Canadian Hallmarking Debate - 1908
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:59 pm
A section of the Debate held by the Canadian Senete in 1908.
SALE AND MARKING OF GOLD, SILVER AND PLATED WARE BILL.
IN COMMITTEE. The House resolved into a Committee of the Whole on Bill (AAA) An Act respecting the sale and marking of manufactures of gold and silver, and gold and silver plated ware.
(In the Committee)
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED–Are the proposed amendments of my hon. friend, the leader of the House, amendments to the draft Bill or to the Act on the statute-book?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–The amendments that I propose are those that are circulated and are to the Bill that we are now considering.
On the third clause, subclause (b),
(b) 'mark' includes any mark, sign, device, imprint, stamp, brand, label, ticket, letter, word, figure, or other means whatsoever of indicating, or of purporting to indicate, quality, quantity, or weight of gold, or of silver, or of any alloy of gold or of silver, or quality of gold or silver plate.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–This is the interpretation clause. I move that the 15th line be amended by striking out the word 'quality' and inserting 'kind.'
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–' Kind' might describe Australian, United States Or Canadian gold, but it might be of any quality. You would have to described where the gold came from.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–We can put in both words.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–That would be better, because quality is the essence of the Bill. I should be sorry to see the word quality erased from the Bill.
The clause was amended and adopted.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I want to change the word 'imported,' substituting for it the words 'brought in.' The expression is larger.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–Any one might bring in a gold article without paying duty; this would be encouraging smuggling.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–But the Act is intended to apply to dealers.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–Then it seems to me we could not bring in the goods without importing them.
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED–This is restricted to goods imported into Canada before the passage of this Act.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–That may be so, but we had better be very careful that this is not made use of after the passing of the Act. It would be better to use the expression imported or brought into the country.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I have no objection to add the word imported.
Hon. Mr. KERR–I think the expression brought in is better. This clause says that the Act shall not apply to any article brought into Canada before the passage of the Act.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–As the Act will not come into force until next October, it would allow people to bring goods into the country to a great extent. The clause was amended and adopted.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–A list of proposed amendments has been distributed. My first impression was that it was intended to show the difference between the Bill as read the second time and the Act on the statute-book. I was in hopes that this list would have helped us to arrive at an understanding of the difference between the Bill and the Act. Now we are losing sight of all changes which this Bill makes from the law as it stands. Our attention is altogether carried away to a string of amendments and the draft. That is about what it is.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–It is impossible to meet every particular case. All I can say is that the changes are comparatively few. The important clause we have to consider is the ninth. If hon. gentlemen will read the corresponding clause in the draft and in the old Bill, they will find that there is not any serious difference. It is only making it clearer. You must recollect there were some hundreds of gentlemen who had views on this subject, and it has been found exceedingly difficult to reconcile them all.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–The old Bill on the statute-books and the new Bill may not differ very much; but the form is turned upside down, and you cannot make any comparisons. Now we have thirty or forty amendments proposed in committee. The only assurance we can have is that the people in the trade have been properly and fairly consulted, and if that has been done, we have a right to take it on trust. That is, if all the interests have been fairly heard and are reasonably satisfied. If that has been done, all right. If not, I must say we have been going very much in the dark.
The clause was adopted. On clause 7, This Act shall not apply to such parts of articles, manufactured of silver or any alloy of silver, as require adaptation to the use of the trade, for example, springs, winding bars, sleeves, crown cores, joint pins, screws, rivets, dust bands, movement, rings, brooch plus joints, catches, scarf pin stems, and hatpin stems, or to such other like articles as by regulation made by the Governor in Council under the authority of this Act are exempted from the application thereof.
Hon. Mr. KERR–Why are there different articles mentioned in this section and in the prior section?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–One section applies to gold and the other to silver.
Hon. Mr. KERR–Why are there some things mentioned in one as applying to silver are not mentioned in the other as applying to gold?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–There are technical matters in that.
Hon. Mr. KERR–I fancy there must be some design in it. Why should they not both be in the one section? Some person in the trade alone can tell us about that. However, I want to guard myself about it, because I do not understand it. Originally the one section covered the exemption.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–You will find the articles are very much more numerous in these sections than they were originally.
The clause was adopted.
On clause 9,
Marking.
9. It shall not be lawful for a dealer to make or sell, or to import or attempt to import into Canada, any article composed either in whole or in part of gold or silver, or of any alloy of gold or of silver, except the articles mentioned in sections 13 and 14 of this Act, if to such article there is applied any mark other than–
(a) trade marks registered in accordance with the Trade Mark and Design Act;
(b) marks truly and correctly indicating, in the manner required by this Act, the quality of the gold or silver, or alloy of gold or of silver, in the article;
(c) numerals intended to indicate pattern, such numerals not being incorporated with any mark indicating the quality of the gold or silver or alloy of gold or of silver of which the article is composed;
(d) the name or initials of a dealer, which last mentioned mark may be applied only if the article bears also a registered trade mark in accordance with the Trade Mark and Design Act.
2. The provisions of subsection one of this section shall not apply, as respects such hallmark or other government mark, to any article of gold, or of silver, or of any alloy of gold or of silver, to which is applied–
(a) any hall-mark lawfully applied according to the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; or
(b) any mark indicating the quality of the gold or of the silver, or of the alloy of gold or silver, and applied by the government of any foreign conutry;
if with respect to such article all the other provisions of this Act are complied with.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–The amendments laid on the table will now be considered. This is really the important clause. The title of it will be 'Gold and Silver' instead of 'Marking.'
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–It conforms to the Act on the statute-book in that respect.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–Yes.
Hon. Mr. POWER–If my hon. friend will look, he will see that clause 9 applies to both gold and silver. Then the next clause and 'the one following, apply only to gold. The 12th clause applies only to silver: and the amendment is a desirable one, I think.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–With all due respect to my hon. friend, he will notice the word 'Silver' is not touched at all, just the word 'Marking.' Then on page 3 we have the word 'Gold.' As it deals with gold and silver in section 9, - why not mark it so, and then come specifically tp tie gold in section 10 and define what the quality of the gold shall be? You describe in detail the marks to be put on the various articles.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–' Marking' is too large a word.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–You are dealing with the marking, and the very fact of the word 'Marking' would of itself be of sufficient importance to direct the attention of the dealer to where the marking takes effect; if you strike out the word 'Marking' he might go all through the Bill.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–But clause 9 refers to other matters besides the marking. The names and initials are referred to. It was after a good deal of consideration that I thought the heading 'Gold and Silver' would be better.
Hon. Mr. POWER–The headings do not affect the meaning of the clauses; and clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill deal with marking just as much as clause 9; but 11 deals with gold, and 12 with silver. The clause we are now considering deals with both.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–Why not have gold and silver under the first head of 'Marking?' The whole thing is connected with the marking entirely.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–" Silver" is mentioned in the subsection in 9. 'Marking' was struck out designedly in order to make it more clear and less misleading.
The amendment was adopted.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–Clause 9 is struck out of the Bill before us down to line 29, and the amendments which have been printed are substituted. It reads more clearly in the way tie amendments are framed. I move the adoption of the first amendment.
Hon. Mr. KERR–The principle of the Bill is embodied in this clause, and, for one, I desire to protest against the whole measure. It seems to me that it is the most drastic of protective legislation ever introduced in the parliament of Canada. It seems to me that it is an absolutely new departure in legislation. If this Bill is passed, it is absolutely prohibitive of the importation of certain things which are prescribed and come within the four walls of this Act; and it is not like the system known as the national policy, which provides for a preference in such a way that it affords a measure of protection by the imposition of a higher tariff, still permitting the importation of goods in competition with the home manufacture, but at such a higher price that it gives the advantage to the home manufactured article.
The CHAIRMAN–The principle of the Bill can hardly be discussed at this stage.
Hon. Mr. KERR–I am discussing this clause, and I think in doing so I have a right to discuss the whole Bill. I think parliament should pause before it adopts any such principle. It should have a better reason for it than has been adduced by anything submitted to parliament at this time. Why should the trade in this business be handed over exclusively to those who choose to manufacture in Canada, instead of there being a freedom of trade to any extent whatever, even under a protective tariff or otherwise? I know of no reason why we should adopt such a principle as that. I have heard of none in support of this Bill, either when the matter was discussed before, or to-day, and I would like to know if there is some reason for it. It is said that the trade are in on it. Half a dozen manufacturers in this country, half a dozen men who are making a fortune out of the manufacture of jewellery, are going to shut out articles which come in competition by reason of their being cheaper articles of trade, because they are manufactured elsewhere, or because they are not manufactured by them. As far as I can understand this Bill, if they choose to manufacture a cheap article they cannot sell it without a certain designatlve mark. Under these circumstances, I think the government ought to consider and re-consider whether they are going the whole way, as this will be doing, by closing the market against wares of foreign manufacture. Of course if a cheap article such as is spoken of has no mark on it at all, it can be imported into Canada. This Bill does not prohibit that; but if it has any mark whatever on it. other than those which are prescribed here, it cannot be imported into Canada. I say that is a monstrous prohibition. It is an interference with trade. It is a fact which is not understood by the great Canadian public. Do they understand this is a blow struck at the importation or dealing in cheap articles? Why should not cheap jewellery be sold, if people know what they are buying, and there is no fraud about it? Why should it not be imported and sold in competition, no matter what marks there are on it, if they are not misleading as to quality? If they are misleading as to quality, the law to-day reaches the case, because it would be a fraud. Under these circumstances, I say, I am opposed entirely to the Bill.- I think that we are making a great mistake to encourage any such close corporation as this. It is true the English hall-mark is referred to in the Bill, and there they graciously permit goods marked with the English hall-mark to be brought into Canada. Let me say they have no prohibition in England against the importation of any articles as they have here. They have no such retroactive legislation as this Bill. On the contrary, the hall-mark is not a compulsory mark. Manufacturers are not obliged to have a hall-mark on their wares, but it is a standard which is known and recognized. It is understood the hallmark stands for quality definitely, and, therefore, hall-marked goods are appreciated by the purchasing public; but there is no prohibition against the importation of anything. In England poor people and rich people all alike can buy a poor article, or an imitation article if they choose to buy it; but this Bill will not permit it, because it will not he manufactured in this country or imported, and unless it is manufactured with the particular marks which is designated here, how can it be brought in to the country? I call the attention of the leader of the House to the fact that this is a very drastic measure and one which goes further than any Bill we have ever had introduced in parliament.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I am afraid my hon. friend has not given much thought or attention to this Bill, or he would not speak in the manner he does. This Bill is in the defence of honesty and fair dealing. It is in the interests of the people of Canada and equally in the interests of the trade. Any one can bring in jewellery of any description, no matter whether the gold is merely on the surface, provided there is no attempt to deceive by placing a mark on it to indicate it is a higher class article than it really is. The Bill is demanded not alone by the manufacturers of Canada, but by the trade generally.
