and I must say I was astonished at the rate which the Canadian National Railway was able to secure on its insurance. I venture to believe that over an extended period of time, there would be little if any profit in this for the companies. It will be recalled that some year and a half ago, when it was thought fit to attack the management of the National Railways, special emphasis was laid on the horror of having directors there who were directors of companies doing business with the railways. That will be remembered. In my humble judgment, about the only one on the present board who has the right to be there in point of experience and capacity together, is head of the company doing a very large business with the railways. I would be the last to object to him on that ground, and I do not believe he will take the least advantage of this. His name is Mr. Stewart. But direction was especially drawn to the fact that the Canadian National Railway Company had insurance in concerns upon which even the manager, Mr. Hanna, and the treasurer, Mr. Mitchell, were directors! The public were led to believe there was something greatly wrong in that; that these men were favouring those companies with insurance for their own profit. I have gone to the trouble of ascertaining the facts. Those companies were doing insurance work for the Canadian National Railways long before Mr. Hanna or Mr. Mitchell was interested in them at all. Heavy losses, however, occurred in those companies, losses, arising chiefly from the San Francisco fire. Then it became necessary, if they were to get anything like the terms they got beford, to reconstitute the directorate and to have some money provided. 
That was done under Mr. George A. Cox and others, in order that the interest of the railway company might be better looked after, Mr. Hanna and Mr. Mitchell were asked to take directorships on the insurance companies. They did that, and they did it with only nominal stock interest. They had nothing in reality; this was simply a small amount of stock transferred in their names for some years, when the policy was adopted of having only directors with a real interest. Then Mr. Hanna secured $500 worth in one company and SI,500 in another. The $500 worth in the one, he has lately sold at less than 30 cents on the dollar, and what he has in the other, he would be glad to sell at the same rate. This is the result of the interlocking directorships and the advantage to Mr. Hanna. Mr. Mitchell's experience is similar. It is only just to these men that this should be known. They were there in the interests of one of the largest insured parties of the companies, and I would be only too glad if their management of the railways in this regard was compared with the management of any private system anywhere, so that we might know whether or not the very lowest possible rates were secured. Instead of profiting by taking on these extra responsibilities they actually lost, and intended to lose.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 116 respecting the Canadian National Railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 7 to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
He said: As will be recalled, the purpose of this bill is to authorise magistrates for the Northwest Territories to try either within or outside the Northwest Territories, persons accused of offences committed therein. A special provision was adopted by this House to the effect that a person shall be qualified to serve as a juror in such trials although he is not a British subject. The Senate has refused to acquiesce in that provision and has therefore struck it out. We are accepting the amendment.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

Judges in Admiralty
205)

[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Admiralty Act, chapter one hundred and forty-one of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and to provide that the Governor in Council may, from time to time, appoint for any admiralty district one or more deputy local judges, and revoke such appointments; appoint for any district or registry division of any district a deputy registrar; and when the local judge of the Quebec Admiralty District resides in Montreal, the deputy local judge residing in Quebec shall be paid the salary which he would have received if he were the local judge of the district; and when the local judge resides at Quebec, the deputy local judge residing at Montreal shall receive the salary which he would have received if he were the local judge of the district; but not more than one deputy local judge in any district shall receive a salary.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Sir LOMER GOUIN:: By this resolution we propose to give to the Governor in Council power to appoint deputy local judges to act as Judges in Admiralty and we provide for a salary to be paid to the deputy local judge, which is not now provided for. We might take, for example, the province of Quebec, where we have two divisions of the Admiralty Court, one in Quebec and one in Montreal. At the present time the Judge in Admiralty is a judge of the Superior Court of Montreal. We have no deputy for the district of Quebec; We have only one registrar, whose office is in the city of Quebec; and we have no deputy registrar. As I have said, we propose by this suggested amendment to give to the Governor in Council power to appoint deputy local judges and, as well, power to revoke such appointments; also authority to appoint registrars. We provide further that when the local judge resides in Montreal and receives
Quebec shall receive the same salary; and if the deputy local judge resides in Quebec the deputy local judge residing in Montreal shall also receive the same indemnity.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I am not very familiar with the provisions of the Admiralty Act. Is there any provision under that act empowering the Governor in Council to revoke the appointment of a judge?


Lomer Gouin: I am speaking only of deputy local judges.


Hugh Guthrie: But I refer to any judge. We have local judges in Ontario, for instance, in the Supreme Court, and certainly there is
no power in the Governor in Council to revoke their appointments. Is there a power under the Admiralty Act vested in the Governor in Council to revoke the appointment of a deputy local judge?


Lomer Gouin: Chapter 141 of the Revised Statutes of 1906, the Admiralty Act, provides in section 8 that:
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, appoint any judge of a superior pr county court, or any barrister of not less than seven years' standing, to be a local judge in admiralty of the exchequer court in and for any admiralty district.
2.	Every such local judge shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
3.	Such judge shall be designated a local judge in Admiralty of the Exchequer Court.
As to the deputy local judges Section 11 provides:
A local judge in admiralty may, from time to time, with the approval of the Governor in Council, appoint a deputy judge; and such deputy judge shall have and exercise all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as are possessed by the local judge.
2.	The appointment of a deputy judge shall not be determined by the occurrence of a vacancy m the office of the judge.
3.	A local judge in admiralty may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, at any time revoke the appointment of a deputy judge.


Arthur Meighen: If I may be permitted, I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to a decision lately given by the Court of Appeal of Ontario. I see in the papers this morning is reported the appeal of the case of the Wholesale Grocers and the Attorney General of Ontario. The Court of Appeal has held unanimously that the Dominion criminal legislation, section 498, is ultra vires. The disastrous consequences of such a verdict, if it is to remain undisturbed, are manifest.
The Chief Justice of Ontario bases his judgment upon the late finding of the Privy Council in the Board of Commerce case, and distinctly states that had it not been for that finding, that is to say, had his judgment been given prior to that finding, he would have held that section to be within the competence of the Dominion parliament. I do not presume to comment on the finding of the Privy Council except to say that I think it was most unfortunate. It was unfortunate that there should have been an appeal on that portion of the Board of Commerce and Combines and Fair Prices Acts. It was prosecuted by the province of Ontario, and I think by the province of Quebec as well, but chiefly at the instance of the Attorney General of Ontario.

Militia Pension Act
I am not presuming to give an opinion, only to say that in the judgment of the Privy Council there is no language so decisive and so final as would make an appeal from the judgment of the Ontario Appellate Court a futility. One would think from reading it that the Privy Council never intended to undermine the whole basis upon which section 498 of the criminal code rests. I have it firmly in my mind that the jurisdiction of this parliament to enact such legislation must be upheld, and I earnestly hope the minister is considering taking immediate steps to see . that the judgment so given does not become the law of Canada.


Lomer Gouin: I should not like
to express an opinion on the judgment referred to, not having yet read it, but I will certainly take under due consideration the remarks of the right hon. leader of the Opposition and do anything that is necessary and possible in the interests of the Dominion and the provinces.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Sir Lomer Gouin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 117, to amend the Admiralty Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Lomer Gouin: The bill is not printed m the two languages.
Progress reported.



PENNY BANK OF TORONTO ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. \\. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 104 to change the name of The Penny Bank of . Toronto.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1.-Name changed to "The Penny Bank of Ontario".
Mr. FIELDING:: Mr. Chairman, the
founders of The Penny Bank were Toronto citizens, and when the institution was organized it received the name of The Penny Bank of Toronto. In later years the operations of the bank have extended throughout the province of Ontario, and the desire is that hereafter the institution should be known as The Penny Bank of Ontario. The only purpose of this bill is to change the name accordingly.


Arthur Meighen: At whose request is the change made?	[DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: At the request of the
managers of the institution in Toronto through their solicitor in Ottawa. I noticed recently in the press there was some expression of opinion as to whether or not The Penny Bank was a successful institution. The only criticism of it was that it gives additional work to the school teachers and in some instances perhaps they are not willing to undertake it. However, I believe that is exceptional. The bank is operating quite extensively, and, so far as I know, to the general satisfaction of the public.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.



MILITIA PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Acting Minister of National Defence) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is . expedient to amend the Militia Pension Act, chapter forty-two of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and to provide that pensions of retired officers, who served in the war and are employed in public service, be continued, and that the annual emolument of any such officer shall not exceed the annual rate of pay and allowances upon which the pension was computed; also to provide that pensions which have been paid to such officers shall not be recoverable from them.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. MACDONALD:: The purpose of this resolution is to provide for a situation that has arisen out of the late war. Under the provisions of the Militia Pension Act an officer shall not receive any pension while he is in receipt of a salary in the public service. This limitation did not apply to those who served as non-commissioned officers or privates. Since the war a number of members of the permanent force who served overseas and were promoted for service in the field or otherwise for merit, subsequently entered the public service, and by so doing lost their right to the pensions they would otherwise be entitled to on retirement. The Militia Pension Act was revised and brought up to date in 1909, when certain provisions were made in regard to pensions generally. Any officer who retires for any cause other than inefficiency or misconduct is entitled to receive out of the pension fund one-fiftieth, for every year he was in the service, of the amount he received during the last year in which he served. This fund is provided out of payments made by officers during the course of their service, at the rate of five per cent

Criminal Code
annually of their pay. An anomaly has arisen through the fact that a man who entered the public service was put in a worse position as the result of his being promoted in the field than he would have been had he remained in the ranks as a private. This measure, therefore, is to provide that if such a man goes into the public service he shall not lose the right to pension which he would otherwise receive.
It is also provided that if the amount of the pension and of the salary in the public service is such as to exceed the amount he received on the date of his retirement, the payments to him may be reduced so as not to exceed the rate on which the pension was computed. It has been found also in certain cases that pensions to officers who have been retired have been paid as a matter of course and that there has been no record in the Defence department as to what occupations the recipients of the pensions were engaged in. They may have entered the Customs service or the service of, say, the British Columbia government, and there would be no information with regard to their activities in that respect, the cheques issuing automatically. It was not until the Auditor General discovered that payments had been made in certain cases contrary to the provisions of the law of 1919 that the necessity for the present provision became evident. It was 4 p.m. felt, particularly in view of the small amount involved, that it would hardly be fair that the men who had received this money during the last year or so should be compelled to repay it. That, m brief, is the purpose of the proposed legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: Can the acting minister inform the coqjmittee'how many officers have been paid in excess of the amount to which they were entitled, as referred to in the last clause of the resolution? How many cases is this provision supposed to cover?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am informed that the cases are very few, but I can get the information for my hon. friend if he wishes it.


Hugh Guthrie: Are there only three or four?


George Perry Graham: More than that, but not very many.


Mr. MANION:: The minister states, as I understand it, that this is virtually putting these officers on the same basis as are the privates and non-commissioned officers?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Macdonald (Pictou) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 118, to amend the Militia Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the fiist and second times, considered in committee and reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 109, (from the Senate), to amend the Criminal Code with respect to publication of evidence in marriage or divorce proceedings.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Reports of proceedings in parliament; exception as to evidence in matters of marriage or divorce.
Lomer Gouin: Section 322 of the Criminal Code explains the amendment which is proposed. It reads:
No one commits an offence by publishing in good faith for the information of the public, a fair report of the proceedings of the Senate or House of Commons, or any committee thereof, or of any council or assembly aforesaid, or any committee thereof, or of the public proceedings preliminary or final heard before any court exercising judicial authority, nor by publishing in good faith, any fair comment upon any such proceedings. .


Mr. BOYS:: While I approve of this legislation I ask the minister does he think very much is going to be gained by it in view of the fact that there are 450 copies of the evidence given before the divorce committee of the Senate which are printed and distributed for the information of members but which fall into the hands of many other people? If there is an earnest desire to stop the publication of this kind of evidence I think the minister should go further and find some way of restricting the method of distribution now in vogue in this House.


Lomer Gouin: What my hon. friend says is possibly true but I would point out that this bill originated in the Senate. It may be advisable, as the hon. member suggests that no publicity of any kind should be allowed. However, what is proposed heie is a beginning and is something better than is in force to-day.


William Alves Boys: I cannot say that I would go so far as to provide that there should be no publication of evidence at all in relation to these cases. It would be impossible for the
Cold Storage Act

members of the private bills committee, who have from time to time to deal with divorce cases, to do so intelligently without the evidence before them; but there might be a provision that the distribution should be restricted to members of the committee, except in case of a division in the House, or something of that kind.


Lomer Gouin: This bill provides for restriction.


William Alves Boys: 1 hat is publication in the newspapers. As a matter of fact, so far as my knowledge goes I have never seen very much publication in the newspapers. I believe that if any injury is done it occurs through the publication of about 450 copies of the petition, the evidence, and the various proceedings before the divorce committee; it is through the distribution of those proceedings that the damage is done. Therefore I would like the minister to take that into his consideration and see if something cannot be done to lessen the very undesirable publicity that is now given to such matters.


Lomer Gouin: I have no objection to study the question, but I think the House should allow this bill to pass.
On section 2.-Repealed.


Mr. PARENT:: May I ask the minister what the proposed contract in regard to cold storage warehouses consists of?


William Richard Motherwell: The form of contract is m the old act, it is rather a long document. As soon as the preliminary arrangements are made this contract is entered into.


