April 7, 1932

CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Mr. Chairman, I may say that since this 'bill passed its second reading it has been considered by a special committee of this house. I do not think any committee could be more patient than that committee has been in hearing the representations made by those interested in patents, and especially by the representative patent lawyers of the country. The bill is reported with amendments, and the entire committee concurred in the amendments suggested.

The first section of this bill deals with conflicting applications for patents. Formerly such patents were referred to arbitration under section 22 of the Patent Act. In 1923 parliament passed an amendment to the effect that, after arbitration proceedings were initiated, either party to those proceedings might apply to the exchequer court for the determination of the conflict, and that thereupon no further proceedings should be taken by arbitration. The result has been that in order to obtain access to the exchequer court arbitration proceedings have necessarily been begun, which were very expensive to the prospective litigants, and then, after considerable expenditure had been made by the one or both parties in preparation for the arbitration, on the application of one of the contestants, the whole case came within the jurisdiction of the exchequer court. After thoroughly considering the matter and in the hope of avoiding these circumlocutory proceedings and obviating expense for applicants for patents who could ill afford to bear that expense, the committee has unanimously adopted the proposed amendments to section 22. Some changes were made, ibut section 22,

as now expressed in section 1 of this bill, has received the unanimous approval of the committee, and I think I may say the unanimous approval of all the experts who appeared before the committee. I therefore move that section 1 be adopted.

Topic:   PATENT ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

Section agreed to. On section 2-Invalid claims not to affect valid claims.


CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

This section is important in this respect. It has been held by our courts that in an action for the infringement of a patent, if there were one valid claim in the application and several which were invalid, effect would be given to the valid claim. But the contrary is true if the action is one in which a patent is sought to be impeached. The committee concurred unanimously in this section, which abolishes any distinction between the two kinds of action. The section now provides that in any action or proceeding respecting a patent, whether it be an action for impeachment or for infringement, which contains two or more claims, when one or more of such claims are held to be valid, but another or others invalid and void, effect shall be given to the patent as if it contained only the valid claim or claims, so that all of the issues in the controversy before the court may be decided by the court.

I move adoption of the section.

Topic:   PATENT ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

Section agreed to. Sections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to. Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 27, to amend the Excise Act. Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tummon in the chair. On section 1-Provincial analyst.


CON

Edmond Baird Ryckman (Minister of National Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYCKMAN:

This section deals with the administration of the act and is important from the viewpoint of the department. However, I do not think there can be any difference of opinion as to the working out of the provisions. This section defines a provincial analyst as follows:

"Provincial analyst" means any analyst appointed by the government of any province and having authority to make any analysis for any public purpose.

The new words are those which are underlined in the section. I might explain that at

Excise Act

certain points throughout the dominion there are analysts, who have not been appointed directly by the provincial governments but who have received authority to make tests and analyses. This section will permit the services of these analysts to be used in an official capacity.

Topic:   EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

Section agreed to. On section 2-Power to refuse or suspend licence.


CON

Edmond Baird Ryckman (Minister of National Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYCKMAN:

This section will permit

the minister to give to the commissioner of excise the power to sign revocation of licences to brew beer. At the present time this takes up considerable time of the minister. It has been the practice that where a person has been convicted of selling liquor without a licence, should he possess a licence to brew beer, it is immediately revoked. I think this work could well be entrusted to the commissioner of excise.

Topic:   EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

None of the functions

covered by the section to be amended are important?

Topic:   EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Edmond Baird Ryckman (Minister of National Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYCKMAN:

It is true that this section transfers ministerial authority to an administrator, but I think I have stated correctly the character of the authority involved.

Topic:   EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

William Daum Euler

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

The authority granted by

this section is analogous to that given to the commissioner of customs in connection with seizures.

Topic:   EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Edmond Baird Ryckman (Minister of National Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYCKMAN:

This is similar only, if

I may say so, in a lesser degree. Where conviction has been made for an infraction of the liquor laws of the provinces, it has been our practice to cancel any licence held by the offender.

Topic:   EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

Section agreed to. On section 3-Recovery of penalties.


CON

Edmond Baird Ryckman (Minister of National Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYCKMAN:

This is a matter of

administration and I can best explain it by reading the note. It is as follows:

The section as it stands provides for trial of excise offences before a judge of a county court, or before a police or stipendiary magistrate or any two justices of the peace. There are other functionaries vested by the provincial legislatures with the powers of two justices of the peace, e.g., the chief magistrates of Prince Edward Island, but who do not come within any of the classes specifically described above. Doubt has arisen as to whether such persons have jurisdiction to try offences under the Excise Act, and it is thought expedient to confer such jurisdiction upon them specifically.

This is merely an effort to arrive at uniformity of administration.

Topic:   EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

Section agreed to. Sections 4 to 13 inclusive, agreed to. Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the fifteenth of the month when in the ordinary course certain expenditures will have to be made, and if the house is agreeable I should like to ask for interim supply. Of course, this can be done only by unanimous consent and if it is obtained I shall move that you, Mr. Speaker, do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply to consider certain resolutions.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY BILL
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

What will be

the amount of interim supply requested? I understand it is to bo one-sixth of the total.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY BILL
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RHODES:

We are asking for onesixth with the exception of certain special items, where we are asking for one-quarter. This is necessary if we are to function smoothly in the matter of the payment of our accounts. The new system of accounting requires that money must be voted and available in order to be ear-marked before commitments are made. The special votes in connection with which we are asking for one-quarter are Nos. 35 and 36, covering the Senate and the House of Commons. When the Senate and House of Commons are in session we are at the peak of our expenditure in connection with these votes. With respect to vote 45, experimental farms, we are asking one-fourth for that as well, because this being seeding time, it is the time of year when the largest experiments in the department are made. We are asking the same with respect to vote 186, geological survey, mines. At this period of the year the parties are leaving for the field and they must be placed in funds. Many of them live in remote areas not near to banks, and they must take actual money with them. Under our new system of accounting where there is no opportunity of switching accounts or of utilizing other funds, as was the case in the old days, when perhaps one-twelfth might suffice, the vote must be available in full. Another item is 207, care of patients under the Department of Pensions. This vote is very heavily called upon at the present time. It is an item which is largely uncontrollable and doctors' bills are flowing in from all parts of the country. The overhead at this time is therefore particularly heavy. Item 209 is for pensions. This is for pay and

Interim Supply Bill

allowances of ex-soldiers in the hospitals. Vote 210 is for unemployment relief, pensions, and vote 211 is operating expenses, pensions. One smaller vote is for the Commercial Intelligence branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. These total amounts we are asking for under the division of one-quarter aggregate $2,236,407.85, as against the sum of $33,108,718.84, which represents one-sixth. I merely mention these figures to indicate that the amount we are asking for as one-fourth is relatively small compared with the total amount asked for.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY BILL
Permalink

April 7, 1932