IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (Mr-3) 
 
 // 
 
 ^ .>S 
 
 
 <i 
 
 t 
 
 li 
 
 11.25 
 
 
 
 |2£ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 4\^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 iV 
 
 s> 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ■^.^- 
 
 6^ 
 
 23 WBT MAIN STREIT 
 
 WEBSTER, K.Y. 1 45(0 
 
 (716) •72-4 S03 
 
 ^.>^ 
 
 '<^ 
 

 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICIVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and BibSiographic Notas/Not» lachniquas at bibliographiquaa 
 
 Tha !nttituta has attamptad to obtain tha baat 
 original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this 
 copy which may ba bibliographicaily uniqua, 
 which may altar any of tha imagas in tha 
 reproduction, or which ?nay significantly change 
 tha usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couieur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverturn endommagte 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaorAe at/ou pellicul4e 
 
 r~| Cover tit^e missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured mapa/ 
 
 Cartes gtegraphiquas en couieur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations an couieur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Rati* avac d'autrea documents 
 
 Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La failure serrAa paut causer de I'omhre ou de la 
 distortion la long de la marge intArieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certainaa pages bianchea ajoutAes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaiejant dans le texte, 
 mais. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas AtA filmtes. 
 
 Additional commanta:/ 
 Commantaires supplAmantairaa; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm* la mailleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 4tA possible de se proc<jrer. Les details 
 da cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 I'jne image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dens la mAthoda normale de filmage 
 sont indiquAs ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 v/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pagea de couieur 
 
 Pages damagacii/ 
 Pages endommagAes 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaurtes at/ou peliiculAea 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxo< 
 Pages dAcoiortes, tachatAes ou piquAas 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pagas ditachtea 
 
 |~~1 Pages damagacii/ 
 
 I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 rri Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 r^ Pages detached/ 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Quality in^gaia de I'impreasion 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du matAriol suppMmantalra 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Mition diaponible 
 
 Pagas wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refiimed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pagea totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un fauillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont At* filmies A nouveau da fapon h 
 obtenir la maiileure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film* au taux da rMuction indiquA ci-daaaous. 
 
 IPX 14X 18X 22X 
 
 I I I I I I I I I I I I vH' 
 
 2SX 
 
 30X 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
Th« copy filmed h«r« ha« b««n raproducad thfinkt 
 to th« ganaroaity of: 
 
 L'axamplaira filmA fut raproduit grica it la 
 ginArotit* da: 
 
 talla 
 
 du 
 Ddlfiar 
 
 una 
 fnaga 
 
 Univflrsity of Windier 
 
 Tha Imegaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality 
 poaaibia conaidaring tha condition and lagibillty 
 of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha 
 filming contract spacif Icationa. 
 
 Original copiaa in printad papar covara ara fllmad 
 baginning with tha front covar and anding on 
 tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- 
 sion. or tha back covar whan appropriate. All 
 othar original copiaa ara fllmad baginning on tha 
 firat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- 
 aion. and anding on tha laat pa^ia with a printad 
 or illuatratad impraaaion. 
 
 University of Windsor 
 
 Laa imagaa suivantaa ont 6ti raproduitas avec la 
 plua grand soin, compta tenu da la condition at 
 da la nattat* da l'axamplaira film*, at w 
 conformity avac. laa conditions du contrat da 
 filmaga. 
 
 Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura an 
 papiar ast imprimAa aont filmAs nn commanpant 
 par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la 
 darnlAra paga qui comporta una ampreinta 
 d'Imprassion ou d'iiiutti 'on. soit pai la sacond 
 plat, salon la cas. Tous l6« autras axamplairaa 
 originaux sont filmAs an commanpant par la 
 pramiira paga qui comporta una amprainta 
 d'impraasion ou d'illustration at an tarminant par 
 la darniira paga qui comporta una taila 
 amprainta. 
 
 Tha laat racordad frama on aach microficha 
 shall contain tha symbol ^^ (moaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or tha symbol y (moaning "END"), 
 whichavar applias. 
 
 Un das symboias suivants apparattra sur la 
 dar lihn imaga da chaqua microficha, salon la 
 cas: la symboia ^-^ signifia "A SUIVRE", la 
 symbols V signifia "FIN". 
 
 Mapa. plataa. charts, stc. may ba fllmad at 
 diffarant reduction ratios. Thosa too larga tc ba 
 antiraly iinciudad in ona axposura ara filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many framoa aa 
 required. The following dijgrama illuatrate the 
 method: 
 
 Lea cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvant Atra 
 fiimAs i das taux da reduction difftrants. 
 Loraqua la document ast trop grand pour Atra 
 raproduit 9n un seul clichA, il est film* A partir 
 da I'angie supArieur gauche, de gauche A droita. 
 at de haut an baa. 0n prenant le nombre 
 d'imagea nAcassaire. Las diagrammes suivants 
 iilustrant la mtthoda. 
 
 rrata 
 o 
 
 lalure. 
 
 12 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 32X 
 
WIS! 
 
 Mr. D 
 
 generoui 
 
 od tbo 1 
 
 his seat i 
 
 a large p 
 
 were wc 
 
 Aud I au 
 
 tionary 
 
 The man 
 
 voice, tb( 
 
 several si 
 
 tiou. But 
 
 aud cooll 
 
 hon. gent 
 
 wUeu oue 
 
 the siwecl 
 
 fitteuiptlu 
 
 advanced 
 
 a lutfus 
 
 As afsp 
 
 platform, 
 
 which a 1 
 
 ily most 
 
 tlie hon. 
 
 very high 
 
 lo say 1 hn 
 
 iif Pnrllai 
 
 minds cle 
 
 portant ai 
 
 c.illed upt 
 
 ■an be fo 
 
 gentleman 
 
 isual kin 
 
 lone, the I 
 
 Hid that 
 
 ind he w( 
 
 Napoleon 
 
 urles Inoki 
 
 yes of th 
 
 rote whloi 
 
 live. The 
 
 njf, that t 
 
 ras not an 
 
5: 
 
 SPKKCH 
 
 OK 
 
 HON. L. II. DA VIES, M.P. 
 
 ON THE 
 
 REMEDIAL BILL 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, OTTAWA, FllIDAV, 13'iii MARCH, 1896 
 
 Mr. DAVIBS (F.E.l.) Mr. Speaker, tho 
 generous measure of applause wbicb greet- 
 ed the I'Muance Miul8t»'r wlii'ti he n'suiui'd 
 bis seat this afternoou iudicati'd that at least 
 a large portioo of his followers iu this Uousi; 
 were well satislled wltlt his forensic i-flort. 
 And I am free to suy, Sir, tlmt, an au elocu- 
 tionary effort it deserves uo small praise. 
 The manner in which it was delivered, the 
 voice, the diction, the emphasl.s givm to the 
 several sentences, were deserving of admira- 
 tion. But wbeu one cornea to examine calmly 
 and coolly Into the propositions which th*? 
 hon. gentleman asked this House to support, 
 when one comes to analyse quietly th..! ^ist of 
 tlio speech to liud out what the speaker was 
 iUtemptiug to prove and what arguments he 
 advanced to prove It, there comes upon one 
 iin iutfuse feeling of disappointment. 
 
 As a/speech to be delivered upon a public 
 I)latfoto, what is called a stump siteech, in 
 wblcbJa large amount of claptrap nocessar- 
 lly mist find place, I think the spei'ch of 
 the hon. gentleman would be 'jutltied to 
 very high praise, iadcod. But, Sir. I venture 
 10 say ihat to those cool and calm members 
 (if Parliament who desire to inform tbeir 
 minds clearly and distinctly ui)on the im- 
 portant and grave Issues which they aie 
 iialled upon to decide, very i.'ttle c(tn.fort 
 kin be found in that si)eoch. The hon. 
 Jtrentleman commenced by telii'-;: us in a 
 asual kind of way, that after all said and 
 liine, the issue was not so very 'niportaut, 
 iiid that It was rather a trivial matter ; 
 
 nd he wound up with telling us, not like 
 Napoleon told his troops, tuat forty cen- 
 \irie8 looked down upon them, but that tlio 
 ■ves of the world were centred upon the 
 rote which this Parliament was about to 
 
 Ive. The hon. gentleman told us. in open- 
 ng, that the question of separate schools 
 
 as not an issue here at all, that it was im- 
 
 bedded in tlie constitution Itself, and could 
 not be eradicated ; and then tlie hon. gentle- 
 man went on to say that we had a right in 
 approaching this question, to brush to one 
 side altogether the question of provincial 
 lights, and tlie (luest'on of precedents, so 
 far as they mlglit affect the ■I'^her provinces 
 of the Dominion, and the question of sep- 
 arate sdioois. Bat, notwithstanding that 
 in his exordium lie asked us to brush these 
 important matters ail to one side, soven- 
 teuths jf tlie hou. gentleman's speech was 
 taken iij) witli endeavonring to siiow that 
 this was not an invasion of pro-inciai rights, 
 that tills was not a bad precedent for Par- 
 liament to admit j and that separate schoolf 
 tluniselves were "excellent things, which had 
 the approval el" very dl-stinguished men, and 
 .sl-.onid receive the approval of both sides 
 of this House. Sir, 1 could have pardoned 
 the lion, gentleman if lie has spared me at 
 least that homily which he delivered upon 
 the necessity of public men keeping good 
 faitli towards those witli whom tlu-y wero 
 associated. He told us that the observance 
 of good faitii was al>solutely essential to 
 sochii. comnjiMvial. natloual, hut he had the 
 courage to omit, poiiticMl, welfare. Sir, this 
 comes from an hon. gentleman who, twelve 
 mouths ago, joined the ranks of a Prem- 
 ier who was forming a Cabinet, pledged 
 .his honour and tcood faiih to deal square- 
 ly, honestly, and above-board, with that 
 Premier, and spent twelve months in un- 
 dermining tliG Preaiier lie had sworn to de- 
 fend, and uphold, and after he had agree«l 
 upon tlie Governor's speecli to be subniitved 
 to Parliament, and had himself placed his 
 name on tlie paper to move its adoption, sud- 
 denly constituted himself the chief of 
 what was termed by his Premier, a nest of 
 traitoi-s, resigned his place in the Goi'orn- 
 nient, tried to assassinate his chieftain, by 
 
^ 
 
 w 
 
 pol^'imrdiiiR lilni In tbo bnok, iiml was thus 
 yuiliy III' tlic blackest ircaclH ry that any 
 piiltliV man lias ever slidwn towards Ills 
 (•hU'( 111 tills or any oiIkt coiiiiiry. Anil 
 aftfi- vainly i-iulca vourlnu to dfsfroy tin* 
 (■hijriaiii 111' liatl sworn to support, lu' crawl- 
 ed baeU into oHice for tlio ))nrpoH(' of oblaln- 
 iii;: Ills 8a!:iiy and ai pointmcnt. wliich lio 
 now liold-s ai'tlu' ln-cU and will ol' a ;,'("illt'- 
 nian he piiUlloally diclarcd was an liiibcilf. 
 and unlit to lead a (lovcrnnifiil. For lliat 
 lion. i;i>nil(Mnau to ri-ad this lloii.si' a homily 
 upon rood fallli, is a litth' too inufh lor mo 
 to stand. 
 
 THK NOVA SCOTIA Ol'TUACi:. 
 
 Sir, the lion. «cntli'inan. at any rate, 
 has a ci'ii.ain aiiioiinl oT couraj^e. He 
 did not scruple in this Mouse to-day to de- 
 feud a political ont!ay;e coiiimitled In this 
 oountty sonic twenty-tivo years ap). which 
 few oilier pnblic men have ever had thu 
 hardihood to speak In defence of. The 
 leader of (he Opposition, lu his remarks tin; 
 other day. referred to the ill effects which 
 flowed from a policy of coercion towan's 
 any particular i)rovlnce, and to the pxi.l 
 effects wliicli llowed from conciliation and 
 f.'iir treatment to the people. .Viid he point- 
 ed out the clTect of confederation in On- 
 tar-o, Quebec and New Uruuswlck. and the 
 different ctfeet which a dilTerent policy had 
 lu the province or Nova Scotia. )fo showed. 
 Sir. thai iu the province of New 
 lirunswick. the •lU-'Siif'u had been fairly and 
 iKUiesily submitted to the peoide, and the 
 people,' ha vim,' had a chance to pass jnd,:,'- 
 incnt u|tou It, had loyally submitted to the 
 olVect of tlieir vertiict ever since ; while In 
 the adj(»iniiis province of .Nova Scotia, 
 where the opposite policy was adopl(>d. 
 There 1.^ rankllnj; In the breast of every elec- 
 tor who w:is then livliur. and Is llvinii still, 
 a feellns of resentment and liatred towards 
 confi der.Mtion. which a quarter of a century 
 has not served to eradicate. That hon. vreu- 
 tl(>man now comes forward to-day and justi- 
 fies that action by saying that the same pol- 
 icy was inii'sm d in the provinces of 
 Ontario and <}ucbec. Why, Sir. he oufrlit to 
 know, as every one else knows, that iu the 
 p.'ovince of Ontario and Quebec, the lead- 
 iui; imblic men and the several parties were 
 unlled upon this sreat i>olicy of confedera- 
 tion, and were backed up by an enormous 
 majority of the iieopl". There was not. 1 
 am told, from the irreat province of Ontario, 
 a sinjile petition laid ui>on the Table against 
 It ; wnereas. In Nova Scotia, from one end 
 of that province to tin* other, the i)eoide 
 rose till almost In practic.-il rt>l)ellion ay:ninst 
 th<> measure. Btit dnrin.ij the last hours ot 
 a dyiiiu ra>liament. by means alone known 
 to tho.«e who carried It, a majority of the 
 people's reinesentatlves were obtained, 
 .•itfainst the will of the people, and In viola- 
 tion of their understc.od pledges, to 
 destroy the old constitution of Nova 
 
 Sootin, nnd to force this new menBuro 
 down the throats of the people aftaludt 
 their will. The result has been, as 
 I sjild beff.re. that •<> this day you cannot 
 travel tliron'j:h any slngh' part of that great 
 province without Ihidln;: in 'he Hearts of the 
 |)eople who lh(>n were idectors, the bitterest 
 feeliny; ."igalust conii'der.ilion. caused, not by 
 confi der.'illoii Itself, but caused by the d.is- 
 t.'irdly way in which It was forced ui»on 
 them. 
 
 SCRAP HOOK QUOTATIONS. 
 