Hon. Mr. McSWEENEY–Were they consulted?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I may go back to what took place here two years ago. We had a committee of the Senate sitting on this Bill about six or eight weeks, and had evidence from all parts of Canada, demanding the Bill for the reason that there was no protection for the honest buyer or honest manufacturer; that this country was being inundated with sham jewellery from the United States, particularly, and to-day –and I say this with full knowledge of the statement I am making–you can buy in the United States from jewellers who have a good standing in New York and other cities, an article of gold or silver, which they will warrant to last 15 or 20 years. knowing that the gold or the silver will be worn off by ordinary usage within five years. Still they are quite prepared to guarantee the article believing that it would sell, but the man who buys it is deceived.
Hon. Mr. KERR–Does the Criminal Code not cover that case?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–It is better to have it in this law. You can, under this Bill, buy jewellery from Switzerland, where it is cheap, or the United States or any other country, provided the manufacturer puts no mark whatever on it.
Hon. Mr. KERR–The same as any other article
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–But if you place a mark on the article, it must be an honest mark. Surely my hon. friend must feel that it is not the true policy for any government, having the interest of the people at heart, to enact a law that will permit deception and fraud? If a retail merchant in Canada chooses to buy flim-flam jewellery, he can buy it, but he cannot import it if it has any mark indicating that it has a value higher than its real worth. It is simply a provision in the direction of honest dealing. Now, as to the parties who ask for this legislation, and the reason they ask for it, I happen to pick up the Montreal 'Witness' of yesterday, and I read an article on this Bill dealing with inferior jewellery brought into Canada from the United States. The article reads as follows:
In this aspect the matter is simply one of protection, so far as it would prevent the British nine-carat article from passing as gold in this country. Of recent years, the cheap jewellery manufacturers of Attleboro and other New England districts have driven out to a very large extent the British product of every degree. Thus the jewellery imported into Canada from Britain in 1904 only amounted to $67,017, in 1905 to $47,966. and in 1906 to $85,758, compared with $383,386 and $429,451 imported in the several years from the United States.
That was inferior jewellery sold under false marks.
Hon. Mr. KERR–Does the hon. gentleman not know that there is more cheap jewellery made in Birmingham, England, than there is in any other place in the world?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I have not looked them up, but I presume the statistics are taken from the Trade and Navigation Returns, showing the large amount of cheap stuff palmed off on the people of Canada, that will not wear: that either has no mark or bears a fraudulent mark, because the evidence was undoubted that it was a common practice in the United States to sell an article marked and guaranteed to last for 15 or 20 years, when in reality it would not last for five. Hon. gentlemen within the sound of my voice who were on that committee, will remember what the people in the trade said that the statement would be made, 'This chain was guaranteed to last 10 years, and it has only been used five years, and now see the colour of It.' There is the further fact that our country is being undated with flashy jewellery, of no value, from the United States.
Hon. Mr. McSWEENEY–What about the inundation from Great Britain?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–There is not one fourth of the amount from Great Britain. There is the Canadian manufacturer, there is the Canadian importer, and the retail merchant who sells to the public, and apart from the names I have before me, we had numerous petitions on the former occasion when the Bill was before this House. In the country stores the sale is not conifined to cheap jewellery. These stores keep rings and trinkets of gold and silver. I have numerous letters here beginning in February last. There is one from a retail manufacturing jeweller in Montreal.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–I would point out to the hon. Secretary of State that these gentlemen who have given him their assent to the Bill have never been consulted with regard to the amendments which have been proposed, because the letter I have is as late as the 4th June, when they had received the Gold and Silver Marking Bill as introduced in the Senate. The Bill as introduced is not in accordance with the understanding arrived at between us and the rest of the manufacturers, the understanding being that nine carat hall-marked goods should be admitted, and so on. This Bill introduced by the Secretary of State received its first reading on May 20th, second reading May 22nd, and within a month, we are presented with a couple of dozen amendments to the Bill, which was agreed upon by the trade. What have they to say about these amendments? Have they been consulted? Has an opportunity been given to the trade to say whether these amendments are acceptable to them or not, or was the Bill drafted by somebody in the House, who may be a good lawyer or good draftsman, but who probably knows nothing about the trade? There should be some finality about the law. The men who came here and exhibited inferior articles certainly did make an impression upon the committee at that time, but they found that the committee had really been misinformed with regard to the unanimity of the trade. I remember very well that some protests were offered by others who were opposed to the Bill, and I took as strong a ground as my hon. friend the Secretary of State, believing as I did from the circumstances in connection with the Bill, from the information given to us, that it was not only acceptable to the manufacturer, but acceptable to the retailer and to the trade of Canada generally, and, on these grounds, the Bill was passed, and it was discovered then that it was simply a blow to stop the importation of English made goods of 9 carats. As my hon. friend from Toronto points out, if a man wants to import a silk dress at $20 a yard and brings it in from England, whose business is it? If we want to bring gold from the United States of 10 carats, whose business is it, so long as we are not paying too much? My remarks the other day may have been a little premature, because the Bill was not really in committee, but the fact is that the contest occurred between the advocates of the nine and the advocates of the ten carats standards, and it looks as if it were a concession to the people of Canada to be allowed by the manufacturers of Toronto to import English hall-marked goods of 9 carats; that the people of Canada were being imposed upon; that they should buy 10 carat hall-mark–no, I will qualify that–10 carat gold not marked at all, but brought from the United States. I want to be clear on that subject. I am speaking from my place in this House, and on my responsibility as a member of this House, that the bogey that was, raised up before this committee, as to the difference between 9 and 10 carat gold was not worthy of our consideration. Barring the restriction put upon the importation of English made goods, the difference is so slight that the question of quality is almost infinitesimal. In the English trade, it is not the manufacturer who marks the goods. It is Goldsmith's Hall, where every manufacture of gold or silver is sent, and it has to be up to or above the standard of the requirements of the English trade or it will not receive the hall-mark; more than that, if it is not up to the standard it is confiscated by the government. Consequently, I say that 9 carat goods sent up in an unfinished state to Goldsmith's Hall in Great Britain as to be fully 9 carats. They have to allow for the solder, so that 9 carat hallmarked goods are equal to 9 1/2 carats. But the point I want to bring to the attention of the House is this bogey between the 9 and 10 carat gold.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–Is that not conceded?
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–My hon. friend asks why should the restriction be put upon anybody importing goods so long as they do what is done in Great Britain? The point is this: the difference between 9 and 10 carat gold is 2 cents a pennyweight when the cost of solder, or the difference between pure gold 9 and 10 carat is 4 cents a pennyweight, and we were told a great concession was made by these people in Toronto when we were allowed the opportunity of bringing in English made goods. I say clause 9 should stand, because it is a clause the people both in the wholesale and retail trades have agreed to. Have they recommended that these amendments be brought down to this committee–outside of a few people in Toronto? The amendments are imposing conditions on the trade that the trade knows nothing about. I think this Bill should not pass with an amendment of such a radical character. Will the hon. gentleman tell the committee now that all these amendments he has submitted are agreeable to the jewellery trade of Canada, because we should not attempt without consuiting the people of Canada, to pass these amendments to the Bill which was presented to the Senate, on May 20, and passed its second reading May 22nd, and now on the 23rd June, in committee, we are asked to reverse the whole thing.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I think my hon. friend's observations are extremely unfair; it will not do to say misleading, although that is the natural sequence. If anybody took any trouble to meet the views of the trade, I did, and I can refer to innumerable letters from the trade. I do not know of anybody. dissenting. I have letters up to the 22nd June approving of the Bill.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–I asked the hon. Secretary of State about the amendments.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–We have not carried a single amendment. I agreed to one or two changes of words. We have not really got to any amendment that I am aware of. I hold now the draft prepared by the committee who met in Toronto, or wherever they had meetings. At all events, they met with the concurrence of the trade generally. They made compromises. They could not agree on the 9 and 10 carats, and they said : 'We will leave it to yourselves.' I was in favour of the 10 carats, and I think the majority of those who took the best view were willing as I was quite willing, in deference to my hon. friend's Bill, and in view of the feeling in Hamilton, to set aside the 10 carat standard and accept the 9 carat. Why refer to that now? When they sent forward this draft, they said : 'We leave it to the government to say whether it shall be nine or ten; therefore, we will not insert any paragraph advocating our choice, because we are divided on that, and we wish you to put the draft in proper phraseology. We do not send it to be adopted word for word.' The draft is simply suggestions of a body of men in the trade, who could not be supposed to frame an Act of parliament, and who sent this forward as a guide, and it has been followed as closely as it is passible to follow it. On reference to clause 8, it will be found that it is practically the same as the draft, except the language is differently represented. It is rather an involved question, and it is therefore durable to select the most simple language, the most easily understood, and the least liable to be misinterpreted. The only thing we have added to the draft prepared by this committee, is a paragraph stating that no article of gold shall be marked where it is less than 9 carats.
