They come from members who are sitting to my left-from no other part of the House. We do not need the American ideal to be set up before us, and yet every session we have paraded almost everything that takes place across the line, as if the American ideal was far superior to our own. Among other things, we are told that we do not want British immigrants. Take the British flag itself, the man who ha3 the proper spirit of citizenship would not use the Union Jack for a floor decoration and walk upon it; but some people can see no reason in the world why that combination of colours and lines would not make a very pretty pattern for a carpet. These people need a little bit of education. If they are not able to accept education in the ordinary way, sometimes it is necessary to enforce a rule such as this. This law is setting a standard of gentlemanly conduct towards the highest ideal that we know within the empire.
amendment is not too bad, but I question whether the minister is not going to get into serious difficulties working it out. I should like to have some assurance from him that concerns now using the word "royal" without the sanction of any particular statute, are going to be free from penalty. There is no provision here which would enable them to secure notification or warning before they would be subject to prosecution. I do think that from that point of view the amendment would work out very badly. Would not the minister consider some modification of the section? Or would he give some assurance as to what would be the procedure in the case of certain words in common use that are not sanctioned by statute?
should be made to the Secretary of State, who would transmit it through the Governor General to the Home office, where such permission is granted. My hon. friend may be assured that this has been done by certain institutions. When I was Minister of Marine and Fisheries I remember making application for use of the word "royal" by the Royal Yachting Association of Hamilton, and permission was given. My hon. friend may be certain that nobody would be treated harshly; the very nature of this provision would prevent it. I am sure that the Royal family, the Canadian government or the Home office
would not prosecute anybody in the way my hon. friend has suggested. However, I am glad he thinks this proposal is "not too bad after all," in view of his neighbour to his left having said that it was the most foolish thing he had ever heard of.
is likely to arise such as the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) fears, but there is the possibility that some man will rush in with a prosecution and no one can tell. I would suggest the addition of these words:
Nor shall any prosecution be commenced under this section except by the order of the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general of a province.
provision. I want to pay my respects to those in authority. I do not think anybody will be induced to pay any additional respect by reason of any statutory enactment of any kind; but the situation seems to be now well taken care of, because, as the minister himself has said, anyone who wants to use the name "royal" for the purpose of an incorporated company or some similar purpose, must make application to the Dominion Secretary of State or the Provincial Secretary of State, in which 'case the word "royal" may be and, I have no doubt, often is eliminated from the proposed name of the company. The objection I see to this legislation is that what is now exercised as a civil right becomes, by virtue of this proposed legislation, a criminal law. There is too much of a tendency nowadays to take civil wrongs and convert them into criminal wrongs. More than that, I do not see where this legislation is properly going to stop because, if you are going to make the word "royal" exclusive, you must naturally and logically similarly make provision for the word "imperial," and I do not see any reason why this should not be extended further to the word "majesty," even to the word "king" itself. Surely no one would suggest that the latter word should be eliminated from the surname of a good many people including a number of distinguished people in this country. If any wrong is done, there is ample remedy at the present time. I remember very well a case which arose in our province in which a dilapidated draying outfit, taking
advantage of the situation, called themselves the Grand Trunk delivery. The Grand Trunk Railway Company. were rather impressed with the dilapidated condition of this delivery rig; they brought action in the courts to restrain the use of the term, and an injunction was promptly granted because the delivery man was taking advantage of a name to which he was not entitled. If any damage is done by the use of these or similar words, there is ample remedy at civil law. There are also protective measures, as the minister has stated, by the Secretary of State using the power which he has in the case of incorporated companies. Consequently, I feel that to make a criminal offence out of what is at most a civil wrong is a very serious entrenchment upon the rights of individuals. I say this with every respect for the Royal family. No one could have more respect for them than I have. I do not believe it will be the wish of the Royal family that the mere use of such terms should impose a criminal penalty upon any individual.
of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), I think he seems to assume that the proposed barrier against the word "royal" corresponds with the line at which the word is allowed or disallowed upon application at present. That is a fallacy, because in hundreds of cases people now of their own volition are assuming to use the word "royal" on all sorts of advertising devices and in connection with little partnerships and companies whether properly incorporated or not. Therefore, the remedy which he would assume as at present in the hands of the authorities is not there.
there is no penalty at all in scores of cases for the indiscriminate use of the word "royal" where it is being used without even an application for it. I know cases of it right in my province where they use the term "royal" this and "royal" that. While at present a company will not be permitted to incorporate under that name, there is, so far as I know, no law under the firmament to prevent those people in that informal way from using the word "royal." In any case there is no harm in making the law clear upon the point. I do not think the word "imperial" in Canada stands in quite the same position as the word "royal." The word "royal" is far
more definite to us than the word "imperial." To say that you are going to sell imperial oil or imperial oats does not infringe, to my mind at least, nearly so closely upon what is denoted by the Royal family itself as the use of the word "royal." The hon. member cited the use of the words "king" and "queen." You may talk about the Queen Shoe Company or the King Tractor Company, and it is obvious on its face that those terms are too ambitious to carry the idea of any governmental favour. But when you use the word "royal," it seems to me that you are allowing that man an unfair advertising advantage, because when you come down through all the grades of intelligence, you will find some and not a few who will actually think that when a man has the right to use the word "royal" in connection with his business, he is a little nearer the throne in some business sense in governmental favour than his competitors. We had a debate which bordered on that by way of analogy when we incorporated the United Church of Canada. Objection was taken to that inasmuch as the newly named church seemed to have under that very term some of the rights of a state church. The objection did not prevail, but at the same time I was not entirely clear that there was not some validity in the objection. I have always held that it has been part of the policy as regards the use of the word "royal" in an advertising sense that it conveys an undue advertising advantage. It is too happy an advertising term.
amendment to section 19 in order to cover an objection which was made to it by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs):
That section 19 be amended by changing the word "subsection" in line 2 to "subsections" and adding the following subsection:
(6) Where any order is granted under the provisions of the next preceding sub-section, the judge may, by such order or by such further or other order as he may deem requisite, from time to time, give directions as to the manner in which such person shall be kept in custody and returned to prison to serve the remainder of his original sentence, in case he be discharged or acquitted of the offence in respect of which such warrant was issued, or may make such other directions as in the circumstances of the case he may see fit.
This provides that if a prisoner, under the direction of a judge, has been transferred to another province to stand his preliminary trial
he shall in case of acquittal be returned to the province from which he came to serv
suggested by the Attorney General of Quebec but there have been strong objections to it, and as the whole matter of the right of election for speedy trial has to be considered in accordance with the suggestions that have been made by various provinces, I move that this section be struck out.