Mr. FISHER.

I know nothing of this particular patent. Under the clause I have referred to, the article must be manufactured in Canada if it is manufactured at all. Therefore if there is a demand for it in Canada it cannot be imported. I suppose the Private Bills Committee satisfied themselves that there was some justification for the long delay. If they have not done that I quite agree that the House should not grant a renewal after such a long delay.

Mr. HENDERSON.

I happened to be in the committee room when the committee dealt very severely with a patent renewal Bill; they threw it out unhesitatingly. A similar Bill will come before the committee perhaps at the next meeting and will be seriously contested. I do not know the merits of this case but it seems difficult to pass one application and refuse the other. I think it would be well for the minister to allow this to stand over until the other similar Bills have been dealt < with by the Private Bills Committee, so ' that this cannot be quoted as a precedent.

I am saying this as a protection to myself in connection with a vote I must give when another Bill comes up.

Mr. FISHER.

The precedent of renewing a patent when the trouble arises from nonpayment of fees is an old one. Each case of this kind must be decided on its merits. That is the business of the Private Bills Committee and the committee having passed this Bill I would be disposed to support it. If another Bill was rejected by the Private Bills Committee, I would be disposed to endorse their action and if the Bill was brought up by some other means in the House, I would oppose it. But this Bill seems to be quite innocent and quite satisfactory. Some hon. gentlemen opposite say that it is. I have no knowledge of it myself. I do not think that because any other Bill has been rejected by the Private Bills Committee, that is any reason why we should reject this one.

Mr. SPROULE.

I have listened to discussions with regard to many Bills of this kind before the Private Bills Commission, and we have always made it a rule to have a good and sufficient reason given why the patent had lapsed before renewing it. It was generally the fault of the attorney who had instructions to renew the patent, and failed to do so. We considered it wise to insert a clause in any such Bill to protect those who had gone into the manufacture of the article, by allowing their right to manufacture to be continued. From that time on, I think every case we decided on its merits. In this case, having regard to the nature of the patent, and to the fact that the article, if built in Canada, would have to be built where it was going to be used, and that it would not be advisable for any one to build except on an order, I think we are amply justified in passing the Bill. I do not see any objection to it at all.

Mr. J. D. REID.

According to the statement of the minister, he never knows anything about a Bill for the renewal of a patent until it is presented to this House. When a Bill affecting any of the other departments is brought before the House, as I understand, the deputy watches it and informs the minister of the position, so that he is thoroughly posted in regard to it. .

Mr. FISHER.

The hon. gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that it was usual for the Deputy Commissioner of Patents to be present in the committee to give the necessary information in regard to any Bill of this nature. He always brings to my notice any Bill that interferes with a patent, but a Bill which is usual he does not bring to my attention. This Bill he did not bring to my attention and therefore I take for granted that he passed it as satisfactory.

Mr. J. D. REID.

Would it not be expected that any Bill affecting the department would be submitted to the minister? Here is a Bill to renew a patent which has lapsed for three years. It is forming a precedent; I defy the minister to produce one case like it; and yet he says he never heard anything of the Bill until he heard of it to-night. It is a strange proceeding; yet if he wants the Bill to go through, so far as I am concerned, I have no objection.

Mr. JOSEPH TURCOTTE (Translation).

Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Private Bills Committee, and when this Bill came before the committee the principle of it had been discussed at length. The result of the discussion was the following: Mr. FISHER.

We gathered information as to whether any injustice would be done or not through the renewal of this patent. We desired to know if this patent, delivered a few years ago- in 1900, I believe-had' not, one way or another, become a public property, that is, if other companies or individuals had not availed themselves of the same invention, and put similar articles on the Canadian market. We were answered that nobody had taken advantage of the fact that this patent had become a public property. Consequently, nobody could suffer from this renewal. Under these circumstances, we have deemed this renewal to be equivalent to an original application for the patent. Advantage being taken by nobody of this invention and no similar products having been put on the market, we have considered this second application as an original one. We had contradictory discussion. The hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), who is now in his seat, will be able to give information to the House if he is willing to do so, because he took part in this discussion. It has been decided that this application for renewal was bona fide and that it should be granted under such circumstances, because there was no objection whatever to it. Subsequently another application of the same kind was made, but then it was about explosives and we answered : * This very patent the renewal of which you are now asking for, is now on the market, and we would cause considerable damage to those who are working this patent if we granted the same privileges.' That is all the difference. Accordingly, we have granted the application in one case and refused it in the other.

Bill reported.

Mr. PROULX moved the third reading of the Bill.

Mr. HENDERSON.

I think it would be better for the hon. member to let the third reading stand over until the next time Private Bills are called.

Mr. PROULX.

For what reason?

Mr. HENDERSON.

In order to allow an opportunity for members to look into the Bill. There has been considerable discussion on it in committee. I do not think the hon. member will lose anything; he will get his Bill as readily.

Mr. PROULX.

The amendments were only clerical.

Mr. SPROULE.

It is a Bill with amendments, and if objected to it cannot be read the third time now.

Mr. SPEAKER.

At the next sitting of the House.

Mr. SPROULE.

I suppose that we will have the budget speech to-morrow.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Yes.