HEYD (South Brant) moved that that portion of the 49th rule which limits the time for receiving petitions for private Bills be suspended with reference to the petition of the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters of the Dominion of Canada, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the tenth report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.
PRIYATE BILLS-EXTENSION OF TIME.
A Bill recently went through the House relating to the Independent Order of Foresters. That order had discovered a defect in tlieir legislation whereby the rights
of those who belonged to the order in days gone by were jeopardized, and a Bill was introduced in the House within the last few weeks to remedy that defect. The attention of the Ancient Order of Foresters was directed to their Act of incorporation, and they found that it contained the same defect. In order that those who belonged to the provincial order should have the rights intended under the Bill that passed in 1898, this petition is presented for an amending Bill. It is exactly the same Bill as is contained in the first four clauses of the Independent Order of Foresters' Bill, which has passed the House.
Motion agreed to.
YUKON-CONSTITUTION OF THE COURTS.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPElt (Pictou). Before the Orders of the Day are called, I understand that an order in council-and in the right direction, I think, If I nay say so-has been passed, constituting the court of the Yukon district an appellate tribunal from the decisions of the Gold Commissioner there. But, in this direction I wish to draw the attention of the government to a point that has been raised, in case there may be something in it. I confess that 1 have not had an opportunity of examining the order in council in question. The point is this : At present the cases before the court of the Yukon district are subject to an appeal at the option of the appellant, either to the Supreme Court of British Columbia or the Supreme Court of Canada, and from the Supreme Court of British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada. As a matter of fact, the litigants bring a great many of their cases before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and. there they have been, in large part, finally disposed of. Now, the question has been raised by members of the bar, that there seems to be a difference in connection witli these cases. That is to say, the decision of the Supreme Court in the district-I have forgotten whether it is called by that name or not-is declared to be final ; that would leave the appeal from that court only to the Supreme Court of Canada. It may be the intention of the government that that should be the case, and there may be reason for making this change. I must say that it seems to me that it would be much better to have the cases in these decisions just as the others, giving the parties the option of going to the Supreme Court of British Columbia or the Supreme Court of Canada, and ultimately to the Supreme Court of Canada in any event. At any rate, that point was mentioned to me, and, if there is anything in it, I hope the government will look into it, and will have it made clear. Or, if the amendment is required, it should not be left to the parties interested to raise technical questions of that kind as to the
real significance or effect of this new order in council.
The order in council to which the hon. gentleman refers to, or rather the ordinance-
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.
-constitutes the two judges of the territorial court, together with the gold commissioner, an appellate court. Heretofore, under the mining regulations, the appeal from the decision of the gold commissioner has been to the Minister of the Interior. The change is, that instead of the decision being appealed from the gold commissioner to the Minister of the Interior, the decision is appealed from the gold commissioner to the appellate court as it is constituted. The ordinance clearly declares that the decision of the appellate court is final; so, I do not think there will be any question as to what the meaning and intention of the ordinance is. If the hon. gentleman (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) desires I will bring down a copy of the ordinance, so that he may have an opportunity of perusing it. The question whether, from the appellate court thus constituted, there should be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, is a question of policy which is a fair question for discussion.
CANADA NATIONAL RAILWAY AND TRANSPORT COMPANY.
Mr. COWAN moved third reading of Bill (No. 13) to incorporate the Canada National Railway and Transport Company.
I understood that an arrangement was reached by the Whips the other day that this Bill was not to be read the third time until Wednesday.
Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
I may say that when the matter was under discussion I intimated that probably an understanding might be reached between the promoters of this Bill and those who opposed it. I have communicated with them and have received a very strong protest against any change. I thought it was only fair to take this the first opportunity of mentioning that my efforts in that direction had not been successful, for fear any member might be misled by the statement I made the other evening.
Mr. DAVIS moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.
Bill (No. 2T) respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company.-Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure).
GUELPH JUNCTION RAILWAY.
House in Committee on Bill (No. 23) respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie. On section 2, Section 7 of the Act to incorporate the Guelph Junction Railway Company is repealed, and the following section is submitted therefor : 7. No person shall be a director of the company unless he be the holder of at least one share in the stock of the company, and has paid up all calls thereon ; but so long as the city of Guelph shall hold $20,000 of the capital stock of the said company, and shall be the holder of the bonds of said company, any bona fide ratepayer of the city of Guelph who is assessed for $1,000 or upwards on the assessment roll of the city of Guelph shall be eligible to be elected a director of the company. (a.) The council of the corporation of the city of Guelph may, by by-law empower the mayor or any member of the council or other person to represent the corporation and vote at any meeting of the shareholders of the company, and to vote for such corporation in respect of its shares in the company, and in default of any such by-law the mayor of the city for the time being shall be entitled and authorized to represent the city at any such meeting of shareholders, and vote thereat, in respect of the shares of the company held by the said city. (b.) The directors of the said company may and shall, upon the request of any of the present shareholders of the company upon whose shares 10 per cent only has been paid, issue a fully paid-up share or shares to such person or persons in exchange for and to the extent of the aggregate amount paid by him or them upon his or their present shares. (c.) It shall be lawful for the corporation of the city of Guelph, subject to the laws of the province of Ontario, to acquire any fully paid-up share or shares in the said company, and to hold the same as well as those now held by the said city.