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED–I should like to ask what led to the departure from the Bill we decided upon three years ago. We then had all the contending factions before the committee, as my hon. friend will remember. I think it was the Committee on Banking and Commerce, and in that manner we were able to weigh the merits of the different controversies, and we framed the Bill as it appears on the Revised Statues. I have been a little curious to know what led to the abandonment of the provisions of that Bill, and the adoption of lhe proposed amendments now under consideration?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–One was, that thire was a difference of opinion as between 9 and 10 carats, and my hon. friend will recollect the year after the hon. senator from Lincoin introduced a Bill establishing the 9 carats. Apart from that there were no material changes. I have a copy of the Act here as it was passed. I have read clause 9 in the draft and you can all see that it conforms with that in the Bill. The difference is merely in phraseology. I will read it now as it appeared the other day: One is affirmative and the other is negative. Nothing could be simpler than clause 9 as it stands now. Can my hon. friend point out where there is any objection to clause 9? It is quite unfair to oppose the clause until some paragraph is reached where there is a departure from the understanding that was arrived at. The clause sets forth what marks there shall be on the goods. If it has no mark at all, the article is free to come in.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–Who is to be the judge of the marks, and who are to be empowered to make the marks? I pointed out how it was done in England. Now that we have in Canada a mint of our own. would it not be just as well that the gold and silver marking in Canada should be made a part and parcel of our system here? Not only the trade but the people of Canada will then know exactly what they are getting. It would protect the people from dishonest dealers who simply put on their own marks. If the manufacturer were allowed to put on his initials they might be anybody's, and it would perhaps take years to find out who the maker was. But once the article receives the unqualified stamp of the government, everybody will be bound to accept it as showing the true assay.
Hon. Mr. POWER–I do not profess to know anything about the trade; but I have gone over with as much care as I could the amended clause 9, and compared it with clause 9 as it appears in the Bill before the committee, and I cannot see that there is any difference in meaning between the two. The meanings of the two clauses are identical. I understand that the new clause 9 is a clause which the law clerk drafted as, in his judgment, expressing better the intention of parliament than the original clause 9 as it appears in the Bill. Under the circumstances, I do not see any objection to adopting the first subclause of clause 9. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman from Toronto where he (finds authority for the statement he made that the effect of this Bill, if it became law, would be to prevent the importation of goods from England? I should be very sorry to vote for any measure which I thought was calculated to prevent the importation of goods, and I shall be thankful to the hon. gentleman if he will show me what portion of this Bill deals with the importation of goods from England?
Hon. Mr. KERR–While I spoke of England, I might extend it to a great mnay other countries. This clause provides that if a dealer should import any article composed in whole or in part of gold or of silver, and to such article there is applied any mark other than the four mentioned in the clause, he violates the Act. If there is any other mark on the article than those which are defined in the clause, it shall not be brought in. Is not that what tho clause provides?
Hon. Mr. POWER–Yes.
Hon. Mr. KERR–I will quote the clause in full:
9. It shall not be lawful for a dealer to make or sell, or to import or attempt to import into Canada, any article composed either in whole or in part of gold or of silver, or of any alloy of gold or of silver, except the articles mentioned in sections 13 and 14 of this Act, if to such article there is applied any mark other than–
(a) trade marks registered in accordance with the Trade Mark and Design Act;
(b) marks truly and correctly indicating, in the manner required by this Act, the quality of the gold or silver, or alloy of gold or of silver, in the article;
(c) numerals intended to indicate pattern, such numerals not being incorporated with any mark indicating the quality of the gold or silver or alloy of gold or of silver of which the article is composed;
(d) the name or initials of a dealer, which last mentioned mark may be applied only if the article bears also a registered trade mark in accordance with the Trade Mark and Design Act.
So you see the foreign manufacturer can only put his trade mark on if he has a registered trade mark in this country. But foreign manufacturers cannot register under our Trade Marks and Designs Act, and they are therefore shut out. You buy a watch in Geneva; there is no government trade mark in Switzerland, but a reputable maker who turns out a first-class article, put his own name and address on it and describes the number of jewels in the works. Such a watch would be shut out under this clause. Those watch cases could not be imported any longer because they have on them marks other than the four permitted under this clause. If they have no mark or designation at all, they may be brought in.
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED–Are not the works of the watch excepted.
Hon. Mr. KERR–The parts of the watch need not be up to the standard as to quality, but if they are enclosed in a case properly marked they are admitted. So the cheap John watches manufactured in some countries might be imported, while the watches made by reputable makers in Switzerland and other countries could not be imported into Canada because they bear marks other than those designated in this clause.
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED–Is not my hon. friend mistaken in saying that this extends to the works of a watch? Are not the works excepted?
Hon. Mr. KERR–Yes. the works are excepted. What I say is the works of a watch might be a very inferior article, ibut if they are imported in a watch such as the clause calls for, you- would admit an inferior watch simply because it has a good covering while a good watch with really good works, if the case bears the name and address of a reputable maker, could not be imported because it has marks other than those provided for in this clause of the Bill.
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED–As I understand, dealers do not import watches in their entirety, but import the works from one manufacturer and the case from another.
Hon. Mr. KERR–They import both ways. These gentlemen in Toronto use the American Watch Case Company's cover on the works of a good watch.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–The cases are made in Toronto?
Hon. Mr. KERR–Yes. They would have trade marks and designs of their own. That is not what I am speaking of; I am speaking of imported watch cases. The best watch cases which had other marks than those set forth in this clause would be excluded by this Bill, and that is the whole object of the Bill. If a man were to attempt to do what the-hon, leader of thls House says with reference to frauds, he could be put in jail under our criminal law, and that is the best protection we have against fraud or imposition. We do not need further legislation for that purpose, and this Bill is not designed for that purpose. It is intended to shut out competition by a prohibitory clause, and that is what I say is odious to English law and objectionable to Canadian law.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–The hon. gentleman cannot point that out in this Bill.
Hon. Mr. KERR–What is the object of the Bill?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–The simple answer is this: if an article is marked at all it must be an honest mark.
Hon. Mr. KERR–You cannot import anything marked under 9 carats. You need not mark the number of carats at all; you can put some other designation on it. You can say it is plated, or good plate or cheap plate; but you cannot say that it is hallmarked goods without certain definite marks which must be on the article if you are to import it into Canada. That is the whole object of the trade, who are so united on this legislation. What other object can there be? This Bill affects every country merchant who sells jewellery, and every customer who buys cheap jewellery, and the passage of this legislation would prevent people from buying such goods in the future. No such principle is applied to any other trade. There are various qualities of silk manufactured, selling at different prices; but the difference in quality is not regulated by law. The same remark applies to every article of imported goods. The hon. leader of the House spoke about the disparity in trade and why the United States trade in cheap jewellery went up while the English trade went down. It is because the United States manufacturers turn out such a superior article that it has run out the English trade.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–Fraudulent articles.
Hon. Mr. KERR–They are not fraudulent at all. An article, because it happens to be cheap, or an imitation, is not necessarily a fraud. A fraud is in the representation made at the time of sale, and that is what our present law covers. I venture to submit that the position I have taken against the Bill will be found to be the right one. I urged it before. I said that I saw no reason for the Bill except to close this country practically against competition. It will enable these gentlemen to manufacture any article, no matter how inferior, and put it on the market because they can put their registered mark on it. There need be nothing to indicate the quality.
Hon. Mr. POWER–The hon. gentleman has not made the case clear to me yet. Within the last few minutes I have taken the Act passed three years ago, and have compared it with this Bill, and I fall to discover any material difference in the meaning of the two except this, that the Act provides that it shall not be lawful to make, sell, or import into Canada any article not in accordance with the Trade Marks and Designs Act. Paragraph (c) of section 8 of the Gold and Silver Markuig Act is identical with paragraph (b) of the amendment before us, and then this amendment contains paragraph (c) which apparently gives a little more liberty to bring in goods. It allows goods with numerals intended to indicate the pattern to come in; and (and allows goods with the name or initials of the dealer to come in. I fail to see that the clause now before the committee interferes with the importing of foreign goods any more than section 8 of the Act does. I was under the impression that the House had passed that Act almost unanimously, the only question being as to the quality of the gold; and no one now contends for anything more than 9 carat standard gold. That does come in under this Bill. First we made it 10 carats and then it was altered to 9 carats, so that really, as far as I can understand the clause before the committee, it does not make any change in the existing law.
Hon. Mr. KERR–This is not a private Bill, and should not be passed as a private Bill in the interest of trade. It is a Bill for the protection of the public, and I have not heard the public express any gratification over the Bill; on the contrary they wanted its operation suspended for two years.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–At the time the original Bill was before the committee, one of the difficulties that arose with respect to the marking of goods was this: it was shown by those opposed to the Bill that If a mark of any kind denoted the quality of the goods, unless they had a mark in Canada corresponding with that, they would have to secure a mark here for the trade of Canada. If any one dared to put his name or trade mark on his goods and that mark did not correspond with the trade mark in vogue in Canada, and goods could not be imported into the country unless they had in addition to the foreign trade mark a mark corresponding with the mark recognized in Canada. The merchants in Canada, Birmingham and other manufacturing centres, would find it almost Impossible to use a special trade mark for the Canadian trade, and the object of this Bill is to keep British goods out of Canada. If the hon. Secretary of State will refer to the clause dealing with gold, he will find in line 26 the following: 'Or including the words gold, solid gold, pure gold, United States Assay.' There is no reference to Great Britain at all. If the watches are made in the United States and have a mark indicating the United States assay, they are all right; but there is no such regulation applying to Great Britain. Great Britain is not in it at all. The whole trend of this Bill is to further the interests of manufacturers in the city of Toronto as opposed to the interests of the people of Canada. It is ridiculous to tell people who are honest in their own country and produce superior articles in gold and silver, that if they put the name of their firm or any trade mark by which they are known in their own country on their goods, and that trade mark does not correspond with one in Canada, their goods can be seized. It is keeping out goods produced in the mother land and allowing United States manufacturers to register their trade marks here and adopt a United States instead of a British standard. Who ever dreamed that such a Bill would be introduced in the Canadian Senate setting up the United States assay as the standard for gold, when we have the British standard which we have been fighting for. I am thankful that the hon. Secretary of State has consented to give us the 9 carat standard, whereby we can bring in goods from the mother land which had been purposely excluded before for the benefit of importers of United States watch cases, and for the benefit of Mr. McNaught and P. W. Ellis and other favoured traders in Torouto. Bill is not designed for the protection of the people of Canada, but for the protection altogether of a few people who are engaged in the industry.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I really cannot understand the line of my hon. friend's argument, because he supported this Bill in the first instance and passed a Bill through this House having the very clause that he finds fault with now. This clause is copied from the original Act. What does the hon. gentleman mean by finding fault with the clause which he himself introduced and supported in this House?
