3111 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 G. E. CASEY, M.P. 
 
 ■^ • I ■- . ^ ' 
 
 ON THE 
 
 REMEDIAL BILL 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, OTTAWA, THURSDAY, 12th MARCH, 1896 
 
 Mr. CASEY. A good old Methodist hymn, 
 which refers to the conditions of those who 
 have gone before into a better world, speaks 
 of their troubles on earth in this wise : 
 
 They wrestled hard, as we do now, 
 With sins and doubts and fears. 
 
 That reminds me verj^ much of the hon. 
 gentleman's (Mr. Kenny's) position while 
 he was making his speech. He was 
 wrfstling very hard with dlfBculties of 
 that kind, and I am sure that when 
 he brought upon the desk those last 
 three sheets which contained his beanti- 
 lul peroration, he must have been as much 
 relieved as the rest of the House were at 
 the happy event. The hon. igentleman set 
 out by telling us that he was no lawyer, 
 and he proved that statement most con- 
 clusively before he got through. But he 
 also proved that he was a special pleader, 
 and that in dealing with speeches which 
 have been delivered, and facts that have 
 been ascertained, his ordinary manner— 1 
 suppose I must speak of it in a parliament- 
 ary way— is ingenious. He gave us, in his 
 own ingenious way, his version of the re- 
 marks of those "'ho preceded him, and the 
 facts of the case. He told us that he did 
 not want to hear the word', " Catholic " and. 
 " Protestant " in connection with this de- 
 bate, but his whole speech, from beginning 
 to end, was an ingenious attempt to wrest 
 arguments, statements and facts for the 
 purpose of rousing the religious prejudices 
 of Catholics. He told us that he objected 
 to violence of statement in men of his age 
 and the age of the hon. member fjir Sbittli 
 Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwrlght), .and tKat 
 such violence always met with retallatiori. 
 I have no doubt the hon. gentleman has "got' 
 that fact fully established In his own jntpd. 
 
 for this session he has had an experience 
 of the retaliation that follows violent, abus- 
 ive, and ingenious remarks, directed against . 
 other members of the House. He had so 
 much of that retaliation that It is a con- 
 siderable time since we have seen him on 
 the floor of this House, or heard his melodi- 
 ous voice. He is going to suffer on this 
 occasion from another species of retalia- 
 tion, which, perhaps, he may feel more 
 deeply than any he has deserved by the in- 
 genuity of his remark, and that is. that no 
 one will take the trouble to follow him 
 through the windings of his alleged argu- 
 ments, or attempt to answer his alleged 
 statements of fact. 
 
 PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN NOVA SCOTIA. 
 
 There is one admission he has made, how- 
 ever ; ard as we can afford to use so much 
 of his speech as gives away his case, that 
 must be noticed. He told us that the pre- 
 sent public school system in Nova Scotia has 
 been a success, that the modus vlvendi has 
 been a success there, and tliat he would ad- 
 vise the minority in Manitoba to agree to a 
 similar arrangement In that province. And 
 yet he Intends to vote for a Bill which 
 makes modus vlvendi Impossible, and which 
 will impose on the people of that province 
 a school system which is not of their own 
 devising. 
 
 " WRESTLING HARD." 
 
 Now. I notice that he is not the only gen- 
 tleman on tkat aide of, the House who is 
 wrestling wkb sins .and doubts and fears 
 Thfe whole OovfeFiirletot have been in great 
 dlfflcuJty about tl^is measure ever since it 
 h&a com<i qpoD tl^' carpet. They have en- 
 
 55661 
 
^Xb D 
 
 dured it long and now wish to make an end 
 of the agony. When the hon. member for 
 North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) concluded bis 
 remarks, the hon. Minister of Finance call- 
 ed " question," intimating that he did not 
 wish any further discussion of the question, 
 but to have an immediate vote. I am as- 
 tonished that he should so far underrate the 
 importance of this great question, and the 
 desire of members of this House to discuss 
 It, as to make that demand. He knew that 
 at the time he called " question," the House 
 was thin, and that a large number of mem- 
 bers were engaged on the Railway Com- 
 mittee, which was somewhat irregularly 
 sitting while the House was In session. He 
 knew that one at least of the most promin- 
 ent speakers on this side, the hon. member 
 for Both well (Mr. Mills), was ill and not 
 able to speak, and he knew, personally, vory 
 well that that gentleman Intended to speak, 
 and was fully prepared to do so. He knew 
 all this, and yet he called "question." It 
 showed an impatience of sufferinn; with 
 which I would hardly have credited the hon. 
 gentleman. 
 
 MINISTERS TO HEAR FROM. 
 
 But there are other reasons why wo 
 should not come to a vote for some time 
 yet, besides the considerations of fair-play 
 to whicl' I am alluding. We have not 
 heard from the hon. Minister of Finance 
 (Mr. Foster) himself on this question. He 
 is one of the central figures in oounecfion 
 with this issue in the eyes of the couatry. 
 It has long been knowr,. he has made no 
 secret of it, that he never wished to have a 
 Bill of this kind brought before the House 
 by a Government of which he was a mem- 
 ber. It is known that he is, in heart, op- 
 posed to It, and opposed it in Council since 
 the inception of the idea. We also know 
 that no man in the House has such a facil- 
 ity for composing ingenious excuses for his 
 own conduct, and for the conduct ;vhicl) 
 he wishes his supporters to practice, and 
 we are awaiting his remarks with great in- 
 terest. We are waiting to hear from the 
 brains of the party, because we have uot 
 heard from the brains of the party yet. to 
 any great extent. We have heard from the 
 Master-Mind on the subject, but he gavo 
 very little attention to the question in hand, 
 and told us nothing whatever new or useful 
 about it, when he introduced the Bill. Ho 
 took the Job of introducing the Bill out of 
 the hands of the Minister of Justice (Mr. 
 Dickey), who had given notice of the Bill, 
 and had helped to prepare it. 
 
 THE LIQUIDATOR. 
 
 T?o sustain his position in the Cabinet, 
 and Ms pretensions to a fetlll higher 
 position in it. the hon. Setr-'tttry of 
 State (Sir Charles Tuppor) took away 
 the Job of explaining the Bill from 
 
 his subordinate, and made such an ex- 
 planation of it as the House has already 
 heard. I am not going to qualify or describe 
 that explanation further. It was quite clear, 
 that this hon. gentleman had come out here 
 as the liquidator of a bankrupt government. 
 He had no interest in this Bill, he did not 
 care anything about it, and did not know 
 anything about it, but took it over as part 
 of the bankrupt stock of the concern which 
 he had come to liquidate, and, when he 
 brought It before the public view, he was 
 unable to show off his goods to any great 
 advantage. Now, Sir, for that reason we 
 want to hear from these brainy members of 
 the Government who do know something 
 about the Bill. Besides the gentleman whom I 
 have already named, we want to hear from 
 the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries 
 (Mr. Costlgan) ; we want to hear from the ex- 
 Minlster of Justice (Sir Charles Hlbbert 
 Tupper) who really had most to do with the 
 framing of the Bill ; we want io liear from 
 the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Haggart), 
 who has had something to say upon the ,; 
 subject elsewhere than in this House. We •,' 
 want to hear from every one who belongs v 
 either to the bolting or to the remaining 
 wing of the Government, what they think 
 of this Bill, and how they Justify their con- 
 duct. ^ . , ... J, ^ . .. 
 
