June 3, 1921

UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

By section 5 we are providing a delay of one year for the payment of fees which have become payable under the Patent Act since the first day of August, 1914. That provision is, I understand, taken bodily from the Nolan

Act, and it is to put ourselves in the position of granting reciprocally to the United States what is granted to us by the Nolan Act.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Francis Glass

Unionist

Mr. GLASS:

If this legislation is necessary in order to make reciprocal provisions in favour of the United States, let it end there; why extend it to all quarters of the earth, Germany especially?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

We will come back to this section later.

Section stands.

On section 8-saving rights of persons who have commenced lawfully to make, use or sell invention while patent was void:

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

I move that subclause 1 of clause 8 be amended by striking out all the words between the word "to'' on line 26 and the word "shall" on line 28 and substituting therefor the following: "manufacture, use or sell the patented invention to which any patent revived or restored as aforesaid," and by adding at the end of the clause the following words: "or have in good faith incurred substantial expense in preparing so to do." This is to cover the case of those who have taken out patents during the time of the lapse of payments or who are contemplating taking out a patent and using it, and have gone to more or less expense in that connection. They may have their case brought before the commissioner in order that the equities may be taken into account and a decision given accordingly.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BUREAU:

Is there the right of appeal from the commissioner's decision?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

Yes, to the Exchequer Court.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink

Section agreed to. On section 9-validity of pati/nds protected under orders or regulations during war:


L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BUREAU:

Is it not going rather too far to say that the war shall be deemed to end on the date of the coming into force of this Act?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

This clause is for the purpose of removing doubt as to the effect of the orders for the repeal of the several war measures regulations. It is fair to suppose that they are legal and binding now, but some people have a doubt in that regard, and this enactment is to clear away that doubt.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BUREAU:

I do not think that we should provide in the statute that the war

has ended, for any purpose. We do not need the subsection at all, it seems to me; the law will come into force when it receives the assent of the Governor General.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

This subsection does not undertake to settle for any other purpose than the effect of these Orders in Council when the war ended. I understand that the reason why this is worded as it is, is that those orders, by their terms, were to continue in force during the war and for a year after the termination of the war. The purpose of this clause is to make it clear that the period begins to run when this Act comes into force, and to ensure that those orders will not continue in force for more than one year after the passing of this Act.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

Because the orders

were to continue in effect during the war and for one year thereafter. It must be remembered that the war has not, as a matter of absolute fact, ended. For legal purposes, the expression "the end of the war" has been interpreted as meaning that the end of the war comes when peace has been made with all of the powers with whom we have been at war. I understand that no peace has as yet been finally concluded with Turkey. I would suggest, to avoid this reference to the end of the war and to obtain the purpose that was sought to be obtained, that the following words be substituted for subclause 2:

The said orders shall continue in force for one year from the passing of this act and no longer.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BUREAU:

Why from the passing of the Act? That would make the orders continue in force until 1922 instead of 1921 according to the clause as it stands at present.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

If we purely and

simply ratify them as we do by this clause, they continue in force until that indefinite time when we make a Treaty of Peace with Turkey and for a year after that indefinite date. What we are seeking to do is to limit the period of their being in operation to one year from now.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

I move to

amend clause 9 by striking out subclause (2) thereof and replacing same by the following:

(2) The orders referred to in this section

shall continue In force and -effect for one year

from the date of the passing of this Act and no longer.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink

Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to. On motion of Sir George Foster, the committee reverted to consideration of section 5-time extended for paying fees.


UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

I do not think we had an opportunity of giving a satisfactory answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Glass) as regards his objection. The objection of the hon. gentleman, as I understand it, is that, by this clause, on the payment of fees, we give a longer delay than was required under the treaty. I understand he recognizes that we ought to do that as regards the United States, because of their legislation. In fact, with regard to them, we are not trying to comply with the treaty, to which they are not parties; we are trying merely to meet their legislation so as to have the benefit of

4 p.m. their legislation. That I believe to be clearly understood. The other difficulty that is put forward is that this Clause, being general in its terms, we are giving to all the parties to the treaty an extension of one year from the passing of this Act whereas we were only bound to give them an extension of one year from the coming into force of the treaty. The explanation that is given to me by the Commissioner of Patents in that regard, is that though it was true that we were only bound to give them a period of one year during which they could pay those fees, that meant a period of one year during which they could pay and during which, therefore, necessarily we were in a position to accept and receive. No provision having been made under which those fees could be received, though we were bound under the treaty to give them that year, we have not put ourselves in a position where we could accept the fees and enable them to get the benefit of the provision. I might make this suggestion that might be acceptable to the hon. gentleman. If he allows the section to pass as it stands, I will go into it with him and with the deputy minister, and if we do not arrive at a perfect understanding and if it should appear that modification is necessary, I think I could safely say that I would see that such modification was submitted to the Senate.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink

Section agreed to. Bill reported, as amended, and read the third time and passed. rSir George Poster.]


CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918, AMENDMENT

June 3, 1921