Mr. SPROULE.

Is the First Minister prepared to give to the House any information regarding the treaty that is being negotiated with respect to the seal fisheries?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Not to-day; we have not yet received the text of the treaty.

Mr. REID (Grenville).

I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the following letter from Governor Dix of the state of New York to the Hon. Senator Frye which appears in the New York Evening ' Post,' of February 17:

February 16. 1911.

Frye, chairman. Committee

on Commerce, United States Senate. Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir,-My attention has been called to senate Bill No. 10588, introduced by Senator Oliver of Pennsylvania, which carries congressional approval of hydraulic development m the St. Lawrence river by the Long Sault Development Company, chartered on May 27. 1907, by the legislature of New York.

Congress will of course, appreciate the very careful consideration which this proposition demands, in view of its relation to both a state and international boundary stream, and a stream of primary importance to navigation as well as one whose use has been specially guarded and regulated by international treaty. The State of New York is, from its location, more directly interested than any other state in the preservation of St. Lawrence river navigation, and it is the only state with ports on that river.

In view of the superior jurisdiction of the federal government, and of its superior opportunities through its appropriate departments to pass upon problems affecting the navigation of this river, the legislative action of New York in regard to this proposed hydraulic development very properly and expressly and very clearly made concurrent action of the federal government essential to the creation of the rights in the river defined m the state Act of 1907. While the state of New York in that Act deferred wholly to the judgment which should be passed bv the federal authorities on what would or wouid not injure or perhaps improve, the river at this point for navigation uses, it remains the duty of the authorities of this state to scrutinize any particular federal Bill which by its terms or by its necessary effect shall give vitality to the very great powers sought by the Long Sault Development Company. The state Act expressly recognizes the interest of the state in the proper eettlemeoit of all questions affecting thp navigation of the stream.

Mr. OLIVER.

In my opinion, the pending Bill fails to cover properly the interests of navigation. While a survey of that part of the channel to be affected is provided for in the Bill, the survey should, in my opinion, be made prior to final action by Congress. Official approval by the secretary of war, and, if possible by the Dominion or other necessary authorities, of any specific plans for construction work should be secured before instead of after final action by Congress, and I would suggest that procedure in place of the course proposed bv the Bill.

The possession by this company of the enormous powers defined in the Act of the state legislature would embrace both the state and federal authorities in negotiations with our Canadian neighbours concerning this matter, and embarrass efforts to conserve the interests of navigation and of other property owners whose holdings would lie within the reach of the impounded flood waters and ice of this great river.

This proposed development and the development of the Niagara river are the only two instances involving state boundary waters, and both had their origin in special state legislation, in each case as it seems to me. without full appreciation of the nature and extent of various phases of public interest to be immediately or ultimately affected. As in the Niagara river case, which is now involved in another Bill pending before Congress, so in this case. I do not feel justified in speaking alone for New York^ state at this time, but intend to call the Bill to the notice of the state legislature, which is now in session, for consideration. Pending an expression of views by our legislature, I request through you that action by Congress on the Oliver Bill may be suspended.

Very respectfully yours.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I do not think it would be proper for us to transmit this protest to Mr. Ambassador Bryce. I would suppose that possibly he has taken notice of it already. We have made our own representations.

Mr. OLIVER.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I do not often complain of statements that appear in newspapers with regard to myself, but in the Winnipeg ' Telegram,' of February 18, there is a report of some remarks purporting to be made by me in the course of a debate which is supposed to have taken place on the previous day, and I think the House

should be placed in possession of the facts. It appears that my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) intended to bring forward the subject of the St. Peters' Indian reserve, and there appears in the ' Telegram ' a report of a very comprehensive statement on his part, and a report of what I am supposed to have said in reply, as follows:

The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Hon. Frank Oliver, opened his reply with a tirade of abuse.

He did not demonstrate to the House the correctness of his bold and reckless assertions. There was not an argument in rebuttal. He denied the correctness in a general wav of the charges, but in no case did he address one tittle of evidence to sustain his denial. He adopted, said Mr. Bradbury, unfair and insincere methods to counteract the damaging effect of the serious charges made by the Indians of St. Peter's against his department.