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–I hope my hon. friend is not going to put on my shoulders the clause which appears in the original Bill. I had nothing to do with the Bill. All I contended for was to allow British goods to come in. I was not aware that there was such stupidity on our part as to ever allow the last clause to pass, establishing a United States standard over the British standard, and I intend when we come to that clause of the Bill to propose that the word 'British' be inserted.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–Surely my hon. friend has not read the clause?
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–I have.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–It is difficult for us who have not followed the Bill closely to know our position with regard to it. The hon. senator from Toronto has been opposed to any legislation from the first on this subject .
Hon. Mr. KERR–On this line.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–This is the third session we have had the matter up, and I find my hon. friend has been consistently opposed to legislation with reference to this subject. I find now that it is not a matter of detail with him, but that he is against the Act all the time. A mistake was made two years ago when the Act was passed and all the parties appeared before the committee and were heard in not allowing the act to go into operation. I have attended a great many committees of this House, and was never present at any, where the deputations from both sides commanded greater respect on account of the intelligent and lucid way in which they put their arguments before us. As a result of that discussion, which was not confined to one meeting–I know there were more than one or two–finally a Bill was agreed upon and went through this House with apparently little opposition. My hon. friend was opposed to it, and when he is opposed to a Bill I cannot say that the opposition is very little, because he is so persistent he will make it appear as if it was very great. The Act was put on the statute-book. The hon. senator from Hamilton introduced a Bill before the Act had come into operation, amending it. That Bill passed through this House and went to the other House and, finally, an arrangement was made by which the Act which had already been passed by both Houses should be suspended for sometime until all the parties could accommodate themselves to the new order of things. It is a great pity that the Act was not allowed to go into operation then. After it had been a little while in operation, we would have found where the friction was. Instead of that, the operation was postponed and the government in the early part of this session further postponed the Act until, next year, in order that those who are taking the two sides on this question could get together and meet the government here. They met and the result is the Bill before us. When I saw this string of further amendments put before us, I gave up in despair any further attempt to compare the Bill with the Act. I wanted to find out what the changes really are. I find myself puzzled by a long string of amendments, and it is hard sitting in this House with amendments you have never seen before, to fit them in and find what the effect would be. In passing tnis Bill, we should get as nearly as we can to what is right. I believe from what I have heard and know to some extent, that there is no business existing to-day in Canada in which there is a greater amount of money taken out of the pockets of the people without giving proper value, than in the matter of shoddy jewellery, and when that is the case, we should not allow quibbles to stand in the way of our getting as good an Act as we can, and if it does not cover the ground, we should go on improving until we get something which will be certain to protect our people from swindlers and robbers. I think it is conceded that the very best men in the trade in Canada favour the Bill. The honest, legitimate traders favour the law, but I am afraid–I do not say the hon. gentleman from Toronto is representing that class in the House–the most of the opposition is coming from the shoddy trade people, who are making money by the sale of cheap jewellery. I feel like supporting the hon. Secretary of State. He has taken great care and pains on the subject. I am quite sure that he will help the House to pass a good law.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–I should like to say to my hon. friend, with regard to the shoddy men, that I do not know one in Canada, but I do say that I am as closely in touch with the jewellery trade in Canada as any man in this House, and I have consulted the people from the first time the Bill ever came before this House, and I am safe in saying that every retail jeweller in the Dominion was against the proposition first presented to the House. They all felt that an imposition was being placed on the retail trade, that would prevent them from buying British goods. I do not care what the standard is. What is good enough for Great Britain as a standard should be good enough for Canada, and with respect to the shoddy people, all I can say is that these people need not put any mark on their jewellery at all, and in that way they can hoodwink the people of Canada. The whole subterfuge is this: that if any person outside of the Dominion of Canada attemps to put any mark on gold or silver that will establish its respectability in their own country, these goods can be confiscated here. That is not an imputation that the goods are bad. I do not think my hon. friend represents the shoddy people in Toronto or anywhere else. I think he is speaking for the country as a whole. 1 am bound to say that the hon. Secretary of State has given a great deal of thought to the measure, perhaps more than any other hon. gentleman in the House; but I do say the gentlemen with whom he has come more closely in touch have been men who manufacture the goods and not those who handle them. I am speaking for those who manufacture and likewise those who import, and I am speaking for those who are not able to import, and are obliged to buy from the importer, and they feel that unless they are allowed to buy an article of British make of 9 carat gold, they have no faith–and I say it advisedly–in Canadian goods marked 10 carat, because they have no check on them, and the check is important. If anybody should put 'W.G.' 10 carat or 12 carat gold on an article, you have no redress if it is only 8 carats, because you cannot tell who it is. But you do know if you have a chain, British hall-marked 10 or 15 or 18 carat, that it is genuine. Under the present condition there is no sueh provision, and all these shoddy people want to do is to import the goods into Canada without a mark upon them, and you have no recourse.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–From the hon. gentleman's remarks, one would infer that we have a large British trade and a small one from other countries. The hon. Secretary of State read the returns, which I presume are the trade returns, showing that while the importations from the United States have in some recent years gone over $400,000, that the British importations are in the forties and fifties, and so on.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–Where was that statement published?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–Last night's ' Witness.'
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–My hon. friend read the figures of the House. They conform with the geueral impression I have had for a long time–I am not saying that American goods are always inferior–by no means. We know that as good things come from the United States as come from Great Britain or any other country; but in this particular trade it confirms with the general impression I have had, that the low class of American goods that have been coming in–is what this Bill will affect–It is very plausible to speak about British goods for we are all more favourable to a trade in British goods. It is, therefore, a plausible thing, and something which is inclined to draw us, when hon. gentlemen say they are advocating the interest of British trade; but I am afraid it is altogether the other way. My hon. friend referred to Ryrie Brothers. They are perhaps the largest importers into Canada to-day. They import from all countries, and if their adhesion is given to this Bill, it is the adhesion of very large and respectable importers. I have heard P. W. Ellis & Company referred to. They represent the largest manufacturers in Canada.
Hon. Mr. KERR–Neither of those firms are importers of cheap goods. Ryrie's import diamonds and jewelry.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–They are large importers, and they cater to the market. Like all good dealers they do that; but I have no doubt from what I know of them, they would rather do a good business where their customers and they themselves would make a profit, rather than a business where they would make a profit and their customers would be fleeced. If there is a business being carried on where it cannot be done without the trader being dishonest as well as those with whom he is competing, then we should certainly have a law to put a stop to it. I do not know any subject on which there is greater necessity for legislation. I understood the Bill three years ago, but just at this moment, owing to all the amendments presented, I feel I have to take matters on trust, but I am in favour of the measure.
Hon. Mr. BEIQUE– I have not had the advantage of attending the sittings of the committee two years ago, and my attention has been called to this question for the first time very recently. Therefore I need not say I speak with a great deal of diffidence. If the ground taken by the hon. gentlemen from Toronto and Lincoin is correct, we should certainly hesitate before passing this Bill. However, I must say on my first reading of th« measure that I cannot see that it is open to the objection which has been raised. One must bear in mind that the word 'mark' is defined in the third section of the Bill, and according to the definition which is to be found there, a mark includes any mark, sign, device, imprint, stamp, brand, label, ticket, letter, word, figure, or other means whatsoever of indicating or of purporting to indicate quality, quantity or weight of gold or of silver or of any alloy of gold or of silver, or quality of gold or silver plate. Therefore, whenever the word 'mark' is used in the Bill, it is limited to 'mark' in the sense mentioned in subsection 3 of the Bill. If you bear that in mind, it seems to me that under this Bill it would be open to import or to manufacture in Canada any silver goods or gold article, articles manufactured of gold, if they bore no mark at all. The door is not closed. If it bears a mark purporting to indicate the quality of the gold or silver, then the mark should be a true mark, according to section 9 of the Bill. This is the impression I have received from reading the Bill, although I have followed the argument of the hon. members from Toronto and Lincoin. However, the hon. Secretary of State might see his way to ask that that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, because it is important to make sure that the Bill is not opened to the serious objection which has been urged against it.
Hon. Mr. DOMVILLE–There has been a good deal of feeling over this debate. I would rather wait and allow the Secretary of State to withdraw the Bill and see how the crop turns out, and that would decide whether we should have gold watch cases, filled cases or washed goods. I have had some little matters brought before me by our dealers, and I still have an open mind, but I think it would be very much better for the committee to rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again when we return in October or November. Our people are thinking more about harbours, and are not bothering about jewellery or gold watches.
The subclause was adopted.
The clause as amended was adopted.
On clause 10,
10. It shall not be lawful for a dealer to make or to sell, or to import or attempt to import into Canada, any article purporting to be wholly or partially composed of gold or of any alloy of gold, if the article when made or sold has applied thereto any mark indicating or purporting or intended to indicate the gold in the article to be of less than nine carats in fineness, or consisting of or including the words gold, solid gold, pure gold, United States assay, or other words purporting to describe the gold or alloy of which the article is composed.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–The Bill allows the hall-mark of Great Britain, and allows the hall-mark of any other country established as a standard, and to say we would allow articles to come in marked gold would certainly be misleading. It would simply be encouraging a fraud if we permitted goods bearing the word 'United States Assay' to come in. This clause is exactly word for word with the clause we approved of two years ago, which was passed by the House of Commons. It was not controverted when my hon. friend amended the Act a year ago, and therefore it would be inconsistent to attack this clause unless there was some reason for it. It is simply to prevent a fraud being practised on an innocent person. Should not there be some penalty attached to a man who marked an article as gold? Nine carats is the lowest standard. I have given way on that, and a very large number of men in the trade have given way in their views in regard to 10 carat. I have letters under my hand which regret that we are adopting the 9 carat, but for peace and harmony sake, and because it was advocated so strongly by my hon. friend, and by the gentlemen he represented, who have signed this paper, and who are willing to take any standard, Levi Bros., of Hamilton, the large dealers whose interests my hon. friend was supposed to advocate a couple of years ago. He supports it now. Here is a list of retail dealers, not only the retail dealers, but the retail jewellers. I think the only protest I got was from Levi Bros., as I mentioned the other day. I asked Mr. Roden to see those gentlemen and try to come to some compromise or arrangement, and they wrote me that they did so, and we heard no protest since. It surprises me to hear the opposition offered to this Bill, after all the effort to conciliate every possible interest.
Source: Debates of the Senate of the Dominion of Canada - Volume 2 - 1908
(To be continued)
Trev.