 TORTURES OP HERCULES. 
 
 To come back to my subject, they have been 
 in great ditticuitles In regard to the measur.<. 
 In fact, the Conservative party, at the pre- 
 sent time, is somewhat in the position of a 
 certain hero of old, to whom I may refer, as 
 a reverend old friend of mine used to 
 do, as belonging to ancient history. My 
 good old friend used to speak of all those of " 
 whom we read before the Christian era, as 
 belonging to ancient history, and he spoke v' 
 of Neptune, Caesar and Nebuchadnezzar 
 as of equal reality. He used to toll us about 
 Hercules, and, in one respect, the story of 
 Hercules resembles the plight of the Con- 
 servative Government to-day. Hercules, as 
 we all know, was a loug-suflferlng and pow- 
 erful hero of mythology, who came to his 
 end in a very tragic way. One of the wives 
 of his bosom sent him, as a present, what 
 she supposed to be a clean shirt, but it 
 turned out to have been poisoned vlth the 
 blood of something or other — a hydra, I 
 think, or some other creature that was pro- 
 lific in microbes— and, when Hercules don- 
 ned his present, he found himself In trouble. 
 He writhed, groaned, shrieked, wriggled and 
 yelled, until, finally, he died. And 1 think 
 the Conservative Government 5s In the same 
 position to-day. They have put on what 
 they supposed to be a beautiful now gar- . 
 meiit; ' wtich they call Remedial Policy, 
 bu*- tMey<flnd that it burns like fire, and 
 they are now writhing In agony. I do not 
 wcndef*',tha?, like the Finance Minister, they 
 
are anxloua to have the agony over and to 
 be through with It and with life together. 
 
 THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE. 
 
 They have one last hope, which has been 
 referred to to-night, the hope of a confer- 
 ence with Mr. Greenway on this :rubject. 
 They declare, that they intend to have this 
 conference after the Bill has passed its sec- 
 ond reading. The question naturally arises: 
 Why should not that conference be held be- 
 fore the second reading ? Is it sensible. Is 
 It reasonable, to ask Mr. Greenway to come 
 down here and consult in this matter after 
 it is practically all finished ? Is it not an 
 insult to him and to his government to ask 
 them to come here and then propose to 
 meet them with a loaded gnu— to say to 
 them : " We have passed this Bill on its sec- 
 ond reading, we have got the assent of the 
 House to the principle, and now, if you do 
 not go down on your marrow booes, if you 
 do not knuckle down to us. we will tire the 
 gun and blow you and your legislation out 
 of existence, and impose our will upon the 
 people of your province ? " 
 
 ITS OBJECT. ■' '*'■'■•'' 
 
 That is the meaning of the proposi- 
 tion for the conference which the Sec- 
 retary of State said he was going to 
 ha vo— that is the meaning of it, as it 
 refers to Manitoba. What Is the object of 
 the proposal, from the point of view of 
 party tactics ? It is quite clear. The object 
 is to tell the bolters from Ontario and other 
 provinces : There is no fear that the Bill 
 will become law. They are told almost in 
 so many words by the press, ihey will be 
 told privately by members of ihe (Jovtrn- 
 meni and the party whips, and dear knows, 
 by whom else : " Don't fret ; you are all 
 right ; vote for the second reading of the 
 Bill, for it will not become law ; we are 
 going to get Greenway down and get a pro- 
 mise from him to do something that will 
 enable us to drop the Bill or burk it in com- 
 mittee ; you may vote for the seconi read- 
 ing with a clear conscience, for there is no 
 danger of Manitoba being coerced." But the 
 bolter may look at it in another way, and 
 he may say: " If the Bill is not going to pass, 
 If you are going to have a conference with 
 Mr. Greenway, why commit me to the prin- 
 ciple of coercion, by forcing me to vote for 
 the second reading ? Why not postpone the 
 second reading until after you have seen 
 Mr. Greenway, and unless it is necessary to 
 pass the Bill, let us not commit ourselves 
 before our constituencies by this unpopular 
 vote." That is how it will strike the bolter— 
 the bolter for what I may call Protestant 
 reasons. 
 
 ITS TRUE MEANING. 
 
 Halifax (Mr. Kenny), really wish to have re- 
 medial legislation ? It is impossible that a 
 gentleman of his acuteness should fail to 
 see, that this proposition of a conference is 
 a confession of failure on the part of the 
 Government. It is an adoption, but too late 
 to be of any use, of the policy which the 
 leader of the Opposition has been urging 
 upon them for five years, ever since this 
 question became a question— the policy of 
 inquiry 'before final action. It is a confes- 
 .sion of failure, in not having done it be- 
 fore. It is a confession that they do not want 
 the Bill passed, if, by any possibility, it can 
 be got rid of. That is the way in which It 
 must strike all those who really wish re- 
 medial legislation. 
 
 THE BILL— ITS IMPORTANCE, AND 
 HISTORY. 
 
 Coming to the Bill itself, and the interests 
 involved. I think, that this is, undoubtedly 
 the most important question that lias ever 
 arisen in Canada. It is a question upon the 
 solution of which depends the answer to the 
 query, whether the people who now com- 
 pose the confederation, can live together 
 any longer as Canadians. I do not pretend 
 that any immediate rupture would follow 
 any course that might be taken in regard to 
 tftis Bill. But I do contend, that, if this 
 question is not settled in consonance with 
 sound constitutional ideas, and with sound 
 policy, for the good of Canada at large, it 
 will open a breach between the different 
 classes in the confederation *^liat may never 
 be healed. We muFC approach the consid- 
 eration of this question with such coolness 
 and calmness as party feeling will allow us 
 to exercise. I hope, for my own part, that, 
 in discussing this question,. I am as far from 
 feeling the prejudices of a Stewart Mulvey, 
 on one hand, as I am from entertaining the 
 same opinions as Bishop Cameron does, in 
 regard to those who oppose the Bill, on the 
 other. Personally, I have equal opportuni- 
 ties, through relationship, and so on, to un- 
 derstand the views of both Protestants and 
 Catholics on the matter, and I think I can 
 view the question with a fair mind. 
 
 ITS HISTORY. 
 
 The history of the case has been gone 
 over pretty frequently, and I need not go 
 into that in detail. There were petitions 
 from Manitoba alleging grievances. 
 There was a reference to the Supreme Court 
 for its opinion, merely, as to whether those 
 grievances constituted ground for appeal to 
 the Privy Council of Canada. There was an 
 appeal from the oi.iulon of tlie Supreme 
 Court on that question, to the Privy Council 
 of England. 
 
 POINTS OF REFERENCE. 
 
 But will It SO strike the supporters ot the I wish to make it clear that that 
 Government who, like my hon. friend from appeal merely carried over the same 
 
questions that were before the Supreme 
 Court here, In order to get the opinion of 
 the English Privy Council upon tiiem ; and 
 the decision of the Privy Council had no 
 more the effect of law in the matter, had no 
 more directive or compulsive pow^er than 
 the opinion of the Supreme Court had in the 
 flrdt instance. And, as was well pointed out 
 by my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. 
 Carroll), whose speech on that subject cannot 
 be too highly praised, the opinion 'either of 
 the Supreme Court or of the Privy Council 
 on that matter was purely advisory under 
 the terms of the reference, and had really 
 no more binding cfCect on the Govern- 
 ment than the oiunion of the Minister of 
 Justice himself could have had. 
 