 .Now, Sir. the hon. geiitlemau, in addressing 
 hlmseli to what he thought was the (luestlon 
 iK'fore the House, indulged in a style of argu- 
 ment which 1 think Is hardly creditable to a 
 mnn occupyluii his high ])osltlon. The hou. 
 gentleman read here b.v the hour scrap-book 
 (piotations showing \\liat this public man 
 said many years .ago, and what he s.aid af- 
 terwards ; and how there was this Incou- 
 sision<y ;uid tli.at incousisteiH-y. Sir. 1 
 thlnic we should have got beyoiul that st.vie 
 of deb.ating on this great and grave (jues- 
 tloi>. II Is ni>i a ipu'stlon of wlu'lher Mr. 
 A. has been strictly consistent, or whether i 
 Mr. R. has been sfrictl.v consistent : no| 
 doubt I'.'icli of them would be ;ible to show 
 If occasion required, that there was no In 
 consistency between the two statement - 
 quoted. But I say that scrap-book quotations 
 are not the arguments that we require whe'i 
 we are approaching a question which li' 
 leader designated the other da.v as one of 
 the most transcendent Importance that ha! 
 ever engaged the attention of thn 
 Parliament since confederation. Now 
 Sir. the hon. gentleman referred to th' 
 great debates which look place In the oM 
 T'arliament of Canada, known as the con 
 federation debates, to statements whir' 
 M'ere made In tlios.' debates by leading puN 
 lie men as to their Intentions with regar 
 to tlu> school (jtiestion. and the question >< 
 education in tiu> two larirer provinces n 
 the Dominion. He quoted from Sir Alexando 
 Oalt. and from Mr. Sandfleld MacdonaM 
 nnd other leading men. to show that ther 
 was an understanding at that time, an um 
 derstanding firmly conie to befoi-e the Bil 
 linssed. that In tiie irreat provinces of Oi 
 tario and Quebec this qnostion of educnti 
 should be settled once for all ; and th.i 
 that understandinsj resulted in a compaf 
 being come to whereby the Protestant in 
 nority in the province of Quebec and t)i 
 Pathollc minority in the province of Outari 
 were to be secured in certain education 
 lights. 
 
 THR EDUCATIOX CO>fPA0T IN ONTARIO 
 AND QUEBEC. 
 
 With what object were these spppoli 
 quoted ? I have sat for thirteen or fourtei 
 years in this House ; I have been a prei 
 constant and assiduous reader of the new 
 
 or 
 
measure 
 
 lo nsalnst 
 been, as 
 
 oil cilllliot 
 tliiit urortt 
 nils of the 
 ic bittt-n'St, 
 m'd. nol by 
 >y the (1.1 H- 
 >rc»>(l upon 
 
 S. 
 
 addrossinj; 
 he (iiu'rttlon 
 yle of arRU- 
 (litiible to a 
 ,. The liou. 
 
 • sfi-ai'-lx'"'^ 
 publli' man 
 be said af- 
 this liicou- 
 V. Sh-. 1 
 1(1 tliat style 
 •rrave qnes- 
 .vbelher Mr. 
 or \vlu'tli<'r 
 isistent ; n<> 
 ble to s\io\v. 
 . was lit) 111 
 statiMuenl ^ 
 k quotation"* 
 ;equlr( wb-vi 
 n which b 
 ly as one of 
 lice that ha". 
 
 of 
 
 thi-« 
 tion. Now 
 rred to tb 
 in the oi'l 
 ns the roil 
 nents whir' 
 le:u1inu pv.'' 
 with rejjar 
 f question <<i 
 provinoes <^ 
 Sir Alexando 
 MacdonaM 
 w tbnt tlier 
 time, an nn 
 fore tlie W' 
 in res of On 
 if eduf'nti" 
 and tli:i 
 II a rnmpn' 
 rotestant n 
 pbee and t 
 ce of Ontnii 
 education: 
 
 IX ONTARIO 
 
 liese speeoli 
 
 en or fourtP' 
 
 been a pret 
 
 ■ of the ne« 
 
 11 
 
 paper press, and I never yet lieard any 
 piildlc man in liis place in this House, 
 nor iiave I ev r Iviiown any one o! the Itad- 
 iuu newspapeis of the country, assert that 
 the sol, inn coiiip;ict entereil Into at that 
 time Willi respeci to the rluiits of the mi- 
 norilles of Ontario and Quebec, as ie;:nrds 
 education sliould be interfered with. Why. we 
 know, and every one Iviiows, that the riulitH 
 which were Kranted to tliosc niinorities were 
 assured to them by compact contained in the 
 British Nortli Americn Act, which it is nol 
 within the power of either the legislature of 
 Ontario, or the le;,'islaliire of Quebec tn 
 contravene, abrld^re. or interfere witli. We 
 know, that, if the province of Ontario at- 
 tempted to-day to pass a law wliicli would 
 abrldjje in any respect the pre-unlon edu- 
 cational rights of the n.>mau ("alliolics. 
 as secured to them l)y llie Confederation 
 Act. tliat Act would be Iteld by the courts 
 to be ultra vires. It would not reipiire an 
 intervention b.\ tliis Parliament, It would 
 not require any assistance from politicians, 
 it would be outside of tlie power of the 
 legislature to attempt it. for the riv:lits of 
 tlie minority were securci'i, not by this or 
 tliat |)ollticiil party, but by the constitution 
 itself, and tlie courts would interpret and 
 enforce the constitution. 
 
 THE I'ROTRSTANT MIN'OKITY l.\ QirRDRC. 
 
 The hon. pentleman siient some lime 
 in showing, or atteiiipiiiiK to siinw, tliai 
 the Protestant minority in Quebec held 
 the rights v.hieh lliey en.ioy lo-d.-iy. 
 by some sucli compact as he says 
 e.\ists with .Manitoba, and tliai. if tin' 
 ri}ilits of the Protestant minority tliere were 
 interfered witli. there would be an uprising 
 of the members of this House to enforce co- 
 ercion on that province and compel them to 
 keep the compact. Tlie lion, jrentleman 
 did not hesitate to impute a dishonest mc- 
 tive to members of tliis House, in be.ns 
 nniinnted by a desire to keep the compnct 
 as far as rcRarris Protestants and anni- 
 hilate it and repudiate it as regards 
 Catholics. So far as I am concerned. 1 say 
 that such an accusation is. deservluLr 
 of no other answer than silent con- 
 tempt. I do not believe there are any hon. 
 members surroundini: the lion, ijentleman. 
 or sitting on this side of the House, who 
 would be found so base and rejiardloss of 
 honour and of the higliest motives which 
 shou'.d prompt and control public men as to 
 be willing to give one measure of Justice to 
 the Roman Catholics of Manitoba and an- 
 other measure of .lustice to the Protestants 
 of Quebec. The Protestants in Quebec to- 
 day hold their educational rights, not by 
 virtue of any post-union legislation. The 
 sejiarate schools which are en.loyed today 
 in that province were enjoyed by the Pro- 
 testa ntF there before confederation ever 
 took place. 
 
 Hon li H D— 1% 
 
 An hon. MEMIHCU. No. 
 
 Mr. HAVIKS (P.III.) All I have to tell 
 
 liie iion. geiiiieiiian is. tiint. if lie says "no," 
 lie cannot have read the statutes. 
 
 Mr. .MASSO.N. The rights enjoyed by the 
 Protestants of Quebec to-day depend en- 
 tirely on the Act of ISlil). Those existing 
 before that time, were condemned by the 
 Protestants as being only rights in name. 
 
 .Mr. DAVIKS (P.K.I.) Tlie only change 
 made with resjtect to the educational rights 
 of the Protestants of Quebec, was a chau{:e 
 made witli respect to the Board of Educa- 
 tion, giving tliein a separate board ; but the 
 right to separate sehoo!* and the existence 
 of seimrale schools, nnd the clioosing of the 
 books on morals and religion were rights 
 which they aciiuired nnd held before con- 
 federation, and are not In any wny derived 
 from, or attributable to. post-union legisla- 
 tion. I atllrm, that the legislature of Que- 
 bec has no legal right to interfere lu the 
 slightest degree with those rights, any more 
 than the legislature of Ontario has a right 
 to interfere with the pre-unlon minority 
 rights of Roman Catholics lu that pro- 
 vince. Sir, it slKuiid be so. That 
 was a solemn compact agreed to be- 
 Iwieii the two great iirovinces of tlie 
 Dominion. It would be a gro.ss violation, a 
 violation so gross that no honest man would 
 stand up and defend It. If any legislature 
 were to try and break that comiiact ; I do 
 not believe there are to be foui.d lu this 
 House, ov out of it, a dozen men who would 
 Justify such a breach. But why are we 
 iuiticipating anything of that kind V Has 
 jinyttody. any public man In the legislature 
 of Quebec, attempted to take away from 
 the Protestants the rights which they enjoy 
 under tlie Confederation Act? I never heard 
 of it. nor do 1 belicv(> there are any persons 
 In (Quebec who would desire to do It. nor 
 do I believe that tiiere can be found any 
 one who will propose a measure depriving 
 tii(> Roman Catliolic minority in Ontario of 
 the lights which the constitutional compact 
 of tlie union gives them. 
 
 An hon. MEMBER. How about Mr. Mar- 
 
 ter ? 
 
 Mr. DAVlES (P.E.I.) I do not know about 
 Mr. Marter or Mr. Meredith having desired 
 to do so. 
 
 An hon. MEMBER. Mr. Marter admitted 
 It. 
 
 intE-UNION ANM) POST-UNION RIGHTS ON 
 EDUCATION. 
 
 Mr. DA VIES (P.E.I.) I draw a broad dis- 
 tinction between post-union and pro-union 
 right?. Rights given after confederation 
 stand on n rory different footing ; they can 
 be taken away by the legislature, sub.|ect 
 only to the right of appeal to the Govern- 
 ment and this Parliament. But what I 
 
 \ 
 
want to Iny down la this, nnd !t Is nn Incon- 
 trovertible proposition, which should bo 
 tinilorstooil in tliis House and out of it, thnt 
 the pre-uiilou educatloual rinhts of a minor- 
 ity in a province cannot be Interfered with 
 by any ie>;islatlon. Therefore, all tiie time 
 taken * up ')y the Minister of Finance to 
 show that there was this compact with re- 
 spect to Manitoba, by which statement he 
 endeavoured \n arouse a feeling of danger 
 in the mii'.ds of Protestants and Catho- 
 lics, was lime wasted, and was a 
 dangerous exercise of dema;:o),'ic ai«n- 
 meiit. to whicii the lion, ^'eiitleman should 
 not liave descended. I think, if we «et into 
 our minds .Miat one fact, we will approach 
 one step nearer to tlie real (luestlon which 
 this House lias to determine ; and 1 li'.vj; to 
 say .lust here, tluit tlie remarkable ability, 
 the wonderful power dis|)layed by the hou. 
 Kentleman this afternoon, in evading the 
 only Issue whicii Is before the House, ex- 
 «'ited my wonder !intl my iidiiiirr.lion. l'"(U- 
 two liours and a half, iie tliundered out 
 here talkliiR about breach of faith, talking 
 about compacts ; talking about bills of 
 rights, talking' about app. als. talking about 
 wliat tills man said, and that man said, and 
 the other man sai<l. and constantly, and con- 
 tinuously, and persl.stently. avoiding th.> 
 only Issue which this House Is called upon 
 to decide, and upon which the electors we 
 ri>pres(>ut will In a short time be called upou 
 tt( vole. 
 
 WHAT WAS PIIOMISRI) TO MANITOBA 
 BEFORE THE INIO.N". 
 
 The lion, jren'tlemaii (Mr. I'ostoii .^iMikc 
 of the n('y:(il lilt ions wiiicli look idiifc in 
 Manitoba. ;iiid ln' (luotcd ccrtjiiii Jissui'- 
 aiices whicii he alle;,'id were given to the 
 original Inliali'taiits of Manitoba, which In 
 .some way. lie di sired the House to under- 
 stand, afforded some argument— how I do 
 not kuow— for a decision, one way or the 
 other, upon this iiuestion. Now. Sir, what 
 were these assurances V The assurances he 
 read, were general assurances that they 
 would be p: -tecttd in tlieir religious exer- 
 cises, and privileges, and that their fran- 
 chises were to be respected. Sir. has there 
 been any attempt to interfere with tli'se V 
 The rifrlits wliicli they possessed before con- 
 federation have been decided upr)n by an 
 autliority. wliich even the Minister of 
 Finance must respect, although lie tried to 
 i;;nore it. I heard a ureat deal of t;ilk from 
 him this afternoon about the liighest judi- 
 cial tribunal of the Empire, about the inde- 
 pendence of that tribunal, about the weight 
 that ouglit to be attached to any Judgment 
 that tribunal .'ave, and I aub-cribe to every 
 statement he ade In that regard. But. Sir. 
 I ask lilni : vhat was tlie decision of the 
 Privy Council of the Empire with respect to 
 the nllesed educational rights which these 
 people held at the time of confederation, 
 and which he tried to lead the House to be- 
 
 lieve had been Invaded ? What was the Judg- 
 ment of the Privy Couacll In thnt regard Y 
 We may agree with thnt Jud^menr or we 
 may not. The hon. gcntlemau (Mr. Foster) 
 quotes the opinlin of the Hon. Win. .Mnc- 
 doiigall as to what he thought was Intended 
 by the Act. The hon. gentleman (Mr. 
 Foster) ()uotes the opinion of somebody else, 
 as to what he thought was Intended by the 
 Act. and lie (jui»tes tiie motion made liy Mr. 
 Oliver. In tiM' Hfiusc. at the time the MnDl- 
 ti>i»;j Art was u'dlny through. What has all 
 that to do with It ? 
 
 THE FIRST DEtlSION OF THE PRIVY 
 COUNCIL. 
 
