February 20, 1911 (11th Parliament, 3rd Session)


Alexander Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

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.

Full View