SALE AND MARKING OF GOLD, SILVER AND PLATED WARE BILL.
IN COMMITTEE. The House resolved into a Committee of the Whole on Bill (AAA) An Act respecting the sale and marking of manufactures of gold and silver, and gold and silver plated ware.
(In the Committee)
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED–Are the proposed amendments of my hon. friend, the leader of the House, amendments to the draft Bill or to the Act on the statute-book?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–The amendments that I propose are those that are circulated and are to the Bill that we are now considering.
On the third clause, subclause (b),
(b) 'mark' includes any mark, sign, device, imprint, stamp, brand, label, ticket, letter, word, figure, or other means whatsoever of indicating, or of purporting to indicate, quality, quantity, or weight of gold, or of silver, or of any alloy of gold or of silver, or quality of gold or silver plate.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–This is the interpretation clause. I move that the 15th line be amended by striking out the word 'quality' and inserting 'kind.'
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–' Kind' might describe Australian, United States Or Canadian gold, but it might be of any quality. You would have to described where the gold came from.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–We can put in both words.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–That would be better, because quality is the essence of the Bill. I should be sorry to see the word quality erased from the Bill.
The clause was amended and adopted.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I want to change the word 'imported,' substituting for it the words 'brought in.' The expression is larger.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–Any one might bring in a gold article without paying duty; this would be encouraging smuggling.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–But the Act is intended to apply to dealers.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–Then it seems to me we could not bring in the goods without importing them.
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED–This is restricted to goods imported into Canada before the passage of this Act.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–That may be so, but we had better be very careful that this is not made use of after the passing of the Act. It would be better to use the expression imported or brought into the country.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I have no objection to add the word imported.
Hon. Mr. KERR–I think the expression brought in is better. This clause says that the Act shall not apply to any article brought into Canada before the passage of the Act.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–As the Act will not come into force until next October, it would allow people to bring goods into the country to a great extent. The clause was amended and adopted.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–A list of proposed amendments has been distributed. My first impression was that it was intended to show the difference between the Bill as read the second time and the Act on the statute-book. I was in hopes that this list would have helped us to arrive at an understanding of the difference between the Bill and the Act. Now we are losing sight of all changes which this Bill makes from the law as it stands. Our attention is altogether carried away to a string of amendments and the draft. That is about what it is.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–It is impossible to meet every particular case. All I can say is that the changes are comparatively few. The important clause we have to consider is the ninth. If hon. gentlemen will read the corresponding clause in the draft and in the old Bill, they will find that there is not any serious difference. It is only making it clearer. You must recollect there were some hundreds of gentlemen who had views on this subject, and it has been found exceedingly difficult to reconcile them all.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–The old Bill on the statute-books and the new Bill may not differ very much; but the form is turned upside down, and you cannot make any comparisons. Now we have thirty or forty amendments proposed in committee. The only assurance we can have is that the people in the trade have been properly and fairly consulted, and if that has been done, we have a right to take it on trust. That is, if all the interests have been fairly heard and are reasonably satisfied. If that has been done, all right. If not, I must say we have been going very much in the dark.
The clause was adopted. On clause 7, This Act shall not apply to such parts of articles, manufactured of silver or any alloy of silver, as require adaptation to the use of the trade, for example, springs, winding bars, sleeves, crown cores, joint pins, screws, rivets, dust bands, movement, rings, brooch plus joints, catches, scarf pin stems, and hatpin stems, or to such other like articles as by regulation made by the Governor in Council under the authority of this Act are exempted from the application thereof.
Hon. Mr. KERR–Why are there different articles mentioned in this section and in the prior section?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–One section applies to gold and the other to silver.
Hon. Mr. KERR–Why are there some things mentioned in one as applying to silver are not mentioned in the other as applying to gold?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–There are technical matters in that.
Hon. Mr. KERR–I fancy there must be some design in it. Why should they not both be in the one section? Some person in the trade alone can tell us about that. However, I want to guard myself about it, because I do not understand it. Originally the one section covered the exemption.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–You will find the articles are very much more numerous in these sections than they were originally.
The clause was adopted.
On clause 9,
Marking.
9. It shall not be lawful for a dealer to make or sell, or to import or attempt to import into Canada, any article composed either in whole or in part of gold or silver, or of any alloy of gold or of silver, except the articles mentioned in sections 13 and 14 of this Act, if to such article there is applied any mark other than–
(a) trade marks registered in accordance with the Trade Mark and Design Act;
(b) marks truly and correctly indicating, in the manner required by this Act, the quality of the gold or silver, or alloy of gold or of silver, in the article;
(c) numerals intended to indicate pattern, such numerals not being incorporated with any mark indicating the quality of the gold or silver or alloy of gold or of silver of which the article is composed;
(d) the name or initials of a dealer, which last mentioned mark may be applied only if the article bears also a registered trade mark in accordance with the Trade Mark and Design Act.
2. The provisions of subsection one of this section shall not apply, as respects such hallmark or other government mark, to any article of gold, or of silver, or of any alloy of gold or of silver, to which is applied–
(a) any hall-mark lawfully applied according to the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; or
(b) any mark indicating the quality of the gold or of the silver, or of the alloy of gold or silver, and applied by the government of any foreign conutry;
if with respect to such article all the other provisions of this Act are complied with.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–The amendments laid on the table will now be considered. This is really the important clause. The title of it will be 'Gold and Silver' instead of 'Marking.'
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–It conforms to the Act on the statute-book in that respect.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–Yes.
Hon. Mr. POWER–If my hon. friend will look, he will see that clause 9 applies to both gold and silver. Then the next clause and 'the one following, apply only to gold. The 12th clause applies only to silver: and the amendment is a desirable one, I think.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–With all due respect to my hon. friend, he will notice the word 'Silver' is not touched at all, just the word 'Marking.' Then on page 3 we have the word 'Gold.' As it deals with gold and silver in section 9, - why not mark it so, and then come specifically tp tie gold in section 10 and define what the quality of the gold shall be? You describe in detail the marks to be put on the various articles.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–' Marking' is too large a word.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–You are dealing with the marking, and the very fact of the word 'Marking' would of itself be of sufficient importance to direct the attention of the dealer to where the marking takes effect; if you strike out the word 'Marking' he might go all through the Bill.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–But clause 9 refers to other matters besides the marking. The names and initials are referred to. It was after a good deal of consideration that I thought the heading 'Gold and Silver' would be better.
Hon. Mr. POWER–The headings do not affect the meaning of the clauses; and clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill deal with marking just as much as clause 9; but 11 deals with gold, and 12 with silver. The clause we are now considering deals with both.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–Why not have gold and silver under the first head of 'Marking?' The whole thing is connected with the marking entirely.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–" Silver" is mentioned in the subsection in 9. 'Marking' was struck out designedly in order to make it more clear and less misleading.
The amendment was adopted.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–Clause 9 is struck out of the Bill before us down to line 29, and the amendments which have been printed are substituted. It reads more clearly in the way tie amendments are framed. I move the adoption of the first amendment.
Hon. Mr. KERR–The principle of the Bill is embodied in this clause, and, for one, I desire to protest against the whole measure. It seems to me that it is the most drastic of protective legislation ever introduced in the parliament of Canada. It seems to me that it is an absolutely new departure in legislation. If this Bill is passed, it is absolutely prohibitive of the importation of certain things which are prescribed and come within the four walls of this Act; and it is not like the system known as the national policy, which provides for a preference in such a way that it affords a measure of protection by the imposition of a higher tariff, still permitting the importation of goods in competition with the home manufacture, but at such a higher price that it gives the advantage to the home manufactured article.
The CHAIRMAN–The principle of the Bill can hardly be discussed at this stage.
Hon. Mr. KERR–I am discussing this clause, and I think in doing so I have a right to discuss the whole Bill. I think parliament should pause before it adopts any such principle. It should have a better reason for it than has been adduced by anything submitted to parliament at this time. Why should the trade in this business be handed over exclusively to those who choose to manufacture in Canada, instead of there being a freedom of trade to any extent whatever, even under a protective tariff or otherwise? I know of no reason why we should adopt such a principle as that. I have heard of none in support of this Bill, either when the matter was discussed before, or to-day, and I would like to know if there is some reason for it. It is said that the trade are in on it. Half a dozen manufacturers in this country, half a dozen men who are making a fortune out of the manufacture of jewellery, are going to shut out articles which come in competition by reason of their being cheaper articles of trade, because they are manufactured elsewhere, or because they are not manufactured by them. As far as I can understand this Bill, if they choose to manufacture a cheap article they cannot sell it without a certain designatlve mark. Under these circumstances, I think the government ought to consider and re-consider whether they are going the whole way, as this will be doing, by closing the market against wares of foreign manufacture. Of course if a cheap article such as is spoken of has no mark on it at all, it can be imported into Canada. This Bill does not prohibit that; but if it has any mark whatever on it. other than those which are prescribed here, it cannot be imported into Canada. I say that is a monstrous prohibition. It is an interference with trade. It is a fact which is not understood by the great Canadian public. Do they understand this is a blow struck at the importation or dealing in cheap articles? Why should not cheap jewellery be sold, if people know what they are buying, and there is no fraud about it? Why should it not be imported and sold in competition, no matter what marks there are on it, if they are not misleading as to quality? If they are misleading as to quality, the law to-day reaches the case, because it would be a fraud. Under these circumstances, I say, I am opposed entirely to the Bill.- I think that we are making a great mistake to encourage any such close corporation as this. It is true the English hall-mark is referred to in the Bill, and there they graciously permit goods marked with the English hall-mark to be brought into Canada. Let me say they have no prohibition in England against the importation of any articles as they have here. They have no such retroactive legislation as this Bill. On the contrary, the hall-mark is not a compulsory mark. Manufacturers are not obliged to have a hall-mark on their wares, but it is a standard which is known and recognized. It is understood the hallmark stands for quality definitely, and, therefore, hall-marked goods are appreciated by the purchasing public; but there is no prohibition against the importation of anything. In England poor people and rich people all alike can buy a poor article, or an imitation article if they choose to buy it; but this Bill will not permit it, because it will not he manufactured in this country or imported, and unless it is manufactured with the particular marks which is designated here, how can it be brought in to the country? I call the attention of the leader of the House to the fact that this is a very drastic measure and one which goes further than any Bill we have ever had introduced in parliament.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I am afraid my hon. friend has not given much thought or attention to this Bill, or he would not speak in the manner he does. This Bill is in the defence of honesty and fair dealing. It is in the interests of the people of Canada and equally in the interests of the trade. Any one can bring in jewellery of any description, no matter whether the gold is merely on the surface, provided there is no attempt to deceive by placing a mark on it to indicate it is a higher class article than it really is. The Bill is demanded not alone by the manufacturers of Canada, but by the trade generally.