 The Privy Couiiell have l.iken the ■ .lU- 
 catlonnl code to be found In the .Mani- 
 toba Act, and they have on appeal de- 
 termined, that these alleged religious luivl- 
 leges and exercises and franchises, have 
 not been Interfered with, diri'ctly or Imlireet- 
 ly, by the School Act of ISIK). Now. Sir, that 
 has been absolutely determined by the high- 
 est tribunal of the Empire, In Iniiguage 
 wliicli cannot be misunderstood. One would 
 suppo.S(>, that the hon. geutiem.-iD (Mr. 
 Foster), who prof'sses so much resiiect and 
 regard for the decision of that trlltunnl, 
 wouM have been juepared to accept that 
 Judgment. Hut Instead of that, he asked this 
 House to do— what? To go beliiiid that judg- 
 ment, and to overrule that deeisloE ; to de- 
 cide this question on the ground, that there 
 were rlglits. altlioiigli the Privy Cou.icU dJ- 
 termined there were none ; to decide this 
 question on the grounds that there were 
 privileges, although the Privy ('ouncil de- 
 termined that none were Invaded ; and to de- 
 cide tills question uiion the ground that 
 lliere were guarantees given, although the 
 Privy ("oiiiicil determined that the guaran- 
 tees did not exist. Sir. 1 ask the House 
 now. Ill gaiit;lng the weight which is to be 
 attjiclied I'o any single argument or quota- 
 tion iii.ide liy the hon. gentleman (Mr. 
 Foster), as to what was said at the time of 
 coiifedeiiilion, as to what was intended b.v 
 o'le man or tlie other : I ask lion, fieiiileineii 
 this (jiiesilim : has not the Privy Council of 
 lMi;rl;iiid ill the decision they gave on the 
 constitutionality of the Act of l.S(K). finally, 
 and forever, determined beyond the possibi- 
 lity of aruunient. what tiiese rights were ? 
 Whatever we may think ourselves, I ask : Is 
 It honest for a pnblte man to try and lead 
 this Parliament to legislate on the assump- 
 tion, that the Judgment of the Privy Council 
 was an Incorrect and a false judgment V 
 
 ALLEGED BILLS OF RIGHTS. 
 
 Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) 
 spoke In the same w.iy. about certain l>ms 
 of rk'lit. What did he mean bv referring 
 to these bills of rights. Sir. he either me.nnr 
 to l(>ad this House to believe that there was 
 soitethlng In these bills of rights guarantee- 
 
 \ 
 
luK to tlif Itoinaii Catliolic niliiorltv Ht'parato 
 Hcliools or otliicailoual piivlK-Kcs ; or lii^ iv- 
 fuiencL'H to tln'iii wi-ic fiiiin-ly iiicit'vaiit. 
 What <li(l 111' III' ail t If iht'iv Is »i 
 1)111 of ii«liis. pU'dyiiiic ih,. In, Hour <.r 
 
 the ('r(>\vii to ilu'si' | pi,.. j|- iii,.ri' 
 
 Is a coustltutloual coinpuct In any itill 
 of rights hy wliii-li tlic lionoiir of tlu- Crown 
 Is ph'ilKcd to nmiutaln sopuratc scIio.iIh or 
 I'llucational prlvllcj^.'s. winch havi! Iii-on 
 wlilKlrawn ; tlicn. I say, let iis liavt> an mi- 
 quiry and liavf lliat I'xainlucd. 1 vi-ninrc 
 to Hay. Sir, tlnil If on tliat lnt|iilry, a compaot 
 Is pfovod, and if tlic lioiionr of the ( piwii 
 ia plt'd;;i'd, tli.'ic will not he niiin.v int'ii 
 found on eltlicr Kldc of ilu' llcnsc win. will 
 bo pivpaivd to withlioid ilicir lulnt'iMc. s..as 
 to iTsiorc tlu'sc privllfi'-cs Itai-k to tliciii. .Vnd. 
 Sir, why is this ouoicck now la- ihc Ihml 
 geutU'inan (Mr: Foster* V Was Itcinotcd he 
 fuiv Ihc I'rivy Coniifli V 'tid iii>i tlic l'iiv.\ 
 Council finally and for ever dotcrniino, that 
 nil tiio rijiliis whk'h the niliioilty had o:i the 
 qui'Stion of education In M.inltolta. must he 
 foun<l In tin- ediicaiional co.le of tlie .Maul 
 tolta Act. and not outside of It? |)id not 
 they di'ternilnc. In one or other of tlie Judar- 
 nients. tliat even the British North Aincrici 
 Act itst'lf has no reference wlintevor to tin- 
 educational rljjhis of the people tliere. and 
 that they have to he determined srdely and 
 simply by the Manitobi A«'t V Sir, if I'hiif Is 
 so. why j.'o back and inakc a neioral r'ter 
 once to nejrittljitioiis said to have taken 
 place before confederation, or to a bill of 
 rlfrlds said to have boe:i subndtted. or to n.s 
 surauces «iveu by one man or the other. If 
 the hifriiest tribnn.il of the Knipire has de- 
 cided that those must not be looked to, and 
 that you must t.-ike your lei:;il and con- 
 stitutional st-nid niion the considerntion of 
 the words of the lejrishitive enactment con- 
 tained in the Manltolia Act. what is the use 
 of referrinn to outside issues. 
 
 Sir CHAIJLKS HillBKUT TUri'Elt. Will 
 the hou. Kentlemau pardon me for a moment. 
 If I understand the hon. >;entleraaa (Mr. 
 Davies) correctly, he stated, that if tlie bill 
 of rijjrhts No. 4. or any l)ill of rights on be- 
 half of the peoi)Ie of Manitoba, contained ex- 
 press stipulations for the safenuard of these 
 educational prlvlle>:es. tliat then tliere would 
 bo no objection to remedial h'Kls'atlon. Am 
 I rljjht in that ? 
 
 Mr. DAVIKS (P.E.I.) C. riainly not. 
 
 Sir rilAUT.ES 1IIH15ERT TUITER. 
 Would the hon. gentleman explain then, be- 
 cause it occurred to mo as an impuriant 
 statement. 
 
 Mr. DAVIES (I'.E.I.) Tlie hon. gentleman 
 (Sir Charles Hihbirt Tupiu'r) will see. that 
 If there was a bill of ri«lits yruarnnteeinf; 
 separate schools, we would have no power 
 by retnedlal loKisIntion to pive them. Our 
 power under the remedial legislation c'ause, 
 is strictly contlned, as the hon. gentleman as 
 a lawyer well knows, to post-union rights. 
 
 Sir CIIAULES IimHEUT TUI'l'BU. I 
 do not wlhh to interrupt the hon genilemac 
 (.Mr. Davlosi in tliat line of his argument at 
 all. It was only as to wliat I understood 
 him to sny In discussing this qne.stiou of a 
 compact. 1 understood him to say, that If It 
 were found tliat a ctimpact had preceded 
 the .Manlt<d)a Act. under wdilch there was an 
 agieenient. whether In a bill of rights or In 
 some other do«'iimeiit. that ^hese rights 
 should be safeguarded ; tlion there would 
 be tin ditTeroM •«' bet svv'cn us, 1 undeistood 
 him to say. 
 
 .Mr. OAVIES (I'.E.I.) What 1 said was : If 
 on iiuirlry it was louiid tliere was a bill of 
 riu'lits to wliicli the honour of the Crowa 
 was pledged, granting to those people odu- 
 eaiional privilegts. It must enormously lu- 
 tluence the voice of public opinion tbrougb- 
 oiit this Pomiiiion In determining that tli(>se 
 rights should bo guaranteed in their integ- 
 rity. 1 know it would very largely Influence 
 my opinion. 
 
 Sir CHAKLEH HIBMEUT TUIM'ER. 
 .\iid yet the hori. gentleman (Mr. Davb's) 
 opposes the Hill. 
 
 .Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) Put, not on this 
 Pill, as I pointed out to the hon. gcnileman. 
 Wliy. it is trilling with the House, and tritiWig 
 with ever.\ lawyer w lio has ever studied the 
 (HK'Stion. to say that beenuse there iiii;,'lir 
 or iiiiirlit not be ante-'iiiioti pledges or mi ir- 
 antoes that would afford any argument what- 
 ever, or confer any power wdiatever on this 
 lloiiM' to tzrinil reincdiiil legislation uii<lcr 
 the se< i>iul sulKst clion of the Act. That com •« 
 uiiiier another power aliogetiMM*. to which 
 I will refer dircelly. Pm. tiilkiui: of Ih.' iu- 
 tliieiKe tli;it siKdi a compact must necessarily 
 li.iM on pablic opinion, it is peifectl.v p!aiu 
 to my iiiiiid. and I think it will strike many 
 thousands of otlier minds in the same way. 
 that if you <aii show that lh(>so peoile 
 wcic lured, so t(! speak, into tills union wi.h 
 Canada on a bill of ri^rhts guaranteeing cer- 
 tain riiieatioiial privileges to them, and tli.Mt 
 tlie (ledit of th<> Crown was iiled.'od to 
 tli.it. it must necessarily largely inlluoncc 
 imlilic opinion in <M>iiipi'lliiiir whalovoi' legis- 
 lation is necessary for the concession of 
 tlio.si' ligliis to tlicic. 
 
 Some iK.n. MHMr.KUS. Ib-ar. liear. 
 
 Mr. DAViKS (P.K.I. t There is no doubt 
 .iboiil liiat. Put. Sir. wlio d;ires to say th:it 
 to-(l;iy '.' WIm re is tl'c evidence to be found 
 tliat iuiy such bill of riglits exists V It is 
 (liiiied. II is ■•isserted. p'-rluips, b.v some, 
 though I do not know that anybody in this 
 House is propa»'od to assort it. I saw it as- 
 serted in a pampldet which some one did mo 
 the honour of sending mo. Put I saw It 
 denied in another pamphlet. It did not 
 appo.'ir in evidence before the Canadian 
 Privy (^ouncil : it Is not in <>vidonce bei'oro 
 this House : and it v. ould be a monstrous 
 thing to ask this House to accept as true 
 what has never yet been proved and lias 
 
^r 
 
 uiVi'V yvX li.MMi liivosllUMtod. Hut wliiit 1 
 ill) hiiy ih Unit II' imy Ikhi. p'ntli'iiinii can 
 hIiow "prlmii fiicif tlial siuli a lilll of rlRliiH 
 ••xlsl.H. he will iiavf alTdnltMl tin- siroiiKcst 
 nr^miH'iit in favour of a iIkhoukIi liivistl 
 jralioii liiio this 8iiliJ<'<'l lliat lia.s yrt bt'on 
 [ircsciilnl 
 
 FriiriiKii rito.MisKs to tmk minority 
 
 IN MANIT(inA. 
 
 'riu- lioii. Kciitlniiaii wrni (in lo nr«:ii«' tlint 
 tlu" Sfiialu of Maiiltolm had bt'on alHilislu'il, 
 liiit lliat ctTtaiM iiU(l;;rs wfif aivvu thai 
 there was to lie no opinessioii of ilie minor- 
 ity and that their ri;;lils were to lie pro- 
 te( ted. Well, snii|iosiii>,' tiiat is so, I do not 
 ir derstand that It has any welulit or In- 
 lliieiiee or lieai'iim on tlie parlicnlar (ines- 
 lioi) liefore this Iltinse. I do not understainl 
 Sir, that llie (piesiioii wlieilier some gentle- 
 man in the .Senate of Manitoba made a ^eiu'- 
 ral st.itement th.al there was to be i .1 op- 
 prt ssioii of tlie minority alTords an\' uronni. 
 eonslinnioiial or leial. for this I'arlianiepi 
 passiii;: a coercion Mill \vl;liont investl,;a- 
 tion, and ioiciiiL' it upon tliat province. 
 
 WHO VlUi^r lUtOlcillT TIIIO KDICATION.VI. 
 tjl KSTIO.N I.NTO IiOMI.MON POLITICS V 
 
 Tlie lion, irciUlcnian a.-Ued who Introduced 
 this (piestion iiilo Canadian politics for tin.' 
 firs* tli.ie .' And he pointed to ihf bon. nicm 
 bei for WlnuiiM'j: (Mr. Martin), and held 
 him u|i as :■ culprit. He told us that this 
 ciinfedeijilion h;id ;:iine for twenly-ilve or 
 thirty years, and that heretofore never had 
 such a (inestion as tlsis rouseil up r.iee and 
 icli;;ioiis ii:issioiis until the hou, member 
 for Winuipcj; l:.id introduced this (|Ueslion 
 In Manitolia. Is that <he truth V Wiiy, Sir, 
 I am old einiii;;li to remember wlien »he pre- 
 sent Mr. Juatlco Kins introduced to the 
 le;:islatnrp of New Brunswick a national 
 school Hill ; when that measure was said 
 to lnterf«>re with minority riKhls in .New 
 Brunswick, Just ns this Bill of 1SJ)1» is 
 said to IntiM'fere wiili miimrity rights 
 In Manitoba, when that (inestion was 
 drajr^ed Into the arena of Dominion 
 politics, and for yesirs constituted a nicii- 
 ace to tlio peac" an<l prosperity of New 
 Hrnns.vick and the r 'st of the Dominion— 
 and, as I am reminded by one of my hou. 
 friemls, it was br(uiy;ht into this House by 
 a niemlier of liie present (Jovernment. I 
 would like to Siiy. Sir, that fortnii.itcly for 
 the peace, prosperity and happiness of the 
 minoiity in the province of New Hrunswick, 
 th:it lion. ;:entlemairs efforts to force the 
 will of this House upon that province were 
 frustrated, lortniiately for the minority of 
 that provinrc. the |)eopl.> there were allowed 
 to settle this «|uestl');i themselves ; and the 
 jrood sense, the majrnanimlty, and the sense 
 of justice and fair-play, which 1 am proud 
 to say pen eates evr'ry class of people in 
 this Dominion, Impelled the people of New 
 Brunswick to give such a measure of jus- 
 
 tice and falr-plny t«» the nilnuiity there that 
 today In that Kieat |)i<)vinct> not a man cau 
 lie loiind to stand up and utter a protest 
 iiKnlnst the mitloual sclioul system of tbo 
 province. There are those who couieml too 
 much has been concetled to the minority, 
 but the minority do not and cannot c(un- 
 phiin. Sir, what would have be»'n the 
 r;ise had this abominable principle of coer- 
 cion lieeii introduced tlieii V What would 
 have been tin case if the hoii, .Minister of 
 Marine (Mr. CostiKau) had then been listened 
 to, and his advice taken, and this Parliament 
 lia<l interf.'i'ed ami forced upon that pro- 
 vlncc a scp.irate school system V Would the 
 mim«rity then be in the full enjoyment of 
 tlie "inhts they enjoy to-day ? .No. Sir ; lu- 
 sle.id of peace, he would have brou;:ht a 
 sword, and he would have rent iliat line 
 and lair province from one end to the other. 
 