Georges Parent: Do I understand that this measure is restricted to co-operative societies?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 9, to amend the Cold Storage Act, Mr. Gordon in the chair. fMr. Boys.]
Mr. CHAPLIN:: Will an ordinary business association operating under the Limited Liability Act, be able to avail themselves of this provision?


William Richard Motherwell: That will depend in some measure on the object of the association. if the primary purpose is making profits, and it is tantamount to a profit institution, then the bill is not meant to apply to ft, because it would then be in the same' nature as it was at the oiftset. The former government changed the act so as to limit its application to municipal cold storages, but we are extending it to co-operative institutions and the vote m the estimates provides accordingly There is only $50,000 in the estimates for the construction of cold storage plants, and if we opened it to such institutions as described by my hon. friend, one plant would gobble up the whole of the appropriation. For the present oui intention is not to make it apply to institutions described by my hon. friend, unless their primary object is to give service rather than to make profits.


James Dew Chaplin: If according to the ministers statement he has only provided $50,000 and one private corporation could gobble'up the whole of it, it stands to reason that one association such as he speaks of could gobble up the whole of it.

('old, Storage Act


William Richard Motherwell: No, the hon. member is mistaken. These are institutions of a smaller nature. This $50,000 would take care of several of them.


Georges Parent: In addition to the questions which have already been asked I would like to know whether the minister has received representations from the Quebec Harbour Commission with regard to the establishment of a cold storage in that city. I understood from the representations made by these gentlemen that they Would have liked to have a cold storage plant under the Quebec harbour board, and for reasons which have not been considered convincing up to date, the department has refused to amend the law so as to include a cold storage in Quebec city, under the supervision of the Quebec Harbour Commission.
I would like to know if representations have been made to the minister, and the reasons he has to give for the refusal to give them favourable consideration.


William Richard Motherwell: Such representations were made to myself and my deputy, and it looked as if the Quebec harbour board desired to put up a cold storage plant. They have a precedent in the case of Montreal, where they went direct to the government and got a vote of several million dollars for the purpose of putting up a cold storage plant in the harbour of Montreal. To take advantage of this little act to construct the cold storage under the auspices of the Quebec harbour board I am afraid would be going beyond the intentions of the act. I do not think, if I remember rightly, that we turned the deputation down flatly. We seldom do that. I did not know but that the government would come down in the supplementary estimates with several million dollars for cold storage and we might be able to accede to this request, but with only $50,000 available, and with the precedent of the Montreal harbour board constructing a cold storage plant, I did not think I was able to hold out any hope to the Quebec harbour board that they could build a cold storage plant out of this vote.


Mr. THOMPSON:: Does this resolution apply to the cooling of cheese in cheese factories and cold storages for cheese factories? A great many factories now are equipped with a cheese cooling room. Does this apply to factories where they wish to establish a cheese cooling room?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, that is one of the purposes in mind. I think in the hon. member's locality there are sufficient cold storages to take care of that business. However, if the co-operative institutions think differently,
I think the Hon. Manning Doherty has a proposition in mind for the purpose of co-operatively marketing cheese products? If he carries out his scheme, and there is a proposition for constructing cold storage plants under it, this provision will apply. So far as I know the situation at present under the Dairy Produce Act, I think there are sufficient cold storages in these centres to take care of the curing of the cheese which my hon. friend describes. It is quite possible this act may be invoked in other parts of Canada for the purpose he describes, in which case it will apply.


Thomas Henry Thompson: There seems to be a
disposition on the part of the government to centralize co-operative societies in the large cities. This storage I speak of is in the city of Belleville, and the cheese factories are scattered all over the country. A cold storage operated in the city is of no benefit to the dairymen. What they want is cold storage in connection with their cheese factories. They have managed their own business, and by having the cold storage in connection with the factory they can hold their cheese and sell it at whatever time they think best, and I am very sorry to say that this does not apply, and is of no benefit, to the dairymen of central Ontario. I wish to inform the minister that these people have unanimously turned down the Hon. Manning Doherty's project. They have no use whatever for it. They feel that they want to use their own brains and intelligence in conducting their business affaiis, and they would very much prefer to do so. On behalf of the dairymen, I wish to urge that this should apply to cheese factories, not to the central cold storage, which is owned by. a private individual, because it would be a great inconvenience and expense to ship the cheese to those central points. In the first place the rate would be a quarter of a cent per pound on the cheese, and it costs the dairymen hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to carry out the ideas expressed by the hon. minister. On behalf of the dairymen of my district I want to protest against it.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, Mr. Chairman, if we had abundance of money and the cheese factories were of a reasonable size, which they are not, it would be very nice to have a cold storage plant of some kind, or even a cooling plant, even if it were only by the use of ice, and not mechanical powei at all, in each individual factory, but to burden the different cheese factories with a cold storage proposition such as this would ruin them, instead of helping them. The time may come when we will have large creameries
Cold Storage Act

such as they have in Australia, but we cannot install a cold storage in a small cheese factory without it being too burdensome to the institution. I think possibly that would be the ideal system, but it is impossible for the reasons I have indicated.


Mr. MARTELL:: Will the hon. minister
tell us what he intends to do regarding the establishment in the province of Nova Scotia of plants in which to experiment in regard to the cooling of fruit? We have a fruit growing country down there and I think at least we are entitled to something from the government for the encouragement of the fruit growing. The minister should do something in regard to experimentation there, if he does nothing else i know he wants to do everything possible, have every faith in the minister as have the nut growers of the province of Nova Scotia.
ft h,avev. eV,e,T. faith aIso in the government; but we should like to know what is going to be done towards experimentation in Nova Scotia Where this year fruit was practically thrown out ot doors, because we had no market, and the iruit rotted before we got it to the market.


William Richard Motherwell: I think one of the rs. Public acts that I was privileged to perform after coming down here, was to establish a pre-cooling plant in my hon. friend's constituency. Is it not Annapolis?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Hants.
to establish the very first one in Nova Scotia if they get busy before this amount of $50,000 is exhausted.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I do not want to delay this bill, because I am absolutely in sympathy with the minister in everything he is doing; but I believe not only what he is proposing now should be extended to co-operative people or to government institutions, but there should be some arrangement whereby private individuals could secure the advantage of subsidies, because often the way for co-operative and other work must be paved by private individuals undertaking the matter. People have become sick and tired, in many cases, of their experience in co-operative methods; and if a few private individuals would get together and form a company, say under the Nova Scotia Joint Stock Companies' Act, or in some other way, I believe the minister should be prepared to assist those people. If he does that, eventually we shall have in Nova Scotia the very finest methods of marketing fruit, because the minister knows that Nova Scotia has the finest quality of fruit in the world, and especially is this true of Hants.
Mr. WALT,ACE: I am not clear whether this applies to a pre-cooling plant operated by a co-operative society in connection with fruit or to a freezing plant in connection with fish.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, it was some-wheie m the apple district. Representations had been made to my department in the direction of a pre-cooling plant, just like the small creameries referred to by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Thompson). This pre-cooling plant could not stand the expense ot a mechanical cold storage. Consequently it was supplied with ice-cooling appliances; but as this was done somewhat late in the year, the ice did not last as well although, as my hon. knows, the plant did excellent service We have, I think, established the faat that it is good business to pre-cool in such cases, and do not hon. members think the next step would be for individuals concerned to get together and take advantage of the act providing for mechanical storage. He know pre-cooling is all right. The next step for Nova Scotia or any other province would be to organize a co-operative company and to get into touch with the officers of my department to find out the various steps to be taken until they are organized, and then to take advantage of this act. That would be the proper way, and I would be delighted


William Richard Motherwell: This act applies to mechanical cold storage only. There is a matter I overlooked. There is in another act provision whereby a small grant of $100 for each factory can be applied for pre-cooling in just such institutions as were referred to by the hon. member for East Hastings. That is being taken advantage of. They obviously cannot put in anything except just straight ice or use what we call the brine system. That is not, however, what we are discussing here. This is mechanical storage; it can be used either for pre-cooling or for freezing.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Why is it proposed to take away from private individuals the benefit of this system?


William Richard Motherwell: We are not doing that. This is taken away now. The act as it is to-day applies only to municipalities. It was the late government that took it away from private institutions, and I think at that time they were correct. I have no criticism to make of them in that regard at all. The larger institutions built by private enterprise had received a great deal of assistance, and a new day has come now when

Cold Storage Act
we are introducing the idea of co-operative marketing more than ever. This co-operative marketing is going to be an outstanding feature of to-day. The private institutions have had their assistance. When they were deprived of this subsidy, it was extended for the last four years only to municipalities. We are extending it back again so as to include municipalities and co-operative associations. Therefore, this government is not the party that took the benefits of this act away from private concerns. My hon. friend, I .think, knows that.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I quite appreciate what the minister says; but he has probably noticed in this morning's Journal that the leader of the Conservative party in Nova Scotia has introduced a resolution in the provincial legislature towards secession. Prior to 1896 it was necessary to advocate secession in Nova Scotia, because at that time we were in dire straits, but we undoubtedly have hopes that under this administration, secession talk will soon die out, because we have every faith in the present party in power. Nevertheless the minister has said that the last government took away these rights from private individuals. Cannot the minister see some way clear whereby he can permit private individuals who have foresight enough and sufficient ' faith in Nova Scotia to establish private cold storage plants, again to take advantage of this act? They were given these benefits by the Hon. Sydney Fisher who, with the exception of the present Minister of Agriculture, was the greatest Minister of Agriculture this country ever had.


Thomas Henry Thompson: Has there been any request from any dairy organization such as the Dairymen's Association or the Cheese Board or from dairymen in general for this bill?


William Richard Motherwell: I cannot recall them all just now; but representations have certainly been made from many sources that this should not be confined to an activity that does not take advantage of it. The fact that it was confined entirely to municipalities is because none of those subsidies has been used at all during the last four years. This shows pretty conclusively that the act as it now stands is a dead letter, and. therefore, some change must be made or the act repealed altogether.


Thomas Henry Thompson: The minister has, 1 think, evaded the question I asked. I asked if he had received any requests from the Dairymen's Association or from dairy organizations.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not recall being asked to make this change by any dairymens association; but surely the right is recognized of anybody responsible for a department to initiate something himself without waiting for somebody else to tell him what to do. I know this was asked for in two or three places.
If we always waited until somebody asked, that would not show great resourcefulness on our part.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2:
Section 4 of the said act is amended by adding thereto as subsection 2 the following:	. f
"(2) provided further that, in consideration of suen subsidyPThe owners of such cold borage warehouse shall execute in favour of the government of Canada a lien the terms and conditions whereof shall be prescribed by regulation under this act, on the said warehouse, to the full amount of such subsidy, such Hen to be held by the Minister of Agriculture m perpetuity as a security that such cold storage warehouse shall continue to be available for general pub lie use and be subject to the supervision provided and regnla tions prescribed by and under this act.
Mr GUTHRIE:: I have not the original act before me. Is there power under the original act to make regulations.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Mr GUTHRIE:: 
Mr MOTHERWELL:: We wrestled with it a good many times in the committee and 1 do not think it is exactly m the shape the executive council left it. The Agricultural committee mutilated it and possibly t phraseology is not what it should be. 1 rather like the amendment suggested by my hon. friend and if he will be good enough to draft it I shall accept it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Perhaps the chairman might read the original section.


George Newcombe Gordon: The original section is not before the committee; it is not in the bill. The amendment proposed by the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) is as follows:
Provided further that, in consideration of such subsidy the owners of such cold storage warehouse shall execute a lien in favour of the government of Canada,
Cold Storac/e Act


Lewis Herbert Martell: I would move as a subamendment that the words "or incorporated company" be inserted after the word "association" in the third line of section 1 of the bill.


George Newcombe Gordon: Section 1 has already passed; we are now on section 2.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I do not like to dispute the word of the Chair, but the proposed amendment is an amendment to section 1
beW C-?AIRMAN: Section 2 of the bill is before the committee. We have already passed section 1.	i


Lewis Herbert Martell: I have the bill before me.
nflqno Je[erS t0 chapter 8 of the statutes of 1909 Section 1 refers to the sort of contracts that can be entered into.


George Newcombe Gordon: I have already said that section 1 is passed. Is the hon. member proposing an amendment to section 2?


Mr MARTELL:: I do not think you called tor the proviso to section 1.


George Newcombe Gordon: There is no proviso.


Lewis Herbert Martell: There is a proviso moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie).
T he CHAIRMAN: There is no proviso in section 1. Shall the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) carry?


Lewis Herbert Martell: But what is it?
, Tbe CHAIRMAN: It has been moved by, the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) that section 2be stricken out and that there be substituted therefor the amendment I have already read, which has been accepted by the minister. Shall the amendment carry?


Lewis Herbert Martell: No.


George Newcombe Gordon: 
George Newcombe Gordon: 
James Dew Chaplin: I would suggest that tlm
XTrthrrthat wirevert "^ 11
i * on' member an opportunity to move ins amendment.	'


William Richard Motherwell: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: The consent of the committee is asked that clause 1 may be referred to again.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr MARTELL:: I beg to move that there be added the words "or incorporated company after the word "associations" in the third line subsection 2 of section 1

Cold Storage Act


William Richard Motherwell: ME Chairman, if
those words are inserted we shall have the bill back in the same position as the original act of many years ago.


Lewis Herbert Martell: That is where it should be.