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection whatever to offer to any report that may have been given of what my hon. friend from Selkirk did not say on that occasion; but I do very strongly object to the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' giving me credit for a state-ment^whieh certainly I am not to be credited with.

Mr. BRADBURY.

Mr. Speaker, just one word in explanation. I am unfortunately the victim of circumstances. I do not think I am the first man in this House with regard to whom this has occurred. The facts are simply these. I expected to have had an opportunity of laying my views before the House eight or ten days ago, I was approached by a newspaper man, and I gave him an idea of what I intended to say. The criticism to which my hon. friend refers was a criticism of a speech that he made last year, and I did use the language exactly as he quotes, that is, that he opened his remarks last year with a tirade of abuse, which was quite true. If my hon. friend refers to the Minister of Railways, he will perhaps find that he has been in the same position; he has had matters published before it took place. I understand that the same thing happened with the Minister of Labour. 1 was simply following the footsteps of greater men than myself in giving to the newspapers an idea of what I was going to say.

Mr. OLIVER.

I think my hon. friend went beyond what has occurred on previous occasions when he not only gave the newspaper a report of what he himself intended to say, but what another was to say in reply.

Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).

On Friday evening last this Bill was allowed to stand over in order that the parties interested might if possible come to some arrangement in reference to the name. I have been asked to state the facts for the Security Trusts Company, Limited, which has been incorporated in the province of Manitoba, and which has been doing business there. The name proposed to be given to this company is the Security Trusts corporation, and the promoters have asked further to be allowed to add the words ' of Saskatchewan,' that is, however, not the name that is in the Bill. Now, a company incorporated by an Act of parliament is an invisible, intangible thing, with power to perform the objects set lorth in the Act; it has not a body to nourish or to starve, it has not a soul to damn or to save, out it must have a name. A salutary rule of all the committees of this House is that the name of a corporation must not be the name of any other known company, incorporated or unincorporated, or a name liable to be confounded therewith. The first two words of the name that this company wants are ' Security Trusts.' These are the first two words of the name of the company that we are now operating in the west. The third word in our charter is * company.' The third word in tfieirs is 'corporation.' So that there is very little difference in* the names of the two companies. The Companies Act, under wliich we get a charter upon an application to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, lays down the salutary rule that ' the proposed corporate name of the company shall not be that of any other known company, incorporated or unincorporated, or any name liable to be confounded therewith.' These are the express words of the statute, and the same rule is observed in this House. Most corporations are known by the first two or three words of their name, so that confusion between these two companies is very liable to occur, such as one party receiving the claim of another. It is just as inconvenient and as liable to confusion as if there were two James or two Johns in the same family. The promoters of .this Bill contend that the word 'Saskatchewan' added to the name would be sufficient to distinguish it, but 1 submit that it would not. They also claim to have used the name. I admit that in Regina, in the province of Saskatchewan, there is a company, not a trusts company, but a loan company, called Security Loan Company, and they claim that because they have been using that name in connection with their loan company, they ought to be allowed to use it under the present charter. I submit that they ought to take some other name.

Mr. MARTIN (Regina).

This Bill has been waiting some weeks pending conclusion with respect to the name of the company. The Winnipeg company, I believe, was incorporated under the name of the Security Trust Company, Limited, for the purpose of transacting business in Manitoba, and there is no evidence to show that it used the word ' security ' before we did. I do not know how long it has been in business. The company whose Bill I have in charge, has been carrying on business in Saskatchewan two years, under the name of the Security Loan Company, and it has a large number of loan agencies in that province. The new company which we are asking to incorporate under the name of the Securities Trust Corporation is taking over the business of the Security Loan Company, and has, therefore, the same interest in retaining the word ' security ' in its title. And I submit it has just as much right to use that word as has the Winnipeg company. I am anxious, however, that there should be no conflict of names, and I am going to suggest that the name in the Bill, which is now security and trust corporation, be changed to the Security Trust Corporation of Canada. That, it seems to me, is a sufficiently distinctive name to enable this committee to pass the Bill.