 DU. CUANTS OPINION, 
 
 The lion. Kontlemau (Mr. Foster) quoted 
 ,1 sentence from the rejtort t)f a very 
 eminent educationist In this country, 
 Dr. (Irani, as showing. In his oiduiou, 
 that the present system of education 
 ill .Miinitoba works an injustice to the 
 minority. Hut, Sir, sniiposin;; that to be 
 true, what was Dr, ti rant's conclusion ? 
 Did li" ask this I'a'jiament to intervene? 
 Did he jnstif.v such a Hill as we have be- 
 foi'i' ns .' Did he tell us that that was the 
 remedy for the grievance V No, Sir ; the 
 stioiipest supiiorter of the policy proponmled 
 by the leader of the Opposition iu this Do- 
 minion lliat I know of is Dr. (Irant himself. 
 If the lion, vccntleman had quoted the strong 
 arciiment whi< ii Dr. (Irant submitted in the 
 pulilic press to show that instead of co- 
 ercion wc should .•idoi>t lnvestiKati<in, con- 
 ciliation and .iiiiicable settlement, he would 
 have shown lliat. so far from that reverend 
 y:enilem:in beiiiK an authority in support of 
 the position the (Jovernmeiit takes, he is 
 idenli<':illy tlie opp«isite. because he sup- 
 ports the jiolicy of the Opiiosithm. 
 
 HAS .MANITOBA HAD .5 YEAUS TO HEDIIESS 
 GRIEVANCE. 
 
 Then, tlie lion, gentleman tfoes on to say 
 that we have had enouirh (lilly-dally— that 
 there li.ave been live years to remedy this 
 I'vil, ;ind it li.is not been done. I ask any 
 iiide|iendent or lioiionr;ible man in this 
 House, is tliat a fair or hon««si statement 
 of the ca.se '.' Why. Sir. six years a^o this 
 Hill of l,S!»u w,is jiassed. The (Joverumeut 
 were asked to veto it. Tliey declined. They 
 invited the minority t'; enter upon litigation 
 to test the validity of the law : they sup- 
 plied them witii money for that imrpose ; 
 it took livi- years to c.irry the case tlirough 
 tlie courts ; ;ind at the end of the live years 
 the hi}:hest trllnimil in the realm pronounced 
 tli(> .Act to be intra vires— perfectly consti- 
 tutional jin<l in every way defensible. 1 
 ask you, is that period of time to be taken 
 
 ns a p 
 to uud 
 
 rlKht < 
 est tri 
 so fill 
 vires 
 terferi 
 
 .Mr. 
 
\ 
 
 •«• Hint 
 III oau 
 
 • lOh'Ht 
 
 of tbo 
 11(1 too 
 imrlly, 
 ••oiii- 
 n tlii! 
 
 C'OtT- 
 
 Wduld 
 
 ttT of 
 
 «ti'ued 
 iimt'iu 
 
 Kl tliu 
 
 111 ».f 
 
 ■: iu- 
 
 ;lii !i 
 
 line 
 
 "oilier. 
 
 118 II period (liirliiK wlilcli tlif in-oviiicf ^va^^ 
 to undo the work it did ? It may linve beeu 
 rlKlit or it may have liven wmn^. I'hi- IiIkIi- 
 eMt trilinniil In llii> Km|iiri> has tleclai'i'd i.iat 
 go far aH ili<> Act is tunDiin il. it is Intra 
 vlre.s ami iit'ilrclly propt'r, and ilocs nut In- 
 terf«'ft' Willi I lie mliioiliy's ritiliis. 
 
 Mv. or I. M 101". Not proper, Imt legal. 
 
 •Ml'. II.WIK.S (I'.K.I.I Well, lielole 1 am 
 tlU'oiiKli i will lead llie lan^;naKe tliey nsi-d. 
 1 8ay tiial li did nut iniert'eie wiiii tin- 
 udnoi'ity's tIkIiIs, lieti'nse tiiey still liave 
 the remedy which the eonstitntion allows 
 them, of appealinu to the i'rivy I'onnrd. 
 But while this (picKtion was in the eourts. 
 and while at the expiration of the 
 litigation Manitoba was declared to be 
 iu the right, It In a monstrous ar;;ument to 
 say that Manlttdia has tor live years per- 
 slHteiMly rel'nsed to do riulil. Sir, 1 say 
 that uiilil the second Jiid;;ment of the i'rivy 
 Council was given in Ha- month of Febru- 
 ary, IJS!)."), the inuvince of .Manitoba can- 
 not be said to have been in the wrong for a 
 Hingle Instant. She had the Judgment of the 
 higliest court In her favour. Von may or I 
 may think that she acted harshly or wrong- 
 ly, but she has bi en declared by the highest 
 court of the laud lO have acted condtilutiou- 
 ally ; and to condemn her for not having 
 repealled or amended ilie very Act whleli 
 the courts said she was right in passing, is 
 to take a position which certainly does not 
 commend Itself to my judgmeiu at least. 
 
 MU. LAUUIKUS ADVli'lO AND POLICY. 
 
 Theu the hou. gentleman wouml uii with 
 saying that the Liberal party is resiKinsible. 
 Sir, the Liberal party and the Liberal leader, 
 from the very llrst time this iniestion i-n- 
 tered Into Ibe arena of iiariy politics, gave 
 the same eounsel and advice that we give 
 now. .My lion, friend (.Mr. [.i.iurler) coun- 
 selled inv<'Stigntloii and an amicable settle- 
 ment— a settlement by means of the provin- 
 cial authority -as the only possible and real 
 settlement which could give the minority 
 the privileges they believed they ought to 
 have. And that pri>position which he made, 
 when the (luestioii was lirst brouglit up. is 
 the proposition he so f.irc'bly and cleaily 
 enunciated (»n Tuesd.iy List, and which, if 
 the majority of the Dondnlon back him up 
 by their votes, ne will be preparcil to carry 
 out when lie comes int< power. 
 
 But the hon. gentleman says that the 
 House is divided into two or three classes. 
 He says that the Government are rcpiedial- 
 ists and propose to aiiply the remedy now. 
 And he snys that the «Jp|)ositioii propose to 
 apply the remedy at some future time. 
 They are remdialiats, too, he declares, but 
 the.v do not propose to remedy the grievance 
 now. Well, what Is Involved ".' He says 
 there Is no difference at all In principle. I 
 say there Is a very marked difference. I 
 say that the policy of f.utroduclug and car- 
 
 rying remedial leglslatKUi now. uml'r cz> 
 isting eircumstanceH, Involves bliinl legis- 
 latioll to be followed by chaos to be fol- 
 lowed by bitter raci.il and religious feiding. 
 rellgioiiH and racial rancor, which will rend 
 Manitoba aMindcp uud spread ail ovi>r the 
 liominioii. Ilui tile other policy liiviives 
 intelligent Imiuiry, tlie ascertainment of the 
 real facts. Hie ascertainment wlielher there 
 is siil.siiintial injury or not, and It involveg 
 further tliiit when It Is found lliat substan- 
 tial injury does e.vist, it shall be followed 
 by a remedial settlement ami a measure of 
 justice to the minority, wliich generous 
 measure of justice will be administered by 
 the hc'il authorities tliem elves. 'I'liat is 
 I''." answer I give to the lion. gentlemaii"8 
 argniient. 
 
 >lli: ItKAL gl'KSTIO.N TO DKilHK. 
 
 .\ow. let me f<M' a tew moments bring the 
 atten.'ion of tills House to wliat 1 iiumbly 
 consldt '• the real (piestion which Parliament 
 has to decide. 'I'lie t|uestlon. as 1 undiT- 
 stand it. is wiiether It is in the iniercsls of 
 Hie minority of .Manitoba, whetiier it is in 
 the Interests of Hie province of .Manitoba 
 itself, whether it is In the interest.) of Hie 
 whole Dominion, that we shuuld legislate 
 to Impose, as the hon. gentleman says lie 
 desires to do. stale-aided separate schools 
 upon .Manitoba. That Is the real issue before 
 this House to-day. The oHier issue involved 
 is whether the lion, geiiileman is lioiiesHy 
 carrying out wlial he says is his desire. 
 There. "Ill' geiitlenii'ii on botli sides wlio chal- 
 lenge issu)' with him upon both quest ions, who 
 say that It is not In the interests (jf the mi- 
 nority or of Manitoba or of tlie Doinlniou at 
 large, that at Hie present stage of tiiis ques- 
 tion any such Hill should be introduced, and 
 who say further that if sneli Hill lie carrie«l 
 as beiiig in their Interests, it will be a poli- 
 tical fraud, a piece of i»arilanientary jug- 
 glery, a delusion and a snare. 
 
 POWER TO PASS Till': LAW. 
 
 >Iy lioii. friend the .Minister of .histice 
 ^pent an hour the otiier day, in a speech to 
 vvhich ' cm taki' no e.\cei)lion whatever, as 
 lo its mi'.tier or manniM', in i)i'oviim that 
 there exists in this rarllain: nt a power to 
 legislate upon tills (piestion. Where i.s the 
 man inside of Parliament, where is the law- 
 yer inside or outside of rarli.iment who 
 ever questioned that power V Tlii-; is not 
 a (luesHon of our power to act, but is en- 
 tirely a question of poll(\v and stntesiiianship 
 to be dcf-ided, as the statute says, looking 
 at all tlu.' r-inumstances of the case. Did 
 the counsel ot the .Manitoba (Jovernment, 
 before the I'riv.v fjouucll liere. chalh-nge the 
 right of the Privy Council to make a 
 remedial order ? Not at all. He admitted 
 its undoubted power to do it. He only (lues- 
 ♦^ioned the policy, tho prudence, tlie states- 
 manship of such action. He never denied 
 
tilt' pDxviT. WIk'ii that. p>iitli>tiiiin, liiiiinoir 
 tlu' li'iulor of iln' lrn'c(iii<ll);l»l<'x, licath'tl ii 
 IMilill)- iiifctliiu ill 'roriiiito iiiiil iiiiivtMl I ri'- 
 
 ■ollllliiii Nollli' .vciirs IIKII, ill wliicli llf tl)>- 
 IlotlllCfil llii< |ln|i<'V of Illll>|-I't>r<'ll<'i>, III tllllt 
 Vl't'.V ICNiilllllon, llf t<\|M'fHsl,V iKlllllttCtl till' 
 po\V»'l' III cilHi'M of liruclit IirrcSMlty. 
 
 sir CIIAUMOS IIIIlMKUr 11 I'PKU. Who 
 la tlic li'iuici of tli4> irn'coin-ilalilfH V 
 
 Mr. I>A\ li;s (I'.lO.I.i I MU|i|'oHi' tilt' li 11. 
 nu'Miln'i' U>v Noitli Slincoi' (Mr. .Mc( Urili.v) 
 would lio (ii) li-riiicil. Til)' laii;;iiiiut' lio iiHt>tl 
 at thai tllllt' was thai wlit-iv tluTi' was a 
 llairraut altiist> nf prnviiirial p iwi-r, tli«rl«ht 
 (if III)' I'livy ('oiiiH'il ami llii.>i I'aiiianifiit lo 
 liitiTft'i'i' was uiitloiiliit'd. riu'Fi \vi' lia\>' 
 tlif |)rn\hii'c of .Maiiiioba liscll'. tlid it iiins- 
 tloii till' powtT '.' Wh.v. Ill Ilit'Sf rciiiarkalily 
 iiliit' niliiiiif.s of ('(iiimil, which wiTi' for 
 wanli'd iroiM .Maiiliidia. Iho |io\vim° of lliis 
 ((oMTiiiiii'iii lo iiUi-rri'i'i' Is atliiiJlti'il f.\- 
 jiri'ssly ill (jisi'S of iirKfi'l iii'ccHsliy. I liavf 
 not. hi'artl any lawytT who \alUftl his rt>]iii- 
 taiioii. any lawyt'i' of .'^taiitliii;.!, or any i iiii- 
 Htiiiitioiial :iiiilioi'l'y. fvor cNprcsM thi-iloiiin 
 thai I licit' Is a powiT (•oiislltulloiially vcstctl 
 in the iiovcriiinciit of I'anad.i to hear an 
 iipiical. ami that after they have hcani ami 
 allowed lilt' nppt'al. tlitTe is power t)ii tlit> 
 part of this I'aiiiaiiii'iit to iiiti'ivt'iK' ami 
 euact, a rt'iiicdial order, if It chooses. 
 
 sm tii.\i;i.i:.-< 'II I'l'ioir 
 
 LWV 
 
 Tliat lu'lii;: the case, wo are >iettlii>: to a 
 narrtiwer issue : ami just at this stajre, I tlo- 
 Blrt' ttt cliall'iiue, rlKliI iii>oii tlie very IlireK- 
 litild, tac law laid tlowii hy the hoii. Secre- 
 tary of State (Sir riiarh's 'ru|>lierl, when he 
 moved the secoud readiiiK of this Hill, as 
 the ctuitrolliii',' law was wliich Kluuiltl jruiile 
 us in this matter. The lion, gentleman then 
 laiil tlowii ce.iaiii proi>i>sitioiis which, if 
 they were correct in whole or in part, woiilil 
 fully Instify. if imt comiiel, this Umise In 
 prt)cet il upon the course he li:is iuviteil us 
 to take. The lion, uenlleiuan. after uiviiis; 
 n history of confederation and reatlin.!; very 
 larut'ly frnm the Jmlj;ment of the Trivy 
 t'oiincll. wound ii)) by tleclarlusi what, ac- 
 oonlinjr to his view, was the law : and jis 
 he moved the second roadin;:. iijioii the sf.ite- 
 meiit he then niaile the policy of cnrryiipj: 
 this liill must I.n;,'ely tleju'iid. I will troulile 
 Ihe House while I read a tiuotatioii from 
 his remarks to show why that lion, ireiitle- 
 man at least askeil the House fo adoi)t the 
 course which he tlid when he moveil the 
 second rpadin« : 
 
 I think It would be Impossll^le to find any terms 
 In the RnRlish lanRuape thnt wntiM more thor- 
 oughly establish tlie position that the right ex- 
 clusively of the provlnoe of Qiieheo, or the pro- 
 vince of Ontario, or the province of Manilaba 
 to legislate In rofer.'nre to edueatinn Is not rnn- 
 flned to the case In which they have not taken 
 away any of the rights enjoyed by any one of 
 these provinces at the time they entered con- 
 
 federation ; that !■ to iay, that If U can b* 
 ■hown that any rikht enjoyed by any pruvlnco at 
 the lime It entered coiifuderatlon haa been In- 
 (rInKeil upon, If It be shown that the prIvlluKea 
 that weie onJoiod under that rlKht, whether by 
 Udiiiuii t'athollcii or I'roteatnnta, have been lu- 
 terfi^red with and reinuvcd, the iiioiiieot that 
 took pluce, under the Imperial Act of (Confedera- 
 tion, under the law aa It Htaiida upon the atatuto- 
 buok, the rluhl ih tramferred ' Ipao facto ' from 
 the local leglitluture, becnuiie the local leKlalature 
 hold th'it e.\clu.-dve riKhl, Muhjeot to the fact 
 that they ahull not Invade the prlvllogoa of the 
 minority, to the I'arllamt'nt of the Dominion. 
 And holding that under theae clrcumstancea, the 
 moment It can be shown that the provincial 
 leRlalatiiro have Invaded that right and have uaed 
 the power entrusted lo tlioin contrary to the 
 spirit of the Act of union, Ihe Imperial Act of 
 lKb7, and to the law under which Manitoba came 
 Into the confederation— the moment It can be 
 8ht)\vn that the rlshta and privileges enjoyed 
 have be^>n Infringed, that moment their power 
 to legislate exclusively In regard to the queslluu 
 ceaseii and U Irausferretl ' Ipso facto ' to the 
 Parliament of the Uomlnon of (.'anada. I would 
 not say that 1 hold that to be an Incontrovertible 
 position If I were not fortified In It by the high- 
 est authority In the Urltlsh Empire, the Judicial 
 Committee of the 5'rlvy Council. 
 
