Mr. PUTNAM:

At the present time

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

Criminal Code

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.

Mr. PUTNAM:

Who shall be the judge

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

Mr. PUTNAM:

Alluding to the remarks

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.

Mr. PUTNAM:

The hon. member gave

very fatherly advice to the minister when he said he would be well advised, if such an arrangement were entered into, to let the House adjourn. Does he understand the import of that particular remark? It was a little too fatherly altogether.

Progress reported.

On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Monday, June 15, 1925

Mr. PUTNAM:

Did the hon. gentleman

say "if an arrangement was entered into"?