MERCHANDISE MARKS. (Hansard, 4 July 1939)

§ Mr. A. Edwards

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926. The Bill provides that so much of Subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, as defines the expression "indication of origin" is repealed, and the following definition substituted: "Indication of origin" means, in the case of goods manufactured or produced in Germany, Italy or Japan, or in their dominions, colonies, protectorates or mandated terrntories, a definite indication of the country in which the goods were produced or manufactured. The indication shall be given in all cases conspicuously. The Bill also provides that where any treatment or process results in a substantial change in the goods, the indication of origin shall be given by a definite indication that the treatment or process was undergone in that particular country. The Bill also provides that the Act may be cited as the Merchandise Marks Act, 1939.

We have had many instances brought to the notice of the House recently of abuses of the present law. As the law stands it is sufficient for any of these countries exporting goods to this country to mark them as of foreign origin, and the word "foreign" does not give the slightest indication of the country of origin. Recently we had brought to our notice a consignment of tinned salmon from Japan to this country. On the tins is stamped "Can" with the deliberate intention of giving the impression that their country of origin is Canada. As the law stands we are not given the opportunity of using our own discretion. The law actually favours these particular countries and enables them to ship their goods here under false pretences. The law prevents any citizen of this country, who may not wish to trade with these countries but may even prefer to buy British, to exercise his own discretion.

1118 From the expressions of opinion in this House in recent weeks it is obvious there is almost a unanimous feeling that something should be done about this, and I believe the Government themselves have indicated that the present state of affairs is not at all satisfactory. Whatever else may be done in regard to this law I think it will be the opinion of the House that this much should be done at once. In the case of Japan, Italy and Germany we are literally financing the operation by which they are threatening this country. There is no doubt about that. Apart altogether from our supplying them with raw materials, we are supplying them with money. The citizens of this country ought not to be misled in the slightest degree owing to a weakness in our law. If the law is amended in the way I am suggesting in the Bill everyone will be in a position to make quite certain that any money he spends on imported foodstuffs will not have the effect of bringing nearer his own destruction. It is only right and fair that citizens of this country spending money on imported goods should be in a position to choose the countries; from which they take those goods, and the law if it were amended in the way I suggest would put them in that position. People would no longer be in the position-in which, when they imagine they are buying British, they are actually sending their money to countries which are day and night scheming to bring about the downfall of our own country.