I think we all welcome the introduction of any measure dealing with this important subject. This Bill is, to my mind, one that is long overdue. It is one that has been necessary for a very long time in this country. We know that our productions in manufactured goods are comparatively limited, but such productions as we have are in continuous competition with products from other countries which are on show in all our cities, towns and villages. Up to the present there has been nothing to indicate the source of their origin. In most other countries that I know of this question of marking goods and commodities with the country of origin is very rigidly applied. It is deliberately used as a protection in itself for the home manufacturer. One of the things that I would like to bring up in connection with this Bill—it is my main and fundamental objection to the Bill as drafted and conceived—is the fact that the entire onus and initiative is left to the home producer and to the home manufacturer to take steps to prevent the alien and the foreign manufacturer from coming in here with his goods without marking the source of origin on them. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the onus for getting goods into this country should rest on the foreign manufacturer and the importer here of the foreign goods. I think that is the general rule elsewhere. I think the method adopted elsewhere is that regulations are laid down in those countries by the department that would be equivalent to our Department of Industry and Commerce which have to be complied with if goods are to be admitted into those countries at all.
I feel it is hardly fair to the home manufacturer to have to take the steps that are laid down in this Bill. According to one of the sections, a commission is to be appointed. The manufacturers in any particular industry will have to make a definite application to that commission. They will have to fight their case, either by their own representatives or by counsel, and convince the commission that it is desirable, in the interest of a particular industry, that all goods belonging to that particular industry should be marked with the country of origin. In most other countries I claim that it is a sine qua non in the case of all imported goods that they must be marked with the country of origin. I think that would have been a better line of action for us: to ensure that there should be a blanketing provision covering all goods imported into the country—that they must have the country of origin marked on them. The regulations in other countries are mainly concerned with the method of marking; that is to say, where the article itself has to be marked and what the nature of the mark is to be. There are textile commodities, garments and some other things which cannot be stamped, but where an indelible stamp is possible without causing injury to a commodity, then that is the method of marking which is invariably applied. Where labels firmly attached are the only reasonable methods that can be used, then such a regulation is laid down.
I will give you an example of what is done in the United States as regards this question of marking commodities. The regulations there stipulate for indelible marking on hosiery goods; one of a pair had to be so marked. For the protection of their own manufacturers they altered that regulation. Fearing, apparently, that expensive hosiery would be imported, they put a new regulation in force which insisted on both stockings or socks of a pair being marked. I mention this merely to illustrate the importance attached to this question of marking goods with the country of origin, and to show that the onus, handicap and liability are entirely on the foreign manufacturer and importer.
It seems to me that would have been the proper approach in dealing with this question of merchandise marking. There may be reasons why such a course was not followed. I would be very much interested to hear those reasons at this stage, because on the Committee Stage it might be possible to have amendments passed which would overcome these difficulties.
I gladly admit that there are many sections in the Bill which are extremely valuable, and that the Bill itself will be valuable. I do not think, however, that it is the right approach to the object we should have in mind in this matter of the protection of our own marks. The penalties for inadequate or non-marking of goods in the case of imports to the American markets are accompanied by a fine equal to ten per cent. of the value of the goods plus the responsibility on the importer to have the goods marked before they are cleared at the Customs.
I mention these points in order to show what importance is attached to the question of the mark of origin. I did feel, when it was intimated in the Press that this Merchandise Marks Bill was going to be brought forward, that it would go upon those lines, and that, if anything, the exceptions would be at the discretion of the Ministry, and I felt that the general basis of policy would be that every commodity brought into this country from a foreign country should be so marked. I do not see at the moment how that purpose can be achieved in that form on the Committee Stage by any amendment. I would be interested to hear the reasons why the present course is being adopted. The other is the usual method adopted in other countries, and I think it is the more obvious protection for the home manufacturer. I do not know why the manufacturer here should have to go first of all to the expense, trouble and difficulty of getting his trade together, then making an application to a commission which would be synonymous almost with the Tariff Commission, then having to pay a fee and to work up his case while the other method has been so successful elsewhere and is, in my judgment, the proper one to follow in the interests of the home manufacturer.