William Richard Motherwell: The late government found after a number of years' experience that the activities of private companies had been pretty well taken care of by the subsidies granted and that if continued far more money was likely to be required than the House was disposed to vote. Consequently the act was changed. True, this was during the war, but I think the change would have been made anyway. The legislation applies to muncipalities and now we have widened it to cover co-operative activities, and these have been provided for in the estimates accordingly. To still further widen the operation of the act will only result in dissipating that vote all over the country so that it will fail to achieve the purpose we have in view. For instance, the cold storage plant at Prince Rupert would require nearly as much assistance as the entire amount voted. This measure is for the purpose, as I have said, of developing co-operative cold storage plants for dairy products, fruit and fish in a word, for anything that requires cold storage.
I woufd.be delighted to accept the hon. gentleman's amendment but the circumstances I have described forbid it.


Mr. WALLACE:: The hon. minister refers to co-operative activities. In my own district we have the Norfolk Co-operative Company, which is organized under the Companies Act but is absolutely and strictly a co-operative organization. Would this bill apply to such a company?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. I have intimated several times that where the organization was under the Companies Act but was co-operative in its nature and particularly if it distributed its profits on the basis of the business supplied, it would certainly be recognized as coming under this legislation. But that would have to be left to the discretion of the department in the administration of the act.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Chairman I do not want to press my amendment unduly, but if we have to rely on co-operative and municipal cold storage plants in Nova Scotia we are^ not going to get any. We are a small province. Occasionally we can get private individuals to build cold storage plants, and these plants must of course rely upon the agricultural and
other industries to get business; but we cannot secure co-operative effort in the same way as it operates in the West or in the big province of Ontario. Therefore I think it is a mistake for the minister to take away financial encouragement from those who want to engage in this form of private enterprise. The old act contained the necessary provision to this end, and I believe it should be maintained in the present act. As I see it, the minister is actuated by a desire to get away from the big cold storage plants receiving bonuses. The Agricultural department should certainly assist every small industry that has for its object the advancement of agricultural interests. We in the province of Nova Scotia cannot get co-operative or municipal cold storage plants, and although I have every admiration for the minister, I submit it is a mistake for him to exclude from the operation of the act say, four or five individuals who may associate together for the purpose of securing a charter under the Nova Scotia Joint Stock Companies Act in order to carry on a cold storage plant. The whole tendency appears to be to discourage individual effort directed towards the promotion of agricultural industry in the small provinces. The trouble to-day is that we have democracy running riot. I am just as much a low tariff man as the Minister of Agriculture, and I am just as much interested in some phases of public ownership as he is, but when we get so far away from practical business, as to endeavour to encourage co-operative and municipal effort as against the initiative of private individuals, I say we are usurping functions that governments were never intended to assume. I believe that the old act of the Honourable Sydney Fisher was the best possible legislation to encourage the erection of cold storage plants. True, time may have shown that some changes were necessary, but to discourage private initiative is to create chaos and kill industry, and, representing an agricultural constituency,
I protest against such a course. I believe an individual should have the right to engage in any sort of industry, and I do not think that it is in the interests of the masses generally that municipal and co-operative bodies should be encouraged at the expense of private enterprise.


William Richard Motherwell: When the bill was first introduced it did not include municipalities, but at the instance of the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) in the Agricultural committee the bill was amended to meet his views and the farming . members particularly of the committee were
20G0
Forest Reserves and Parks

in favour of the amendment.. To extend the bill as proposed by the ton. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) would simply defeat its purpose ; in fact it now covers companies such as those described by the hon. member provided their primary purpose is service rather than profit.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Do you expect private individuals to invest money in an undertaking without getting a legitimate dividend upon it?


William Richard Motherwell: They will get a legitimate dividend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1:
Hugh Guthrie: I think we should have some explanation of this bill.


Mr. STEWTART (Argenteuil):: Perhaps I had better give a general explanation of what is. embodied in the bill, and then we can deal with the clauses in detail. The statement which I have is as follows:


Lewis Herbert Martell: You say the test is public service rather than profit.


William Richard Motherwell: Otherwise they could not exist. If we have voted moneys sufficient to take care of that sort of activity it would be another matter, but we have not done so and are not likely to. Therefore let us not attempt to spread ourselves all over and accomplish nothing.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Cut it all out.


Mr CHAPLIN:: When this bill was under consideration before I pointed out the very same feature to the minister and asked him if he would consider an expansion of the clause by including the words "incorporated companies." At that time the minister said the matter would be considered and that the suggestion would likely be adopted. I cerr\r*e,,rthL the hon' member for Hants (Mr. Martell) that with the restrictions laid own in the act there is no reason why incorporated companies should not o p.m. be included. I would point out also that the provision is that the Governor in Council "may" enter into a contract so that the minister cannot say he is not able to prevent people from grabbing, or to use his own expression, gobbling the whole thing, rhere is no obligation to enter into a contract; it says the Governor in Council may" do so.
Amendment (Mr. Martell) negatived.
Bill, as amended, reported.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Lewis Herbert Martell: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the third reading be delayed.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the House. FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 82, to amend The Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.

in tne accompanying schedule a new description of each oi the thirty-nine reserves in included, although there is no change proposed in the areas comprising many oi these reserves. The rewriting of the schedule was approved owing to the fact that the original description m the 1911 act was made by the metes and bounds system, which is a very cumbersone and complicated method, and also in view of the fact that in the numerous amendments to the original act the lands added or withdrawn have been described by section, townshjp and range. The result is that it is a veiy difficult matter for anyone not familiar with the act and all its amendments to determine the lands which are included in forest reserves. In the accompanying schedule, each reserve has been described by section township and range, all previous withdrawals or nddi-tions having been taken into consideration, and provision having been made for such alterations as are proposed in the present bill.
Manitoba
Eliminations.
It is Proposed to withdraw from the Spruce Woods Forest Reserve three-quarters of a section, and from the Porcupine Forest Reserve No. 1 one-quarter of a section. These lands have been examined and found to be of possible agricultural value. It is also proposed to withdraw 38.00 square miles from the Riding Mountain Forest Reserve. All of this area except one section is included in a block isolated from the main reserve by the withdrawal of lands for soldiere settlement when the act was last amended. This isolated block has been jointly examined by representatives of the Soldier Settlement Board and of the Forestry Branch and it has been decided to eliminate it so that it may be used for soldier settlement. *
The total area to be withdrawn from the reserves in Manitoba is 39.00 square miles.
Additions:	[DOT]
It is proposed to add 28.36 square miles to the Riding Forest Reserve. This area was withdrawn in 1919 for soldier settlement purposes but it has been decided by the Soldier Settlement Board that the lands contained therein are not suitable for soldier settlement, and, located as they are, adjacent to the present reserve boundary and consisting of lands along the south shore of Clear Lake and also of a tract frequented by the elk from the game preserve during the winter months, it is considered that this area would fonn a valuable addition to the reserve.
One new reserve is poposed, namely, tile Sandilands. Ibis proposed reserve is situated in the southeastern part of the province and comprises an area of 187.75 square miles and consists chiefly of sand ridges with intervening muskegs. A soil survey of the area has been made by the Geological Surveys and they classify the land contained therein as being entirely unsuited for agriculture. They recommend that it be reserved for forestry. Our report on the area confirms that of the Geological Surveys.

Industrial Disputes
The total area proposed to be added to the forest reserves in Manitoba is 216.11 square miles.
Saskatchewan
The Steep Creek Forest Reserve which comprises 7.0 square miles has been included in the description ot the Nisbet Forest Reserve, as the former reserve is ot too small an area to be administered as a knit and is in fact, now being administered as part ot tne Nisbet Forest Reserve. The Steep Creek Resetwe is an established reserve and no additional area is being placed under permanent reservation by including it in the Nisbet Reserve.
is granted to one applicant so that the opportunity for successful settlement should be greater than if only the usual grant of a quarter section were allowed, ihe area proposed to be withdrawn from the reserves in British Columbia comprises 6.06 square miles. Additions:
It is proposed to add to the Tranquille Forest Reserve one half section which was erroneously eliminated by
1 1. _ 10t A	f/1 t (I P H.PT,.
That covers the very large amount of descriptive matter in connection with the bill. Section agreed to and bill reported.
Eliminations:
The withdrawals recommended in Saskatchewan con- ^ sist of 2.65 square miles from the Moose Mountain Forest Reserve, .50 square miles from the Dundem Reserve, 5,25 square miles from the Fort a la Come Reserve .90 square miles from the Nisbet Reserve, 3.51 square miles from the Pines Reserve, 1.54 square miles from the Manito Reserve, 1.44 square mi es from the Cypress Hills Reserve No. 2, .50 square miles from the Pasquia Reserve, all of which lands upon reexamination have been found to be of some agricultural value. It is also proposed to withdraw 19.50 square miles from the Keppel Reserve These are cither patented to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or lands for which it is desired tojrn patent to the company as a result of exchanges fo areas which are now included in the reserve. It is recommended that 31 square miles be withdrawn from the Beaver Hills Forest Reserve as a result of a land classification mads by the Topographical Surveys
Branch.	.
The total proposed withdrawals comprise an area of 66.79 square miles of land considered to be of agricultural value.
Additions:
It is proposed to add .25 square miles to the Fort a la Corne Forest Reserve. This land which fomis a narrow strip between an Indian Reserve and the Forest Reserve was inadvertently omitted m the original act. It is also proposed to include in the Manito Reserve two islands in Manito Lake, the areas of which amount to 2.12 square miles.	.
Proposed additions to forest reserves in the province of Saskatchewan amount to 2.37 square miles.
Alberta
All lands included in Dominion Parks have been excluded in the descriptions of the Rocky Mountains and Cooking Lake Forest Reserves, as re-written tor tne accompanying schedule.
Eliminations:
It is proposed to withdraw one quarter section from the Rocky Mountains Forest Reserve, and .31 square miles from the Cypress Hills Reserve No. 1. These lands are considered to be of sufficient agricultural value to warrant withdrawal.
Additions:
No additions proposed.



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT (1907) AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. James Murdock (Minister of Labour) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 84, to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Declaration by officers of trade union:
Hugh Guthrie: We want some explanation of this clause?	.


Mr. MURDOCK:: The change proposed
here is in order to facilitate the application that may be made for a board of investigation. It has been stated, in certain cases in the past, that committees could not make the necessary application provided for^ in section 15 of the act for the reason, it was said, that communications which employees committees would address to the employer were unanswered, that negotiations were not held, and that therefore they could not literally make the declaration that negotiations had been held, and that all efforts to effect a settlement as a result of such negotiations had failed. By this section it is proposed to assist in meeting that situation and if the committees can make the necessary declaration that it has been impossible to secure a conference, or enter into negotiation, and that all efforts to obtain a satisfactory settlement have failed that shall be sufficient, in the interest of co-operation as between employer and employee, to warrant the formation of a board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2.-Relation of parties pending
British Columbia
Eliminations:
Practically all of the lands recommended for withdrawal from reservation in this province have been applied for by returned soldiers under the soldier settlement scheme. [DOT] The lands have been carefully reexamined and although found in some eases to be of doubtful agricultural value, it is considered advisable to recommend the elimination of the areas in question, as in many instances the applicants intend to use these lands in conjunction with homesteads already held in the same vicinity, and in other cases a half section
proceedings:
Hugh Guthrie: We must have some explanation of this clause also.


James Murdock: 
William Alves Boys: 
William Alves Boys: 
Mr MURDOCK:: 
James Murdock: If they do not make it, we will be m very much the same position as we have been in the past.


William Alves Boys: Exactly.


James Murdock: In answer to my hon friend as to what will happen then, I cannot

Trade Mark artd D&sigm
say. Many things have happened in the past. Strikes have taken place without a board being applied for, which is undesirable, and when these strikes have taken place I do not think there has been one case in which it has not been alleged that it was the other fellow's business to make application for the board. That has been the claim on both sides. We want to place clearly the responsibility for making the applications. We think this will help do that, and I have never before heard the contention that it would not be an additional help if we could place the responsibility for applying for the board.


William Alves Boys: I do not see that that explanation disposes of the matter. Suppose the application is not made, are we any further ahead than we are at the present time?


James Murdock: No, sir.


William Alves Boys: I would like the hon. member to explain the improvement the proposed amendment will bring about.


James Murdock: The improvement would be that we would, at least, know definitely under the proposed change who it was that had failed to exercise the obligation as a citizen of Canada, whether it was the employer or the employee. We want to place the responsibility for failure to do the thing which the public expects shall be done on the part of an employer or on the part of the employee.


William Alves Boys: If neither responds, I do not know how you will fix responsibility. They are both in default.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think I can explain the matter. I remember the question coming up on different occasions when I had to do with the administration of the act. The purpose of the law is to prevent any sudden change of conditions in regard to those utilities to which the act applies. If the employer changes the conditions, where the law provides that there may be no strike or lockout as a consequence of the change, the working man may claim-and I think my hon. friend will see that there is a sense of fairness in it-that it is but right that, inasmuch as the employer has made the change, he should ask for a board, rather than that the employee should be put in the position of appearing to be the party always agitating for a board. It simply puts on the person the onus responsible for the change in conditions of asking for the board, to avoid a strike or lockout. The result is the same, but it does not put the opposing party in a false 132
position. If the workmen ask for a change in wages or hours, the employer need not threaten a lockout before a board is appointed. It is up to the workmen themselves to ask for a board, they being the ones who are responsible for the change in that case. It is a matter simply of trying to place, so far as the public are concerned, the onus of asking for a board on the party who is responsible for the change in conditions.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill 21, to amend the Trade Mark and De signs Act.
William Alves Boys: I do not think this bill was mentioned last night as one of the matters which was to have been considered to-day, and I happen to know that the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has given this subject some attention.