 1 did not coiu'olvc It to be possible to em- 
 hraec within so few wtu'ds ho much bail 
 law as tlie ht)ii. ueiitleoiaii has ^Iveii us 
 iicre. It is absolutv'ly the reverse of what 
 III' law Is. The itieii that because a pro 
 vinclal IfcNIatiire Infrlices iiiion a rluhl 
 which post-unloii Icirisliitieii has kIvcii Iti ii 
 iiiiiioiily, that mom. 'lit the e.xcliislve iiower 
 of the i)ro\lnce in res|)ect to etliicatlon Is 
 irausferretl to this rarliaim'iit. Is st> nion- 
 sirous an absuitllty, so riillciilous a travesty, 
 of what the law Is that I am not surprlsetl 
 that the hoii. gentleman who lieltl It shtiultl 
 reiicli tlie conclusion he diil. and shoultl iirKt 
 this House tt) piss this Mill. Wliy, Sir. If 
 that wt'fe the law, If Manlttiba had lost 
 lis rl'.'ht to le;:lslate by reason of infriiiKliitf 
 the ri;j:hls t)f the minority, ami tliat rlRht 
 was ijtM) facto, irausferred tti this I'arlla- 
 iiK'Dt, of course we shoultl leirislaie. We 
 should do soinethlnir at once. Hut. Sir, that 
 is not the law. I will ask the lion, i^eiitle- 
 man's attention for t)ne moment to the law 
 as laitl ilowii by the Privy Coiiiicll of Emr- 
 laml ni>ou that point. The Privy Council 
 says : 
 
 Siibsoctlon 3 reserved certain limited powers 
 to the Dominion Parliament In the event of the 
 provincial legislature failing to comply with the 
 requirenicnta of the subsection. 
 
 That cnntahiP the wlitde t)f it in a nulsholl. 
 As for there belni; any Iransfer of ptiwer 
 to this P.irllainent because the ])rovliiciaI 
 jiarliament interferes with the riirht of a 
 minority, tlie tliin>; is too ridiculous for .•u'jru- 
 lueiir. Sir, th" true rule is Ibis— that while 
 a latent power exists In Parliament to leg- 
 islate on the subject tif letrialntion. to carry 
 out a remedial oidi'r adtipted by the I'rivy 
 ("tiuncll oil an .iitiieal lo llieni by an ng- 
 ;rrleveil minority, it ouijht only to be 
 
Ill1sll(>ll. 
 
 power 
 
 OVlll(i;|I 
 
 hf of a 
 or i\r fru- 
 it while 
 to \*^ii- 
 to carry 
 o I'rivy 
 in ng- 
 to be 
 
 n'Hortcd to In a cnsi' of iiru'ent neicH 
 •Ity nl'ler snrli case Iuih liccn fairly i-h- 
 taltllHlii'd, and ilien only In llie |liHt r*>Hori 
 and 'ificr lli«> provincial Kovrrnnieni liavi- 
 diM-liiicd to art In llie nialter. Mnt, Sir. 
 wlicii llu' provincial Kovcrniiicnt liasrt'lUMcd 
 to act, and full InvcstlKalion Ims liccn licl<l. 
 and a cunc of nr»;cni nncsNity t'lilly niadc 
 ont, tlicn, Sii', wc arc to cxi-rclsc mir I'liil 
 parliamentary (liMcretinii. and ic^lHlate jnsi 
 HO far UH tlie circunistaiiccH of ilie case re- 
 tjulrc. 
 
 THK DKCISIMN (»!•' TIIK IMtlW i (»IN.||, in 
 
 ISUL'. 
 
 Now, Sir, let lis try to L't>t a lair IJeji of 
 how tills »|iiesllon really stands ;it tlils tJiiM-. 
 What Is tile lirst piMposltion we siarl wilhV 
 We start wllli llie piopnsli ion I icfeit'd to 
 a iiioiiieiit auo, tlint liic A<-t of IMio was 
 liiialiy deteriiilned hy the .liiilidtil I'oiimilt- 
 loe to be strictly <'oiistiliitloiial and intra 
 vliVH. As this mailer seems in be < ailed in 
 qnestion by the Kcnenil trend of the ar;;ii- 
 nient of tlie lion, i'lnance .Minister, and 
 otiiers who have followed on th;it side, let me 
 read for a moment, iiecanse I iiiiiii< it is 
 rl«lit liial It should pi upon record au'aiii, 
 what the I'rivy ('(uiiicil of HiiKl.iud did say 
 In reuard to the Act of I.SJtn. After >:ivlnir 
 the main jirovlslons, they no on to Kay ; 
 
 Such belDK the main provlBlons of the Public 
 Schools Act, 1800, tbeir lonlahips have to deter- 
 mine whether that Act privudiclally atfects any 
 right or privilege with retpoct to denominational 
 schools which any class of personv had by law 
 or practice In the province at the union. Not- 
 withstanding the Public Schools Act, 1890. Ro- 
 man Catholics and members of every other re- 
 ligious body in Manitoba are free to establish 
 schools throughout the provincu ; they art free 
 to maintain their schools by school fees or >'')1- 
 untary subscripllous ; they are free to couduct 
 their schools according to tb.cir own religious 
 tenets without molestation or interference. No 
 child Is compelled to attend a public school. No 
 special advantage other than the advantage of a 
 free education In schools conducted under pub- 
 lic nmnaguinunt Is held nut to ilio-iO wlio do 
 attend. But then it is said that it is Impossible 
 for Uomau Catholics, or for members of the 
 Church of Eugland (if their views are correctly 
 represented by the Bishop of Rupert's Land, who 
 has given evideuce in Logan's easel, to suiid 
 their children to public scliools where the educa- 
 tion is not superintended and directed by the 
 authorities of their church, and that, therefore, 
 Roman Catholics and members of the Church of 
 England who are taxed for public schools, and 
 at the same time feel themselves coiiipellL>d to 
 support their own schools, are in a less favour- 
 able position than those who can tal<e an ad- 
 vantage of the free education provided by the 
 Act of 1890. That may be so. But what right 
 or privilege is violated or prejudicially affected 
 by the law. It is not the law that Is in fault ; it 
 la owing to religious convictions, which every- 
 body must respect, and to the teaching of thnlr 
 church, that Roman Catholics and the members 
 of the Church of England find themselves un- 
 able to partalte of advantages which the law 
 offers to all alike. Their lordships are sensible 
 of the weight which must attach to the unani- 
 
 nioui decltlon of the Supreme Court. They have 
 anxluURly roUkidcrud the able and elaborate judg- 
 ments by which that decision has been supportt'd. 
 But tliey arc iinalile to agree with the o|iinlon 
 which the Icarnoil Judges of the Siipreiuo Court 
 have e.xprii«iod as to the rights and privilegea 
 of Roman Calliollcs In Manitoba at the tone of 
 the union. Tlioy doubt wliether It Is iieriulsslblu 
 to refer to the course of luglalatlon between 1871 
 iiii'i lN'.>i), .ih t III! ;in < of iliiMAiii.; ilu'it (III till' 
 iri'vloii > praiti.'ii or on the construction of tho 
 saving clause In the Maiiltulia Act. They (uiinot 
 
 UMSCI.l to till' view, Wlllcll HI't'.'UM to III* llullcatOll 
 
 by one of till' int'.iilici'n of II..' Siipn' ,](• Ciiurl, 
 tha' iMibllc Hi-hool.' under the .Act of 1S!MI are In 
 roalit.v I'rolcMinnt sclmols. Tlii- IcglHliuuri' has 
 d<'( l.'O'.'d In so iiiaiiy wordM t!iiii iti;' piililii' 8.'lio.)ls 
 shall lie eiitlri'ly uiiKC'iarlaii. und tliat priiu-lpli' Is 
 carried out throughout tho Ai.t. With the policy 
 (It ll'f Act of iMiii llii'lr IcirilsbiiiH uro not cuii- 
 i'i'iM''d. Hut tiny li'.iinot ln'l|i ohMcrvliig tli.it, if 
 tlif vUnvH of the ri kI'dikIchIs WiTi,' tii pri'Viill, it 
 would he oxtremcly difflcult for tlic [irovlnclal log- 
 isl.itiire, which has tieoii eiitrustod wirli tlic ex- 
 clusive power of inukliig laws relating to odu- 
 cdtlon, to imivlde for the educatUinal waiii nf the 
 ii'iirt' Hii'irscly lnliiitil'i.,| dlstrlit^ uf ii cuuiitry 
 almost as largo as (ircat Britain, and that the 
 piiwiM'H (if th( lt'mtil;iuiic. wiilrli on I lie fartj of 
 the Act appears large, would be limited to tlie 
 UHcfill but KOMiewliat hiiniliie olllce nf riiuklng 
 regulal Inri.s for Itie sanitary cnnilltUins of hcIiooI- 
 hoiiHcs, imiioslng rates for the supiiort of denuini- 
 natiiuiul seluiolw. enrireing tlie ciimiiiilsory at- 
 tendance of scholars, iind matters of that sort. 
 'I'iiat was tlie lirst Jud>.'iiietit t'iven in ISirj. 
 I want to esl.'iidlsii tiie iit'opositioii. if I can. 
 tii:it llie I'ri\y t'oiiticii liiive set at rest once 
 and lor :ill tlie constitutionality of the .\ct 
 of 1S!>(», iiave declared that il was perfectly 
 within the powers of the le^lslalnre, and 
 tlait its p.assintr did not violate any prlvi- 
 letre or riH;ht wiiicii tlie ni'iiority iiad bd'oro 
 the nnioii. So that we will start with that 
 in'opnslth II as b.-oiitestably provi d. Tlien. 
 Mr. Spejikef. if thai is so. what is tiie use 
 of piiii:: lieiiiiid tii.il .jiiiiirmeiit to try and 
 sliow tliat privllc;:cs were uiven to them, 
 wlii'ii llie Privy Coiiiicil said tiiey were not ? 
 Siiicl>- we can start from tlitii ii;isis. Nov.'. 
 I iii.iv li.'ive held. .Mild tliei'e are m.'iiiy otiier 
 u'eiiliemcii who did hold, views .'niirely op- 
 Iiii>ii tl lo the I'ri\y < "ouiicil. 'I'liey tlionuhl, 
 I tlioiii'-iit myself, tlnit the minority had cer- 
 taii [irivileircs .aiid rliihts winch the .Vet of 
 l.viin deprived them of ; but wliat is the nso 
 of my cliiiy;iii;; to that wlien tiip iiiuliest law 
 liy wiiicli we are liniind says they have not. 
 !iiid sjiys tli.Mt llie province was perfectly 
 wMliin its lijrhts, stiys. tlierefore. Ili:it 
 no iirc-niiion riuhls or iitiviieues ex- 
 isted, lliat is .•lil'ected. direcily or in- 
 diroctly, by tlio l.iw of l.SOii '.' 
 
 THK SKCONI) IiKCISION OF THK I'KIVY 
 cot XCIL IN lS!t.". 
 
 Rut wiiile Hint is true, it is e(|ii;iily true. 
 and decided by the same jndicial body In 
 ISO.'), that the le^dslatloii of IH'M), by interfer- 
 ing with post-union iirivilep's jriii tiled to the 
 minority i»y tiie ie>.isi:ititre of .Manitoba, 
 croatod a priovanco which frtive the aji^'iiev- 
 ed minority a rlRlU of apiioal. 
 
10 
 
 sir CHARLES HIKBERT TUPPER. Do 
 
 I uiidorstiuid tlie hou. poiitlonmn to siiy. 
 with ivfi'ieuci' to tlio KaiTolt case, that In? 
 was of 1 contrary opinion to that decision 
 before tlie decision was delivered ? 
 
 Mr. DAN'.ES (P.E.I.) I said tliat was 
 my lnij)ressioii that tlie decision was ratlier 
 a suritrise to nK\ I liave no liesitation in 
 saying tliat at all , I want to deal with this 
 question rr.inlvly and fairly. I?nt Wiiat i 
 say is tliis, that wliiio I lind myself bound 
 by tlie decisi )n oi' tlio .Indicial Committee 
 ill isji."), I also find niy.selt' bound by vheir 
 solemn decision of 181)2. It would not be 
 honest for me. and I humbly submit that it 
 is not lioiiest tor hon. ;rentlemen opposite, 
 to try and create tiie impression lu this 
 House or out of it, that there exists a pre 
 union riijlit on the part of tlie minority, 
 which lias in any way been intt rfercd wit!' 
 by the Act of 1S9I>. I say li is settled that 
 there is not such right. The only right they 
 have is the right of appeal in ?ase privileges 
 granted to them by the legislature of Mani- 
 toba after the union, have been interfered 
 with. Now. I want to come down to tills point 
 —what was the real question sul)mitted and 
 determined by th'i Privy Council of ISDo V 
 And what were the petitions praying for an 
 appeal, and what grievances did they s.iy 
 they suffered ? 1 turn to the blue-book upon 
 this sul).ject. at page lOS, where I find the 
 substance of these petitions summarized. 
 
 Mr. DAVIN. Before my hon. friend goes 
 away from that point, whicli is a very in- 
 teresting one from whatever point of view 
 tills question is looked at, I should like to 
 have this cleared up. Is it held that if a 
 member of Parliament comes to the conclu- 
 sion, or if a Parliament comes to the rouehi- 
 sion, tliat the Act of 18!»0 was ulvra vires 
 until that decision was given, is the Parlii> 
 nient (stopjied as a court of justice would 
 be estopped, from considering tliose facts 
 that would establish to one's judgment llwit 
 it was ultra vires ? 
 
