Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL-Can the hon. gentleman tell me whether the parties who are applying for the renewal of the patent are the inventors or the purchasers? Hon. Mr. DANDURAND-That question ceptional circumstances in which we could was not put, and the matter was not sifted. be where a foreign inventor has a patent Hon. Mr. MURPHY-I am a member of in this country, and has a solicitor lookthe Private Bills Committee, and in that ing after it, and through no fault of his, Committee we found, on the division which the solicitor in this country allows it to we had in connection with the Bill, that lapse. To refuse in that case would be there was about the same sentiment exist- | doing an injustice. I contend in the present ing, pro and con, as was shown in this case there is no valid reason why the patent House when the Bill came up on Friday last. should be renewed. The fact that we have I opposed the Bill in Committee, and I have renewed these patents in a haphazard way not seen anything that would lead me to right along, and that they are increasing in change my mind up to the present time. number, is no argument in favour of renewIt seems to me that this House is becoming al, but to my mind is a strong argument largely a place for the renewal of patents, against it. We have no right in the premises as well as for the granting of divorces, and to pass the third reading of the Bill. It since I have been a member of this House is in the public interest that this patent and a member of the Miscellaneous Private should not be renewed and I move in amendBills Committee, almost one-half of our ment, seconded by the hon. gentleman from work has been the renewal of patents. Some Middleton (Mr. Ross), that this Bill be not of these patents renewal applications were now read a third time, but that it be read meritorious, and some of them were other- a third time this day six months. wise. It ought to be clear to every member of the House that it is about time that this A firm in Toronto had been manufacturing Hon. Mr. KERR-Before the amendment This is put I should like to restate the case, so far as the applicant is concerned. firm carries on its business at Niagara Falls. They own these patents. The patent in question is among a number which they for renewal is the one particularized in the own; the only patent which they are asking Bill. By a pure slip on the part of one of their employees the patent was not renewed. It had been renewed for the second term, and the renewal should have been effected for a third term. Under the circumstances, without anything more being stated, I could refer to a score of cases in which this House, when they were satisfied of the bona fides of the application, have approved of the renewal of patents. They put in saving clauses that those who have commenced to manufacture, since the expiry of the patent, or prior to the passing of the Act, were to be protected-that was a reasonable provision. In this case they have gone further and provided that although no business concern, if their clerks or book-one firm may have manufactured the patkeepers make a mistake, they should take the consequences; those patents should not be renewed in order to allow this concern to levy the same toll which they have levied for the last twelve years. It will be a happy release to the people of this country who use these counter check books, when we have other firms manufacturing them. The ex As a ent yet in this country-the patents are still dormant in that sense-yet if any firm have commenced to install machinery for the manufacturing, then their rights are protected. The people who make their representations through the hon. gentleman from Belleville (Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell) would be largely benefited, if they could only see it, by the patents being preserved, because it would prevent others from manufacturing in competition with them. However, that is no reason why the patentee should not be protected as well as the other man. Both sides will be protected by the passing of this Bill. Such course would be consistent with the course we have adopted in the past where a case of that character has been presented. The protection which is provided in this amending clause is greater than any that has been granted before. It seems to me under these circumstances that the Senate can hardly play fast and loose in these matters and refuse to-day to grant an application which has been granted half a dozen times during the session. You cannot make fish of one and flesh of another. The Senate should pass the Bill in order to preserve consistency; until something in the shape of a rule is adopted, by which these extensions are not to be allowed, it is only fair to the applicants to grant them. Mr. Fetherstonhaugh, who represented the petitioners before the committee, investigated the matter carefully and satisfied himself that he was entirely within the practice and rules adopted heretofore by the Private Bills Committee; acting on that advice this application has been made. Under these circumstances I hope the Senate will be consistent. Hon. Mr. DAVID-For the reasons given by the hon. member in charge of the Bill and the members of the committee, we came to the conclusion that it would be unfair, in view of the renewals which have been granted so many times since I have been a member of this House, to refuse to give these parties the right to which they are entitled. In view of the fact that we gave to the companies who came before us all the protection that they might require to continue the