Mr. ROBB:: I know the hon. m#mber for South Wellington is particularly interested m the Copyright Act. This is not the Copyright Act.


William Alves Boys: I understood he had gone into this as well. I do not want to see the business of the House held up; but if some other business could be gone on with, I should be glad.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would Bill No. 20, to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to Patents of Invention be all right?


William Alves Boys: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is devoting himself to that, and he is at present in the Banking and Commerce committee. The great trouble is that all these members are engaged on various committees, and it is difficult to have them in the House. If the Prime Minister particularly wants to take up this bill, I will get the hon. member at once.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will agree to whatever my hon. friend wishes.


James Alexander Robb: The bill to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act is only a minor one, and we could go on with that while the hon. member is getting the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.


William Alves Boys: The hon. member for South Wellington is gone, and I am told that his papers are at his house; but I am quite will-

Patents oj Invention

ing, if something is taken up for a few moments, to send for the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.
Motion stands.



PATENTS OF INVENTION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 20, to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to Patents of Invention.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I would ask the minister to explain.


James Alexander Robb: This act has not been revised since 1903, about twenty years ago. A bill was introduced in 1920; but at that time owing to other business and the lateness of the session, the bill was not pressed. The bill was again introduced in 1921, and it reached its second reading. I understand the bill had at that time been submitted by the government of the day to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and different public bodies interested, and that it had met with- their approval; but when it had reached its second reading, there was some objection from some individual manufacturers, and the bill was not pressed. Canada now desires to enter the Berne Convention, so that we in Canada shall be on the same basis with all the world. Incidentally I might say that Canada's cost for maintenance of the International Convention at Berne will run about $5,000 to $6,000 per year, and that the revenue from the Patents branch is about $250,000 a year. The experience of the officers in the administration of that department has convinced them that certain amendments to this act are very desirable in the interests of the Canadian public generally. The more important provisions in the bill relate to the manufacture and importation of patent inventions, and they will be found in clauses 40 and 41. It is thought that the proposed improvement to the act will enable Canada to join the International Berne Convention and will improve the position generally of Canadian citizens in trade throughout the world. There are some minor provisions so as to transfer to the Patent office the right to revive lapsed patents, because this now requires an act of parliament and interested parties are put to considerable expense. We propose to modify that in some degree. That is briefly the gist of the bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister explain to the House the full benefits of the Berne Convention?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is second reading.
	:	r


James Alexander Robb: We shall have that as we go along in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr: Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Definitions:
Sir HENRY DR A \ TON: Are there any changes in this clause?
James Alexander Robb: In paragraph (e) the letter "e" is added. That is the only change.


Sir HENRY DR  A V TON@: That is in the word "patentee." What did it read before?


James Alexander Robb: I think it read "e" instead of "ee".


Henry Lumley Drayton: This bill does not show, as does the last bill, what changes are to be made in it. Looking at it, we do not know what the previous law was. Instead of delaying the matter, I am going to rely on the minister. Does the minister say that there is no change in this clause except the correction of the mistake in spelling in the former section 2?


James Alexander Robb: That is my information from the department.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Patent Office.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I put the same question to the minister.


James Alexander Robb: There is no change whatever. This is the same as the old act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Duties of commissioner.
Henry Lumley Drayton: No change?


James Alexander Robb: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Powers of commissioner.
James Alexander Robb: I have a memorandum from the department in connection with this. I beg to move:
That clause 5 be struck out and the following substituted :
"5. 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 acting commissioner exercise such powers and shall perform such duties".


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the minister will state the effect of that change. What is sought to be done?

Patents oj Invention


James Alexander Robb: Under the Patent Act as it stood in 1918, the Minister of Agriculture was the Commissioner of Patents and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture was the Deputy Commissioner of Patents.
In that year the Patent Office having been transferred by order in council to the Department of Trade and Commerce, by law the Minister of Trade and Commerce became the Commissioner of Patents and his deputy became the Deputy Commissioner of Patents. This was contrary to the intention of the government which, in making the transfer, intended to leave the administration of the Patent Act in the hands of the former Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Deputy Commissioner of Patents under the Minister of Trade and Commerce as a deputy minister but with the title of Solicitor of Patents.
In July, 1919, to carry out their intention, the government caused an act to be passed, chapter 64, providing for the appointment of the former Deputy Minister of Agriculture as Commissioner of Patents and that he should continue to be a deputy minister. My hon. friend will remember that. By that act the minister ceased to be commissioner and the position of deputy commissioner disappeared.
As all the powers and authority of the act were then by its terms conferred on the commissioner it was enacted by the act of 1919 that the word " minister " should be substituted for the word "commissioner" throughout the act. The powers were all vested in the minister but were to be exercised by the commissioner. As there has been no revision of the statutes since 1919 the substitution of the terms has not been made and according to the text of the Patent Act all the powers are conferred on the commissioner. In 1920, the bill, substantially in the form in which it has been recently introduced, was revised and put into form for parliament by the then Parliamentary Counsel, Mr. Gisborne, who decided that it was preferable to retain the text of the act as it stood without the substitution of the terms, and this accounts for the present form of the bill conferring all its powers on the commissioner instead of the minister. Of course it was understood that the commissioner was to be subject to the minister in the exercise of the powers given him. Having decided to retain the text of the old act, clause 5 should not be in its present form in the bill as the commissioner and not the minister is authorized and empowered by the bill to do the several things therein mentioned.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Trying to put what has been said into short, commonsense language, I suppose that the change is one which throws upon the commissioner, instead of upon the minister, the right to carry out the Patent Act; in other words, to exercise the functions which are given thereunder.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, but always subject to the minister.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that although the powers are all given to the commissioner, absolutely, the minister has the right to tell him whether he shall exercise them or not.


James Alexander Robb: Does not my hon. friend think that is advisable?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am merely trying at the moment to get at the facts. You have a general delegation of powers by parliament given to the commissioner, and then you provide that notwithstanding all this, the minister may take those powers from him at any time he likes, and the commissioner is to act only as the minister directs. Am I right in assuming that this is what the minister is doing?


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend will
agree that that is fair legislation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want the facts.


James Alexander Robb: The minister of the day is the person finally responsible to parliament.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that that is at all something we can admit. I wanted first of all to find out what the facts were before I started to debate the question. This is not an ordinary matter of administration, for the commissioner is charged with duties which are practically judicial in their character. He passes on matters of tremendous importance, and I wanted to find out whether, instead of having a particular specified officer entrusted by parliament with the discharge of highly technical and difficult duties, the act was going to provide that the minister at any time could interfere with that work and discharge these functions himself.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend argue that parliament should delegate to an official, a civil servant, if you wish to use that word, all powers of administration, removing them from the purview of parliament?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I am not going that length at all.
Patents of Invention


James Alexander Robb: That is the logical inference from what the hon. member has said.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Undoubtedly there is an administrative side of the office, embracing the conduct of ordinary business and so forth. But there is also a judicial phase of the duties of this officer; jhe has to decide whether Jones shall get a patent or Smith shall be denied one, or whether any patent shall issue at all. Does my hon. friend suggest that under this scheme of legislation, which I may say I have not had the chance of reading, but which I am just following as it comes along, the minister should have the right to interfere in the issuance of a patent here or a patent there.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend knows that the commissioner is a deputy minister and exercises all the powers of a deputy, subject always to his minister. The hon. member was himself a minister and he knows that it is not the custom of ministers to interfere unduly with administration.


Mr. FORKE:: The provision here also refers to any clerk; it says "or any clerk."


James Alexander Robb: Of course, there must be some provision for the business to be carried on in the absence of the deputy.


Robert Forke: Is it not rather serious for a clerk occupying a junior position to decide whether a patent shall be issued? The provision seems rather wide.


James Alexander Robb: What he does is always subject to the approval of the government. If my hon. friend were a minister and he appointed a clerk he would be finally responsible.


Robert Forke: If I were seeking a patent I should hate to have a clerk decide upon it.


James Alexander Robb: I think people do, generally.


Robert Forke: I have heard complaints along that line.


Mr. STEVENS:: I think I see the ministers point, but this official is in a somewhat different position from the ordinary deputy. All through this act the commissioner exercises exceptionally responsible powers and discharges very onerous duties. The safeguard mentioned by the hon. member for Brandon is an appeal from the decision of the commissioner to the Exchequer Court. That,
I think, adequately protects the public from that angle. While I have given the act some consideration I have not studied this particular phase of it, but it would appear that in ordinary matters of departmental routine the minis-
ISir Henry Drayton.]
ter desires to bring the commissioner under his control as an ordinary deputy. I would point out however, that it would hardly do to make the commissioner subject to the minister in the discharge of his functions under the act as commissioner in the determining of applications for patents. I do not think that this should be subject to the review of the minister, because it is subject to appeal to the Exchequer Court. So that if this amendment is inserted some distinction should be made between these two classes of duties of the commissioner. Perhaps the minister might be able to clear up that point.
Mr, ROBB: My hon. friend must appreciate this, that we are giving no greater powers to the Commissioner of Patents than we give to the Deputy Minister of Finance or the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, yes.


James Alexander Robb: No, they must be subject to the minister of the day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely my hon. friend is not serious in suggesting that no greater powers are given here than are given to other deputies. What statutory power has the deputy of either of the other offices? We are giving great statutory power here and it is only right that we should do so. We are giving powers under the act to an officer who understands this kind of work, who has special knowledge of it, and has had expert training to enable him properly to discharge his duties. What other deputy has the same powers? You may call him deputy or anything else you like; the designation has nothing to do with this bill. His deputyship refers to his standing in the civil service, with his rights of pension and so forth. But what other deputy is in the position of extinguishing or creating legal rights, involving great sums of money, as is this deputy, if you care to describe him as such. I would suggest to the hon. minister that we proceed with other sections, bearing this point in mind. It may be that after we have gone through the act we will have no difficulty whatever in either consenting on the one hand to the amendment or on the other hand in making a slight alteration to it which while leaving the minister in complete control of the administration of the office, would protect the public from political interference in the granting of patents.

Patents oj Invention


James Alexander Robb: I have no objection to delaying it, but I would point out that, admitting for the moment all my hon. friend has said, is there not all the more reason why some responsible person elected by the people should have the last word in case of dispute?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would not think so at all. I would think that what the people are interested in, in the first instance, is a proper patent law, and, next, an impartial non-political administration of that law. I would not think they would be at all interested in knowing that the person who administered it was concerned in votes in this or that constituency.


James Alexander Robb: They are not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is for the purpose of getting away from just what my hon. friend says the practice has always been, to take to the Exchequer Court the question as to whether a patent ought or ought not to be granted. I fear that under this section the minister can take the place of the Exchequer Court to some extent.


James Alexander Robb: All the powers to-day under the existing act are in the hands of the minister. We are widening them a little, transferring some of the powers to a commissioner.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And under the existing act the minister has absolutely full responsibility, there is no chance of his saying that it is the commissioner who is doing this thing; there is no chance of the hidden hand. If it is done in this way the minister, so far as the public is concerned, has no responsibility at all, for he can say that he has the active commissioner administering the act and cannot interfere.


James Alexander Robb: I am afraid my hon. friend does not understand the section. We will let it stand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I confess I have not had a chance to go into it.
Section stands.
On section 7-Applications for patents- who may obtain patents:


Henry Lumley Drayton: Any change?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is partly a new clause. In line 29 there is a period of two years fixed. In the following clause it will be noted that a period of one year is prescribed. Why should two years be fixed?


James Alexander Robb: Under the old section public use or sale for more than one year in any
part of the world prior to application for a patent is a bar. Under the new clause public use or sale is extended to two years. One year has been found in practice to be a very short time in which to allow an inventor to try out his invention on the public in order to ascertain whether or not it is worth patenting. This gives a little more time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not particularly disputing that, but still I am not at all agreeing that it is a wise change, unless the officials of the department are very sure of their ground based upon extended practice. But the words in line 30, "in this country", I understand are not in the old act, and objection is taken to them on the ground that it is going to hamper inventors. There seems to be no particular reason why they should be inserted there. It is sufficient to control the situation to leave out the words I have referred to.


James Alexander Robb: Those words were put in with a view to protecting Canadian patentees against unscrupulous persons from other countries who might come in and interfere with the patentees' rights.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think, Mr. Chairman, we will get along better if before we do anything with these sections the minister will tell us just what changes are proposed. We now learn from the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) that there are two changes here. Are there any others?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we
should have all the changes of each section stated so we Can understand what we are discussing.


James Alexander Robb: In the old section the word "process" does not appear in the list of inventions for which patents may be granted. Patents for processes are very numerous. They were supposed to be included in the term "art" in the old section, but it has been questioned.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So we have those three changes?


James Alexander Robb: Those three minor changes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not see any objection to the extension of the word "process" at all. As to the point raised in connection with the words "in this country," I suppose really what is behind it is this: that you might have a perfectly proper Canadian patent attacked on the ground that it has

Patents oj Invention
been for sale or in use for a couple of years, say, in the interior of China, and a Canadian patentee might find it very difficult to meet such a case.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has stated the point exactly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then it seems to me to be a move in the right direction. Section agreed to.
On section 8-Inventions for which foreign patents have been taken out, etc.


