Some hon. MEMBERS:
Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 204, to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act.
Mr. BELL (Hamilton):
The object of this bill is to do away with the frequent forgeries and counterfeits of the union label and to protect both employers and employees who are operating with union label agreements against those who are not operating with such agreements, but who attach false or counterfeit labels to products.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance in one matter? It is my wish to move-and in that I hope I shall have the acquiescence of the Prime Minister-that this Bill may be advanced in the business of the House. Is it permissible for me to do that now, or must I do it after an interval?
Under t'he rules an interval must elapse but, with the indulgence of the House and in view of the lateness of the presentation of the bill, the hon. gentleman might be allowed to advance the bill one step.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):
I think the Commissioner of Patents and Trade Marks should have an opportunity to see the measure before the government gives its consent to any rules being suspended.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Bill No. 194 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gwendolen McLachlin.-Mr. Mc-Clenaghan. Bill No. 195 (from the Senate), for the relief of Jessie Evis.-Mr. Arthurs. Bill No. 196 (from the Senate), for the relief of Max Gertler-Mr. Garland (Carle-ton). 14011-2,944 Questions
Bill No. 197, (from the Senate), for the relief of Florence May Hicks-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park). Bill No. 198 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ruth May Harrington.-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo South). Bill No. 199 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edith Maude Bull.-Mr. Kaiser. Bill No. 200 (from the Senate), for the relief of Joseph Bernard Hoodless.-Mr. Garland (Carleton). Bill No. 201 (from the Senate), for the relief of Amelia Chester.-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 202 (from the Senate), to amend The Canada Evidence Act as regards the evidence of persons charged with offences.- Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton).
(Questions answered orally are indicated 'by an asterisk.)
Will the government introduce any legislation this session to repeal whmt is commonly known as "The Doherty Act," Revised Statutes of Canada, 1916, chapter 19, as amended in 1917, c. 30-1919, chapter 60 and 1919-2nd session, chapter 21?
Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:
May I ask when the
Prime Minister will give me an answer to this very short question?
1. Is the Department of Marine and Fisheries operating a public dock at the port of Sterwart, British Columbia ?
2. Do the regular departmental tolls for freight crossing this dock dock appfly to all shippers?
3. Does the Premier Gold Mining Company use this dock?
4. Has this company been granted permission to con-truct ore bunkers on this dock or on adjoining property for the purpose of shipping ore or concentrates or other freight? If so, when?
5. Does the said Premier Gold Mining Company pay rental for this privilege, and if so on what basis and how much per annum?
6. Does the said Premier Gold Mining Company pay the same schedule of rates as are required of other shippers for shipping freight in and out over this dock?
7. Is the said Premier Gold Mining Company paying the same demurrage as is required of the public and other shippers for freight left or stored upon said dock?
8. Have any special concessions been granted to the said Premier Gold Mining Company in connection with this dock that differ in any way from those with which the general public have to conform? If so, whait are these concessions?
2. Yes for freight other than the ore of the Premier Gold Mining Company.
4. Yes-14th July, 1921.
5. Yes-$20 per annum for site of freight shed. $75 per annum for site of ore bunker.
6. Yes for freight other than ore. The Premier Gold Mining Company pays $400 per annum for coveying ore across the wharf.
7. Having regard to the nature and extent of the business carried on by the Premier Gold Mining Company, instructions issued in 1923 that no demurrage should be charged. No representations have been received in the meantime respecting demurrag(e charged against others using the wharf and further inquiry will be made.
8. Yes-The company was granted concessions to build its own freight shed on the wharf; to construct an ore bunker on the wharf property and to convey ore across the dock for which it pays the amounts set out in the answers to Nos. 5 and 6.