manufacture, the hon. members of this House will do justice in passing the Bill and voting against the amendment. posed to the granting of these petitions. That is all I know of the applicants. I am not acting for the patentee nor for those who are opposing the application; I am acting from what I consider the serious principle involved in the continual granting of these petitions. The only reason my hon. friend, who has just spoken (Hon. Mr. David), has advanced why this patent should be renewed, is because we have been continually passing similar Bills for years past. I admitted that fact when I spoke before; I know we have been in the habit of doing it, and doing it irrespective of the merits of the cases that have been brought before us. If that is to be our principle of action, I do not think it is necessary in future that we should give any consideration at all to the matter, further than to allow some member to introduce a Bill for the renewal of a patent, furnish it to the Committee-then we adopt the report. If my information is correct the Committee carried this Bill by only one vote, and the fact that there is only one of a majority in favour of it shows at least that some members of the Committee took the same view of the question as I take. I am not prepared to adopt my hon. friend's opinion, however much I may respect him, that because we have been doing wrong for 10 or 15 years, we should continue to do so. Hon. Mr. BOYER-Every time this question of patents comes before the Private Bills Committee, it is a source of endless discussion. Ever since I became a member of the Committee we have renewed patents for the most trivial reasons-childish rea sons. Hon. GENTLEMEN-Hear, hear. Hon. Mr. BOYER-Somebody trusts an attorney with the payment of the second Mr. Smith forgets to send the fee; then the or third fee; Mr. Brown or Mr. Jones or Committee is held responsible for renewing a patent which very often costs a great deal Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL-I do not of money to renew, and is perfectly valueknow whether I understood clearly the refer-less. According to my experience in the ence made to myself by the hon. gentleman Private Bills Committee, of the patents we from Toronto. I understood him to say that I have so far renewed there were only three was acting for somebody else. I wish the that deserved renewing. One case was that Senate to understand distinctly that I know of a widow whose husband died leaving neither those who are claiming the right to a very valuable patent; she did not know the renewal of the patent, nor the parties anything about the second payment, and who are interested, as having established the Committee very readily renewed it. the industry in Canada. It is true that I The second case was that of the Dominion was furnished by the firm with a letter ex- Paint Company whose building was burned; plaining their position, because I suppose they could not manufacture within 12 they knew that I have generally been op-months, and stood the risk of losing their patent; the Committee also renewed it very willingly. In the present case the reason we were given was a change of manager, and the new man forgot the renewal of the patent. I made the remark in the Committee that the first duty of the manager was to see that the property of the company was properly protected, and that if these patents were worth any money they were certainly worth the while of the manager to protect them. Why does not the Government pick up the suggestion that was made at the Committee the other day by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who is Commissioner of Patents, to change the law, and require only one payment, as they do in every other country? In the United States they are never put in the same predicament that we are, of quarrelling over such a trifle as the renewal of a patent; they charge $35 for the full term, while we charge $20 for six years, $20 for the next six years, and $20 for the last six years. It would require a very small amendment to the law to make it $35 for the full term of the patent, and we would do away with all this quarrelling, and with a great deal of unnecessary business, particularly, we would save a great deal of money to those applying for these Bills. It would have cost the Burt Company $20 to renew this patent; how much will it cost them now to get this legislation?--$200 to Parliament, $40 or $50 for printing, besides attorney fees, &c. If the government would only pick up the suggestion, there is time yet to amend the law; it is just a paltry amendment; it would carry easily; and we would do away with all this unnecessary legislation. Hon. GENTLEMEN-Hear, near. Hon. Mr. JAFFRAY-I quite agree with the hon. member from Belleville (Sir Mackenzie Bowell) that the Senate too readily renews patents that have been allowed to lapse. The best argument that this should be put a stop to is that it is so frequently and so readily done. In this case the patent was allowed to lapse because it was not considered worth continuing until after the parties who are now using it took it up, and made a success of it. Then the patentees wanted to have it renewed. So far as I understand the merits of the question, they do not deserve a renewal. Hon. Mr. DANDURAND-Does the hon. gentleman refer to the present case? Hon. Mr. JAFFRAY-Yes. Hon. Mr. DANDURAND-We have cover ed the case of those who are using it by a saving clause. Hon. Mr. CHOQUETTE-In the Private Bills Committee I opposed the renewing of the patent on the principle that, the parties having failed to pay the fees, did not deserve to have