 PRIVY COUNCIL'S OPINION. 
 
 Now, the Privy Council gave a different 
 answer, as its opinions on the points sub- 
 mitted, from that given by the Supreme 
 Court, holding that there was a prima facie 
 case for an inquiry by the Pri%'y Council of 
 Canada. That is anotlier point I wish to 
 make clear. Tlie decision of the Privy Coun- 
 cil was that there was a case for inquiry and 
 possible action. They did not pretend that 
 they had made any inquiry, they did not 
 pretend to dictate what the action should jf)P. 
 To make that clear, I wish to quote a sen- 
 tence or two of the reference on which they 
 decided. Question 2 submitted to the Privy 
 Council reads as follows : — 
 
 Are the grounds set forth in the petitions and 
 memorials such as may be the subject of appeal 
 under the authority of the subsections above re- 
 ferred to, or either of them ? 
 
 fjucstion r» was : 
 
 Has His E.xceUency the Governor General in 
 Council power to make the declarations or re- 
 media! orders which are asked for in the said 
 memorials and petitions, assuming the material 
 facts to be as stated therein, or has His Excel- 
 lency the Governor General In Council any other 
 jurisdiction lu the premises ? 
 
 DID NOT ESTABLISH A GRIEVANCE. 
 
 There is a complete answer to the statement 
 of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Kenny) 
 that the Privy Council of England had de- 
 cided that there was a grievance requiring 
 a remedy. The point lias been made by the 
 hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Carroll) ; 
 I merely repeat It to answer the hon. gentle- 
 man's repetition of the other charge. Those 
 were the questions asked them, and they 
 decided that, " assuming the facts stated in 
 the petition " there was ground for a hear- 
 ing. A great Jeal has been made of the con- 
 cluding clause of the Imperial Order in 
 Council based upon the decision of the Privy 
 Council in England. The great bulk of that 
 • Order in Council, of course, simply em- 
 bodiev^ the words of the flnding of the Com- 
 mittee of the Privy Council, the Judges, in 
 other words, who lieard the case. Eut at 
 the close are added the usual words with 
 
 which an Order In Council always concludes, 
 namely : 
 
 Her Majesty having taken the said report Into 
 consideration, was pleased by and with the advice 
 of Her Privy Council to approve thereof find to 
 order, as it is hereby ordered, that the recom- 
 mendations and directions therein contained be 
 punctually observed, obeyed and carried into 
 efTect in each and every particular. Whereof 
 the Governor General of the Dominion of Can- 
 ada for the time being, and all other persons 
 whom it may concern are to take notice and 
 govern themselves accordingly. 
 
 NO COMPULSORY ORDER. 
 
 We have heard no end of times, all over 
 tiie country, that these words constiiuto a 
 distinct order, to our Government here, to 
 enforce a remedy for certain grievances in 
 Manitoba. They constitute notliing of the 
 kind, as eveiy lawyer ougiit to know, but 
 as some lawyers have pretended to ignore. 
 lUit lliese words were quoted in the election 
 of Ilaldimanrt soniewliore al)out a year ago, 
 as a proof that the remedial order, whicli 
 had been passed already, was not 
 a (loclaration of policy on the part of this 
 (government, and was merely lianding on 
 tlie decision of the Privy Council to the gov- 
 ernment of Manitol)R. How hollow that 
 claim is. will appear from reading the deci- 
 sions of tiie Committee of the I'lMvy Ctmn- 
 ell Itself, which are embodied In this Order 
 in Council. In answer to the 5th question, 
 wliich 1 have just read, they say ; 
 
 In answer to the fifth question : — That the 
 Governor General in Council lias jurisdiction and 
 the appeal Is well founded, but tliat the particular 
 course to be pursued must be determined by the 
 authorities to whom it has been committed by 
 the Htatute ; that the general character of the 
 steps to be taken Is sufficiently defined by sub- 
 section 3 of section 22 of the Manitoba Act, 1870. 
 
 I will read from the judgment as contained 
 in the report of the Canadian case, as edited 
 by their counsel in England, to show what 
 the concluding words of the Order in Coun- 
 cil mean. 
 
 Their lordships have decided that the Governor 
 General in Council has jurisdiction, and that tho 
 appeal is well founded, but the particular course 
 to be pursued must be determined by the autho- 
 rities to whom it has been committed by the 
 statute. It is not for this tribunal to intimate 
 the precise steps to be taken. Their general 
 character is sufllclently defined by the 3rd sub- 
 section of section 22 of the Manitoba Act. 
 
 So far, it is similar to what I have quoted 
 from the blue-book, bat the original report 
 goes on : 
 
 It is certainly not esBential that the statutes 
 repealed by the Act of 1890 should be re-enacted, 
 or that the precise provisions of these statutes 
 should again be made law. The system of edu- 
 cation embodied in the Acts of 1890 no doubt 
 commends itself to, and adequately supplies the 
 wants of the great majority of the Inhabitants 
 of tbie province. All legitimate grounds of com- 
 plal:it would be removed if that system were 
 supplemented by provisions which would remove 
 
the grievance upon which the appeal Is founded, 
 and were modified so tar as might be necessary 
 to give etfect to these provisions. 
 
 BUT STATEMENT OF PRIMA FACIE CASE. 
 
 Then the Order in Council states what the 
 grievance was, assuming the facts alleged 
 in the petition to be true, as follows :— 
 
 Before this passed into law 
 
 (Referring to the Act of 1890 and amend- 
 ments.) 
 
 — there existed denominational schools of which 
 the conttol and management were In the hands 
 of the Roniaa Catholics, who could select the 
 books to be used, and detormine the character 
 of the religious teaching. These schools received 
 their proportionate share of the money contri- 
 buted for school purposes out of the general taxa- 
 tion of the province, and the money raised for 
 these purposes for local assessment was, so far as 
 it fell upon the Catholics, applied only towards 
 the support of Catholic schools. 
 
 These are the three provisions so often re- 
 ferred to as A, B and C, securing the con- 
 trol and management of separate schools 
 the supply of their proportionate share of 
 the public money, and exemption from taxa- 
 tion for public schools. 
 
 CANADTAN PRIVY COUNCIL'S ACTION. 
 
 Now, that was the condition of things 
 when the Privy Council of Canada be- 
 gan to inquire into the matter. And 
 what did they do ? Instead of inquir- 
 ing into the facts wliich Iiad been alleged 
 —by the petitions which had been assumed 
 by the British Privy Council, and which had 
 been transmitted to them for their judgment, 
 they came to a decision without having he- 
 fore them as evidence a single proven fact 
 in regard to this alleged grievance, or a 
 single answer to the allegations of the peti- 
 tioners. We all liuow that certain evidence 
 on behalf of the petitioners was put before 
 them, that they refused time to Manitoba 
 to reply to that evidence, that thereupon 
 that evidence was withdrawn for the pur- 
 poses of the suit. But those same affidavits 
 have Irregularly, Improperly and scandalous- 
 ly been since published in the official blue- 
 book, as if they had been part of the case be- 
 fore the Pi'ivy Council, and had been de- 
 cided upon by that body. I say that such 
 action was scandalous, because it leads the 
 public to believe that this was in evidence 
 before the committee of the Privy Council, 
 and had to be taken into account in the 
 decision, when such was absolutely not the 
 fact. 
 
 WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE DONE. 
 
 Then they concluded this farcical pro- 
 ceeding, miscalled an Inquiry, by passing an 
 order which granted all that the petitioners 
 asked. I remind you, Sir, that the British 
 Privy Council had told them that they need 
 
 not grant all the petitioners asked. But this 
 Government, without having any evidence, 
 legally, before them, did grant all the 
 petitioners asked, and put it in the Order 
 in Council. My contention Is that there 
 and then was the time when not only ques- 
 tions of fact, but questions of policy should 
 have been entered into by the Government 
 of Canada, before they issued any order to 
 the government of Manitoba. If I under- 
 stand the Manitoba Act, it was the duty of 
 the Privy Council of Canada to consider, 
 flrst, all questions of fact relating to gr'ev- 
 ances alleged to exist ; second, all questions 
 of policy as to how the grievances may be 
 best remedied, without involving undue in- 
 terferences with existing legislation. We 
 contend that this Government did not look 
 into these matters at all ; that they merely 
 made themselves machines for registering 
 the demands in full of the petitioners. 
 
 THE REMEDIAL ORDER— RESTORED 
 SEPARATE SCHOOLS. 
 
 The order subsequently published by the 
 Governor in Council refers to the three 
 classes of privileges to which I have re- 
 ferred, and sets them out under headings, 
 " A," " B " and " C," In this form : 
 
 (a) The right to build, maintain, equip, manage, 
 conduct and support Roman Catholic schools. In 
 the manner provided for by the said statutes 
 which were repealed by the two Acts of 1890, 
 aforesaid. 
 
 (b) The right to share proportionately in any 
 grant made out of the public funds for the pur- 
 poses of education. 
 
 (c) The right of exception of such Roman Ca- 
 tholics as contribute to Roman Catholic schools 
 from all payments or contribution to the support 
 of any other schools. 
 
 I make this quotation In order to maintain 
 my contention that the Order in Council di- 
 rected and implied the restoration of the 
 Manitoba separate schools, as they existed 
 before 1890. 
 
 A DECLARATION OF POLICY. 
 
 It has been contended *hat that order 
 is the judgment of a court. It is 
 not the judgment of any court. There was 
 no consideration of evidence, there was no 
 decision on facts ; it was a declaration of 
 policy, a declaration binding the Cabinet 
 as a whole, to the policy that the separate 
 school system of Manitoba should be re- 
 stored to the full extent In which It existed 
 before 1890. That order was served on 
 Manitoba, and the province made a reply, 
 refusing to accept it in that shape, but urg- 
 ing certain Important considerations in re- 
 gard to It, to some of which I must refer. 
 It points out many valid reasons why the 
 law of 1890 was passed, among others, that 
 the separate schools were defective, and al- 
 lowed the people to grow up Illiterate. It 
 took objection on the ground of principle 
 
to any change been made. Tben It pointed 
 out particular dltllculties, In this manner : 
 
 MANITOBA'S REPLY. 
 
 Objections upon principle may be taken to any 
 modlflcatlon of our educational statutes which 
 would result In the establishment of more sets 
 of separate schools. Apart, however, from the 
 objections upon principle there are serious ob-i 
 Jectionb from a practical educational standpoint. 
 Some of these objections may be briefly indicated. 
 
 We labour under great difficulties In maintain- 
 ing an efficient system of primary education. 
 The school taxes bear heavily upon our people. 
 The large amount of land which is free from 
 school taxes and the great extent of country over 
 which our small population is scattered present 
 obstacles to efficiency and progress. 
 
 Hon. members will see that the land policy 
 of the Government in the North-west is 
 involved in this manner, that their action 
 in exempting railway lands from tpxn- 
 tion has, to a large extent, prevented 
 the establishment of schools. Then the re- 
 ply touches on this Important point : 
 
 INQUIRY SUGGESTED AND REJECTED. 
 
 We believe that when the remedial order was 
 made, there was not available then to Your 
 Excellency In Council full and accurate infor- 
 mation as to the working of our former system 
 of schools. 
 
 We also belifive that th^re was lacking the 
 means of forming a correct judgment as to the 
 effect upon the province of changes in the direc- 
 tion indicated in the order. 
 
 Being impressed with this view, we respect- 
 fully submit that it is not yet too late to make 
 a full and deliberate investigation of the whole 
 subject. Should such a course be adopted, we 
 shall cheerfully assist In affording the most com- 
 plete Information available. An investigation 
 of such a kind would furnish a substantial basis 
 of fact upon which conclusions could be formed 
 with a reasonable degree of certainty. 
 
 But the Government rejected that offer, as 
 they had refused the advice of the leader 
 of the Opposition to the same effect long be- 
 fore. 
 
 ESSENTIALS OP RESTORED PRIVILEGES. 
 
 Then this reply from Manitoba points 
 out the two essentials to any effective and 
 substantial restoration of Roman Catholic 
 privileges, in this way : 
 
 1. The right to levy school taxes. 
 
 2. The right to participate in the legislative 
 school grant ; without these privileges the sepa- 
 rate schools cannot be properly carried on, and 
 without them, therefore, any professed restora- 
 tion of privilege s would be illusory. 
 
 There is some argument put forward as to 
 the legality of legislating in this Parlia- 
 ment with respect to levying school taxes ; 
 btit in regard to the second point, the right 
 to share in the legislative grants, there is 
 no room for argument. It is clear to every 
 one that without a share in the public funds 
 of the province, the restoration of separate 
 
 schools In Manitoba must be perfectly illus- 
 ory, and the framers of the present Bill 
 have confessed it by the manner in which 
 tbey have framed the Bill, for evidently, 
 they are unable to see any way of providing 
 public funds for those schools. 
 
 MEMORANDUM PROM OTTAWA. 
 
 Then there was the memorandum, dated 
 27th July last, adopted by the Committee of 
 the Privy Council, here, making certain sug- 
 gestions. This .vas not a new remedial 
 order addressed to Manitoba, directing it to 
 do certain things, but a memorandum 
 making suggestions to Manitoba, and 
 setting forth that something less than what 
 was demanded by the remedial order might 
 be satisfactory to the minority. It was an 
 inquiry as to what Manitoba would be wiy- 
 ing to do about the matter. It contained no 
 indication as to what the Government here 
 intended to do. la reply to that memoran- 
 dum, and forwarded a good deal later, there 
 was another memorandum from the Govern- 
 ment of Manitoba, sent on 21st December, 
 1895, covering a good deal of ground, and I 
 wish to call attention to one of Its phases. 
 It contains a distinct repetition of the in- 
 vitation to inquire further into the facts 
 of the case. It says : 
 
 MANITOBA'S SECOND REPLY. 
 