Hon. Mr. McSWEENEY–Were they consulted?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I may go back to what took place here two years ago. We had a committee of the Senate sitting on this Bill about six or eight weeks, and had evidence from all parts of Canada, demanding the Bill for the reason that there was no protection for the honest buyer or honest manufacturer; that this country was being inundated with sham jewellery from the United States, particularly, and to-day –and I say this with full knowledge of the statement I am making–you can buy in the United States from jewellers who have a good standing in New York and other cities, an article of gold or silver, which they will warrant to last 15 or 20 years. knowing that the gold or the silver will be worn off by ordinary usage within five years. Still they are quite prepared to guarantee the article believing that it would sell, but the man who buys it is deceived.
Hon. Mr. KERR–Does the Criminal Code not cover that case?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–It is better to have it in this law. You can, under this Bill, buy jewellery from Switzerland, where it is cheap, or the United States or any other country, provided the manufacturer puts no mark whatever on it.
Hon. Mr. KERR–The same as any other article
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–But if you place a mark on the article, it must be an honest mark. Surely my hon. friend must feel that it is not the true policy for any government, having the interest of the people at heart, to enact a law that will permit deception and fraud? If a retail merchant in Canada chooses to buy flim-flam jewellery, he can buy it, but he cannot import it if it has any mark indicating that it has a value higher than its real worth. It is simply a provision in the direction of honest dealing. Now, as to the parties who ask for this legislation, and the reason they ask for it, I happen to pick up the Montreal 'Witness' of yesterday, and I read an article on this Bill dealing with inferior jewellery brought into Canada from the United States. The article reads as follows:
In this aspect the matter is simply one of protection, so far as it would prevent the British nine-carat article from passing as gold in this country. Of recent years, the cheap jewellery manufacturers of Attleboro and other New England districts have driven out to a very large extent the British product of every degree. Thus the jewellery imported into Canada from Britain in 1904 only amounted to $67,017, in 1905 to $47,966. and in 1906 to $85,758, compared with $383,386 and $429,451 imported in the several years from the United States.
That was inferior jewellery sold under false marks.
Hon. Mr. KERR–Does the hon. gentleman not know that there is more cheap jewellery made in Birmingham, England, than there is in any other place in the world?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I have not looked them up, but I presume the statistics are taken from the Trade and Navigation Returns, showing the large amount of cheap stuff palmed off on the people of Canada, that will not wear: that either has no mark or bears a fraudulent mark, because the evidence was undoubted that it was a common practice in the United States to sell an article marked and guaranteed to last for 15 or 20 years, when in reality it would not last for five. Hon. gentlemen within the sound of my voice who were on that committee, will remember what the people in the trade said that the statement would be made, 'This chain was guaranteed to last 10 years, and it has only been used five years, and now see the colour of It.' There is the further fact that our country is being undated with flashy jewellery, of no value, from the United States.
Hon. Mr. McSWEENEY–What about the inundation from Great Britain?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–There is not one fourth of the amount from Great Britain. There is the Canadian manufacturer, there is the Canadian importer, and the retail merchant who sells to the public, and apart from the names I have before me, we had numerous petitions on the former occasion when the Bill was before this House. In the country stores the sale is not conifined to cheap jewellery. These stores keep rings and trinkets of gold and silver. I have numerous letters here beginning in February last. There is one from a retail manufacturing jeweller in Montreal.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–I would point out to the hon. Secretary of State that these gentlemen who have given him their assent to the Bill have never been consulted with regard to the amendments which have been proposed, because the letter I have is as late as the 4th June, when they had received the Gold and Silver Marking Bill as introduced in the Senate. The Bill as introduced is not in accordance with the understanding arrived at between us and the rest of the manufacturers, the understanding being that nine carat hall-marked goods should be admitted, and so on. This Bill introduced by the Secretary of State received its first reading on May 20th, second reading May 22nd, and within a month, we are presented with a couple of dozen amendments to the Bill, which was agreed upon by the trade. What have they to say about these amendments? Have they been consulted? Has an opportunity been given to the trade to say whether these amendments are acceptable to them or not, or was the Bill drafted by somebody in the House, who may be a good lawyer or good draftsman, but who probably knows nothing about the trade? There should be some finality about the law. The men who came here and exhibited inferior articles certainly did make an impression upon the committee at that time, but they found that the committee had really been misinformed with regard to the unanimity of the trade. I remember very well that some protests were offered by others who were opposed to the Bill, and I took as strong a ground as my hon. friend the Secretary of State, believing as I did from the circumstances in connection with the Bill, from the information given to us, that it was not only acceptable to the manufacturer, but acceptable to the retailer and to the trade of Canada generally, and, on these grounds, the Bill was passed, and it was discovered then that it was simply a blow to stop the importation of English made goods of 9 carats. As my hon. friend from Toronto points out, if a man wants to import a silk dress at $20 a yard and brings it in from England, whose business is it? If we want to bring gold from the United States of 10 carats, whose business is it, so long as we are not paying too much? My remarks the other day may have been a little premature, because the Bill was not really in committee, but the fact is that the contest occurred between the advocates of the nine and the advocates of the ten carats standards, and it looks as if it were a concession to the people of Canada to be allowed by the manufacturers of Toronto to import English hall-marked goods of 9 carats; that the people of Canada were being imposed upon; that they should buy 10 carat hall-mark–no, I will qualify that–10 carat gold not marked at all, but brought from the United States. I want to be clear on that subject. I am speaking from my place in this House, and on my responsibility as a member of this House, that the bogey that was, raised up before this committee, as to the difference between 9 and 10 carat gold was not worthy of our consideration. Barring the restriction put upon the importation of English made goods, the difference is so slight that the question of quality is almost infinitesimal. In the English trade, it is not the manufacturer who marks the goods. It is Goldsmith's Hall, where every manufacture of gold or silver is sent, and it has to be up to or above the standard of the requirements of the English trade or it will not receive the hall-mark; more than that, if it is not up to the standard it is confiscated by the government. Consequently, I say that 9 carat goods sent up in an unfinished state to Goldsmith's Hall in Great Britain as to be fully 9 carats. They have to allow for the solder, so that 9 carat hallmarked goods are equal to 9 1/2 carats. But the point I want to bring to the attention of the House is this bogey between the 9 and 10 carat gold.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–Is that not conceded?
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–My hon. friend asks why should the restriction be put upon anybody importing goods so long as they do what is done in Great Britain? The point is this: the difference between 9 and 10 carat gold is 2 cents a pennyweight when the cost of solder, or the difference between pure gold 9 and 10 carat is 4 cents a pennyweight, and we were told a great concession was made by these people in Toronto when we were allowed the opportunity of bringing in English made goods. I say clause 9 should stand, because it is a clause the people both in the wholesale and retail trades have agreed to. Have they recommended that these amendments be brought down to this committee–outside of a few people in Toronto? The amendments are imposing conditions on the trade that the trade knows nothing about. I think this Bill should not pass with an amendment of such a radical character. Will the hon. gentleman tell the committee now that all these amendments he has submitted are agreeable to the jewellery trade of Canada, because we should not attempt without consuiting the people of Canada, to pass these amendments to the Bill which was presented to the Senate, on May 20, and passed its second reading May 22nd, and now on the 23rd June, in committee, we are asked to reverse the whole thing.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I think my hon. friend's observations are extremely unfair; it will not do to say misleading, although that is the natural sequence. If anybody took any trouble to meet the views of the trade, I did, and I can refer to innumerable letters from the trade. I do not know of anybody. dissenting. I have letters up to the 22nd June approving of the Bill.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–I asked the hon. Secretary of State about the amendments.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–We have not carried a single amendment. I agreed to one or two changes of words. We have not really got to any amendment that I am aware of. I hold now the draft prepared by the committee who met in Toronto, or wherever they had meetings. At all events, they met with the concurrence of the trade generally. They made compromises. They could not agree on the 9 and 10 carats, and they said : 'We will leave it to yourselves.' I was in favour of the 10 carats, and I think the majority of those who took the best view were willing as I was quite willing, in deference to my hon. friend's Bill, and in view of the feeling in Hamilton, to set aside the 10 carat standard and accept the 9 carat. Why refer to that now? When they sent forward this draft, they said : 'We leave it to the government to say whether it shall be nine or ten; therefore, we will not insert any paragraph advocating our choice, because we are divided on that, and we wish you to put the draft in proper phraseology. We do not send it to be adopted word for word.' The draft is simply suggestions of a body of men in the trade, who could not be supposed to frame an Act of parliament, and who sent this forward as a guide, and it has been followed as closely as it is passible to follow it. On reference to clause 8, it will be found that it is practically the same as the draft, except the language is differently represented. It is rather an involved question, and it is therefore durable to select the most simple language, the most easily understood, and the least liable to be misinterpreted. The only thing we have added to the draft prepared by this committee, is a paragraph stating that no article of gold shall be marked where it is less than 9 carats.