it revived. On the other hand, there is a saving clause in the Bill to protect the present users of the patent, and I do not think it is fair now, because in the past we have renewed patents on trivial grounds, to say that we will refuse this application. I would request my hon. friend to withdraw his amendment. What was said in Committee and what has been said here tonight will serve as a notice to the public that they must not expect Parliament to renew charters, under such circumstances hereafter, on the general principle, that when a patent has been allowed to expire it should not be revived. For my part, though I opposed this Bill in Committee on general principle, I shall vote for the renewal in this case. I shall oppose such applications in the future. Hon. Mr. BEIQUE-It seems to me this is a question which can be debated without any feeling of soreness. I have been a member of the Private Bills Committee for several years and the policy which has been followed heretofore has been to grant relief if the applicant established, under oath, the fact that his patent was allowed to lapse by accident. It seems a fair rule, and one which should be applied to all cases. I was not present on the Committee when this Bill was considered, but I am informed that it was established by affidavit that the patent was allowed to lapse through accident. The applicant had a number of patents which were expiring, and which were renewed in time, but through an accident one of the patents was overlooked. Why should we single out this individual patent, and refuse to apply the rule which has been invariably followed in the past, and with good reason? The patent owner is punished enough for his failure to renew his patent in time. He is put to an expense of several hundred dollars for parliament's fees, and legal fees, in order to get this legislation. Therefore, under the circumstances, I hope, if only for the purpose of being consistent, that this House will pass the Bill. Hon. Mr. ROSS (Middleton)-When did the patent lapse? Hon. Mr. KERR—In January, 1913. stances warrant that being done. The Bill also proposes giving additional powers to the Governor in Council to take land under location tickets, or otherwise, for school purposes. It also proposes dealing with the administration of Indian estates. Hon. Mr. McSWEENEY-Are those new sections? Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED-They enlarge Hon. Mr. BEIQUE-And when was the powers application made? Hon. Mr. KERR-This year. already to be found in the Act. There is, however, one important section, and that is giving to the Governor in Council additional power as to the com The members were called in and the Sen-pulsory sales of Indian reserves near cities, ate divided on the amendment which was rejected by the following vote: Murphy, Corby, Dennis, Bowell (Sir Mackenzie), MacKeen, Daniel, Forget, Jaffray, Riley, Kirchhoffer, Beique, David, Baird, Thibaudeau, McSweeney, Yeo, Beith, Dessaulles, Gillmor, Lavergne, CONTENTS towns and villages. The present law requires that the Government can only act where a reserve is adjacent to a municipality of at least 8,000 population. This proposal wipes out that restriction, and permits the Governor in Council to act where the reserve may be in the immediate vicinity of any community. This is surrounded by every safeguard, the matter being referred, in the McKay (Cape Breton), first place, to the Exchequer Court, which Hon. Messrs. Derbyshire, McLaren, Frost, Lariviere, Thompson, Boucherville, de NON-CONTENTS. Hon. Messrs. Kerr, Dandurand, Bostock, Talbot, Choquette, Wilson.-21. The Bill was then read the third time on the same division reversed, and passed. INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT BILL. PETITION READ. Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED moved the second reading of Bill (114), An Act to amend the Indian Act. court will prepare a report, and then submit it to Parliament. The Bill also makes provision for the adoption of sanitary arrangements on Indian reserves, and for the prevention of selling immature live stock-an abuse which has prevailed upon nearly all the reserves. There is also a restriction as to Indian dances. It has been found that the engagement of Indians in those dances is demoralizing, and it is proposed to restrict those as much as possible. Hon. Mr. WATSON-The tango? Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED-Not only the tango, but other modern, as well as ancient dances. I therefore move the second reading of the Bill. Hon. Mr. BOSTOCK-I have listened to the explanation of the leader of the Government about this matter, and there is one question that occurred to my mind with regard to what is clause 6 of the Bill. I hardly see why it is necessary to enlarge the legislation under that matter, at any He said: This Bill proposes making cer- rate as far as British Columbia is contain amendments to the Indian Act. They cerned, in view of the action that has been are not of an important nature. They are taken there, according to a return which chiefly along the lines already legislated was brought down to the House this sesupon. We propose asking that additional sion, in regard to the Kitsilano Reserve in powers be given to the Governor in Council Vancouver. On looking through the papers for the establishment of industrial schools. with reference to the action that was taken, That is to say, declaring any school or in- a very curious condition of things seems to stitutions where children are provided with have arisen. It was always supposed that board and lodging as well as instruction, the