James Alexander Robb: We propose to amend clause 8 by adding at the end of sub-clause 1 the following words:
or from the passing of this act if no patent has been issued on a foreign application for an invention for more than one year.
And after the word "filed" in the eleventh line of sub-clause 2, the following words: or from the passing of this act.
It has been pointed out that in order to avoid injustice it is necessary to extend the time allowed by this clause for filing an application in Canada for a patent after a foreign application for the invention has been filed.
Under section 8 of the present act, an application may be filed in Canada by the inventor at any time within one year from the date of the earliest foreign patent granted for his invention. Under the clause as it stands the year runs from the date of the foreign application and not from the date of the patent.
Inventors who have relied on the terms of the present law would find that they would be too late to file an application in Canada as in many cases particularly in the United States patent office where the work is in arrears their applications may have been pending two or three years.
Such inventors should be allowed one year after the new act comes into force to file their applications in Canada and consequently this clause should be amended by adding at the end the amendments I have just submitted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I confess it is a little
difficult to appreciate the significance of these two amendments.


James Alexander Robb: We will let them stand, if my hon. friend so desires.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not press that; but do I understand from the amendment that the suggestion is that a patent might have been issued to a foreigner for one year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think
the amendment really agrees with the minister's explanation. What I thought he meant was this: that patentees who desired to get their patents might not know about the passing of this act, and therefore if the provision were put back to the time the application for patent was made, the rights of the applicant might expire. It would appear that the minister's desire was to extend the rights of the patentees to this extent, but I do not think the amendment does that. I do not see how the stipulation about one year comes in at all. Why not simply say, "or from the passing of this act?"


James Alexander Robb: It is pointed out that an
application may have been made eighteen months ago, and the patent was allowed a year; we are giving him a year from the passing of this act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the significance of these words:
If no patent has been issued on a foreign application for the invention for more than one year.
Suppose it has been issued for two years, what would the minister say then?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister's
object not be attained, as suggested by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), by saying "or from the passing of this act" and letting it end there?
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 110, (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederick Fong Young.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Bill No. Ill, (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Percy Eversfteld.-Mr. Ryckman.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 20, to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to Patents of Inventions, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that clause 8 as amended carry?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the minister satisfied, after thinking this over that it is necessary to have the amendments as amended?

Patents of Invention'


James Alexander Robb: Yes after discussing it with the commissioner we are satisfied that the clause should go through just as amended.


Hugh Guthrie: The Canadian society
known as the Society of Chemical Industries have asked that an amendment be made to this section by striking out the words " in Canada " in the sixteenth line of subsection 2. I have not for the moment had time to consider what the effect of the proposed amendment is.


James Alexander Robb: If those words were struck out it would conflict with some clauses that have already been passed. We have had some representatives from the chemical association regarding clause 16, and we are largely meeting their views in that clause.


Hugh Guthrie: Has the minister any objection to striking out the words " in Canada "?


James Alexander Robb: It would conflict with clause 7.


Hugh Guthrie: I see that the society proposes an amendment to clause 7 but I was not present when that clause was being considered. They ask that the words 4 in this country " in line thirty of the section be deleted. I was going to ask the minister if he would refer back to that clause when consideration of the bill is finished so that the amendment might be made.


James Alexander Robb: There is a difference of opinion upon the subject. The majority of views coming into the department indicates that the Clause is better as it is.


Mr. McMASTER:: I may state in connection with subsection 2 that I have had the advantage of receiving a memorandum concerning this bill from one of the foremost patent solicitors in the country. In that memorandum he indicates that subsection 2 is a very desirable one and should remain as it is. Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9-Improvements may be patented:


James Alexander Robb: That is the same clause as before.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Oath of inventor to be made before obtaining patent:
James Alexander Robb: The committee will observe that there are slight changes in subsection 2. The following words have been added, after the word "dead" in this section:
"Or mentally or physically incapable, or after the assignment of his invention, the inventor . refuses to make such oath or affirmation, or if his whereabouts cannot, be. ascertained after diligent inquiry'.
Experience has shown that this addition is necessary. In a case reported to the Patent office action was taken to compel the inventor to make an oath after assignment, and it was held that the court did not have the power to make such order.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Refusal to execute assignment:
James Alexander Robb: This is new. My memorandum reads:	[DOT]
At the Imperial War Conference, 1917, certain amendments proposed to foe made to the British act were submitted for the consideration of the delegates, with a view to their adoption by their respective governments.
In the memorandum prepared by the department in connection with the Imperial War Conference in 1918 it was recommended that certain of the amendments, including the present one, be adopted, experience has shown that this amendment will be useful.


William Alves Boys: I observe that this clause provides for an appeal. It does not say whether it may be taken in one month or six months or five years. I observe in section 20 that that feature has been considered and an appeal may be taken at any time within six months after notice has been given. I think there should be some time fixed within which the appeal can be taken. A matter of such importance as this should not be disposed of as in the last four lines of this section. It provides that one of the parties, where there are two interested in a patent, may be allowed to prosecute his application. I think that should only be done on definite notice to the other party interested. I daresay the minister will see that that is provided for. The last four lines read:
-so however that all parties interested shall be entitled to be heard before the commissioner, and an appeal shall lie from the decision of the commissioner, under this section to the Exchequer Court.
I think there should be a provision requiring certain notice of a definite length of time to be given to one of two applicants who is not proceeding with the application. After that notice the commissioner might well proceed and dispose of the application as he thought best. The remaining two lines should be varied and they should provide that after notice to the applicant who has been successful, say, in ten days or two months or whatever time the minister thinks would be reasonable, the other party could appeal to the Exchequer Court.


James Alexander Robb: I admit there is some force in the argument of my hon. friend. This clause was presented at the Imperial Conference in1 1917. I suggest we might let the matter stand and if the hon. member will confer with the deputy-	1

Patents oj Invention


William Alves Boys: If the minister thinks the suggestion is worthy of consideration I think the deputy could work it out.


James Alexander Robb: Let it stand.
Section stands.
On section 12-Election of domiciles:


James Alexander Robb: I propose to move, in substitution for clause 12, the following clause:
(a)	Every applicant for a patent and patentee who does not reside in Canada shall file at the Patent office a notice in writing designating, and specifying the address of some person resident in Canada to represent and stand in the place and stead of such applicant or patentee for all the purposes of this act including the service of proceedings taken under any provision of this act.
(b)	Upon failure to file such notice as above required or in the event of the person designated not being found at the address specified the applicant or the patentee as the case may be shall be deemed to have elected domicile for all purposes aforesaid at the Patent office.
(c)	In the case of applications pending or patents issued at the time of the coming into force of this act the applicant or patentee shall not be in default in respect of such notice before the expiration of six months from such time.
(d)	Copies of any proceedings under any provision of this act served upon or left for any applicant or patentee at the Patent office shall be forwarded by mail to his last known address.
The object of this clause is: Under the previous clause domicile was given simply in some city, without giving any address therein, and in consequence the section serves no purpose. The draft clause which we now propose is satisfactory to all interested. If the bon. member opposite desires to have this go on Hansard and stand for further consideration, I have no objection.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The first two
paragraphs are perfectly plain but I did not get the effect of the last one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It struck me, from what the minister read, that what he was substituting for clause 12 is more complicated than the present clause. I will admit the present clause is very brief, but it does provide that the applicant shall elect his domicile in Canada. My own notion is that the more simple we make the legislation the better. Unless there are very strong reasons for changing the section, I think it would be inadvisable to change it, but if there has been experience in the way of extensive litigation or something of that kind, of course it might justify the change.


James Alexander Robb: Experience has been that in many instances they are unable to find the patentee, who has given his address as Montreal, Vancouver, or Toronto, without designating any particular street.
:


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the hon. minister quite clear that this will only apply to non-residents?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will note in paragraph (a), it states that every applicant for a patent and patentee who does not reside in Canada shall file at the Canadian office, and so on.
Sir HENRI DRAYtt ON: Are you quite sure that covers the other clauses?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The present clause does not refer merely to absentees.


James Alexander Robb: We propose to make it more clear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it proposed to add this provision to the present clause?


James Alexander Robb: No, it is in substitution. It has had the approval of the law officers.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Section 11 of the present act provides that:
The applicant for a patent shall, for. the purposes of this act, elect his domicile at some known and specified place in Canada, and shall mention the same in his petition for a patent. R.S., c. 69, s. 11.
That would cover both those who live in the country, and those who reside outside of the country. I do not see the necessity for the change which would merely put the obligation of electing domicile on some one who lives outside the country. I do not see the reason for the change.


James Alexander Robb: It is very largely because experience has been that 75 per cent of the patents issued are to non-residents.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the minister drops the existing clause, then applicants who are bona fide citizens and residents of Canada would not be provided for at all, because his substitution clause refers to applicants for patents who do not reside in Canada. If the minister intends to add these three, four subclauses to the existing clause, that might be-desirable: but I cannot see how we could possibly drop the existing clause altogether.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: The difficulty with this clause arises from the legal fiction of the language; that is, that the applicant, although he may live out of Canada, shall elect his domicile in Canada. Any domicile so elected is not the true domicile of the applicant, and I can see reasons why an applicant might decline to elect a domicile in Canada. I think the new clause, while it is lengthy, applies to this case. One who comes from the United States, Europe, the ends of the earth, should give, in a case of this kind, an address in

Patents oj Invention
Canada which, if it does not reach him, will reach someone authorized by him, and that is what this amendment provides. A man living in the LTnited States, Europe or the aforesaid end of the earth, is not electing a true domicile if he names Canada as his domicile. I think the clause as it is proposed to amend it is quite proper.


James Alexander Robb: If this will meet the wishes of the committee, there will be no objection to striking out the words "who does not reside in Canada," so that the clause will apply to every person.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would seem rather absurd if that is done, because the clause will then read that every person who is an applicant in Canada shall specify some person who resides in Canada to do his business for him.


James Alexander Robb: He may elect his own domicile.


Henry Lumley Drayton: "Of some person." It looks as though the person were someone other than himself. I am in no difficulty about the question of domicile in clause 12 as regards a Canadian; I do not think the clause was ever intended to apply to him in one way or the other. It seems rather absurd to say that a Canadian has to declare a domicile in Canada. This was never done anywhere else as regards a Canadian citizen; it is to cover the case of a foreigner. I think the minister will tell me that that is how the act is being administered. Am I right?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then, if I am right in that, there is one real objection to this. It is too vague and it is much better to have a specific name and address for purposes of business. Would the department use sub-clause (d) for the purpose of serving papers in that wav on people in Canada who have not given that address and who have not made that nomination? Sub-clause (d) is limited.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it the intention of the minister to drop clause 12?


James Alexander Robb: No, I think we had better accent the substitution.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is what I say. Does the minister intend to drop clause 12?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, the old one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I must say that I disagree with my hon. friend who spoke a moment ago
regarding this. It certainly is necessary to have the address of an applicant in Canada recorded, as well as that of an applicant from outside of Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: How would the clause read when amended?


James Alexander Robb: It would read:
Every applciant for a patent and patentee who does not reside in Canada shall file at the Patent Office a notice in writing designating, and specifying the address of, some person resident in Canada to represent and stand in the place of such applicant or patentee for all the purposes of this act including the service of proceedings taken und^ any provision of this act.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I can see the advantage of having it stated that an applicant who comes in from outside shall specify someone in Canada on whom, papers will be served.
I do not, however, see that that is incompatible with the retention of the law as it is, that an applicant living in Canada should indicate his address, should elect a domicile. He can elect domicile at his office; he can elect domicile at his residence; or in the event of his expecting to be out of the country, he can elect domicile at some patent solicitor, or family solicitor, or his business counsel on whom he wishes papers to be served. I think the clause as drafted is a good one; but I do not think it should be substituted for the present law. It should be added to the present law, and the officers in charge of the bill should draft a bill which would cover the situation as I think it should be covered.


James Alexander Robb: If that will meet the wishes of the committee or the legal members of the committee, we can add this sub-clause 2 of clause 12.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It cannot do any harm. I do not know if it will do any good.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Would that allow a man to elect a domicile not his true domicile?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that
what the hon. member for Brome is really trying to get at is this, that a man might well want to have another specific address for the purpose of service, which would not be his home address. The word "domicile" is not at all appropriate for that, but it would do no harm leaving it in, I suppose.


Mr. FORTIER:: Why not leave the clause as it is and substitute the word "mention" for "elect"?


James Alexander Robb: That is what we have decided to do.

Patents of Invention


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: The clause would then read:
The applicant for a patent shall, for the purposes
of this act, mention his domicile.
If he is resident in this country he will give his Canadian address and if he lives outside he can elect his address there for the purposes of the act.


