Mr. BENNETT:

That was originally

intended, but you have substituted the words, "not less than one year after the thirteenth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three". This is five years later.

Mr. RINFRET:

What are you reading

from?

Mr. BENNETT:

From the top of page 2, paragraph (c). I think that is obvious.

Mr. RINFRET:

There is a mistake

somewhere, because my copy does not read the same as my hon. friend's. I do not know whether the mistake has been made by the law officers or not. I think we had better let the section stand. I observe that the bills that have been placed at the disposal of the members are different from the one I have. My copy reads:

Provided that such an order shall not be made before the expiration of three years from the date of the patent, and not less than one year after the passing of this act.

Mr. BENNETT:

That is perfectly clear.

Mr. RINFRET:

I never intended anything different from that, so that I would like to amend the bill.

Mr. BENNETT:

I think you had better

let the section stand, so as to have no doubt about it, and make the amendment in the meantime.

Section stands.

On section 2-Revocation of patent time limit.

Mr. BENNETT:

That section has the

same provision at the beginning of subsection 1 and fixes the time at not less than three years after the date of the passing and not less than one year after the thirteenth day of June one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three.

Mr. RINFRET:

That is a mistake in the

printing of the bill. It was never intended to be drafted that way. If that is the only objection perhaps my hon. friend will agree that we should correct it now.

The CHAIRMAN:

Is it agreed we should

make the change now?

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

I think it should go back to the department.

Mr. BENNETT:

Make the amendment,

but do not take the bill out of committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

We will revert to

section 40, or clause 1 of the bill. In line 8 the words:

-thirteenth day of June one thousand nine hundred and twenty-threewill be stricken out. The clause will then read:

-after the passing of this act.

The same amendment will be made in line 22 of section 41, or clause 2.

Mr. BENNETT:

The minister will take

the bill out of committee so the law officers of the crown may see that it is actually in conformity with his intention?

Mr. RINFRET:

Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

Section 3.

Mr. GEARY:

That is the same trouble..

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Mr. Chairman, I

have not been able to follow at this end of the chamber what is going on. We are interested in investigating new industrial (processes. In case of a new process being discovered which should be generally adopted, is adequate provision made in this bill to protect the general public by making it possible that the new process may be generally adopted throughout the country?

Mr. RINFRET:

That would be covered

by the act generally. I consider that our Patent Act gives to the public adequate protection with respect to any process such as my hon. friend refers to. But that would hardly oome within the scope of this bill. Its only object is to incorporate in) our Patent Act the changes which were agreed upon by the countries which met at The Hague two years ago. Of course, a discussion of the Patent Act generally is quite in order while this bill is before the house, but it is not the intention of my department to suggest any other changes than those that were agreed upon at that conference.