February 20, 1911

CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID (Grenville).

I do not think that would be fair to this other company because it would lead to confusion between the two. The company, whose Bill is before us, intends doing business in Winnipeg and probably in eastern Ontario, in looking after trusts and estates, &c.; and the mails of each company are liable to get mixed since the only difference in their titles is that between the word ' corporation ' and the word ' company.' The word ' Canada,' which the hon. member intends to -add might be added in small letters and would not alter the position. There ought not to be any hesitation on the part of the hon. gentleman in giving his company some name which would prevent any possible danger of confusion.

Mr. MARTIN (Regina) Why should we give up the name ' security '?

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   SECURITY TRUSTS CORPORATION.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID (Grenville).

As I understand it, this corporation, of which my hon. friend speaks, is a corporation that did nothing but lend money in Saskatchewan. It proposes now to do the business of trust company all over the Dominion, which is entirely different. It was not a trust company before, and it is now undertaking an entirely different business. No doubt it will do a loan business with the money on deposit, but I submit that the Finance Minister should see that it is given Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).

such a name that there could not be any possible conflict between the two companies, so that people would see exactly the company they are doing business with. So far -as the Bill itself is concerned, I have no objection to its going through so long as the name of the company is such that there will not be any danger of confusion in the minds of the public.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   SECURITY TRUSTS CORPORATION.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

Of the two companies, the one has been in operation about four years and the other about two years.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   SECURITY TRUSTS CORPORATION.
Permalink
LIB

William Melville Martin

Liberal

Mr. MARTIN (Regina).

I do not know whether that is correct or not. To which one does he refer?

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   SECURITY TRUSTS CORPORATION.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

The one in Winnipeg.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   SECURITY TRUSTS CORPORATION.
Permalink
LIB

William Melville Martin

Liberal

Mr. MARTIN (Regina).

I have no information of that kind, and I do not think that was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   SECURITY TRUSTS CORPORATION.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

It was from him that I got the information, and I take it that it must be correct. It was doing business a considerable time before this other company was doing business at all, and consequently has a prior right, and we should not create the danger of confusion by giving a younger company -a similar name. The practice we have always followed is not to allow any corporation to take a name similar or nearly similar to that of one previously incorporated ; and I am sure that if the attention of the committee had been drawn to this, they would not have passed this Bill without changing the name. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) says that the company whose Bill he is promoting has been doing business in Saskatchewan for two years, and wants to keep its name ; but it has not been doing a trust business at all, and it is now going into that business and thus coming into conflict with the other company in the same line. The hon. member for Winnipeg ( Mr. Haggart) made a very fair suggestion when he suggested that the name ' Saskatchewan ' should be added which would make a sufficient distinction between the two, and my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) will be ill advised if he does not accept that.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   SECURITY TRUSTS CORPORATION.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

If my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) would direct his remarks to the Finance Minister, I am sure he will get his support. I cannot believe that this matter has yet been drawn to the attention of the hon. minister, for I remember very distinctly that, on more than one occasion, he has taken exception to a similarity of names in companies doing the same kind of business. He will bear in mind that these two companies are both doing business in the same section of the

country. There might be some excuse if this was a charter for a company to do business in eastern Canada without touching the west, but in this instance, by the very nature of the case, they are competing with each other. When I recall, as 1 do very distinctly, the objections that have been taken by the Minister of Finance, 1 am quite sure my hon. friend will not consent to a Bill of this kind with a name so similar passing the House this afternoon.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   SECURITY TRUSTS CORPORATION.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

My hon. friend is quite right, the Minister of Finance has sometimes raised that question; but I regret to say that in one or two instances his objections have been overruled. I suggested to gentlemen connected with this matter, on both sides, that this question could be better discussed if the Bill was referred back to the committee than it could be in the Committee of the Whole. I would renew that suggestion.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   SECURITY TRUSTS CORPORATION.
Permalink
CON

Alexander Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).

I accept it.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   SECURITY TRUSTS CORPORATION.
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER.

I am glad the Minister has taken that course as I have received three or four very strong remonstrances against it from gentlemen who have put their capital in the company and who feel it would cause great confusion and trouble to have this company given a_ name practically the same as theirs. I hope the committee will be able to find a way out of the difficulty.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   SECURITY TRUSTS CORPORATION.
Permalink
LIB

William Melville Martin

Liberal

Mr. MARTIN (Regina).

I am quite agreeable to the suggestion.

Progress reported.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   SECURITY TRUSTS CORPORATION.
Permalink

SENATE AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC BILLS.


On the order being called: Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 9) to amend the Inspection and Sale Act.-Mr. Carvell.


LIB

James Kirkpatrick Kerr (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

On Monday last when these amendments were first before the House the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) raised a point of order to the effect that these amendments could not be considered because the Bill at its original introduction into this House had not been proceeded by resolution of the Committee of the Whole, as the Bill related to trade.

At that time I stated to the hon. member that his objection was taken too late; also that the Bill itself was not before the House, but only the Senate amendments.

At the suggestion of some hon. members I allowed the matter to stand until to-day.

After careful consideration of the subject, I see no reason to change my opinion. The time at which an objection is taken to any procedure of the House has always been considered as of importance, and some objections which might have very fairly prevailed had they been taken at the proper time, have failed on account of delay. There is no special precedent upon this particular case, but there are abundant precedents to the effect that an objection to procedure must be taken promptly and before the matter has passed to a stage at which the objections would be out of place. This, I consider, to have been the case in the present instance, the Bill having passed its three readings and Committee of the Whole in the House of Commons before this point was raised. Any other ruling would lead to very undesirable complications.

It was formerly decided by Mr. Speaker Blanchet, as far back as 1880, after discussion in which the Speaker was warmly supported by Sir John A. Macdonald, that when Senate amendments were before the House these amendments onlv could be discussed. See Bourinot, 3rd edition, page 676.

Topic:   SENATE AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC BILLS.
Permalink

QUESTIONS.


(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).


HOPE TOWN LOTS.


* Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster): 1. With respect to receipts issued to Thomas D. Shorts, Hope, B.C., by the Dominion lands Agent at New Westminster, B.C., for payment of first instalment on purchase of lots in town of Hope, subject to approval at Ottawa, has said agent any authority to so deal with the matter ? 2. Was the transaction approved by the department at Ottawa? 3. In cases requiring the approval of the department, is it the practice to signify such approval to intending purchaser, or is he notified only in the event of decision against approval? _ _ 4. Is there a time limit within which approval or disapproval is to be signified? If no recognized limit, within what period does the department usually take action? 5. On what date were the receipts issued to Mr. Shorts, and on what date did the department signify approval or disapproval? 6. Was any other application for these lands pending before the department?


LIB

Mr. OLIVER: (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

1. The Dominion land agent at New Westminster had authority to receive the application of Thos. D. Shorts for the purchase of lots 5, 6 and 7, block 10, town of Hope, subject to the approval of the department.

2. Approval or disapproval has not yet been expressed by the department in reference to the transaction.

3. There is no stated practice.

4. There is no given limit or period.

5. The applications of Thomas Dorian Shorts are dated 9th December, 1909, the payment of $60 on account was included in the return of the agent, for the 15th December, 1909.

6. A previous application had been received from James Corrigan, who claims to have improved these lots. The claims of both parties in the case will be considered! after an inspection has been made.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   HOPE TOWN LOTS.
Permalink

February 20, 1911