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.
Mr. PROULX moved the third reading of the Bill.