Harold Putnam: I agree with the hon.
member. I care not whether the language is new or old, it is an anomaly to say that a man may elect his domicile.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That fnay be an anomaly under English practice, but it is not an anomaly under the practice of the civil courts of Quebec, where people constantly elect domicile for the purposes of contracts, or specifying the place at which legal papers may be served upon them.
Mr. R\ CKMAN: I wish to make myself clear on this point if I can. I object to the word domicile" being used to apply to an applicant who is not resident in Canada. Domicile is derived in two ways. You have an actual domicile where you live and are well known to reside, in short where you sleep at night; and you can elect another one, so long as you use it as the place where you reside, in other words where you sleep at night. There are questions of taxation that arise, and there are also questions in divorce court proceedings that come up in the United States; and there is many an applicant for a patent from Canada who is unwilling to have himself described as taking the first step towards acquiring domicile by election. He might find out when he had effected domicile that he was held to reside in that place and therefore came within the tax law or the divorce law of that country. Let us consider the case of an applicant for a patent in Canada who elected his domicile, for reasons best known to himself, in the city of Montreal. Suppose divorce proceedings should take place in one of the United States, Nevada, for instance, and he should be on the witness stand. If he were asked to state his domicile, which is a most important matter, he would give the address of the place where he resided, wherever it might be. But someone would confront him with the statement made by him over his own hand that he was domiciled in Canada. The thing is simply inconsistent; the word "domicile" is not strictly applicable in this connection; it is a heritage, a vestige of the past. Let us make it plain that the applicant for a patent in Canada shall give a specific address where he can be reached by any communication that, 
might be addressed to him; and let us provide further that in case he is not reached at that address there will be someone there empowered to receive communications on his behalf.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I thoroughly agree with what has been said by the last speaker. If you leave the word "domicile" in the section you will simply leave it open to a great deal of legal argument. Anyone who has studied law knows that the law of domicile is one of the most perplexing of legal questions. We are told by the law lecturers and the text books that in order to establish domicile a person must have the animus manendi without the animus revirtendi.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. MART. ELL: It is all very well for hon. members to say "oh, oh" but if they do not know what the law is I cannot help that. That is the sort of law we got in Nova Scotia, the good old English law.


An hon. MEMBER:: They do not understand the Latin.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Well, I cannot help that. The principle is that the man must have the mind to remain in a certain place and not the mind to return to the place from which he came. That is not the intention in this act. A man may be a United States citizen and may wish to secure a patent in Canada. But it is not necessary in order that he may get it that he should be domiciled in Canada; and it seems to me that the whole intention of the act is to have him designate some place in Canada where all legal documents or anything appertaining to the patent might be served on him. When the minister inserts the word "domicile" he does not realize the trouble he is laying up in store for the courts in the future; it is simply opening the door to endless litigation. I would suggest that the minister strike out the word "domicile" and insert instead the word "residence," or other words indicating some place where legal process could be served upon the applicant.


James Alexander Robb: If we do that we shall be striking out words that have been in the act for fifty years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is no reason at all; it is the weakest argument. I agree with the learning exhibited by the hon. member (Mr. Martell). He was brought up in the same legal school as myself-


Lewis Herbert Martell: A good one, too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -rand he recalls pleasant
memories. However, joking aside, he is

Patents of Invention
absolutely right, and I am glad to find myself in agreement with him for once.


James Dew Chaplin: I hesitate to say a word
when the argument has been amongst gentlemen who are able to refer to one another as "my learned friend." .However, I want to interject a word or two of common sense after so much legal verbiage. The section may be considered from two standpoints, one with regard to Canadians and the other to outsiders. Let the Canadian have his domicile here and let the other man designate some place where papers can be served on him.


Harold Putnam: That is the proposal. Now
we are looking to the last hon. gentleman for the language.


William Alves Boys: While this discussion has been
going on I have been trying to draft a clause to. cover the proposal. I would offer the following :
Every applicant for a patent shall, for the purposes of this act, state in his application, if resident in Canada, his address in Canada, and if not so resident, the name and address of some person resident in Canada to represent and stand in the place and stead of such applicant or patentee for all the purposes of this act, including the service of proceedings taken under any of the provisions of this act.


James Alexander Robb: We will accept that amendment.


William Alves Boys: As a matter of fact, I am
adopting in the part complained of the language which the minister had in the closing part of paragraph (a) of the proposed amendment. Someone asks me whether I said anything about street address in the clause I have drafted. I should think the word "address" would be sufficient.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Meaning his postal
address.


William Alves Boys: I do not think it would be
necessary to mention anything about street address:
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 13-Particulars required on application:


James Alexander Robb: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Specifications; place and date: drawings; duplicates; copies in place of duplicates:
Andrew Ross McMaster: What changes are made in this section?


James Alexander Robb: Subclause 2 is changed by striking out the words "and by two witnesses to such signature of the applicant." This is
to conform to the practice in Great Britain, the United States and other countries. There are no other changes.


Hugh Guthrie: There is another change in the act; section 15 of the old act has been omitted. That section provided that "on each application for a patent a thorough and reliable examination shall be made by competent examiners to be employed in the patent office for that purpose." Representations have been made to me that the examination before a patent is granted is perhaps the most valuable part of the procedure, for it saves many a contest after the patent is granted. My proposal is that a section be added as section 14-A re-enacting section 15 of the Patent Act and adding thereto as subsection 2 the following:
The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the manner in which an invention shall be examined, and such regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette and shall form part of this act.
I do not see why the clause providing for an examination was eliminated. I am informed that in Washington very special and very strict examinations take place before patents are issued, far more strict than we have ever been in the habit of applying to applications here. I suppose there has been some reason for leaving out clause 15 of the old act. Perhaps the minister would give the committee his reasons.
I have been asked to move that clause 15 of the old act in the form I have read to the committee be restored.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Subsection 5 of section 14 reads as follows:
The commissioner may, in his discretion, dispense with the duplicate specification and drawing, and in lieu thereof cause copies of the specification and draw- ' ing, in print or otherwise, to be attached to the patent, of which they shall form an essential part.
I would suggest that there should be inserted after the word "drawing" these further words:
and the additional or third copy of the claim or claims.
I believe this will make the subsection fit in better with the rest of the section.


James Alexander Robb: The law in its present form
has worked very satisfactorily, and if the clause suggested by my hon. friend for Brome were adopted it would involve additional work, which would mean an increase in the number of employees with a consequent and very material increase in the expenses of administration without any very good results accruing.
Patents of Invention


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not press my
amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: The following is moved m amendment by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) as section 14 (a):
On each application for a patent a thorough and reliable examination shall be made by competent examiners to be employed in the Patent Office for that purpose.
(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations describing the manner in which an invention shall be examined, and such regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette and shall form part of this act.
The question is on the amendment.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, I am sure no
one will see the objection to this amendment quicker than its mover, because no later than last night he criticized the department somewhat severely for taking on additional employees to deal with the business of the country. I am told that in Washington there are over 400 examiners employed, and on the same basis applied to our business it would involve an additional 100 employees and increase the civil government expenses about $250,000 a year to carry out the purpose of the amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: As I understand, section
15 has been in force all these years, and I have been under the impression that the necessary examinations took place under it. I am merely asking to put in the present bill what we have had in force since 1887.


James Alexander Robb: But experience has taught us
that it has been honoured mostly in the breach.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the difficulty. It is complained that Canadian patents do not have the same standing as American, for the reason that there is not that careful and thorough examination made in our Patent office before the patent is issued. I have heard patent solicitors in this country and in the United States make the same observation. United States patents are by no means absolute, but they are very seldom overridden by their courts as compared with the experience in our courts. The reason is that they are more carefully examined and tested before the patent is issued. This clause requiring examination has certainly been in our statutes since the act was passed, and I was under the impression that it was being carried out. If 400 examiners are required in a country like the United States, a country which has 120,000,000 people and the largest patent office in the world, I should think that from half a dozen to a dozen should do the work here. But I had thought that some examina-:
tion was always made and that men were employed in the department for that purpose. If there is no examination now before a patent is granted I can well understand that the Canadian patent is not looked upon as a very valuable asset, because undoubtedly it could be upset in the courts.
Air. AIcAIASTER: I would like to support what the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has said. Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot imagine what the value of a Canadian patent would be if it is issued without any examination as to its novelty or usefulness. I have heard that the present Patent office is understaffed and that they are not coping with the work in the way we would like to see the work done. At the same time, we are rushing from one extreme to the other if we do away with any examination whatsoever. I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with a patent solicitor of standing and he tells me that it would be a very grave matter for the people who are engaged in the solicitation of patents, and also for the patentees, if the examination is done away with. I am as strong for economy as the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is, but if we as a civilized people undertake to grant patents it seems to me that should mean that in the opinion of competent officers the process or device or whatever is being patented possesses certain elements of novelty or usefulness; and I should be sorry to see the clause struck out altogether. I quote from the clause as it stands, chapter 69 of the Revised Statutes:
On each application for a patent, a thorough and reliable examination shall be made by competent examiners to be employed in the Patent office for that purpose.
I do not know that the law as it stands might not be modified, but certainly I cannot with equanimity see this provision entirely done away with. What would be the value of a Canadian patent if there is not this investigation? And just let me point out that if the patent has not had a preliminary examination, are we not going to throw an enormous burden on the courts? Are we not going to involve the courts in the trial of patent causes to an extent that they have never been burdened with before? It seems to me that is the result which would follow.


James Alexander Robb: We do not propose to diminsh in any degree the examinations that have been held heretofore; we will have the necessary examination provided by order in council. But may I submit to the committee some references from the experiences of other countries? In France no attempt is made to examine for

Patents of Invention
novelty; their system is simply registration. If it is deemed expedient, the examination may be covered by regulations to be approved by order in council when the new act comes into force. If we were to extend the examination as urged by the member for South Wellington-


Hugh Guthrie: I do not want it extended.


James Alexander Robb: Let us take the experience of the United States patent office. On their own statement, they have failed to 9 p.m. have a proper examination. United States patents are frequently set aside by the courts on the ground of lack of novelty in the invention-quite as frequently as our Canadian patents.


Harold Putnam: As frequently in proportion to their number?


James Alexander Robb: In proportion, yes. In order to make such examination as the law requires now wre would have to make our examining staff at least equal in proportion to the number of patents issued to that of the United States. In the United States, for the year ending December 31, 1922, they issued 38,670 patents; in Canada during the last fiscal year over 12,000 patents were issued. The examining staff in the United States is over 400; in Canada it is about 25. To make the Canadian examining staff proportionately equal to that of the United States, about 100 examiners would have to be added at an annual salary of, say, $2,500 each, making a total of $250,000, and in addition, to provide the material for the examiners, that is to say, copies of all the patents of the world, and publications relating to inventions, including assembling, classification and translation of the same, there would have to be an annual appropriation of $250,000. So that it would mean an increased expenditure of $500,000 to this country.


Andrew Ross McMaster: How many applications do we have in a year?


James Alexander Robb: We put through 12,000 in the last fiscal year. At present the examination in the Canadian Patent office is confined to our own records, with a view to seeing that a patent for the invention has not already been granted, and that we are consequently in a position to grant one. If it be found that no patent is already granted and the inventor meets the other requirements of the law, the patent is granted. The inventor swears he is the first to make the invention, and his statement is accepted. If it turns out that he has made a misrepresentation and that the invention has already been patented, so much the worse for him, because his patent will be set aside by the courts. The responsibility is upon him, and the country is thus saved a vast sum of money. We have now a net revenue from that department of over $250,000. If we carry out the ideas suggested by my hon. friend, instead of having a surplus of $250,000 we shall have an additional expenditure of $500,000.


William Alves Boys: Is it the intention of the department to relax activity in the examination of patents?	'


James Alexander Robb: No.


William Alves Boys: If it is the intention to maintain the same degree of care in the examination, why not leave the clause as it is? The clause does not give any guarantee to a patentee; it merely provides that there shall be a thorough and reliable examination. It does not say that the examination is final or anything of that kind, but it does guard against the granting of patents where they should not be granted. I have had some little experience in connection with applications for patents, and I know that people in the country have not the facilities to find out whether or not a given article can be patented; they could only do it if they had access to an extensive library. I have sometimes taken the precaution to write to Washington to get what information I could, but that information is not always reliable. Where there is no suggestion to guarantee and where the minister intends to make the same careful examination-and he will require the same number of officials to do it, why not leave the provision as it is? I have in mind two cases where after an examination the patents were refused. Now, if there is any relaxation, patents may be granted when they should not have been granted and the money of the applicants will be thrown away. I certainly want to strongly support what the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) have said. If the idea was to give a guarantee I certainly would agree with the minister. I do not think that precautions should be done away with entirelv There should be a reasonably careful examination of the patent to see whether or not it should be granted and thereby stop the issue of patents for which there is not justification.


James Alexander Robb: There would be no objection to leaving in the words " reasonable examination". If you adopt the words " thorough and reliable examination " that will not be a reasonable examination.
Patents oj Invention


William Alves Boys: I appreciate the fact that the words " thorough and reliable " are very strong and it might be inferred from their use thai the patentee was practically guaranteed his patent. Supposing we adopted " thorough and careful examination


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would it not be well to go even further along that line and make such changes so that the clause would read:
On each application for a patent an examination shall be made by competent examiners to be employed in the Patent office for that purpose.
As I understand the situation it is this: The patent office is not satisfied that it has the personnel and money at its disposal to enable it to give the examination which it wishes. Well, let us leave out the word "thorough and reliable"-I do not like to see the clausa struck out entirely. From the best information that I can get from those who know a great deal more about this kind of law than I do, I am very much of the opinion that it would be a mistake to cut the clause out altogether.


William Alves Boys: Either have a careful examination, Mr. Chairman, or do ncrt have any.