 It is a matter of regret that the invitation 
 extended by the legislative assembly to make a 
 proper inquiry into the facts of the case has 
 not been accepted, bi't that, as above stated, 
 the advisers of His Excellency have declared 
 their policy without investigation. It Is equally 
 a matter of regret that Parliament is apparently 
 about to be asked to legislate without investiga- 
 tion. It is with all deference submitted that 
 such a course seems to be quite Incapable of 
 reasonable justlflcaticn, and must create the con- 
 viction that the educational interest of the peo- 
 ple of the province of Manitoba are being dealt 
 with, in a hostile and peremptory way, by a tri- 
 bunal whose members have not approached the 
 subject in a judicial spirit, or taken the proceed- 
 ings necessary to enable them to form a propter 
 opinion upon the merits of the question. 
 
 The inquiry asked for by the reply of the 
 legislature to the remedial order should, in the 
 opinion of the undersigned, be again earnestly 
 invited, and in the event of the invitation being 
 accepted the scope of the inquiry should be suffi- 
 ciently wide to embrace all available facts re- 
 lating to tlie past or present school systems. 
 
 I do not think the position could have been 
 stated in more correct and statesman-like 
 language. The Privy Council, here, had fail- 
 ed absolutely in its duty to consider the 
 facts and the policy of the case, before 
 framing its order. The legislature of Mani- 
 toba had, in reply, invited Inquiry, and by 
 that invitation had practically pledged itself 
 to abide by the result of the inquiry. 
 Again, as late as the 21st December last, it 
 repeated the invitation with the same impli- 
 cation involved in it. Even then, the Gov- 
 ernment here would not accept it. It is only 
 
now. when they And how slippery is their 
 hold upon the majority In this House, wlieu 
 they find how thoroughly unpopular their 
 policy is with the country, that they are 
 holding out an olive branch, with a sword 
 point concealed among the foliage, invit- 
 ing Manitoba to a conference about the de- 
 tails of this question, after the matter has 
 been settled by the Bill passing its second 
 reading in this House. 
 
 CONFEUENCE PROPOSAL PROVES MANI- 
 TOBA RIGHT. 
 
 By this last concession, the Govern- 
 ment have confirmed the stand • of tho 
 Manitoba legislature, and confirmed the 
 stand taken by the leader of the Op- 
 position, that there should have been 
 more investigation and consultation about 
 the matter, and that it is even yet not too 
 late, to have that consultation. The only 
 difference between their position, as modiifled 
 by this confession of failure, and our posi- 
 tion, is. that they propose to act before hav- 
 ing a consultation, and that we propose to 
 defer action until there has been time for 
 a consultation. We propose to give this 
 Bill what is called the six months' hoist, 
 to give it a clear negative, for the time 
 being ; but that action certainly does not 
 prevent, as has been alleged, au inquiry and 
 a consultation with the Manitoba govern- 
 ment, as to what that government ghould 
 do in regard to the schools in that province. 
 I have no doubt that the influence of this 
 Government, exerted in that way. could 
 have long ago settled this question, and 
 could have kept It out of politics for years 
 back, If it had not been supposed to be the 
 interest of hon. gentlemen opposite, to keep 
 the question in politics for party purposes, 
 for the sake of the votes they thought they 
 could make out of It. 
 
 THE BILL COERCIVE, BUT NOT REMEDIAL. 
 
 I come now to consider, briefly, the provi- 
 sions of the Bill itself. I will not go into 
 the details now, but certain broad facts 
 stand out In regard to the principle of the 
 Bin. In the first place, the Bill is. in its 
 terms and in its Intentions, coercive. 
 It has been denied that it is coer- 
 cive, because it provides the nominal 
 alternative, that the Manitoba govern- 
 ment may, itself, do a great many tilings 
 ordered therein, and so prevent their being 
 done by this Government. But I say that a 
 Bill which is intended, or supposed to be in- 
 tended, to secure the performance of cer- 
 tain things in Manitoba, which the govern- 
 ment of that province do not wish to be 
 done, is, in its essence, a coercive Bill. This 
 Bill, in regard to some things, provides, that 
 If they pre not done by the local govern- 
 ment they shall be done by the Governor In 
 Council here. In regard to other things, it 
 directs the Lieutenant-Governor In Council 
 
 to do them, but provides no alternative 
 in case they refuse to do them. Accord- 
 ing to the strictest definition of the word 
 "coercion," this Bill is strictly a coercive 
 Bill in its intention, and In its language, and 
 yet tliose In this Hou.sf wlio sympathize with 
 the position of the minority in Manitoba, who 
 feel that something ought to be done for 
 them, have the additional fault to find with 
 it, that while the Bill is coercive in language 
 and Intention, It is not remedial. This 
 point was well brought out, like so many 
 others, by the hon. member for Kamou- 
 raska (Mr. Carroll) ; but it cannot be too 
 often impressed upon the House, that the 
 Bill Is, at the same time, coercive and In- 
 effective. 
 
 IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
 
 Before calling attention to its de- 
 fects as an Act for establishing separate 
 schools In Manitoba, I wish to emphasize 
 the argument that the Bill is, in Its essence, 
 unconstitutional, and is one which this 
 House has no right to pass. It must be re- 
 membered that our Jurisdiction is a special 
 one In regard to separate schools In Mani- 
 toba. It is a jurisdiction forming an ex- 
 ception to the rule of the constitution, which 
 gives educational matters to the control of 
 the province. It Is, therefore, ilmited to the 
 exact wording of the constitution, which 
 creates that exception, and endows us with 
 power to act. Under the 3rd subsection of 
 section 22 of the Manitoba Act, the circum- 
 stances which give rise to our jurisdiction 
 are clearly defined. There must be. first, an 
 appeal from the aggrieved minority to the 
 Governor General in Council. There must 
 be an Order in Council, demanding certain 
 relief from the government of Manitobn for 
 that aggrieved minority. There must be a 
 refusal by the government of Manitolm co 
 grant that relief, and the measure of our 
 Jurisdiction— and this is a point to which I 
 wish to call special attention— the measure 
 of our jurisdiction in this matter is the de- 
 gree In which Manitoba has refused to carry 
 out our demands. 
 
 BECAUSE DIFFERENT FROM REMEDIAL 
 ORDER. 
 
 There is a theory, that, if your re- 
 m(>dial order directs Manitoba to do 
 a large numbers of things, and she refuses 
 to do those things, you may then legislate 
 to carry out a smaller number of objects, 
 and Justify it by the pretense, 
 that the greater Includes the less. 
 No argument could be more absurd and rot- 
 ten. Our jurisdiction only begins when 
 Manitoba has refused to do certain particu- 
 lar things, and it Is only with regard to 
 those certain particular things that we are 
 able to legislate. I do not think that 
 argument could be expressed any bet- 
 ter than was done In the columns 
 
8 
 
 o£ "La V6rit6" of last week. "La 
 V6rlt6 " is an acknowledged clerical organ in 
 the province of Quebec, an organ which I am 
 told goes practically to every priest in the 
 province, an organ which Is looked tu, as its 
 name indicates, to tell the truth on every- 
 thing In which the Interests of religion are 
 involved. By a strange coincidence " La 
 V6rlt6 " on the 7th of March and the hon. 
 member for Winnipeg (Mr. Martin) on the 
 6th of March in this House put forward 
 almost exactly the same argument In regard 
 to the unconstitutionality of this measure. 
 When you find the hon. member for Winni- 
 peg, the author of the Act of 1890, the man 
 who is supposed to be the champion of Mr. 
 Greenway in this particular matter, and " La 
 Vfirlte," the organ of the clerical party In 
 Quebec, and supposed to be the champion of 
 the hierarchy and the priesthood In that pro- 
 vince, agreeing exactly in the same argu- 
 ment 
 
 Mr. AMYOT. If the hon. gentleman will 
 allow me 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Order, Only one conclusion 
 remains, Mr. Speaker, and that Is, that this 
 argument is so incontrovertlbly and abso- 
 lutely true that it cannot be got around by 
 anybody. Now, if my hon. friend wants to 
 ask me a question, I will hear It. 
 
