Yes but under the act as we propose to amend it the commissioner will have discretionary powers to determine whether in the case of such an accident occurring they should be compelled to manufacture i:i Canada within the period, or he may give them a reasonable time to rebuild. The powers are largely within the discretion of the commissioner, and I am sure hon. gentlemen will appreciate the fact that the commissioner is not going to give a ruling that in his judgment will be detrimental to 4 p.m. manufacturing interests in Canada.
At the same time it will afford a little leeway for importation of articles from other countries if there is actual necessity for it.
Would it not be better to maintain the compulsory provision, that is, make it obligatory on the parties to manufacture in Canada, but in the case of such an accident as the minister has mentioned, fire, deluge, or some act of that kind, the commissioner should have nower to extend the period? But the principle is what I am after. I think we ought to retain as far as possible the principle of obligatory manufacture in Canada, making it imperative or obligatory upon the person taking out the patent to manufacture in Canada. If we remove that feature and give to the commissioner discretionary powers such as my hon. friend has just intimated, it is in my estimation altogether, too extensive a power to delegate to an official. Let it be the reverse. I think the principle of the old act is the better. However, if the minister wishes to proceed with the reading of the present section, we can probably bring these points out as we proceed.
I was just going to say that the section really does provide for that, but in different language. If we leave in the old language, it prevents us from entering the Berne convention. If my hon. friends who are legal gentlemen will follow the section closely, I think they will find that though the language is somewhat different, all they desire is provided in this clause. *
I would not call that discretionary power at all. A petition comes before the commissioner; the commissioner considers the petition, and if a prima facie case is made out he does nothing himself but refers it to the Exchequer Court. That involves the matter we were discussing the other night, in an effort, to get away from responsibility. It seems to me nobody should be better able to dispose of matters of this kind in the first instance than the commissioner himself, who, with the years of experience behind him, should be well able to do it.
we can go on now with section 40. I again want to understand what we are doing it for? From what I understand from the minister, the underlying reason for the changes in the act is that the Canadian patentee does not get equal rights in the United States, Japan and Germany-
came under our observation recently. Some fish were shipped down to Brazil; they had trade-mark designs exactly like this, and they refused to register this trade-mark in Brazil. Not only that,, but they pirated the trademark and threatened to expropriate any Canadian goods that were sent down with that trade-mark. The trade-marks and patents are coupled together there.