Hugh Guthrie: How would it be if we leave the words " thorough and reliable " out. Then it would read:
On such application for patent a careful examination shall be made.
If the words " thorough and reliable " are too strong and involve something in the nature of a guarantee they might be misleading.


James Alexander Robb: We will accept that.


Hugh Guthrie: Then I will move to strike out the words "thorough and reliable" and put in the word " careful This will provide for a careful examination.


James Alexander Robb: Where are you putting that in?


George Newcombe Gordon: Inserting it after clause 14 as 14a:
On each application for a patent a careful examination shall be made by Patent examiners employed in the Patent office for that purpose.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would it not be an advantage to retain that under the same numbering as it had in the old act?


James Alexander Robb: It would mean renumbering the clauses.


William Alves Boys: I want to convey to the attention of the minister the same thought that I brought forward in connection with a previous clause. At the close of subsection 2 of section 16 you find these sentences-
[Mr. Robb.l


James Alexander Robb: We have not reached section 16 yet.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment moved by Mr. Guthrie is as follows:
On each application for a patent a careful examination shall be made by patent examiners to be employed in the Patent office for that purpose.
The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the manner in which an invention shall be examined, and such regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette and shall form part of this act.


James Alexander Robb: The commissioner points out to me that the latter part of the subsection is absolutely unnecessary as power is given in the bill to make all these regulations.


Hugh Guthrie: If there is such a power in the bill then that provision is not necessary.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall paragraph 2 of Mr. Guthrie's amendment be stricken out?


Hugh Guthrie: That is about the right to make regulations by order in council?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 15-Models and specimens:
James Alexander Robb: That is the clause in the old act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
I On section 16-Patents to be for special methods or processes of manufacture:
James Alexander Robb: I wish to move that the section he amended by striking out the word "or" where it appears for the second time in ; the second line and substituting therefor the word "and".


Henry Herbert Stevens: In both cases?


Andrew Ross McMaster: How will the clause read then?


James Alexander Robb: It will read:
In the case of inventions relating to substances prepared or produced by chemical processes and intended for food or medicine-
And so on.


Hugh Guthrie: A suggestion made to me in regard to this proposed amendment is that instead of the word "and" the two words "which are" should be substituted. The wording would then be:
-produced by chemical processes which are intended for food.


James Alexander Robb: It is all a question of language whichever my hon. friend prefers.

Patents of Invention


Hugh Guthrie: I think, perhaps, that "and" is a better word to use. I would agree to using the word "and" there.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Will the hon. member for South Wellington read the clause as amended by the addition of those words?


Hugh Guthrie: In the case of inventions relating to substances prepared or produced by chemical processes and intended for food or medicine.
That is the way it will read after the amendment is made. I am quite satisfied if the word "and" is put in instead of the word "or".


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister note that in clause 7 we have made provision for:
Any person who has invented any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter-
It provides in that clause for the patenting of "composition of matter". Now in clause 16 we have these words:
-the specification shall not include claims for the substance itself.
I understand from those who are intimately acquainted with these matters that in other countries, particularly in the United States, chemists and others are not only allowed to patent a process but they are allowed to patent the substance produced. Illustrations were given to me of such things as this: rubber articles made of some chemical composition such as ink bottles and many other articles that are in daily use. I am not clear in my own mind that this clause prevents what it is claimed to prevent. It prevents the patenting of the substance itself. Unless it can be shown very clearly that there is some reason why that should be, it strikes me that it is a particular injustice to the investigating or experimenting chemist who is constantly experimenting with different processes and substances, and I think he is, perhaps, one of the most useful investigators that we have in industrial life and should be encouraged. Perhaps the minister has before him some explanation of that.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I will point out that this particular clause only applies when the article is intended for food or medicine.


James Alexander Robb: It has been pointed out that if a man has a process and gets a patent, he is protected for that particular product made in that way. It does not prevent any other person from obtaining a similar product made in another way. You cannot tie it up in that way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister tell us if that is the law in any country? For instance, we have the discovery of insulin, which is produced in a particular way. Under the law in any country, could that product be patented so that nobody else could make it, no matter what process he adopted?


James Alexander Robb: No; they could do it in most countries in the world. What does my hon. friend suggest?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is really a very important matter indeed. I have before me a memorandum on the subject which was handed to me and I will read a clause or two from it. Perhaps it will give it more clearly than I could describe it in my own language. This memorandum reads:
The patenting of a new substance, apart from the method of producing it, prevents importation of the same article, and it would be practically impossible to demonstrate how that same article is made in foreign countries.
I pause there. There might be some articles, such as I have mentioned, used every day in the office or household which are imported from another country, of a hard rubber type, made by some chemical process. , Now, a chemist who discovers that is entitled in equity I think, not only to patent his process, but he is entitled to patent the article itself, because he is the pioneer in the discovery. That is, he discovers that by certain chemicals being combined, a given result will be achieved. He discovers that. Then someone else might vary the process and produce a similar result. The first man loses practically all ' the value of his research or invention. That is really the point I am trying to make, and I apprehend from the minister's reply that he is not certain in his own mind at all that in other countries this is not the case. If we were definitely assured that in Other countries they never had thfs, I grant you that would be a strong argument, but I understand the minister to say that in other countries they did allow the patenting of the article.


James Alexander Robb: This change is the result of a conference held in 1917, as I pointed out ber fore. This is identically the same as was brought down by the preceding government in 1920 and 1921. My hon. friend made a reference to a patent on inkstands. This section only applies to foods and medicines.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I really do not think that alters the fact. I had used the illustration because I had in mind these hard rubber products which are very common, and as to the

Patents oj Invention
fact that was brought out before, the minister, I am sure will admit that we are not seeking to criticize the bill unfairly.


James Alexander Robb: Oh, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a very technical bill and while I have given considerable thought to it, I confess it is most difficult to follow without having expert advice. I do not know much about the conference to which he refers, but in the United States, which is our chief competitor after all in these matters, they do allow patenting the process of an article.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps my hon. friend is right in that respect. For the information of the committee, I will read the following notation-
At the Imperial War Conference, 1917, certain amendments proposed to be made to the British Act were submitted for the consideration of the delegates, with a view to their adoption by their respective governments. In a memorandum prepared by the department in connection with the Imperial War Conference in 1918 it was recommended that certain of the amendments, including the present bne, be adopted; experience has shown that this amendment will be useful.
The following memorandum was submitted to the Imperial War Conference of 1917 by the British Board of Trade in connection with this amendment.
"Patents in respect of inventions relating to drugs or medicines.-Various instances have occurred in which Germans have patented a process for producing a new drug or medicine and have also a separate patent or a separate claim for the substance produced by the patented process. The result is that nobody can. until the expiration of the patent, make the drug or medicine by any other process. In some cases the process only in such cases is allowed to be patented. In the amendment now proposed no patent is to preclude the premanyfacture or the free sale or use of any article for human food or medical purposes."


Andrew Ross McMaster: I appreciate the fact that, with the change to which the minister has consented, substances of food, or medicine cannot be patented, though processes can. I asked myself the question whether that is quite fair. Why should a man* who through chemical discovery and experimentation, has arrived at a valuable medicine, be deprived of the privilege which is given to a brother inventor who has found out some mechanical device which has increased the happiness or the safety of humanity? Are we not likely to defeat the very purpose of the law as proposed in the bill? We want people to invent good medicine and good food, but what incentive will there be for them to do so, if, although the process can be patented, the substance cannot be patented? If after the substance has been put on the market it may be possible, by chemical analysis of that substance, to readily arrive at some other manner of making the food or medicine, then the
[Mr.- Stevens.) .
patented process may be of little or no value, because the substance can be made in another way. I do say that the object of the bill as proposed does make available for the public patented medicines, patented food, giving to the patentees merely the right of the patent on the processes by which he made the medicines or the food. But are we not likely just to defeat the object of the bill by taking away the incentive to chemical scientists to develop, along the line of food or medicine, inquiry and invention? It seems to me that the clause in the bill is hardly fair. If we admit the public policy of granting patents, why should we limit them in any way to take away from a man who has invented a good medicine or food, what he would have received had he invented a good rubber tire?


James Alexander Robb: It may interest the committee to know that this clause, with the proposed amendment, has been submitted to and approved by the chemists of Canada,


Hugh Guthrie: Hardly approved, according to the instructions I have.


James Alexander Robb: With the amendment as suggested by my hon. friend.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps I had better read my instructions on that point. This is a letter from the Chemists' Association:
The clause as it stands is of such wide scope that it is unfair to the chemist, depriving him of the right to patent any article the manufacture of which depends on a chemical process. We consider such a position indefensible. As amended-
That is, with this change.
-medicinal and food products become non-patentable. We should like to see certain other chemical products made unpatentable also, but the difficulties of legal definition have been too great to enable us to express our full wish, nor are we confident as to what might be the consequences to the manufacturer of having such wishes embodied in law.
Under those conditions they are willing to accept the amendment proposed by the minister.
Section 16, subsection (1), as amended, agreed to.
On subsection (2)-No patent to preclude free manufacture or free sale or use of article for human food or medical purposes:


William Alves Boys: This was the clause that I was going to refer to a moment ago. We have the same difficulty here in the last paragraph of the clause:
Any decision of the commissioner under this section shall be subject to appeal to the Exchequer Court.
Again I say that there is no time within which the appeal should be taken. Various

Patents oj Invention
appeals are provided under this bill, and it would seem to me that there should be in the bill a general clause providing that all appeals should be taken within a certain time


James Alexander Robb: Would it suit to insert, towards the end of the bill, a clause covering all this?


William Alves Boys: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: Do the regulations of
the department not provide for that?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


William Alves Boys: That ought to be in the act.
When people want to know where they are at, they produce the act.


James Alexander Robb: The commissioner has made
a note of that point.
Section 16, subsection (2) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 17-Withdrawal of application: Mr. ROBB:	This is the old clause.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-Notice to applicant:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any
change?


James Alexander Robb: No change.
Section agred to.
On section 20-Appeal to Exchequer Court:


James Alexander Robb: This is new. This clause is
simply the enactment of 3, 4 George V, chapter 17, amending the Exchequer Court Act. which in effect repealed section 19 of the present act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not follow that. What is new about it? This looks rather as if it was old.


James Alexander Robb: It is new. Section 19 reads:
(1)	Every applicant who has failed to obtain a patent by reason of the objection of the commissioner as 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 commissioner to the Governor in Council.
We propose to substitute this:
(1)	Every applicant who has failed to obtain a patent by reason of the objection of the commissioner as 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.
(2)	The Exchequer Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any such appeal.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 21-to be decided by Exchequer Court.	.
William Alves Boys: I would like to suggest this. Where there are conflicting applications, is there any reason why the commissioner should not be called upon to give a decision in the first instance? This would probably dispose of the matter in the large majority of cases, and then provision should be made whereby either , party could appeal from the decision of the commissioner to the Exchequer Court.
It does not seem to me that any lawyer has been engaged in connection with the framing of this measure. It is all very fine to say that these things are technical; but when one comes to apply the act, one does not know what in the world to do. Proceduie should be provided for in these various sections. This section reads:
In case of conflicting applications for any patent, the applicants shall be notified by the commissioner that the auestion is one for the decision of the Exchequer Court, and no further proceedings shall be had or taken by the commission concerning the applications until a judgment is ptoduced deciding which applicant is entitled to the patent.
Surely some procedure should be provided. How are you going to get to the Exchequer Court? What are you going to do? Where is the provision that anybody picking up the act can find, setting forth what he has to do to go to the Exchequer Court, when he may go, how he may go?


James Alexander Robb: I am informed that the procedure will be found in the Exchequer Court Act.


William Alves Boys: Then insert in this bill the words "in accordance with the provisions of the Exchequer Court Act," so that there will be some reference to the procedure the applicant must follow.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I hope the hon. gentleman will not propose that until we discuss whether this clause will remain as it is or not.


William Alves Boys: All I am doing is to make one or two suggestions that occur to me on a hurried perusal of this measure. I am more insistent on the first point. I cannot see that the power given under this legislation to the commissioner is too great. He must necessarily become familiar with patents, with the law regarding patents, and he could surely be called upon to give a decision in the first instance. In probably nine cases out of ten that would put an end to the matter. I do not wish to make his decision final by any means, and I would suggest that an appeal

20S0
Patents of Invention

should be given from his decision to the Exchequer Court in accordance with the practice set out in the Exchequer Court Act.


Hugh Guthrie: Upon the suggestion of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys), I am going to move as an amendment-


James Alexander Robb: Before my hon. friend moves his amendment, we propose to amend this clause 21. We propose to strike it out and to substitute the following, really the present law.


Hugh Guthrie: The present clause is one to which, I think, great objection has been taken. It is the old arbitration clause. It provides that where there is any conflict between applicants for a patent, three arbitrators shall be appointed. The machinery is very cumbersome and the proceeding is very often long drawn out and expensive. I agree entirely with what the hon. member for South Simcoe says. We have a Commissioner of Patents. In the vast majority of cases, he can decide as between conflicting claims, and I am satisfied that his decision will be accepted in the great majority of cases. But at the same time I believe there should be an appeal from his decision. That is the view of many public bodies in the country and people interested in the question of patents, and an amendment has been prepared along that line. Upon the suggestion of the hon. member for Simcoe, I move:
That section 21 be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
(1)	In case of conflicting applications the commissioner shall determine the right of the applicants to receive a patent or patents for the invention involved.
(2)	Any decision of the commissioner under this section shall be subject to appeal to the Exchequer Court.
That simplifies the procedure very much. That will avoid delays consequent upon arbitration and also save the expense of arbitration. As I say, in the vast majority of cases the decision of the commissioner will be the one accepted. In very important cases there will no doubt be appeals.


