May 4, 1951

PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Are there additional men to

be raised for the army?

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   STATEMENT RESPECTING ADDITIONS TO ARMED FORCES
Permalink
LIB

Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Claxion:

Yes.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   STATEMENT RESPECTING ADDITIONS TO ARMED FORCES
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

How m-any?

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   STATEMENT RESPECTING ADDITIONS TO ARMED FORCES
Permalink
LIB

Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Claxion:

With regard to the way in

which parliament would give its approval to the dedication of this force for overseas, I would say that is a matter for the government and the Prime Minister. It will require some subsequent action by parliament before it is done. Perhaps it will require the tabling of an order in council, as was done in the case of the Korean force, or something like that. But it will not be done before it comes before parliament again.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   STATEMENT RESPECTING ADDITIONS TO ARMED FORCES
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

I understood the minister to

say additional troops would be raised over and above the men to go to Europe. What additional number will he require?

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   STATEMENT RESPECTING ADDITIONS TO ARMED FORCES
Permalink
LIB

Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Claxion:

We are going on recruiting

steadily-and doing very well, too. We are building up forces, both for reinforcements in Korea, and for the building up of our armed forces in Canada, as well as for this force.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   STATEMENT RESPECTING ADDITIONS TO ARMED FORCES
Permalink

PRIVATE BILLS

PATENT APPLICATION OF GEORGE R. HANKS


The house in committee on Bill No. 131, respecting a certain patent application of George R. Hanks'-Mr. Richard (Ottawa East) -Mr. Beaudoin in the chair. On section 1-Application deemed to have contained request for extension.


PC

William Joseph Browne

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Browne (St. John's Wesl):

Mr. Chairman, may we have a copy of the bill.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   PATENT APPLICATION OF GEORGE R. HANKS
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Deputy Chairman:

I should point out, for the benefit of the hon. member for St. John's West, that this bill was referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, received careful consideration there, and is now reported back to the house. Copies of the bill are available at the table. If the hon. member does not have a copy, someone will see that he is given one.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   PATENT APPLICATION OF GEORGE R. HANKS
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

Look in your file and you will get it.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   PATENT APPLICATION OF GEORGE R. HANKS
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Would the sponsor explain why it was necessary to put the applicant for this private bill to all the expense and inconvenience of coming to parliament in a matter of this kind? Was it because of some error

made in the patent office, or why do we have this unusual situation of an individual having to come to parliament for a private bill in order to get for himself the full protection of the Patent Act. It does not seem reasonable that that should have been necessary.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   PATENT APPLICATION OF GEORGE R. HANKS
Permalink
LIB

Jean-Thomas Richard

Liberal

Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):

In 1947 parliament passed an amendment, section 28A of the Patent Act, to allow applicants, from foreign countries which afforded similar privileges, to file applications for patents, even though the normal time for filing had expired. The deadline set was November 15, 1947.

As the hon. member will see in the explanatory note to the bill, the section was drawn so that there were some prerequisites, among which was the one that the application should be filed before November 15, 1947, and should be accompanied by a request, in the form of an ordinary letter, saying, in effect, "I want to have the benefit of section 28A".

It is self-evident that the applicant wanted to have the benefit of section 28A, because he knew he was delinquent. He was taking advantage of the new section passed by parliament. But in his letter to the Commissioner of Patents he stated merely that he was filing an application for a patent and did not add the paragraph, "I want to take advantage of section 28A of the Patent Act".

That is the only point in the bill. The Commissioner of Patents held that since that was one of the conditions set out in the section, he had to refuse the application. It seems unfortunate, and certainly it has involved heavy expense to the applicant. However, the commissioner having held that That condition was essential, there was nothing left to do but to come to parliament and ask for a bill to overcome this difficulty.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   PATENT APPLICATION OF GEORGE R. HANKS
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

The Secretary of State is here this evening. Surely there should be some provisions in the Patent Act giving the Commissioner of Patents, the Secretary of State, or perhaps the governor in council power to deal with a situation of this kind. Here we have an individual who should have had to pay only $25 to have the registration put through; but because he left out a formal statement to the effect that he wanted to have the extension of time, he is put to all this expense of coming to parliament.

I do suggest there is something very wrong either in the act, the regulations under the act, or in the administration, when an individual is put to that expense. I should like to know whether other people have been turned down for similar reasons. There may be others who have been unable to get this

Private Bills

protection because their applications have been refused, and who are not in a position financially to incur the great expense of getting a private bill put through parliament.

I think this is a case of driving a tack with a pile-driver. I wonder if the Secretary of State could explain why it has been necessary to take this step?

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   PATENT APPLICATION OF GEORGE R. HANKS
Permalink
LIB

Frederick Gordon Bradley (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Bradley:

Parliament in its wisdom

did not succeed in covering every possible eventuality. This is the first occasion on which this has been brought to my attention and I shall be glad to look into it to see if 1here have been any who have been prejudiced in any way, and consider the question as to whether we should not look into the matter further.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   PATENT APPLICATION OF GEORGE R. HANKS
Permalink
?

Mr. Gre@

If that is the situation some

arrangement should be made so that this applicant will not be compelled to pay the fee for getting through a private bill. It does seem to me most unfair that he has been put to all this trouble and expense.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   PATENT APPLICATION OF GEORGE R. HANKS
Permalink

Section agreed to. Section 2 agreed to. Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF WESTERN CANADA

LIB

Albert Frederick Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East) moved

that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 175, to incorporate the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Western Canada.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

On section 1-Incorporation.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF WESTERN CANADA
Permalink

May 4, 1951