 Mr. AMYOT. I say that the hon. gentle- 
 man is entirely mistaken about the position 
 of " La V6rit6 " In Quebec. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. What is its position, then ? 
 
 Mr. AMYOT. It is an ordinary paper, 
 without any authority more than any other 
 paper. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Others of my hon. friends 
 from Quebec, who are equally able to speak 
 of " La V6rit6 " such as my hon. friend from 
 Montmaguy (Mr. Cboquette), and my hon. 
 friend from Bagot (Mr. Dupont), have told 
 me that it is, I do not say an inspired paper, 
 but one that is looked upon as a clerical 
 paper which goes practically to every priest 
 in the province of Quebec. 
 
 Mr. CHOQTJBTTE. And has great In- 
 fluence. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. I have no doubt that my hon. 
 friend who Interrupts me (Mr. Amyot) thinks 
 that " La V6rit6 " is a very ordinary paper 
 when it disagrees with him, but that it is a 
 very extraordinary paper when it agrees with 
 him and with the Government which he sup- 
 ports. "La V6rit6" Is not as loyal to the 
 Government as the hon. member for Belle- 
 chasse (Mr. Amyot) is for the moment. There 
 have been times when he has not been loyal 
 to the Government ; but he is now extremely 
 loyal to them, and lie does not like to be told 
 that an Independent paper, which consults 
 the church authorities, but does not consult 
 him or the Premier of this country, has 
 proncmced against this Bill. I propose to 
 read to you as correct a translation as I can 
 make of the argument In "La V6rlt6." It 
 says : 
 
 " LA VBRITE'S " OPINION. 
 
 The parliamentary correspondence of the 
 " Trifluvlen " conelders that the present time is 
 not well chosen for diacusslnK the merits of the 
 Remedial Bill. We believe It is Infinitely better 
 worth our while to examine this Bill now, when 
 it is, at least theoretically, possible to modify 
 it, than to pass it flrst, and then to estimate Its 
 shortcomings. It /ill be said, " If there are 
 shortcomings, th-ry wjU be removed by subse- 
 quent legislation." Let no one create this il- 
 lusion for himself. Such as the Act is when 
 passed, such will it remain. Never can Parlia- 
 ment) he led to legislate twice on this question. 
 It is enough to remember what is going on at 
 Ottawa to convince ono of this. 
 
 If the 6lll is not modified so as to make It 
 conform entirely to the remedial order of last 
 March, it can be attacked as unconstitutional. 
 In effect, the Federal Parliament has no right 
 to legislate on the school question except in 
 so far as the Manitoba Legislature has refused 
 to legislate itself. Now, the remedial order of 
 March 21st, 1895, declared that the minority 
 had a right to three thing)] : A, B, C, viz., (A) 
 to construct, maintain, manage, Roman Catho- 
 lic schools ; (B) to receive a proportional share 
 of every subsidy granted from the public funds 
 for educational purposes ; (C) finally, exemption 
 for the Catholics from taxes Imposed for the 
 maintenance of public schools. It is A, B, C, 
 which the Federal Government ordered the 
 legislature to do. It is, therefore. A, B, C, which 
 the Manitoba Legislature has refused to do. It 
 l8,therefore. A, B, C, which the Ffideral Parlia- 
 ment has the right to do, in virtue of the con- 
 stitution. 
 
 But, by the Bill actually before tbe public, 
 the Gcvernment only invites Parliament to do 
 A and C ; for, no matter what one may say, 
 clause 74 does not do B ;— that Is to say. It does 
 not give the minority a proportional part of 
 every grant male for educational purposes out 
 of public funds.' 
 
 Winnipeg may then say : — " I Lave refused to 
 do A, B, C ; — but I have not refused to do A, C. 
 Vou have, therefore, the right to Tpglslate on 
 A, B, C, because of my refusal ; but you have 
 not the right to legislate on A, C, because you 
 have not, in the first place, given me legal notice 
 to legislate, myself. In regard to A, C, alone." 
 
 It Is useless to do like the ostrich : to hMe 
 one's head in the sand, and believe oneself un- 
 der shelter. If clause 74 Is not modified so as 
 to do B, the Act will probably be declared un- 
 constitutional. 
 
 There is the opinion of an independent, re- 
 spected, Influent'il. clerical authority, on the 
 constitutionality of this measure. It is re- 
 markable that the same argument .should 
 have occurred to the hon. member tor Win- 
 nipeg at the same time, and should have 
 been put forward on the same day without 
 any knowledge of the coincidence or part of 
 either. The conclusion, I say, is clear that 
 that argument is incontrovertible. Both 
 the Green^vay side of this question and the 
 clergy of the province of Quebec are agreed 
 in thinking that this Act Is defective and 
 will probably be unconstitutional. 
 
 MEANT TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
 
 Nay, Mr. Speaker, I will go further than 
 that ; 1 believe the Government meant this 
 
Act to be unconstitutional. Nobody believes 
 for a moment that tbls Government, now con- 
 solidated, with the brains back in it, and the 
 imbecile head, as be was described by his 
 subordinates, not cut off— nobody believes 
 that this two-beaded Government really wish 
 to restore separate schools to Manitoba. 
 Everybody knows that all they wish to do Is 
 to pass a Bill through this House which 
 shall nominally asaert the right of the Catho- 
 lics of Manitoba to separate schools, which 
 shall make a show of coercing Manitoba, 
 which shall be sufficient to secure the sup- 
 port of the Catliolic church in the next elec- 
 tion. That is all they want to do. They are 
 comforting themselves and their Ontario 
 followers with the assurance that after ail It 
 does not matter. They know that the Privy 
 Council will declai-e the Act Ux its present 
 shape to be ultra vires. They know that Par- 
 liament will never venture to attack the 
 question again. They know that it is a dead 
 issue If this Bill passes. Tliey know more 
 than that ; they know that if this Parlia- 
 ment forces separate schools on Manitoba, 
 it will prevent the legislature of Manitoba 
 from establishing separate schools itself. 
 They are afraid like the hou. Minister of 
 Marine nnd Fisheries (Mr, Costigan) that 
 the Manitoba government will re-establish 
 those schools and get the credit of that act. 
 They would rather see it done from here, 
 and the result of an attempt to do it from 
 liere by a Bill in any such shape as the one 
 before the House would be to make Catholic 
 separate schools in Manitoba Impossible for 
 generations yet to come. 
 