James Alexander Robb: Before the hon. member presses his amendment, may I point out that the present method which we propose gives an option either of arbitration or of appeal to the Exchequer Court. The proposition my hon. friend makes means additional expense in the administration of the department. It will mean an additional staff in the office and more lawyers, with possibly more delay. What the *hon. member is suggesting really is that we set up a court in the patent office. We have the Exchequer Court now which is proving satis-
IMr. Boys.]
factory; and there is the option either of appeal to that court or of recourse to the board of arbitration.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the point at all. The minister surely does not mean to suggest that the commissioner has. any knowledge of these applications. When applications are made, if there is any conflict they must be submitted to the commissioner before he can notify the parties according to the section, that they must go to the Exchequer Court. So that what he certainly ought to do would be to give, his decision, having had the two applications before him, and then there could be an appeal. I cannot for the life of me see how that would involve a larger staff. As to adding to the staff by engaging lawyers and holding court, that is not the idea that either my hon. friend or I have in mind. We simplv suggest that the commissioner, with his practical knowledge of patents, and having perhaps a wider knowledge of this business than any other man in Canada, should decide what in his opinion is right as between two conflicting applicants.	[DOT]


James Alexander Robb: But he cannot possibly decide before hearing fairly the evidence from both sides.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not a question of
evidence; it is a question as between two applications.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to support the proposal that the cases should not be flung into the Exchequer Court before the commissioner has given a first decision. I agree with what has been proposed, but I believe that it might be wise to indicate the procedure which should be followed by the commissioner when there are two applications in conflict. I understand that the proper term is that they are in interference; that is to say, the claims made by each applicant conflict. I propose that we should follow the procedure which is observed in the United States in this regard. In view of the close business relationship that exists between the two countries I think it is not unwise to have our procedure in our patent office follow on not dissimilar lines from the procedure in the American office. What they do there is this:
In case of conflicting applications the commissioner shall determine the right of the applicants to receive a patent or patents for the invention involved.
The commissioner has had the thing before him; he is conversant with the matter before the conflict arises. What I want to bring before the committee is the procedure that should lie followed to carry out the proposal

Patents of Invention
of the hon. member for Wellington, that there should be a decision from the commissioner in the first case.
(2)	The nature of the conflict shall be clearly pointed out to the applicants and each of them shall be required, within a time fixed by the commissioner, to file in the Patent office a preliminary statement under oath setting forth the earliest date on which such applicant conceived the invention involved in the conflict and such other facts as the commissioner may require. Any applicant who fails to file such statement when required shall be deemed to have conceived the invention only on the date of his application for patent in Canada.
What I am told by one who is very much more familiar with these matters than I am is that when two conflicting applications get into interference, the contesting applicants, as a rule, withdraw their weaker claims and finally by agreement reduce the contest between them to quite narrow limits. Then:
(3)	Each applicant shall, within a time fixed by the commissioner, file in the Patent office written statement of testimony taken finder oath, together with such other matter as he considers necessary to establish his right to a patent; provided that if such testimony or other matter should prove a date of conception earlier than set forth in the preliminary statement of such applicant, the applicant shall be deemed to have proved only the date set forth in his preliminary statement.
(4)	The commissioner may summon any applicant or other person to appear at any place and before any person mentioned in the summons and may require him to give evidence on oath orally or in writing (or on solemn affirmation if such applicant or person is entitled to affirm in civil cases) and to produce such documents and things as are requisite to the full investigation of the conflict, and the commissioner shall have the power to enforce the attendance of such applicants and other persons, and to compel them to give evidence, as is vested in any court of justice in civil cases, in the province where such applicant or person is summoned to appear.
(5)	A patent may be involved in conflict with an application; provided the date of such patent is not more than two years prior to the date of the application ; and in such cases the patentee shall be governed under this section in all respects like as an applicant.
(6)	Anything in the Exchequer Court Act and amendments thereof, or in any other Act, to the contrary notwithstanding, the commissioner shall have exclusive primary jurisdiction to determine the grant of a patent in any case of conflict between applications or between an applicant and a patent as in this section provided.
(7)	Any applicant or patentee to whom an adverse decision is rendered by the commissioner under this section, shall have the right of appeal.
The ebmmittee will see that I follow the main lines of the proposal made by the member for Wellington, namely, first a decision by the commissioner and then an appeal to the Exchequer Court. I have merely indicated in my remarks the procedure which I propose that the commissioner shall follow, which is the same procedure which is followed in the patent office of the United States. Now, answering the minister as to the question of cost If the matter is referred immediately to the
Exchequer Court, the patent solicitors, who form really a distinct body of lawyers and who sometimes are not even barristers, will have to employ counsel to appear befdre the Exchequer Court. On the other hand, if my suggestion is adopted, the conflict will be determined by the commissioner, which determination is' likely to be accepted by both parties so that an appeal ffo the Exchequer Court might be avoided. It does seem to me a great mistake to throw the case into the Exchequer Court before there has been a preliminary investigation by the commissioner and a chance given to the parties to get together and confine the scope of their conflict to the narrowest limits. The Exchequer Court probably has the largest jurisdiction of any of our courts, and if it is to be the tribunal of first instance in this case those concerned may have to travel from Halifax or from Vancouver to Ottawa to appear before the court. The procedure which I indicate gives wide powers to the commissioner to appoint other commissioners for the hearing of evidence and pro-\ ides a practical and well thought out scheme for the adjudication of the dispute-a scheme which has been followed in a jurisdiction very similar to ours for some years past.


James Alexander Robb: As there appears to be a conflict of opinion I will put in the original motion I made:
That clause 21 of Bill 20 be struck out and the following substituted as clause 21-
Which is really the old act. We will allow the section to stand so that hon. gentlemen may consider it. I would point out again, how-ever, that the experience of the department is that the method employed in Washington is very objectionable compared with ours, and that ours is the most economical and the most satisfactory to all concerned except the patent solicitor. I admit that he would like to get an additional fee from his client.


Andrew Ross McMaster: He does not get the fee; some lawyer does.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely my hon. friend is not serious in suggesting that arbitration is cheap and satisfactory. We have generally found arbitration the most lengthy, expensive and unsatisfactory method of settling differences.


James Alexander Robb: There are two options, arbitration or the Exchequer Court.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They have a
right to go to both?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.
20S2
Patents of Invention


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely if my
hon. friend thinks that arbitration is not satisfactory-and we all agree that it is not- he will admit that some indication should be given to the Exchequer Court as to what the department's views are. That is practcially all that is asked. I hope that my hon. friend will think this over tjefore he comes to a conclusion.


James Alexander Robb: We will let it stand.


William Alves Boys: Does the act provide for two
courses, one by arbitration and the other direct to the Exchequer Court? If so, it must be by amendment, for it is not in this.


James Alexander Robb: It is provided for in the
Exchequer Court Act.


William Alves Boys: Section 20 provides for the
disposition of conflicting applications, and they are to be disposed of under that section by arbitration. As the section is to stand over I shall not prolong the discussion, but I do not want the minister to think that in making the suggestion I did I was trying to provide work for lawyers. I had no such thought in my mind; quite the reverse. I was trying to simplify and improve the procedure for those seeking patents. If you want to make it expensive and cause delay and inconvenience, all you need do is go back to section 20 and adopt the cumbrous process of arbitration, which lasts very much longer, costs very much more, and half the time when one of the parties is dissatisfied it is not very difficult for him to upset the award.
Section stands.
On section 22-What patents shall contain and confirm, etc:


James Alexander Robb: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 23-Patents for inventions by persons in public service, etc.:
James Alexander Robb: This clause has been added to the bill at the request of the Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. It refers to patents for inventions made by scientists employed in the public service in the course of their employment. While allowing the inventor to obtain patents for such inventions, it establishes the rights of the public therein and conserves the same.


William Alves Boys: A moment ago there was an effort apparently to escape from responsibility on the part of the commissioner; m this section we have the converse. Undei
[Mr. Robb.l
subsection 2 he is given absolute jurisdiction. It is debatable if there should not be a right of appeal.


James Alexander Robb: We will let that stand for consideration also.
Section stands.
On section 24-Form of issue:


James Alexander Robb: That is the old clause.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25-Term limit:
James Alexander Robb: That is the same clause as iu the old act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 28-Issue of new or amended patents:
James Alexander Robb: There is an amendment to this clause by adding after the word "date" in the eighth line of subclause 1 the words "or within one year from the passage of this act.*


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, I suggest this with diffidence because I am not sure whether there will be any objection to it, but is there any objection to giving the right to a patentee to ask at any time during the life of his patent for the correction of clerical or typographical or other obvious errors? I have had placed in my hands a memorandum concerning this act, in which the author says:
In view of the fact that this section limits the period for re-issuing patents to four years, it seems advisable to add a paragraph by means of which minor errors may be corrected any time during the life of the patent. The following is suggested:
"(5) Any time during the life of a patent a patentee may make petition to the commissioner for the issue of a certificate of correction, and if the commissioner is satisfied that the correction desired to be made relates to a clerical, typographical or obvious error, the correction of which will not alter the scope of the patent, the commissioner shall, upon payment of a fee as hereinafter provided, issue a certificate of correction in duplicate, one copy of which shall be attached to the patent under the seal of the Patent office and become a part thereof, and the other copy of which shall remain of record in the Patent office, and after the issue of such certificate the patent shall be read as corrected by such certificate."	#
I am not sufficiently familiar with patent practice to say whether a case like this often occurs, but the suggestion seems to be a ieasonable one.


James Alexander Robb: On the face of it it sounds reasonable, but in practice it might lead to abuses. It is very hard to determine what is really a clerical error, and the experience of the department is that it is better not to accept the suggestion.
ArRIL 20, 1923


Henry Lumley Drayton: Offhand I would certainly agree with the hon. member for Rrome that if an error was made it should 'be corrected. It does not make any difference whether we discover it this year, next year or the year afterwards. What is the principle underlying the idea that a patent, once issued, cannot be corrected?


James Alexander Robb: If it is shown that the mistake occurred in the office, the correction can be made, and in practice that is done. But if you admit a clause such as the one suggested you are opening the door to abuses. It. is unnecessary language to add to the provision.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What kind of abuses might be anticipated? Is it feared that under the guise of making a correction some other novelty may be covered by a patent without any additional patent fee?


James Alexander Robb: There is a possibility that the opportunity might be taken to extend the scope of the patent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely it would be known whether the man was fairly putting his patent into such shape that he could support it and use it. or whether, on the other hand, he was using the power of amendment for the purpose of extending the patent.


James Alexander Robb: He is enabled to come back within four years; that is a reasonable length of time.	*


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not want to press this unduly, because I cannot give a specific case, but I presume that this has happened in practice, or the matter could not have been placed before me. I can easily understand that a patentee might receive his patent, and, taking it for granted that the work had been accuratelv done, he would not scrutinize it or make any exact comparisons. Perhaps six or seven years afterwards he gets into a lawsuir, concerning the patent. The patent is read over with the greatest care; obviously clerical errors are found, and the patentee feels that before going into the court with the document those errors should be corrected. That is an easily supposed case which is, I think, of the nature of those intended to be covered by the suggestion I have made. I would invite the minister's attention to that phase of it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall clause 26 as amended carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suggest that the minister will probably want to consider the suggestion made by the hon. member for
Patents oj Invention
Brome. In the case of a purely technical error, a mere oversight, what bearing has the question of a time limit upon the making of a correction? In other words, if it is justice to correct it, why place anything in the way of doing the right thing simply because a year has expired from the date of the passing of the act?


James Alexander Robb: The experience is that by a change of wording the scope of the patent might be extended, and in the meantime the public has been using it. Four years is a reasonable length of time; there is no hardship to the patentee at all. The hon. member for Brome, I understand does not press his amendment.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am not going to divide the committee on it, because I do not feel strongly enough about it. But it seems to me to be a fair suggestion.
Section as amended, agreed to.


James Alexander Robb: There are a few old clauses that we might put through. There are nc changes in 27 or 28.
Sections 27 and 28 agreed to.
On section 29-Patents to be assignable:


James Alexander Robb: There is a slight amendment here. At the Imperial War Conference of 1917 certain amendments proposed to be made to the British act were submitted to the consideration of the delegates, and in a memorandum prepared by the department in connection with that conference it was recommended that certain amendments, including the present one, be adopted. Experience has shown that this amendment would be useful. That applies only to subsection 2 of section 29 of the bill which reads as follows:
No assignment of, or any other instrument affecting the title to, a patent or any interest therein, or a license to use a patent, shall be admitted in evidence in any court unless it has been registered in the Patent Office.


William Alves Boys: I do not know whether the minister wants to finish by ten o'clock, if he does I would ask him to let this section stand. I certainly want to oppose this suggested change. I can see no reason for it, and I think it would be very unfair in many cases.


James Alexander Robb: Let it stand.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding the House adjourned at 10 p.m.

Private Bills
Monday, April 23, 1923