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED–I should like to ask what led to the departure from the Bill we decided upon three years ago. We then had all the contending factions before the committee, as my hon. friend will remember. I think it was the Committee on Banking and Commerce, and in that manner we were able to weigh the merits of the different controversies, and we framed the Bill as it appears on the Revised Statues. I have been a little curious to know what led to the abandonment of the provisions of that Bill, and the adoption of lhe proposed amendments now under consideration?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–One was, that thire was a difference of opinion as between 9 and 10 carats, and my hon. friend will recollect the year after the hon. senator from Lincoin introduced a Bill establishing the 9 carats. Apart from that there were no material changes. I have a copy of the Act here as it was passed. I have read clause 9 in the draft and you can all see that it conforms with that in the Bill. The difference is merely in phraseology. I will read it now as it appeared the other day: One is affirmative and the other is negative. Nothing could be simpler than clause 9 as it stands now. Can my hon. friend point out where there is any objection to clause 9? It is quite unfair to oppose the clause until some paragraph is reached where there is a departure from the understanding that was arrived at. The clause sets forth what marks there shall be on the goods. If it has no mark at all, the article is free to come in.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–Who is to be the judge of the marks, and who are to be empowered to make the marks? I pointed out how it was done in England. Now that we have in Canada a mint of our own. would it not be just as well that the gold and silver marking in Canada should be made a part and parcel of our system here? Not only the trade but the people of Canada will then know exactly what they are getting. It would protect the people from dishonest dealers who simply put on their own marks. If the manufacturer were allowed to put on his initials they might be anybody's, and it would perhaps take years to find out who the maker was. But once the article receives the unqualified stamp of the government, everybody will be bound to accept it as showing the true assay.
Hon. Mr. POWER–I do not profess to know anything about the trade; but I have gone over with as much care as I could the amended clause 9, and compared it with clause 9 as it appears in the Bill before the committee, and I cannot see that there is any difference in meaning between the two. The meanings of the two clauses are identical. I understand that the new clause 9 is a clause which the law clerk drafted as, in his judgment, expressing better the intention of parliament than the original clause 9 as it appears in the Bill. Under the circumstances, I do not see any objection to adopting the first subclause of clause 9. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman from Toronto where he (finds authority for the statement he made that the effect of this Bill, if it became law, would be to prevent the importation of goods from England? I should be very sorry to vote for any measure which I thought was calculated to prevent the importation of goods, and I shall be thankful to the hon. gentleman if he will show me what portion of this Bill deals with the importation of goods from England?
Hon. Mr. KERR–While I spoke of England, I might extend it to a great mnay other countries. This clause provides that if a dealer should import any article composed in whole or in part of gold or of silver, and to such article there is applied any mark other than the four mentioned in the clause, he violates the Act. If there is any other mark on the article than those which are defined in the clause, it shall not be brought in. Is not that what tho clause provides?
Hon. Mr. POWER–Yes.
Hon. Mr. KERR–I will quote the clause in full:
9. It shall not be lawful for a dealer to make or sell, or to import or attempt to import into Canada, any article composed either in whole or in part of gold or of silver, or of any alloy of gold or of silver, except the articles mentioned in sections 13 and 14 of this Act, if to such article there is applied any mark other than–
(a) trade marks registered in accordance with the Trade Mark and Design Act;
(b) marks truly and correctly indicating, in the manner required by this Act, the quality of the gold or silver, or alloy of gold or of silver, in the article;
(c) numerals intended to indicate pattern, such numerals not being incorporated with any mark indicating the quality of the gold or silver or alloy of gold or of silver of which the article is composed;
(d) the name or initials of a dealer, which last mentioned mark may be applied only if the article bears also a registered trade mark in accordance with the Trade Mark and Design Act.
So you see the foreign manufacturer can only put his trade mark on if he has a registered trade mark in this country. But foreign manufacturers cannot register under our Trade Marks and Designs Act, and they are therefore shut out. You buy a watch in Geneva; there is no government trade mark in Switzerland, but a reputable maker who turns out a first-class article, put his own name and address on it and describes the number of jewels in the works. Such a watch would be shut out under this clause. Those watch cases could not be imported any longer because they have on them marks other than the four permitted under this clause. If they have no mark or designation at all, they may be brought in.
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED–Are not the works of the watch excepted.
Hon. Mr. KERR–The parts of the watch need not be up to the standard as to quality, but if they are enclosed in a case properly marked they are admitted. So the cheap John watches manufactured in some countries might be imported, while the watches made by reputable makers in Switzerland and other countries could not be imported into Canada because they bear marks other than those designated in this clause.
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED–Is not my hon. friend mistaken in saying that this extends to the works of a watch? Are not the works excepted?
Hon. Mr. KERR–Yes. the works are excepted. What I say is the works of a watch might be a very inferior article, ibut if they are imported in a watch such as the clause calls for, you- would admit an inferior watch simply because it has a good covering while a good watch with really good works, if the case bears the name and address of a reputable maker, could not be imported because it has marks other than those provided for in this clause of the Bill.
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED–As I understand, dealers do not import watches in their entirety, but import the works from one manufacturer and the case from another.
Hon. Mr. KERR–They import both ways. These gentlemen in Toronto use the American Watch Case Company's cover on the works of a good watch.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–The cases are made in Toronto?
Hon. Mr. KERR–Yes. They would have trade marks and designs of their own. That is not what I am speaking of; I am speaking of imported watch cases. The best watch cases which had other marks than those set forth in this clause would be excluded by this Bill, and that is the whole object of the Bill. If a man were to attempt to do what the-hon, leader of thls House says with reference to frauds, he could be put in jail under our criminal law, and that is the best protection we have against fraud or imposition. We do not need further legislation for that purpose, and this Bill is not designed for that purpose. It is intended to shut out competition by a prohibitory clause, and that is what I say is odious to English law and objectionable to Canadian law.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–The hon. gentleman cannot point that out in this Bill.
Hon. Mr. KERR–What is the object of the Bill?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–The simple answer is this: if an article is marked at all it must be an honest mark.
Hon. Mr. KERR–You cannot import anything marked under 9 carats. You need not mark the number of carats at all; you can put some other designation on it. You can say it is plated, or good plate or cheap plate; but you cannot say that it is hallmarked goods without certain definite marks which must be on the article if you are to import it into Canada. That is the whole object of the trade, who are so united on this legislation. What other object can there be? This Bill affects every country merchant who sells jewellery, and every customer who buys cheap jewellery, and the passage of this legislation would prevent people from buying such goods in the future. No such principle is applied to any other trade. There are various qualities of silk manufactured, selling at different prices; but the difference in quality is not regulated by law. The same remark applies to every article of imported goods. The hon. leader of the House spoke about the disparity in trade and why the United States trade in cheap jewellery went up while the English trade went down. It is because the United States manufacturers turn out such a superior article that it has run out the English trade.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–Fraudulent articles.
Hon. Mr. KERR–They are not fraudulent at all. An article, because it happens to be cheap, or an imitation, is not necessarily a fraud. A fraud is in the representation made at the time of sale, and that is what our present law covers. I venture to submit that the position I have taken against the Bill will be found to be the right one. I urged it before. I said that I saw no reason for the Bill except to close this country practically against competition. It will enable these gentlemen to manufacture any article, no matter how inferior, and put it on the market because they can put their registered mark on it. There need be nothing to indicate the quality.
Hon. Mr. POWER–The hon. gentleman has not made the case clear to me yet. Within the last few minutes I have taken the Act passed three years ago, and have compared it with this Bill, and I fall to discover any material difference in the meaning of the two except this, that the Act provides that it shall not be lawful to make, sell, or import into Canada any article not in accordance with the Trade Marks and Designs Act. Paragraph (c) of section 8 of the Gold and Silver Markuig Act is identical with paragraph (b) of the amendment before us, and then this amendment contains paragraph (c) which apparently gives a little more liberty to bring in goods. It allows goods with numerals intended to indicate the pattern to come in; and (and allows goods with the name or initials of the dealer to come in. I fail to see that the clause now before the committee interferes with the importing of foreign goods any more than section 8 of the Act does. I was under the impression that the House had passed that Act almost unanimously, the only question being as to the quality of the gold; and no one now contends for anything more than 9 carat standard gold. That does come in under this Bill. First we made it 10 carats and then it was altered to 9 carats, so that really, as far as I can understand the clause before the committee, it does not make any change in the existing law.
Hon. Mr. KERR–This is not a private Bill, and should not be passed as a private Bill in the interest of trade. It is a Bill for the protection of the public, and I have not heard the public express any gratification over the Bill; on the contrary they wanted its operation suspended for two years.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–At the time the original Bill was before the committee, one of the difficulties that arose with respect to the marking of goods was this: it was shown by those opposed to the Bill that If a mark of any kind denoted the quality of the goods, unless they had a mark in Canada corresponding with that, they would have to secure a mark here for the trade of Canada. If any one dared to put his name or trade mark on his goods and that mark did not correspond with the trade mark in vogue in Canada, and goods could not be imported into the country unless they had in addition to the foreign trade mark a mark corresponding with the mark recognized in Canada. The merchants in Canada, Birmingham and other manufacturing centres, would find it almost Impossible to use a special trade mark for the Canadian trade, and the object of this Bill is to keep British goods out of Canada. If the hon. Secretary of State will refer to the clause dealing with gold, he will find in line 26 the following: 'Or including the words gold, solid gold, pure gold, United States Assay.' There is no reference to Great Britain at all. If the watches are made in the United States and have a mark indicating the United States assay, they are all right; but there is no such regulation applying to Great Britain. Great Britain is not in it at all. The whole trend of this Bill is to further the interests of manufacturers in the city of Toronto as opposed to the interests of the people of Canada. It is ridiculous to tell people who are honest in their own country and produce superior articles in gold and silver, that if they put the name of their firm or any trade mark by which they are known in their own country on their goods, and that trade mark does not correspond with one in Canada, their goods can be seized. It is keeping out goods produced in the mother land and allowing United States manufacturers to register their trade marks here and adopt a United States instead of a British standard. Who ever dreamed that such a Bill would be introduced in the Canadian Senate setting up the United States assay as the standard for gold, when we have the British standard which we have been fighting for. I am thankful that the hon. Secretary of State has consented to give us the 9 carat standard, whereby we can bring in goods from the mother land which had been purposely excluded before for the benefit of importers of United States watch cases, and for the benefit of Mr. McNaught and P. W. Ellis and other favoured traders in Torouto. Bill is not designed for the protection of the people of Canada, but for the protection altogether of a few people who are engaged in the industry.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–I really cannot understand the line of my hon. friend's argument, because he supported this Bill in the first instance and passed a Bill through this House having the very clause that he finds fault with now. This clause is copied from the original Act. What does the hon. gentleman mean by finding fault with the clause which he himself introduced and supported in this House?
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–I hope my hon. friend is not going to put on my shoulders the clause which appears in the original Bill. I had nothing to do with the Bill. All I contended for was to allow British goods to come in. I was not aware that there was such stupidity on our part as to ever allow the last clause to pass, establishing a United States standard over the British standard, and I intend when we come to that clause of the Bill to propose that the word 'British' be inserted.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–Surely my hon. friend has not read the clause?