 It is a serious question for our French and 
 other Catholic friends whether they should 
 vote for a Bill of that kind, in view of the 
 consequences to their co-religionists. 
 
 Mr. CAMERON. Hear, hear. 
 
 SENATOR POWER'S OPINION. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. My hon. friend from Inver- 
 ness gives his dry " hear, hear " as a criti- 
 cism on my remarks ; but I am glad to be 
 able to oppose to that little interruption of 
 his the opinion of as good a Catholic, as 
 good a Nova' Scotian, and as ^ood a law- 
 yer as he is. I refer to Senator Power, of 
 Halifax. His catholicity will not be denied 
 by any one who knows him. 
 
 Mr. CAMERON (Inverness). Nor his Grit- 
 tism. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Strange as it may seem to the 
 hon. member for Inverness, it is quite pos- 
 sible to be a good Grit and a good Catholic 
 at the same time. We may say one thing 
 for Senator Power's catholicity, which I am 
 afraid will never be said for the catholicity 
 of the hon. member for Inverness. More 
 than twenty years ago, certain writings of 
 Senator Power on the relations of the church 
 to politics, which were published in our 
 papers here, were sent to Rome, and sub- 
 mitted to the college of cardinals ; and they 
 G E C— 2 
 
 were declared by the cardinal whose special 
 duty it was to look Into the matter to be 
 sound in theology, although there was a. 
 slight leaning to Orlttism In the writings. 
 And as a result of the writing of those arti- 
 cles, an ablegate was sent from Rome to 
 this country, and an Important revision of 
 the relations between church and state in 
 this country, followed bis mission. Senator, 
 Power's catholicity, therefore, cannot bo 
 denied, and I will give you some idea ot 
 his opinions on this Bill. I will ••ead you 
 one or two of his conclusions, first, and then 
 one or two quotations in support thereof. 
 I shnll read you first the conclusion of hia 
 valuable pamphlet : 
 
 Having looked at the record of tbe Oovoi-nment 
 in connection with tbe Manitoba acbool question 
 and having examined the Remedial Bill, I return 
 now to the question stated at the beginning o{ 
 this paper, and say that In my humble opinion, 
 the Bill In question, Is not such a measure as a 
 Catholic member of either House of Parliament 
 should vote for. It Is calculated to do no good, 
 but rather harm to Catholic Interests In Mani- 
 toba, and to cause serious Injury to the Canadian 
 people as a whole. While I do not question the 
 right of any Catholic member, who can satisfy 
 himself that the Bill Is likely to improve the 
 position of his co-rellgionlsts In the matter ot 
 education, to vote for It, I shall feel It my duty, 
 as a Catholic and as a citizen, to vote against it, 
 should it come before the Senate, in anything 
 like Its preeent condition. 
 
 L. O. POWER. 
 
 Ottawa, 3rd March, 1896. 
 
 A DIVIDED CABINET. 
 
 He llnds that a great many defects in the 
 Bill, some of which I have pointed out, and 
 others to which I have not referred. He 
 says, after a good many criticisms, which I 
 shall not read In full : 
 
 In short, the Bill is such as one would naturally 
 expect to result from the contest of two hostile 
 sections of a Cabinet, warring over the remedial 
 order, one striving — probably honestly — to re- 
 store to the Catholic minority, the rights ot 
 which they were unjustly deprived by the Mani- 
 toba Act of 1890, and the other determined that 
 nothing should be done to alienate the large 
 section of the population which Is opposed to any 
 concession to the minority, and believes that in 
 the matter of education, the majority in Mani- 
 toba should have a perfectly free band. 
 
 Let us suppose the Remedial Bill to havb be- 
 come law, and try to foresee the probable result 
 Certain school districts, in which a majority ot 
 the voters are Catholics, have accepted the Acta 
 of 1890 and are now working under them. The 
 people assess themselves under the law and re- 
 ceive their proportion of the legislative grant 
 The teachers say Catholic prayers, and give In- 
 structions In the doctrines of their church after 
 the regular school hourr. 
 
 This Is In the much-abuoed Protestant 
 schools of Manitoba ! 
 
 The attitude of the schools in Catholic dis- 
 tricts towards the ey.isting law and their present 
 condition are reported on by Mr. A. L. Young— 
 an ofBcer of tbe Manitoba government. 
 
10 
 
 FRIENDLY MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC 
 SCHOOLS. 
 
 lie then goes on to quote the report of Mr. 
 Young, but, as Mr. Young will be suspected 
 of favourlag the Government, I prefer to 
 quote from the speech of Senator Bernier, 
 which he gives later on : 
 
 However, I find that he is to a great extent 
 confirmed by Senator Bernier, late superintendent 
 of Catholic schools in Manitoba. Speaking of 
 the Catholics of that province he said, in ad- 
 dressing the Senate on 25th April, 1886 : 
 
 " Inducements were offered to them by the 
 local government through their officers to attend 
 the schools without entirely sacrificing their 
 views ; and they thought they might try the 
 new system. It is not on account of any pre- 
 ference for the public schools but because of their 
 poverty and of the peculiar inducements offered 
 to them. The local government were anxious 
 to have some of our schools brought under the 
 law in order to be able to base an argument upon 
 the change. An inspector . was sent to them who 
 told them tnat if they wanted to keep up their 
 schools the government would not be too exact- 
 ing about compliance with the regulations. He 
 told them that they might quietly give any re- 
 ligious instruction in the school after school 
 hours. He told them that they could begin and 
 close school work by saying the ordinary Catho- 
 lic prayers and even suggested how It should be 
 done." 
 
 This is sulScient proof out of the mouth of 
 Senator Bernier, late superintendent of sep- 
 arate schools in Manitoba, that the local 
 government has made it as easy as possible 
 for the Catholic minority there to avail 
 themselves of the ordinary public schools. 
 Senator Power goes on to comment as fol- 
 lows :— 
 
 MANITOBA CATHOLICS WOULD LOSE BY 
 CHANGE. 
 
 It is hardly to be expected that the districts 
 in question will give up the advantages which 
 they now enjoy, for the purpose of coming under 
 the operation of the Remedial Bill, if it become 
 law ; and I do not believe that Senator Bernier 
 will seriously blame them if they fail to do so. 
 They would gain nothing and lose a great deal. 
 
 vent a friendly settlement of the question and to 
 antagonize the local government and the Pro- 
 testant majority, who might otherwise be willing 
 to make such modifications in the existing law 
 as to legalize concessions similar to those tolera- 
 ted in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince 
 Edward Island, and recognized as being on the 
 whole fairly satisfactory. 
 
 Mr. CAMERON. Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr, CASEY. They were so recognized to- 
 night by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. 
 Kenny) and now by the hon. member for 
 Inverness (Mr. Cameron). 
 
 Mr. CAMERON. If legalized. 
 
 SO WOULD THOSE OUTSIDE. 
 
 Ml'. CASEY. The hon. member for Hall- 
 fax declared that they were satisfactory as 
 they stood. Senator Power goes on to say : 
 
 Outside of Manitoba, persistence by the Domi- 
 nion Government is likely to have injurious 
 effects, more especially in Ontario, where it may 
 lead to a renewal of the warfare waged for so 
 many years against Catholic separate schools by 
 the Conservative party under the leadership of 
 Mr. (now Chief Justice) Meredith. The number 
 of Catholic children of an age to attend separate 
 schools in Manitoba, was, as appears from the 
 official report for 1886, the last to which I have 
 had access, about 4,100. 
 