Indians were under the control and to be Indian schools, where the circum-guardianship of the Dominion government, and that no action could be taken to deal with the Indians, or to remove them from the reserve, or to come to an arrangement with them to get off a reserve, without the sanction of the Indian Department of this Government; but a very curious state of affairs seems to exist, according to this Kitsilano return, with regard to this reserve. In this return the first letter appears from the Inspector of Indian Agencies there, calling attention to the fact that the Hon. Mr. Bowser made a statement in Vancouver on the 8th of April, 1913, at a public meeting which was held at Ashley's Hall, when he said, 'over a quarter of a million dollars has been divided into 23 separate payments of $11,250, each to be paid by the Provincial Government to the Indians for the purchase of the Kitsilano reserve of eight acres. The transaction took place at the offices of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. The sale of the reserve being completed, an eye-sore and hindrance to the development of the city is removed. The Indians had arranged to vacate the reserve at once, and most of them would go to the reserve at Squamish. The Government will now consider how best to utilise the property'. That apparently was the first announcement that was made to anybody, that this question was being dealt with. Thereupon the Inspector of Indian Agencies wrote to the Indian Agent and asked him what information he had about this matter. That letter was written on the 9th April, and the Indian Agent wrote on the 10th April to say he knew nothing about it. Then on the 11th of April the Inspector of Indian Agencies writes again to the Indian Agent and says: Inspector's Office, Victoria, B.C., April 11, 1913. Sir, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th instant in reply to mine of the 9th dealing with the reported settlement between members of the Provincial Government and certain of the Squamish Indians, for the sale of the False Creek Reserve, without the consent of the department. The False Creek reserve, is, however, in an of the entirely different position from that Songhees, for at the time that this settlement was made the only method of getting a surrender of any Indian reserve was by applying section 49, and the Songhees were unwilling to give up their surrender without knowing in the first place just how much money they were to receive. To overcome the obstacle of first obtaining the consent of the Indians for the surrender of the reserve surrounded by or contiguous to, towns, or cities in the future, the Parliament of Canada in the month of May, 1911, amended This the Indian Act by enacting section 49a. amendment was made after the settlement of the Songhees reserve, and therefore you will see that it appears to have been quite unnecessary for any settlement of the False Creek reserve to have been made along the lines ported. re As Indian agent having supervision over the land of the Squamish tribe, you should report this matter in full to the department, giving them all the information you have on the subject, either private or official, for they consider that you should have been more or less conversant with the negotiations being car will ried on between the Indians and the outside parties. This should be done at the earliest possible moment in order that the department may be properly informed. Your obedient servant, W. E. Ditchburn, Inspector of Indian Agencies. The Inspector of Indian Agencies reported to the Secretary of the Indian Department, and called attention to a notice published in the British Columbia Gazette, which reads as follows: Department of Lands. Notice is hereby given that a certain portion of land officially known as Burrard Inlet Reserve No. 6 and commonly called Kitsilano or False Creek reserve, situated on the south side of False Creek and arm of Burrard Inlet, and containing sixty acres more or less, is reserved from any entry or alienation under the Mineral Act, the Placer Mining Act, the Coal and Petroleum Act or the Land Act. Robert A. Renwick, Deputy Minister of Lands. Victoria, B.C., April 11, 1913. Then there is another letter from the Indian agent reporting to the department. This is headed: Indian Office, New Westminster, B.C., April 16, 1913. Ottawa. In reply I beg to state that as this settlement was made without consideration as to the pro- Hon. Robert Rogers, visions of the Indian Act dealing with the manner in which Indian lands may be surrendered (see section 49), it is quite possible that the Department of Indian Affairs or the Parliament of Canada may not see their way clear to ratify the agreement. Although the settlement of the Songhees reserve in this city in 1911 was dealt with by the Provincial Government in a similar manner as that reported in the case of the False Creek reserve, an Act of Parliament at Ottawa passed to make the settlement legal, and then it was necessary for a surrender to be taken from the Songhees tribe in the usual manner. On the invitation of Provincial Government attended them re (False Creek), Kitsilano Indian reserve, and upon explanation of terms consider amount offered Kitsilano Indian Band for the individual holding, and rights fully adequate. With reference to the above telegram and subsequent events in connection with the False Creek Kitsilano Indians, I beg to report as folThe Provincial Government in explanlows: ation of the terms, gave me to understand that the amount agreed on with the Indians was to be paid to them for leaving (Kitsilano) False REVISED EDITION |