 Mr, DAVIES (P.E.I.) Most assuredly. I 
 think Parliament is estopiied, for this rea- 
 son, that the Manitoba Act of 1S!)() has be- 
 come part of the constitution of this coun- 
 try, and when that constitution is interpivt- 
 ed by the higlicst tribmi:il of tlic ICmiiire. 
 this Parliament, and every loyal man ii> it. 
 is bound by the decision. I may regret it. 
 I may have hoped differently, I may liave 
 thought differently. I may iiave siiare.i the 
 views of some of tlie judges of the SupcMiie 
 Court here. I did share tluni, but I am 
 bound to argue this question as a law.ver. 
 as a politician, and is a member of this 
 House, on the lines of the constitution, and 
 am bound by the const'tutlon. When ,vou 
 tell me I am bound by the decision of 180.", 
 I say I am, but I am et^ually bound by the 
 decision of ISO'i. Now. I am going to call 
 the attention of the House to what this de- 
 cision of 189.") was, because, upon that point, 
 a great deal is gning tc/depend. What was 
 
 the decision g'veu by the Privy Council iu 
 bSDo ? Tly't depends very much upon the 
 petitions presented l)y the minority, pray- 
 ing for an appeal, and on the questions re- 
 l\>rred by the Canadian Privy Council to the 
 court for their decision. 
 
 Mr. McNeill, would the hon. geutlo- 
 niaii allow me to asu him a tiuestion V Do 
 1 understand his argument to be that this 
 House cruld not c.iustitute itself a court of 
 iippe.il to review tlie decision of the Judicial 
 Committee of tiie Privy Council ? 
 
 Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) Tlie hou. gentleman 
 has e.xiiressed my argument very neatly and 
 very well, if I am slating correctly what the 
 'le(isioii of the Privy Council was in 1802. 
 If the huiguage I liave read is not capable 
 of two constructions, if they did, iu clear 
 and unmistakable language, say that the 
 Act of 18lMt was constitutional and intra 
 vires of the h'gislature of Manitoba, and 
 that there were no rights and privileges 
 whatever of a pre-uiiiou character which 
 were interfered with then I say every mem- 
 ber of this P.irliament. and the P'lrllameut 
 as a whole, is bound by that judgment ; I 
 go further, iiud I say it is politically dis- 
 honest to ask Parliament to try to go be- 
 hind it. .Vow. Sir, let us see what ?he other 
 decision was. 
 
 THE f'ETITIOXS FOR AN APPEAL. 
 
 We have certain memorials presented 
 to the Canadian Privy Council asking 
 that they hear an appeal against that 
 Act on the ground that certain post-union 
 privileges were conceded to the Roman Cath- 
 olics, and had been interfered with. What 
 is the substance of those petitions ? They 
 are summarized on page 198 of the blue- 
 book, as follows : — 
 
 1. The statutes complained of had deprived the 
 Romati Catholic minority of the rights or pri- 
 vileges of a separate condition as regards educa- 
 tion and of organizing their schools under the 
 system of public education In the province wulch 
 they had previously enjoyed by the Educatloii 
 Acts passed since the union. 
 I 2. Tliat their schools had been merged with 
 those of Protestant deuomlnations. 
 ' 3. That they are required to contribute through 
 / taxation to the support of schools which are 
 I called public schools, but tre in substance a con- 
 i tiuuatlon of the old Protestant schools. 
 I 4. That the religious exercises In the public 
 I schools are not acceptable to them. 
 
 Xow, Sir, that is the substance of the peti- 
 tions which v/ere presented to the Can- 
 adian Privy Couivil praying for an appeal, 
 and they contain allegations of a very grave 
 and serious character ; tliey contain allega- 
 tions wiiich, if true, went to show that a 
 grievous wrong had been committed upon 
 the Roman Catholic minority, ti..it there 
 was a case of urgent necessity requiring the 
 intervention of the Privy Council of Can- 
 ada, and of this Parliament. Now, let us 
 see what was done. Upon the very thresh- 
 
Duncil lu 
 upon the 
 
 ty, pray- 
 itlons re- 
 cil to the 
 
 1. gentlo- 
 ou V Do 
 that this 
 court of 
 > Judicial 
 
 ;entleuiaa 
 ojitly aud 
 
 what the 
 i in 1802. 
 t capable 
 , In clear 
 
 that the 
 and intra 
 toba, and 
 privileges 
 ter which 
 :ery uiem- 
 Virlianieut 
 «ment ; I 
 Ically dis- 
 
 to go be- 
 
 ?he other 
 
 PEAL. 
 
 presented 
 ;il asking 
 linst that 
 post-union 
 man Cath- 
 ith. What 
 ns ? They 
 
 the blue- 
 
 leprived the 
 hts or prl- 
 arda educa- 
 under tlie 
 ivince wu'ch 
 Educatloii 
 
 aerged with 
 
 )ute through 
 which are 
 
 taace a con- 
 
 s. 
 the public 
 
 A the peti- 
 1 the Can- 
 an appeal, 
 very grave 
 tain ailega- 
 )ow that a 
 litted upon 
 tu.it there 
 quiring the 
 cil of Can- 
 s'ow, let us 
 ■ery tliresh- 
 
 11 
 
 old of the Inquiry on the appeal, there arose 
 the question : have we got the power to hear 
 It V 1 want to let the House uuderstaud that 
 the Privy Council of Canada did not at 
 tirst enter uii-ni the consideration of tlie 
 merits of the appeal at all. Tlicy were iiu't 
 at the threshold with tlie olijection tiiat tliey 
 had no right to hear it, aud tlia! .lUv'stion 
 whether they had a right to hear it was the 
 question which was remitted to ihe court. 
 How was It remitted to the court '! It was 
 remitted to the court lu the form of several 
 questions which the court was askod lo an- 
 swer, and I will have to trouble tlie llonst'. 
 in order to make my argument Intclligilile. 
 with reading those questions, or a majority 
 of them : 
 
 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME 
 COURT AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 1. Is the appeal referred to in the said momo- 
 rials and petitions, and asserted thereby, such an 
 appeal as Is admissible by subsecitlon 3 -^f section 
 9.< of the British North America Act, IStiT, or by 
 subsection 2 of section 22 of the Manitoba Act, 
 33 Victoria (1870), Chap. 3, Canada ? 
 
 The answer is : Yes, it !c by virtue of tl'.e 
 Manitoba Act. Mind you, that Is th!> appeal 
 rs'ferred to lu said memorials aud peti- 
 tions. The second question is : 
 
 Are the grounds set forth In the petition and 
 memorials such as may be the subject of appeal 
 under the authority of the subsections above 
 referred to, or either of them ? 
 
 The answer is : Yes, under the last Mani- 
 toba Act. Sections 3 aud 4 do not refer to it. 
 Question 5 says : 
 
 5. Has His Excellency the Govcnor General in 
 Council power to make the declarations or re- 
 medial orders which are asked for in the said 
 momoilals and petitioDs, assuming the material 
 facts to be as stated therein, or has His Excel- 
 lency the Governor General In Council any other 
 jurisdiction In the premises ? 
 
 The answer is yes. I have given the answers 
 to the House In substance, and 1 hold in my 
 hand the reasons rendered by the Judicial 
 Committee of the Privy Council for their 
 answers. The answers in order to be iu- 
 telligible must be read in th'j light of the 
 iiuestions which were asked. Tlie case sul»- 
 uiitted did not involve, nor did it justify any 
 inquiry as to the truthfulness of the facts, 
 rhe Privy Council were asKed to assume 
 the facts stated in the petition to l)e true, 
 iind assuming them to be true, tliey were 
 asked whether there was an appeal allow- 
 able. They decided that the appeal was ad- 
 missible under subsection 2 of section 22 
 of the Manitoba Act, 1890, and not under th(> 
 section of the British North America .\et 
 which did not apply. At page 271. of tiieir 
 judgment they state the reasons tor giving 
 these answers, as follows : — 
 
 The terms on which Manitoba was to become 
 a province of the Dominion were matters of ne- 
 gotiation between representatives of the Inha- 
 bitants of Manitoba "nd of the Dominion Govern- 
 
 ment. The terms agreed upon, so far as educa- 
 tion was concerned, must be taken to be embod- 
 ied in the 22nd section of the Act of 1870. Their 
 lordships do no think that anything Is to be 
 Kalned by th? Inquiry how far the provlsiona of 
 this section placed the province of Manitoba In 
 a different position from the provinces, or whe- 
 ther it was one more or less advantageous. There 
 can be no presumption as to the e.vtent lo which 
 a variaiioii was uiieuded. This ci- only be 
 determinad by construing the words according 
 to their natural f^lgnlflcatlon. 
 
 They And that when you want to ascertain 
 wiiat the rigiits and privileges of the mi- 
 nority of Manitoba, or wliat the rigiits and 
 nrivilcges of tlio majority are, or what tlie 
 powers of that province are to legislate on 
 the subject of education, you must go to the 
 :'2nd section of the Manitoba Act of 1,S70, 
 and not to tlie British North America Act or 
 any otiier source. That being the case, what 
 did they next decide ? In linding out. tliey 
 said, what was the moaning of the statute, 
 ,vou must cinflne yourself to the meaning of 
 tiie words of tlie statute itself. You are not 
 permitted to go to tlie statements of what 
 "•no or another legislator thou.'ht might be 
 Its meaning wlieii tlie liill was being en- 
 acted. We have had hon. gentlemen 
 quoted and their opinions cited as to 
 what tliey thought was intended when the 
 Bill was submitted to the legislature. Every 
 consfitutionai lawyer will tell you, Mr. 
 Speaker, how absurd that view is. The 
 Privy Council spoke as follows :— 
 
 It may be that those who were acting on behalf 
 of the Roman Catholic community In Manitoba, 
 and those who either framed or assented to tho 
 wording of that enactment were under the Im- 
 pression that Its scope was wider, and that It 
 afforded protection greater than their lordships 
 held to be the case. But such considerations 
 cannot properly intluonce the judgment of tbo.3e 
 who have judicially to Interpret a statute. The 
 question is, not what may be supposed to havj 
 been Intended, but what has been said. 
 
 WHAT PRIVY COUNCIL DID DECIDE. 
 
 And SO we find two things. We find the 
 liigliest court in the Empire determined that 
 we must confine oursei I's exclusively to the 
 Mf'.nitolia Act of 1870, .•iml to tlie very words 
 of tlie 22nd section of tliat Act ; and yet it 
 is thouglit Mfoper to endeavour to interpret 
 it by the hasty expressions or ill-consideied 
 ni)iiiions of politicians or statesmen in the 
 House when the Bill was going through. 
 If you claim to be bound by tlie constitution, 
 to be acting hiM-e simply in luirsuance of a 
 constitutional duty, are yon justified in ap- 
 pealing to arguments directly at variance 
 Willi the decisi(Ui of the Privy Council, and 
 althougl! that body states tliat you shall 
 not go outside the Manitoba Act or outside 
 its language to find out what it means, are 
 you justified in going outside of the words 
 and relying u|)on the oi)inions of Individual 
 legislators? The Privy Council goes on to de- 
 tennine next that subsection 2 of that statute 
 is a substantive enactment by itself, and 
 
that is a most important consideratiou. I 
 spenli as a lawyer, a very humble one I ad- 
 mit, nud I say tliat I sliari'd entirely tlie view 
 of this case which was cnuucinted with such 
 great ability by Sir Henry Strong, Ohief 
 Justico of the Supreme Court of Caua la. 1 
 did not think that subsection 2 of tho Mani- 
 toba Act was a substantive section, but 1 
 thouKht it was ancillary to section 1, and 
 was Intonrtod to carry it out. I thought sec- 
 tion 1 conferred privileges and rights on the 
 minority iu Manitoba. On lioth tliose points 
 it appears 1 was wronp ; iiut 1 am baund to 
 bow to the decision of the Privy Council. At 
 pajie V.<\, the Privy Council say : 
 
 The question then arises, does the subseoUon 
 extend the rights and privileges acquired by 
 legislation subsequent to the union ? It extends 
 In terms to " any " right or privilege of the 
 minority affected by an Act passed by the legis- 
 lature, and would therefore seem to embrace 
 all rights and privileges existing at the time 
 when such Act was passed. Their lordships see 
 no Justiticatlon for putting a limitation on lan- 
 guage thus unlimited. 
 
 So we have arrived at tills stajje. In tho 
 decision of the Privy Council subsection '.I 
 does cover cases where rights and privileges 
 have been given by the legislature of Mani- 
 toba after the union to tlie minority in that 
 province. That being so, the sole question to 
 be determined is, has a right or privilege 
 been affected ? In order to give a fair and 
 proper meaning to the Judgment the House 
 ^vlll pardon me if I malce another quotation 
 to show that in the opinion of the Privy 
 Council these rights ware affected. At page 
 2S4, they say : 
 
 The sole question to be determined Is whether 
 a right or privilege which the Roman Catholic 
 minority previously enjoyed has been affected 
 by the legislation of 1890. Their lordships are 
 unable to see how this question can receive any 
 but an affirmative answer. 
 
 On page 285. they say : 
 
 For the reasons which have been given their 
 lordships are of opinion that the second sub- 
 section of section 22 of the Manitoba Act Is the 
 governing enactment, and that the appeal to the 
 Governor General in Council was admissible by 
 virtue of that enactment, on the ground set forth 
 in the memorials and petitions, Inasmuch as ♦.he 
 Acts of 1890 affected rights or privileges of the 
 Roman Catholic minority In relation to education 
 within the meaning of that subsection. 
 
 Their lordships have decided that the Governor 
 General In Council has jurisdiction, and that the 
 appeal Is well founded, but the particular cour.se 
 to be pursupi must be determined by the authori- 
 ties to whom It has been committed by the sta- 
 tute. It Is not for this tribunal to Intimate the 
 precise steps to be taken. Their general char- 
 acter Is sufficiently dertned by the 3rd subsection 
 of section 22 of the Manitoba Act. 
 
 It is certainly not essential that the statutes 
 ropealed by the Act of 1890 should be re-enacted, 
 or that the precise provisions of these statutes 
 should again be made law. Tho 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 the province. All legitimate grounds of com- 
 plaint would be removed If that system were 
 «upplemented by provislona which would remove 
 the grievance upon which the appeal is founded, 
 ond wore modified bo far as might be necessary 
 to ?ive effect to those provisions. 
 