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–I have.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–It is difficult for us who have not followed the Bill closely to know our position with regard to it. The hon. senator from Toronto has been opposed to any legislation from the first on this subject .
Hon. Mr. KERR–On this line.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–This is the third session we have had the matter up, and I find my hon. friend has been consistently opposed to legislation with reference to this subject. I find now that it is not a matter of detail with him, but that he is against the Act all the time. A mistake was made two years ago when the Act was passed and all the parties appeared before the committee and were heard in not allowing the act to go into operation. I have attended a great many committees of this House, and was never present at any, where the deputations from both sides commanded greater respect on account of the intelligent and lucid way in which they put their arguments before us. As a result of that discussion, which was not confined to one meeting–I know there were more than one or two–finally a Bill was agreed upon and went through this House with apparently little opposition. My hon. friend was opposed to it, and when he is opposed to a Bill I cannot say that the opposition is very little, because he is so persistent he will make it appear as if it was very great. The Act was put on the statute-book. The hon. senator from Hamilton introduced a Bill before the Act had come into operation, amending it. That Bill passed through this House and went to the other House and, finally, an arrangement was made by which the Act which had already been passed by both Houses should be suspended for sometime until all the parties could accommodate themselves to the new order of things. It is a great pity that the Act was not allowed to go into operation then. After it had been a little while in operation, we would have found where the friction was. Instead of that, the operation was postponed and the government in the early part of this session further postponed the Act until, next year, in order that those who are taking the two sides on this question could get together and meet the government here. They met and the result is the Bill before us. When I saw this string of further amendments put before us, I gave up in despair any further attempt to compare the Bill with the Act. I wanted to find out what the changes really are. I find myself puzzled by a long string of amendments, and it is hard sitting in this House with amendments you have never seen before, to fit them in and find what the effect would be. In passing tnis Bill, we should get as nearly as we can to what is right. I believe from what I have heard and know to some extent, that there is no business existing to-day in Canada in which there is a greater amount of money taken out of the pockets of the people without giving proper value, than in the matter of shoddy jewellery, and when that is the case, we should not allow quibbles to stand in the way of our getting as good an Act as we can, and if it does not cover the ground, we should go on improving until we get something which will be certain to protect our people from swindlers and robbers. I think it is conceded that the very best men in the trade in Canada favour the Bill. The honest, legitimate traders favour the law, but I am afraid–I do not say the hon. gentleman from Toronto is representing that class in the House–the most of the opposition is coming from the shoddy trade people, who are making money by the sale of cheap jewellery. I feel like supporting the hon. Secretary of State. He has taken great care and pains on the subject. I am quite sure that he will help the House to pass a good law.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–I should like to say to my hon. friend, with regard to the shoddy men, that I do not know one in Canada, but I do say that I am as closely in touch with the jewellery trade in Canada as any man in this House, and I have consulted the people from the first time the Bill ever came before this House, and I am safe in saying that every retail jeweller in the Dominion was against the proposition first presented to the House. They all felt that an imposition was being placed on the retail trade, that would prevent them from buying British goods. I do not care what the standard is. What is good enough for Great Britain as a standard should be good enough for Canada, and with respect to the shoddy people, all I can say is that these people need not put any mark on their jewellery at all, and in that way they can hoodwink the people of Canada. The whole subterfuge is this: that if any person outside of the Dominion of Canada attemps to put any mark on gold or silver that will establish its respectability in their own country, these goods can be confiscated here. That is not an imputation that the goods are bad. I do not think my hon. friend represents the shoddy people in Toronto or anywhere else. I think he is speaking for the country as a whole. 1 am bound to say that the hon. Secretary of State has given a great deal of thought to the measure, perhaps more than any other hon. gentleman in the House; but I do say the gentlemen with whom he has come more closely in touch have been men who manufacture the goods and not those who handle them. I am speaking for those who manufacture and likewise those who import, and I am speaking for those who are not able to import, and are obliged to buy from the importer, and they feel that unless they are allowed to buy an article of British make of 9 carat gold, they have no faith–and I say it advisedly–in Canadian goods marked 10 carat, because they have no check on them, and the check is important. If anybody should put 'W.G.' 10 carat or 12 carat gold on an article, you have no redress if it is only 8 carats, because you cannot tell who it is. But you do know if you have a chain, British hall-marked 10 or 15 or 18 carat, that it is genuine. Under the present condition there is no sueh provision, and all these shoddy people want to do is to import the goods into Canada without a mark upon them, and you have no recourse.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–From the hon. gentleman's remarks, one would infer that we have a large British trade and a small one from other countries. The hon. Secretary of State read the returns, which I presume are the trade returns, showing that while the importations from the United States have in some recent years gone over $400,000, that the British importations are in the forties and fifties, and so on.
Hon. Mr. GIBSON–Where was that statement published?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–Last night's ' Witness.'
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–My hon. friend read the figures of the House. They conform with the geueral impression I have had for a long time–I am not saying that American goods are always inferior–by no means. We know that as good things come from the United States as come from Great Britain or any other country; but in this particular trade it confirms with the general impression I have had, that the low class of American goods that have been coming in–is what this Bill will affect–It is very plausible to speak about British goods for we are all more favourable to a trade in British goods. It is, therefore, a plausible thing, and something which is inclined to draw us, when hon. gentlemen say they are advocating the interest of British trade; but I am afraid it is altogether the other way. My hon. friend referred to Ryrie Brothers. They are perhaps the largest importers into Canada to-day. They import from all countries, and if their adhesion is given to this Bill, it is the adhesion of very large and respectable importers. I have heard P. W. Ellis & Company referred to. They represent the largest manufacturers in Canada.
Hon. Mr. KERR–Neither of those firms are importers of cheap goods. Ryrie's import diamonds and jewelry.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON–They are large importers, and they cater to the market. Like all good dealers they do that; but I have no doubt from what I know of them, they would rather do a good business where their customers and they themselves would make a profit, rather than a business where they would make a profit and their customers would be fleeced. If there is a business being carried on where it cannot be done without the trader being dishonest as well as those with whom he is competing, then we should certainly have a law to put a stop to it. I do not know any subject on which there is greater necessity for legislation. I understood the Bill three years ago, but just at this moment, owing to all the amendments presented, I feel I have to take matters on trust, but I am in favour of the measure.
Hon. Mr. BEIQUE– I have not had the advantage of attending the sittings of the committee two years ago, and my attention has been called to this question for the first time very recently. Therefore I need not say I speak with a great deal of diffidence. If the ground taken by the hon. gentlemen from Toronto and Lincoin is correct, we should certainly hesitate before passing this Bill. However, I must say on my first reading of th« measure that I cannot see that it is open to the objection which has been raised. One must bear in mind that the word 'mark' is defined in the third section of the Bill, and according to the definition which is to be found there, a mark includes any mark, sign, device, imprint, stamp, brand, label, ticket, letter, word, figure, or other means whatsoever of indicating or of purporting to indicate quality, quantity or weight of gold or of silver or of any alloy of gold or of silver, or quality of gold or silver plate. Therefore, whenever the word 'mark' is used in the Bill, it is limited to 'mark' in the sense mentioned in subsection 3 of the Bill. If you bear that in mind, it seems to me that under this Bill it would be open to import or to manufacture in Canada any silver goods or gold article, articles manufactured of gold, if they bore no mark at all. The door is not closed. If it bears a mark purporting to indicate the quality of the gold or silver, then the mark should be a true mark, according to section 9 of the Bill. This is the impression I have received from reading the Bill, although I have followed the argument of the hon. members from Toronto and Lincoin. However, the hon. Secretary of State might see his way to ask that that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, because it is important to make sure that the Bill is not opened to the serious objection which has been urged against it.
Hon. Mr. DOMVILLE–There has been a good deal of feeling over this debate. I would rather wait and allow the Secretary of State to withdraw the Bill and see how the crop turns out, and that would decide whether we should have gold watch cases, filled cases or washed goods. I have had some little matters brought before me by our dealers, and I still have an open mind, but I think it would be very much better for the committee to rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again when we return in October or November. Our people are thinking more about harbours, and are not bothering about jewellery or gold watches.
The subclause was adopted.
The clause as amended was adopted.
On clause 10,
10. It shall not be lawful for a dealer to make or to sell, or to import or attempt to import into Canada, any article purporting to be wholly or partially composed of gold or of any alloy of gold, if the article when made or sold has applied thereto any mark indicating or purporting or intended to indicate the gold in the article to be of less than nine carats in fineness, or consisting of or including the words gold, solid gold, pure gold, United States assay, or other words purporting to describe the gold or alloy of which the article is composed.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT–The Bill allows the hall-mark of Great Britain, and allows the hall-mark of any other country established as a standard, and to say we would allow articles to come in marked gold would certainly be misleading. It would simply be encouraging a fraud if we permitted goods bearing the word 'United States Assay' to come in. This clause is exactly word for word with the clause we approved of two years ago, which was passed by the House of Commons. It was not controverted when my hon. friend amended the Act a year ago, and therefore it would be inconsistent to attack this clause unless there was some reason for it. It is simply to prevent a fraud being practised on an innocent person. Should not there be some penalty attached to a man who marked an article as gold? Nine carats is the lowest standard. I have given way on that, and a very large number of men in the trade have given way in their views in regard to 10 carat. I have letters under my hand which regret that we are adopting the 9 carat, but for peace and harmony sake, and because it was advocated so strongly by my hon. friend, and by the gentlemen he represented, who have signed this paper, and who are willing to take any standard, Levi Bros., of Hamilton, the large dealers whose interests my hon. friend was supposed to advocate a couple of years ago. He supports it now. Here is a list of retail dealers, not only the retail dealers, but the retail jewellers. I think the only protest I got was from Levi Bros., as I mentioned the other day. I asked Mr. Roden to see those gentlemen and try to come to some compromise or arrangement, and they wrote me that they did so, and we heard no protest since. It surprises me to hear the opposition offered to this Bill, after all the effort to conciliate every possible interest.
Source: Debates of the Senate of the Dominion of Canada - Volume 2 - 1908
(To be continued)
Trev.