The practice has been that when a private Bill is reported with amendments, th,at fact is noted on the order paper. That practice should not be departed from.
'Mro^ E^PATMCK moved for leave to °f Rj„,c'e EiH (No. 38) to amend the Petition that 1.1 Act- sai(i : This is to provide instead116? flat is granted, the petition, °f the o, n^iag handed back to the solicitor tftry ^PPHant, shall be filed by the Secre-C°urt State himself in the Exchequer the ban i ls wiH prevent its remaining in Mthoii+a? 011 a solicitor weeks and months Itlo Ut being filed. titQe.10n agreed to, and Bill read the first YitKon .. Xlr.
Lnt4ueIT|EATRICK moved for leave to "erritor^ , 1 (No. 39) to amend the Yukon bbfpose P ctl . 116 saifl : This is for the ai^,et conferring upon the commissioner the 7 .to make ordinances providing ^Pect to ( ,n'lsi°n of the Territory with re-aeternji paetions to the council, and also to y,. e rhe qualification of voters. btQe, °n agreed to, and Bill read the first I think it would be better because clearer to adopt the form ' reported with amendments,' and ' reported without amendments.' All Bills must be reported from the committee to which they are referred, so that the note in the order paper, ' reported ' is really unnecessary. I think it would be better to adopt the form that I suggest.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) will find it so on the order paper. -Take, for instance, item 6 and also item 7. They are both noted on the order paper as ' amended.' That means that they have been approved by the committee with amendments.
But the question I raise is whether it is well simply to use the word ' reported,', because all Bills must be reported. If the object is to distinguish between those that are reported with amendments, and those that are reported without amendments, it would be better to make that plain.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
I suppose it is understood that when a Bill is noted as ' amended,' that means that it has been amended by the committee and is reported with those amendments. And that ' reported ' means that it is reported without amendments.
It seems to me that in his case we are establishing a new pre-[DOT]edent, which may be found an inconvenient me in some respects in the future. We pro->ose here to amend two statutes within the lompass of one small Bill, one of these itatutes relating to a railway in the produce of Quebec and the other to a railway n British Columbia. One desiring in future o ascertain whether an amendment has men made in either of these cases would mturallv look for it in the index under the lame of the railway. But when two are [DOT]overed by one short Bill and the name of
only one is given in the title, it may be a little difficult to find either in the future.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
Bill (No. 9) to revive and amend the Acts respecting the St. Clair and Erie Ship Canal Company.-Mr. Tisdale. Bill (No. II) respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Gal-liher, by Mr. Macpherson. Bill (No. 14) respecting the Atlantic and Northwest Railway Company.-Mr. A. T. Thompson. Bill (No. 15) respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Champagne. Bill (No. 19) respecting the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company - Mr. C. March. Bill (No. 21) to incorporate the Pontiac and Interprovincial Railway Company-Mr. Me-Cool.
Bill (No. 28) respecting the Temiscouata Railway Company.-Mr. Malouin. Bill (No. 29) to incorporate the Canadian Credit Indemnity and Guaranty Company.- Mr. Guthrie. Bill (No. 30) respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie. Bill (No. 31) to incorporate the Guelph and Goderich Railway Company.-Mr. Holmes. Bill (No. 32) to incorporate the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.-Mr. Henderson. Bill (No. 33) respecting the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Morrison. Bill (No. 34) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company-Mr. McCarthy.
QUESTIONS. DONCASTER INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Sproule-asked : Is it the intention of the government to abolish the Indian reserve of Ste. Lucie or Doncaster, and to indemnify the said Indians ?
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior) :
No Indian reserve can be sold, alienated or leased until it has been released or surrendered to the Crown.
The question of the surrender ol' the Doncaster reserve was submitted to the Indian owners but they decided to retain the lands for their own use.
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Taylor-asked : Mr. SPROULE.
1. Has the government spent the sums vo 9 last session for the squatters settled on reserve of the Iroquois Indians of Sault Louis and of the Lake of Two Mountains-a serve established by the statute 14-15 Victo chapter 106 ?
2. If so, in favour of whom ?
3. Who paid out those sums ?
Subtopic: DONCASTER INDIAN RESERVE.
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister 0 tlie Interior).
Subtopic: DONCASTER INDIAN RESERVE.