 I have read all that part ol the judgment, 
 because It Is the part always relied upon, 
 in support of the position which the Govern- 
 luont took, and for the purpose of Justify- 
 ing their action to-day. Their lordships say: 
 Assuming the facts stated in the petition 
 to be true. Assuming it to be true, 
 that the Roman Catholic minority have 
 been deprived of rights and privileges 
 as regards education, and of organizing 
 their sdioois. Assuming it to be true, that 
 their schools have been merged with those 
 of I'rotestant denominations ; assuming it 
 to be true, that they are required to con- 
 tribute their taxation to the schools which 
 are called public schools, but are, in sub- 
 stance, Protestant schools ; and, assuming 
 it to be true, that the religious exercL-ies in 
 these schools are not acceptable to them. 
 Assuming all these things to be true, then, 
 their lordships say : An appeal lies to the 
 Governor General In Council of Canada 
 against these grievances. 
 
 WHAT WAS THE DUTY OF CANADIAN 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Now. Sir, if that is so, v*^hat was the clear, 
 palpable, plain duty of the court to which 
 the appeal was to be made ? The order 
 comes back here from the English Privy 
 Council, in answer to tlie questions put to 
 them : You have the power to hear the ap- 
 peal of the minority. The Privy Council 
 determined no more, and the Privy Council 
 could determine no more. There was no- 
 thing else referred to them. It Is perfectly 
 true, that some dicta were given by the 
 Lord Chancellor, as to what. In his opinlor 
 might be a good course to adopt. But, Sir i 
 do not think there is a man In this House 
 who will contend, that these dicta form any 
 part of the answers to the questions which 
 they were asked to answer. The dicta of the 
 Lord Chancellor, as to what policy we are to 
 adopt, should not control any man in this 
 legislature, nor nny man of the Canadian 
 Privy Council. The policy of this country 
 must be determined by those to whom is 
 entrusted the responsibility for carrying on 
 the government of the country. The policy 
 for the legislation wo may enact must bo 
 determined by us, and. while I am prepared 
 for one, to give implicit obedience to tho 
 Judgment of the Privy Council upon ques- 
 tions of law which are properly l)efore 
 them, and, while in this case 1 am prepared 
 to give, and think both Opposition and Gov- 
 ernment should give, absolute and implicit 
 obedience to that Judgment of the Privy 
 Council, so far as it was a Judgment, so far 
 as It was an answer to the questions put 
 by the court, I decline to be controlled or 
 
[nds of com- 
 lysteru were 
 ould remove 
 ; |8 founded, 
 t>e necessary 
 
 Judgment, 
 vllod upon, 
 he Goveni- 
 
 of Justlfy- 
 dsliips any: 
 he petition 
 1 be true, 
 lority h.Tve 
 privileges 
 
 ort^anizing 
 B true, that 
 
 with those 
 tssuiniug it 
 red to con- 
 lools which 
 ire, In sub- 
 I, (issuming 
 exercises lu 
 le to them. 
 : true, then, 
 
 lies to the 
 of Canada 
 
 IVNADIAN 
 
 as the clear, 
 rt to which 
 
 The order 
 glish rrivy 
 lions put to 
 iear the ap- 
 ivy Council 
 •ivy Council 
 !re was no- 
 is perfectly 
 veu by the 
 his opinior 
 
 But. Sir 1 
 
 this House 
 ta form any 
 tlous whlcli 
 
 dicta of the 
 cy we are to 
 man in this 
 le Canadian 
 his country 
 to wlioui Is 
 carrying on 
 
 The policy 
 ict must bo 
 im prepared 
 L'uce to the 
 
 upon ques- 
 erly before 
 im prepared 
 an and Gov- 
 (lud Implicit 
 the Privy 
 ment, so far 
 iiestions put 
 
 ontrolled or 
 
 18 
 
 guided by a passing opinion, as to what 
 policy we should adopt on a matter, not of 
 law, but on a matter entirely of policy, 
 which should be determined by the people, 
 by the representatives of the people, and by 
 the Government of the country, who ara 
 entrusted with the responsibility. 
 
 THE MANNER 
 
 IN WHICH 
 HEARD. 
 
 APPEAL WAS 
 
 Now, Sir, the power to hear the appeal 
 being determined, what came before this 
 Government ? They had to determine the 
 time to hear it, the manner in which to hear 
 it, and whether it was to be a political or 
 .iudicial hearing. Sir. what should have 
 been done by this Government ? I 
 say here, that the iuitinl wrong, the 
 wrong which it is .nlmost too late 
 to I'eniedy was committed by the Gov- 
 ernment fji. tl is coimtry towards the minor- 
 ity of Man'coba, when, with an Indecent 
 haste, whl'jh I cannot sufQciently condemn, 
 they possed that drastic remedial order, 
 which they are now trying to make the 
 basis of legislation in this House. I appeal 
 to the members of this House, as men of 
 common sense ; and I ask : What was the 
 first thing this Government should have 
 done. They admit, that this matter of edu- 
 cation was exclusively within the Jurisdic- 
 tloQ of the province of Manitoba. They had 
 an appeal presented to them on the grounil 
 that an injustice was done to the minority. 
 They did not know wlu'ther tliey liad 
 the power to hear the appeal or not. They 
 referred the question, and the highest court 
 of the Empire told them they had that pow- 
 er, and that being decided, one would have 
 supposed, that the very tirst action they 
 would have taken, would have been to have 
 
 the Manitoba government to It, and Inviting 
 them to remedy the wrong of which the 
 minority complained, they took the people 
 of Manitoba by the throat, and said : We 
 win aow proceed to hear this appeal, with- 
 out giving you even time to prepare yourself. 
 The Indecent haste with which that appeal 
 was pushed forward, while the legislature 
 was sitting, and before the otilclal report 
 of the judgment was received in this coun- 
 try at all. was not creditable to a court 
 wlilch said they were sitting as a judicial 
 body. Before, I say. the official report of 
 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 
 was received in this country at all, and sim- 
 ply on a telegraphic report which they had 
 of what the Privy Council had decided, they 
 hailed the province of Manitoba before them, 
 as if the province of Manitoba was a cul- 
 prit, and they said : Although your Premier 
 is sick, f\ne\ your Attorney General Is en- 
 gaged, we will not give you time for these 
 gentlemen to prepare, but we will force you 
 to answer aad defend yourselves with- 
 out any delay. I say. Sir. tliat it was an 
 Indecent haste, which could only have been 
 prompted by a political motive. It is as 
 plain to my mind as the sun in the heav- 
 ens, when it is shining, that the hon. gentle- 
 men opposite, at that time, iutendod, uf^t to 
 give relief to the Manitoba minority, but to 
 pass formally a remedial order, and then 
 go to the country and invite the votes 
 of the Roman Catholics of the whole Domin- 
 ion on the ground that they were seeking to 
 do justice. Tliey were going to snatch 
 an unrighteous verdict, and to depend 
 upon subse(iueut events to carry out 
 their pledge, wlien tliey got into power. 
 That was the policy. They contended that 
 they were sitting judicially. On the preliml- 
 
 wouKi nave ruKeu wuu.u "• ;'^. "V^" ' . "-^,^ nary qxiestlon of their right to hear the appeal 
 
 ?,''''^'L'w.^o? ?hf%HvV ronnpfl of En^ «* all they might have been sitting jud.ci- 
 the answer of the Privy Council of Eng- ^jj^ . ^^^ '^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ q^^g. 
 
 tion of fact, they were sitting as a political 
 body, determining on the policy they should 
 
 land, and said to the province of Manitoba : 
 Now. the doubt which has existed as to 
 whether we have the right to liear and de- 
 termine this appeal, has been solved by the 
 highest court of the Empire. If you do not 
 take it up and denl witli it. ns you liave the 
 power and the duty to do, then, we mu^t 
 proceed, in Justice to those wlio have ap- 
 pealed to us to hear their appeal. 
 
 THE INITIAL WRONG DONE. 
 
 adopt. In the language of Lord Watson and 
 Lord Macnaghten, and by the admission of 
 Mr. Ewart and Mr. Blake, they were not 
 sitting as a Judicial body at all, but .simply 
 and soioly as a political body, acting on 
 their political discretion, and doing what in 
 their political judgment was best in the 
 interests of tlie country at largo. If this Is 
 dotibted, turn to the controversy that took 
 place before the Privy Council. During the 
 argument on the appeal. Lord Watson inter- 
 posed to say : 
 
 Sir. if that step had been taken : if no 
 coercion had been attempted in the first 
 place ; if common sen-^c had been used, if 
 the smallest ounce of conciliation had 
 prompted th<> men \\\\o were then controlling 
 Dominion affairs, there would have been 
 no ti'ouble in the Dominion of Canada to-dny. 
 The Initial wrong, which, I say, it is almost 
 Impossible to overcome, was committed 
 against the minority in Manitoba, when. 
 with Indecent haste, which, I say. I cannot 
 too severely reprehend. Instead of passing . „ , . , , ^,. „ i i„„ 
 
 on by an amicable despatch the judgment of You will find the Lord Chancellor asking 
 the Privy Council, calling the attention of Mr. Blake this question : 
 
 I apprehend that the appeal to the Governor 
 Is an appeal to the Governor's discretion. It is a 
 political administrative appeal, and not a judicial 
 appeal In any proper sense of the term, and iu 
 the samo way after he has decided the same 
 latiti'.de of discretion is given to the Dominion 
 Parliament. They may legislate or not as they 
 think flt. 
 
14 
 
 4:^ 
 
 \ 
 
 The questlOQ seems to me to be this'.: If you 
 are right In saying that the abolitioa of a system 
 of denouiinatlonal education, which was created 
 by a post-union legislation Is within the 2nd 
 section of tha Manitoba Act and the 3rd subsec- 
 tion of the other if It apply, then you say there 
 Is a cane for the jurisdiction of the Governor 
 General, and that is all we have to decide. 
 
 And M,". Blake replies : 
 
 That is all your lordships have to decide. What 
 remedy he shall purpose to apply Is quite a 
 different thing. 
 
 Mr. Ewart says : 
 
 Before closing I would like to say a word or 
 two as to what we are seeking. As it has already 
 been remarked, we are not asking for any de- 
 claration as to the extent of the relief to be 
 given by the Governor General. We merely ask 
 that it should be held that he has Jurisdiction 
 to hear our prayer, and to grant us some relief 
 if he thinks proper to do so. 
 
 And Lord Watson says : 
 
 The power given of appeal to the Government, 
 and upon request of the Governor to the legis- 
 lature of Canada, seems to be wholly discretion- 
 ary in both. 
 
 Mr. Ewart— No doubt. 
 
 Lord Watson— Both In the Governor and in the 
 legislature. 
 
 Mr. Ewart— Yes. 
 Sir, these dicta and admissions, one and all, 
 togetliei- show what ? That the Judicial 
 Committee of the Privy Council were deter- 
 miuiug a merely legal iwint ; after they had 
 determined that point and referred the ques- 
 tion back again to the Privy Council of Can- 
 ada, that I'rivy Council had to take it up as 
 a political administrative appeal, and decide 
 what they would do. Now. Sir, what should 
 they have done ? Surely, after having sent 
 that decision to the Manitoba government, 
 they should have waited a reasonable time 
 to see M'hether tlie Manitoba govern- 
 ment would do right in the premises. They 
 did not do so. On the contrary, they took 
 the Manitoba government by the throat. If 
 the Manitol)a government did not a;-t. then 
 wliat should they have done ? They sliould 
 have negotiated with the Manitoba govern- 
 ment ; and if their negotiations were ineffec- 
 tive, tliey should have proceeded with the 
 appeal. But if they determined to proceed 
 with the appeal, bow should they have pro- 
 ceeded with it ? There was only one way to 
 proceed. Certain allegations were made in 
 the petitions on which the appe.nl was made. 
 Were those allegations true ? That was the 
 first thing for the Privy Council of Can- 
 ada to inquire. Did they inquire ? The 
 judgment of the Privy Council of Great Bri- 
 tain was giver on the assumption that 
 +hose allegations were true. The matter 
 was referred to the Privy Council of Canada 
 to find out whether they were true or not. 
 and. if they were true, to anply the remedy. 
 
 NO INVESTIGATION MADE INTO PACTS. 
 
 I ask, was any Investigation made ? As a 
 fact, not a scintilla of evidonce was given 
 
 of the truth of those allegations, and the 
 affidavits submitted by Mr. Ewart In sup- 
 port of his contention were one and all 
 withdrawn. Now, Sir, what were those alll- 
 davits ? I refer to them because the allegi- 
 tions made In them have been the subject of 
 argument, and have been appealed to by hou. 
 gentlemen in this House In support of their 
 arguments. Why, my hon. friend from St. 
 Jolm, a lawyer of high standing in his own 
 province, did not scruple to refer to state- 
 ments made in those affidavits as facts 
 wliich had influenced his mind on this ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. McLEOD. Excuse me. I did not put 
 it on that ground at all. 
 
 Mr. DAVIES (P.B.I.) I do not say that the 
 hon. gentleman referred to the attldavlts 
 themselves, but he referred to the facts 
 which were supposed to bj proved In them 
 as matters which influenced bis mind. Now, 
 Sir, what are tho allegations contained In 
 those aflSdavlts ? 1st. That the Manitoba 
 bill of rights contained a special clause 
 guaranteeing the Roman Catholics separate 
 schools, and the distribution of the school 
 money amongst the different denominations 
 according to population. 2nd. Gross breach 
 of faith on the part of the Greenway gov- 
 ernment, in attaining power on solemn 
 pledges that they would not interfere with 
 Roman Catholic separate schools as they ex- 
 ist* d in 18S8. and in afterwards repudiating 
 pledges and abolishing schools. 3rd. Confis- 
 cation of a reserve fund belonging to the 
 Roman Catholic separate school board. 
 When Mr. Ewart came to present his case 
 before the Privy Council, he submitted to 
 them five or six contentious as reasons why 
 they should grant the a])peal and make the 
 remedial order. He addressed a solemn 
 argument to them In favour of separate 
 schools. He referred to those affidavits In 
 proof of his assertion that assurances had 
 been given and promises had been made of 
 the nature of those to which I have just re- 
 ferred. He contended that ap.irt from 
 agreements and promises relief should bo 
 given on the merits. He argued, finally, 
 that the schools were sectarian and Protes- 
 tant, adding : 
 
 I feel certain that the settled belief of the peo- 
 ple of Canada that such liberty (that Is, separate 
 state-aided schools) ought to be accorded to 
 Roman Catholics everywhere throughout the 
 Dominion. 
 
