Mr. PUTNAM:

As a general supporter of this government I hope he is right. He boldly asserts that the prohibition of the indiscriminate use of the word "royal" tends to disrespect for the Royal family. It is odd that public opinion in England, where they are measurably loyal to the Royal family, has taken the opposite view, and the use of the word is forbidden except in very rare and very conservative instances. In addition to what the right hon. leader of the opposition has said, it does seem to me that part of the policy of this prohibition is to prevent an unfair advantage as between advertisers, because the use of the word "royal" connotes a possible degree of governmental favour towards the advertiser employing the term. Right in my own town, as solicitor, I was engaged in the incorporation of a garage company that had theretofore called itself The Royal Garage Company, but the provincial authorities of Nova Scotia pointed out that

it was against the policy of the governments both there and at Ottawa to grant incorporation of any joint stock company under this distinctive word. For my part, I can see a dual reason for this stand, and I am surprised at what I must characterize, with all respect, as the tangent at which the hon. member for Mackenzie has allowed his mind to travel.

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Mr. Chairman, I cannot see any particular advantage to be gained by the use of the word "royal" just so long as it is open to everyone to use it; but the moment you restrict its use there might be an advantage to a firm putting the word on any brand of goods.

Mr. MANION:

Is it not just as true that

there is no disadvantage if everybody is prevented from using the word? Therefore the amendment really does not matter.

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Then why any necessity for the amendment?

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Because some people

think differently from my hon. friend.

Mr. CAMPBELL:

The logical thing now

for the minister to do is to restrict the use of the words, "Canadian," "national," and so on.

Mr. PUTNAM:

Who shall be the judge

of what is logical? Shall we leave the standard to the hon. member for Mackenzie?

Mr. CAMPBELL:

The minister is making himself the judge in this particular case.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Oh, no.

Mr. PUTNAM:

I think if the hon. gentleman would give reasons rather than conclusions he would be employing his time better.

Mr. SHAW:

The member for Colchester

(Mr. Putnam) made some reference to there being similar legislation in the Mother Country. Has similar legislation been passed in England?

Mr. LAPOINTE:

The use of the words

"royal" and "imperial" is forbidden in England, save with the consent of the Home office. Several imperial statutes, particularly the Trade Marks Act 1905 and the trade mark rules 1920, contain such a prohibition.

Mr. SHAW:

Why did not the minister include the word "imperial" in his proposed legislation?

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I admit that in England the use of both words is forbidden.

Criminal Code

Mr. BAXTER:

Mr. Chairman, I do not

think we need take very much time discussing this amendment. I would be inclined to agree that there is not any great necessity for the proposed legislation. There is no tremendous amount of harm being done, I suppose; it is not something that exposes anybody's life or liberty to danger. But really the necessity for this amendment, so far as there is necessity, is evidenced by the remarks that have been made to this committee this afternoon. What we desire to cultivate among the people of Canada is just a bit of gentlemanly manners and good taste. The man who tacks on to a pot of blacking the word "royal," or some similar designation, that brings to mind that its use has the approval of the Royal family, is not acting in good taste; he is not elevating citizenship; he is not setting up the ideal that ought to be set up everywhere throughout the empire that, the Royal family, because it is the Royal family by the will of the people, is the highest ideal of the people in our form of government, and therefore ought to be respected. A man should no more desire to use that word indiscriminately in connection with a pot of blacking than he would want to call the sovereign by his Christian name. Of course, some people would brag of doing that. There are some parts of Canada where apparently people want to do this sort of thing.

Is that the Maritime provinces?

Mr. BAXTER:

I have not met with any

examples of it there, but from the group my hon. friend is a member of I have seen some distinctly un-Canadian exhibitions since I came to this House.

Mr. BEAUBIEN:

Are you the judge?

Mr. BAXTER:

I am not judging. There

is considerably, more feeling towards the United States of America than there is towards the British crown. It does not apply to all, but to a good many in western Canada.

Mr. BEAUBIEN:

I have been in the

Maritime provinces, and I have heard more talk of that kind there than in western Canada.