 Now comes a passage to which I would call 
 the attention not only of every Catholic, but 
 of every Protestant who, like myself, wishes 
 to see no disturbance of the existing rela- 
 tions between Protestants and Catholics in 
 Ontario : 
 
 The prospects of a successful campaign against 
 separate schools in Ontario would be much in- 
 creased if the Catholic electors of that province 
 were now by transferring their support to the 
 Conservatives, to alienate the Liberals, who, un- 
 der Sir Oliver Mowat, have been their staunch 
 friends in the past. In any case, the passing of 
 the Bill will cause a continuance of the present 
 mischievous and regrettable agitation, which is 
 prejudicial to the interest.^ of all classes. 
 
 HE TRUSTS THE ,.'ROTESTANTS. 
 
 Amongst other things they would lose their 1 skiP again a little and quote further, 
 
 share of the public grant for educational After saying that he does uotob.iect to the 
 
 purposes, which this Bill finds no means of Remedial Bill on the ground of provincial 
 
 giving them. rights, he says : 
 
 Whatever we may think of the local govern- 
 ment's action in this connection, it cannot be 
 said that it shows any hostility to Catholic 
 schools as such ; and it perhaps indicates that, 
 if the existing contest with the Dominion Qovern- 
 mant were at an end, a settlement or modus 
 Vivendi satisfactory to all concerned might be 
 found without any radical change in the existing 
 law. In the rural districts, where the law of 
 1890 has not been accepted, the Catholics as a 
 rule are not well enough oS to maintain their 
 schools satisfactorily with their own funds, with- 
 out a share of the legislative grant and without 
 exemption from taxation for the public schools. 
 
 It is clear that in Manitoba the passing of the 
 Remedial Bill will be of no substantial benefit to 
 the Catholic minority, while it will tend to pre- 
 
 At the same time, I am convinced that, under 
 all the circumstances of the case — some of which 
 I have discussed — Mr. Laurier's policy of Inquiry 
 and conciliation would, if adopted, be far better 
 for Catholics as well as Protestants, not only in 
 Manitoba but in Ontario and all the other pro- 
 vinces of the Dominon, than that of the Qovem- 
 roent, as embodied in the attempt to pass the 
 Bill. I was for thirteen years a comralRsloner 
 of schools for the city of Halifax ; and my ex- 
 perience in that capacity has satisfied me that 
 good tempered appeals to the generosity and sense 
 of justice of our Proteetant fellow-citizens will 
 nearly always gain recognition for our reasonable 
 claims and due regard for our conscientious con- 
 victions ; while, on the other hand, anything 
 in the nature of aggression or ooeroion is almMt 
 
11 
 
 certain to lead to reBlstance and failure. In On- 
 tario the experience has been mucb the same. 
 Various amendments to the original Separate 
 School Act, which were needed to place the Ca- 
 tholic schools upon a satisfactory footing, have 
 been made from time to time, without appeals 
 to any power other than the spirit of toleration 
 and the sense of Justice of the overwhelming 
 Protestant majority of that great province. Hu- 
 man nature Is much the same in Manitoba as in 
 Nova Scotia or Ontario ; and the attempt by the 
 Dominion Parliament at the present time to set 
 up separate schools in Manitoba under the pro- 
 visions of the so-called Remedial Bill, against 
 the strong protests and hostility of the Govern- 
 ment, legislature and electorate of that province, 
 is fore-doomed to failure. 
 
 I will not quote any more, though it is all 
 valuable. 
 
 LIBERALS FAIR TO CATHOLICS. 
 
 1 will say In conclusion to the Cath- 
 olics In Ontario, and to those who know 
 what has taken place in Ontario, that they 
 should know who are their friends, tliey 
 should know perfectly well who have stood 
 up for their rights, so far as those rights 
 could be obtained without adopting a policy 
 thit would 'njure the counti-y at large. They 
 know whether the P.P.A.'s, the associates of 
 my hou. friend from East Lambtou (Mr. 
 Moncrieff), who spoke in favour of this Bill, 
 or the associates of those on this side of 
 the House have done justice to the Roman 
 Catholics in Ontario. To our French friends 
 I do not need to say anything. 
 
 An hon. MEMBER. They are not here. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. No, but they are within hear- 
 ing. The people of Quebec know who is their 
 friend. They know in whom they are trust- 
 ing. Tliey know that they have a man who 
 understands them, who understands their 
 views and their interests. And, by a strange 
 coincidence, we of Ontario find in the same 
 individual one who understands us and our 
 views and our interests. In spite of all at- 
 tempts by such speakers as my hon. friend 
 from Halifax (Mr. Kenny), who seems to 
 feel a natural antipathy to our leader— 
 and I do not wonder at it— in spite of all 
 attempts to raise religious prejudices against 
 him amongst the Catholics of Quebec and 
 the Protestants of Ontario, our leader stands 
 out as the only man who has taken a manly 
 straightforward, upright course in regard to 
 
 this question, the only man who by any pos- 
 sibility can settle this question. 
 
 PATRIOTISM OF FRENCH CANADIANS. 
 
 I said a moment ago that I need not say 
 anything to our Liberal French friends, but 
 I cannot help saying one thing to them. 
 They may be sure that those who have taken 
 a broad and statesmanlike view of this ques- 
 tion, who have refused to take advantage 
 of a constitutional technicality to pursue a 
 course that would stir up divisions of race 
 and creed in Manitoba, who have refused to 
 take advantage of the weapons placed in 
 their hands, will find that the people of 
 Manitoba are human like the people of the 
 rest of Canada. Whatever the feeling has 
 been there, up to the present time. It will be 
 Impossible for any ordinary British or 
 French people In Manitoba to refuse to do 
 something In return for the magnanimity 
 which these gentlemen are showing. I say 
 that those French Canadians and Irish Cath- 
 olics who are supporting the policy of the 
 leader of this side of the House — and 
 tlipy are a vast and increasing number- 
 are doing more to save the future of Can- 
 ada, are doing more to make the continuance 
 of confederation possible, are doing more 
 for tlie welfare of their co-religionists in 
 the province of Manitoba, than can be done 
 l)y any Oovernment in Canada taking the * 
 fiiilcst advantage of the weapons afforded 
 by the constitution. 
 
 COERCION IMPOSSIBLE. 
 
 And when I say that this Bill is a 
 failure, I am not imputing any special 
 blame to the Government, because I am 
 quite convinced that any Bill that 
 could be framed In this House must be 
 a failure. I am convinced that no means 
 exist for enforcing the will of this Par- 
 liament upon Manitoba in opposition to 
 tlie will of its legislature and the majority 
 of its people. What we can blame the Gov- 
 ernment for, Is not their Inability to do the 
 impossible, but their dishonesty In pre- 
 tending to do what their common sense 
 sliould have told them was impossible, and 
 for seeking to make capital out of religious 
 differences and for keeping the country in 
 a turmoil over a question that could have 
 l)opii settled long ago by conciliatory and 
 peaceful methods.