Mr. DUNNING:

I will direct my hon.

friend's question to the attention of the Prime Minister.

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):

Mr. Speaker, the other day a

2419-52J

question was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) with respect to an advertisement appearing in English newspapers, dated December 8, 1929, asking for single men to train for employment on farms in Canada. I have made inquiry and find that this advertisement was inserted by the British government, in an effort to recruit men to train for work on farms, such men to be placed by the Canadian government.

Mr. RINFRET:

Last night when we were discussing this bill in committee the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) drew attention to the somewhat unusual and awkward construction of paragraph 1 of section 9a I then gave the committee the origin of that section, which reads practically word for word with a similar one in the Trade Mark and Design Act. Since then I have had an interview with the deputy minister of Justice, and I have been supplied with the following information: that a similar section, section 49 of the Trade Mark and Design Act, was originally enacted as chapter 35 of the statutes of 1891. The phrasing to which objection has been taken in the house was put into the section at that time, and has endured ever since. No change was made in it by the statute revision commission of 1906, or by the statute revision commission of 1927.

I am also informed by my commissioner that proceedings have frequently been taken in the exchequer court under the provisions of the Trade Mark and Design Act, and no difficulty has arisen because of the wording thereof. I think the remarks of the leader of the opposition were quite to the point as to the use made of the English language in that original clause to carry out the intention of the legislators. At the same time, it is represented to me by the Department of Justice that its legal effect is perfectly clear; and there is some advantage also, in the opinion

Canada Grain Act

of that department, in adopting the bill in its present form because it is desirable that the necessary powers be conferred on the board in similar language to that embodied in the act which I have just mentioned. Therefore if the objection is not pressed I would now suggest to the committee that the clause be adopted as it stands.

Mr. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, in view

of the statement of the minister as to the opinion of the Department of Justice, it appearing that decisions have been rendered upon the meaning of the language of the section in question of the Trade Mark and Design Act, which is similar in terms to that of the proposed section in the Timber Marking Act, I quite agree with the observations that he has made. It is not desirable to use different language if the language has already been interpreted by the courts.

Explain.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Mr. Chairman, there is very little difference between the provision of this resolution and those contained in the other two bills which will be considered at a later date. This land in British Columbia was ceded to the federal government for .the purpose of constructing a railway eastward from the Pacific coast to connect with what is now .the Canadian Pacific railway. An area of land twenty miles wide on each side of that line was ceded by the provincial government for this purpose. In addition, as there had been some considerable alienation of land in that territory, three million acres, known as the Peace River block, was added, and for the land ceded for this purpose the governor in council undertook to pay to the government of British Columbia an annual subsidy of $100,000.

Briefly, the act provides that the land shall be re-transferred to the province of Britidi Columbia, and the grant of $100,000 continued. The only difference between this agreement and the agreements with Manitoba and Alberta-and the agreement with Saskatchewan as well, which I hope to introduce in a day or ibwo-is that there are ordnance lands in British Columbia in question, and I believe section 6 of the act deals with those ordnance lands and straightens out some difficulty between the federal and provincial governments as to their administration.

Mr. BENNETT:

The questions of park reservations and the mines and minerals in the park reservations are not touched by this resolution?