 I am not concerned just now with the latter 
 part of his argument ; but I want to ask— 
 with respect to the arguments advanced on 
 the serious and grave statements made In 
 the affidavits sul)mitted, which, if true, 
 would undoubtedly influence largely the 
 minds of the Privy Council— what was the 
 result ? After he had submitted his argu- 
 ment, the counsel for the other side said he 
 was prepared to rebut and contradict every- 
 one of those statements In toto ; and then 
 
IS, and the 
 wart In sup- 
 )De and all 
 >re those alll- 
 56 the allegn- 
 be subject of 
 led to by lion. 
 >port of their 
 end from St. 
 a in big own 
 (fer to state- 
 ta as facts 
 on tills ques- 
 
 [ did not pat 
 
 t say that the 
 le attidavits 
 » the facts 
 )ved in flieni 
 mind. Now, 
 contained in 
 be Mauitol)a 
 ecial clause 
 •lies seiiarate 
 if the school 
 enominatiOQS 
 GSross breach 
 eenway gov- 
 
 on solemn 
 iterfeie with 
 Is as they ex- 
 i repudiating 
 
 3rd, Confls- 
 :inR to the 
 hool board. 
 sent his oase 
 ubmitted to 
 reasons why 
 ad make the 
 a solemn 
 of separate 
 affidavits in 
 u ranees had 
 een m.nde of 
 have just re- 
 aper t from 
 f should bo 
 aed. ttnally, 
 and Protes- 
 
 ef of tlie peo- 
 it is, separate 
 accorded to 
 roughout the 
 
 th the latter 
 ant to ask— 
 Kivanced on 
 its made in 
 h. if true, 
 largply the 
 hat was the 
 'd his nrgu- 
 side said he 
 adict every- 
 I : and then 
 
 15 
 
 Mr. Ewart rose, and rather than have them 
 contradicted, or have time given for contra- 
 dictions to be obtained, he absolutely with- 
 drew them from the court altogt'thor. 
 
 AFFIDAVITS WITHDRAWN— ATTEMPT TO 
 WUONGLV I.NFLUENCEJ OlMNION. 
 
 And here we are sitting in I'nrlinnient legis- 
 lating, and those aHldnvits arc submitted to 
 us as part of the record ; and there are huinl- 
 reds of men In this country, ami numbers ot! 
 men in this House, who have read that to- 
 cord and those atfldavits, and have had their 
 minds largely prejudleod by the statements 
 contained in them. Why, Sir, the Minister 
 of Justice (Mr. Dielcey) apologized in thi.-< 
 House last session for their having al- 
 lowed these affidavits to appear in the blne- 
 boolc, saying tiint it was a nilsralie of 
 his own ; and his apology was acee])ted 
 at the time, because it was put forward 
 In a manly and honest way. But what do 
 we find this year ? We find the blui'-book 
 re-published, with the error which was point- 
 ed out last year repeated. I find in this 
 blue-book, printed in 1SIM5, this very yea;*, 
 circulated among the members of this House, 
 and sent by the thousand among onr con- 
 stituents, these damaging statements, every- 
 one of which was withdrawn, and not one of 
 which formed part of the record before the 
 court. These are circulated throughout this 
 country for the purpose of wrongly influenc- 
 in, public opinion. I cannot conceive of a 
 mo. ^ disgraceful attempt to mould puldlc 
 oplu.jn in a false direction than Is made by 
 menus of this trick, for It Is nothing more or 
 less. If the enme thing took place in a. 
 lower court, and you went before a 
 court of appeal and proved It, the man 
 guilty of such conduct would receive severe 
 condemnation at the hands of the court. 
 And how Is It here to-day V The hon. gen- 
 tleman knows that men's minds are being 
 influenced largely by those statements, that 
 men are found in this House now to stand up 
 and make use of them and say openly that 
 their minds are Influenced by them, when, 
 as n matter of fact the statements are denb d 
 to be true, were as a fact withdrawn, and 
 the counsel for Manitoba declared that If 
 time had lieen given them tlicy would have 
 refuted every one of them. 
 
 ARE THE SC^IOOLS PROTESTANT. 
 
 Now, the question comes up are these 
 schools sectarian or Trotestant schools as 
 alli'ged ? I do not know, I cannot teii, i 
 have never been In Manltolm. It is one 
 thing to point out to me what i& the scl.ool 
 system, as contjiined in the tour walls of a 
 statute, but that (•■ives ine no Ide.n of how 
 that school system Is administered. 1 do 
 not want to know alone what the law says, 
 but how It is practically administered : and 
 if there is one thing that requires examina- 
 tion more than any other liefore this House 
 attempts to legislate. It Is the facts with re- 
 
 gard to he practical working of the schuola, 
 under the old system, between 1870 and 1««0, 
 and their practical working undc*r ttit' By«- 
 tern established In 181)0, from lfc90 to 1895. 
 I niess that practical working is Inquired into 
 and ascertained, It Is absolutely Impossible 
 for this House to come to an houest and 
 Just conclusion as to how far we should In- 
 terfere to remedy the alleged injustice. The 
 questlou is uot whether the schools are nou- 
 .sectaii.iM oi' rrotestaut. but wlietiier they 
 should be imposed by a central power upou 
 tlie province or voluntarily given by the pro- 
 vince lt.self. I am aot going to discuss whe- 
 ther a separate school system Is tlie beat or 
 not. That is a matter for the provlnje to de- 
 tennlue. If the province determines that a 
 separate school system is the best 1 certain- 
 ly am uot going to Interfere. It is none of 
 my business. It Is a matter that lias 'icon 
 relegated to the province ; and unless the 
 province Interferes with a right guaranteed 
 by the constitution, and I am called upon to 
 apply a remedy, I have no right to Interfere 
 at all. 
 
 REASONS FOR AN INVFSTIOATION— PRAC- 
 TICAL WORKING OP THE ACT. 
 
 Now, I repeal that no evidence was taken 
 upon tlie merits. Mr. Ewart challenged tue 
 Judgiuent of the Caundiau Privy Council on 
 the merits of his petitioa, but not a scintilla 
 of evidence was given to show what the 
 merits were. How am 1, how Is any mem- 
 ber of this House, coming from any part of 
 Canada, to determine upon those merits 
 without investigation ? Some hon. gentle- 
 men say we have the .\cts of 1870 mid 1J>88, 
 and wo have the Act of 1890, and that Is 
 enough for us. Sir, it is uot enough. It 
 does uot touch the fringe of the question, 
 because the question Is : what substantial 
 injustice has Iteen perpetrated upon the uil- 
 nority ? What was the actual v/orklng of 
 tlie old schools and what Is the nctual work- 
 ing of the new schools V How far were thej' 
 acceptable to and accepted by the people V 
 Wiis the luw being a:)plied rigorously or 
 otherwise ? What is the grievance V Is it 
 a nomlual one or a substantial one V On this 
 last polut we have differences of opinion, but 
 I call your atteutlon to one piece of evi- 
 dence, which was submitted to the Cana- 
 dian Privy Council, and which will be found 
 on pages 172 and 173 of the report, as show- 
 ing, at any rate to iL.y mind, some doubt 
 as to how far this grievance went, and 
 aE convincing me of the strong disposi- 
 tion on the part of tlie Manitoba govern- 
 ment to deal generously with the minority, if 
 they were not Interfered with. 1 call your 
 attention. Sir. to the report on th<> I-'vench 
 schools submitted by Mr. Ewart to the Cana- 
 dian Privy Council, and put in the bine-book 
 ns Exhibit Q. What does that exh'bit show ? 
 Tt shows that there were ninet.v-one Catho- 
 lic schools of the old school board ; it shows 
 that the total number of districts disband- 
 
 773 
 
 UNIVERSITY (K^ AlDSOR UBRARV 
 
IG 
 
 od for various reasons was twenty-four. In 
 the ninjoilty of these, the Catholics attend- 
 ed the public schools, where it was posslblo 
 for th«Mu to do so. Twenty-seven of these 
 old districts together witli ulne newly for»n- 
 ed ones accepted the public scliool systom, 
 niakluu a total of thlrty-sLx school districts 
 now under Government control. Tliat fact 
 is an important one : that thlrty-sl.x separate 
 schools have come voluntary under the new 
 selioot Act : and it is evi.lenoe. in its face, 
 that tlie working of the Act of 1800 is not 
 as drastic or as obuo.xious as the Act itself 
 mi^ht seem by simply readinji It to be. And 
 I say that while the Act Itself may have 
 laiurly Interfered with tlie separate school 
 system, if the practical workiu;; of it out is 
 such as to give satisfaction to the minority, 
 surely we would not Interfere. Whether it 
 be so or not, I do not know ; but I fliul that 
 Senator Heriiier, wln» was a si'ix'fintendeut 
 of the Roman Catliolic schools, comments In 
 his speech to the Senate upon that report of 
 iDspec.'or Yonnj.' and upou the statement of 
 fact contained In the report that thirty-six 
 schools cnme under tlie new Roverunient 
 scliool law. Ho gives his reasons as fol- 
 lows :- - 
 
 The local government were anxious to have 
 some of our schooU 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 that If they wanted to keep up their 
 Echools the government would not be too exact- 
 ing about compllauco with the regulations. He 
 told them that they might qutetly give any re- 
 ligious instruction in the school after school 
 hours. He told them that they could begin and 
 clos3 school work by saying the ordinary Catho- 
 lic prayers and even suggested how It should be 
 done. Instead of opening the school at a certain 
 hour, they might open some tew. minutes before, 
 and at the closing they might close a few minutes 
 after the regular hour, so that they might be 
 able to say that there had been no prayer during 
 the school houis. There are forms of report pro- 
 vided by the government. I have been Informed 
 by certain parties that the teachers of those 
 schools were advised that If the clause as to re- 
 ligious Instruction was embarrassing to their 
 conscience, as this report has to be under oath, 
 they might strike out that clause. 
 
 * * It might be said that the local govern- 
 ment, being disposed to shut their eyes to the 
 niauagenient of their schools, we might be satis- 
 r?d and let the matter drop. My reply is that 
 there are principles involved that we cannot 
 overlook. 
 
 Why do I quote that ? I qnote it to show 
 that there is evidence of a strouR disposition 
 ou the part of the local government to con- 
 cede to these outlying schools privileges 
 which were not strictly within the letter of 
 the law. I quote It to show that they were 
 allowed to teach what religious instruction 
 they pleased before and after school hours. 1 
 quote it to show that the Manitoba govern- 
 ment were willing that the provision requir- 
 ing an affidavit to be made that no religions 
 instruction had been imparted, might be eli- 
 minated. I quote it to show that the govern- 
 
 ment of Manitoba were prepared to settle the 
 question by amicable agreement, if they bad 
 been approached in that spirit ; and I have 
 no doubt, in the face of those statements, if 
 they be true,— and I do not think anybody 
 will question them— that If the Manitoba 
 government, imbued with the ideas I find 
 they were imbued with, determined to con- 
 cede to the French schools, a very large mea- 
 sure of the demands that were being made 
 on their behalf there would not have been, 
 there ought not to have been, there could 
 not have been any difficulties whatever in 
 settling the matter to the entire satisfac- 
 tion of the minority and on a basis similar 
 to that ou which tlie school question has 
 been settled In the maritime provinces. 
 
 Mr. McNeill. Does the lion, gentleman 
 know the date of those concessions ? 
 
 Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) They are referred 
 to Id the school Inspector's report for 1804, 
 and Senator Bernier's speech was made In 
 1803. So tliat, up to the very time the judg- 
 ment of the Privy Council was given, we 
 Hud, that, by a system of concessions, con- 
 cessions which everybody would say were 
 fair and just, the Roman Catholics congre- 
 gated together In settlements by themselves, 
 were permitted to teach their religious 
 exercises, and the disposition of the gov- 
 ernment was, that they shou'd have the full- 
 est latitude in this regard, and that the 
 strict letter of the law of 1800 should not be 
 enforced, as against theiii. 
 
 NATIONAL SCHOOLS IN MARITIME 
 PROVINCES. 
 
 Now, what did we hear last night ? 
 We heard the speech of my hon. friend 
 from Halifax (Mr. Kenny), a speech mark- 
 ed, I win say for him, by broad states- 
 manship and fair-play. He told us, 
 that he came from a province where In- 
 tolerance in reli.'.'ous matters was unknown. 
 He told us, that the Roman Catholic ulluor- 
 Ity In Nova Scotia, under a modus vlvendi 
 which has not the sanction of the law, but 
 Avhicli has the sanction of a quarter of u 
 century's practice, are enjoying a measure 
 of religious liberty as large as they desire. 
 He told us, that no man could be found In 
 tiiat province to-day to raise his voice 
 against the manner In which the publl.? 
 school law of that province Is being carried 
 out. He told us, that, while under the 
 strict letter of the law they have no 
 rights at all with '-espeet to religious educa- 
 tion in tl'.e schools under the practical ap- 
 plication of the law, under the modus Viven- 
 di which justice and conciliation has brought 
 about, there Is suyh a measure of fair-play 
 extended to them that no tlnjustlce can be 
 charged ; that there is all the religious edu- 
 cation In the schools which they desire, and 
 that, as a Canadian, he is willing to leave 
 these educational matters to the majority in 
 each province, feeling confident that they 
 
17 
 
 1^111 give a fair, honest measure of justice. 
 He says, that, where there is a parliamen- 
 tary compact, it should be observed. That 
 part of his argument is all very well. But 
 what I wish to point out is, that the people 
 of Maultoba are spruug from the same stock, 
 are imbued with the same spirit of fair-play 
 as the people of Nova Scotia are, and that. 
 If justice has been done by the Protestant 
 majority of Nova Sootia to the Catholic mi- 
 nority there, the same people in Manitoba, 
 under similar circumstances, will give a 
 similar measure of justice there. 
 
 Mr. KENNY. They have not done it yet. 
 
 Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) The hon. gentleman 
 says they have not done it yet. And we 
 have heard a similar argument advanced, 
 time and again, during this debate. Let me 
 ask the hon. gentleman, what opportunity 
 have they had ? How many months elapsed 
 after it was first known that their law in- 
 fringed upon the privileges or rights of the 
 minority before they were called upon to 
 remedy It ? 
 
 Mr. KENNY. Five years. 
 
 Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) I am glad the hon. 
 gentleman has brought this question up, be- 
 cause I wish this argument to be settled 
 once and for ever. Until the month of Feb- 
 ruary, 1895, it was not known, it was not 
 believed by a lawyer in this Dominion, that 
 the judgment of the Privy Council would be 
 as it was. It was believed by everybody, 
 that the judgment of 1892 had for ever set- 
 tled the question. It was not known, it 
 was not believed, that the law was an in- 
 fringement upon poit-union privileges. I 
 believe petitions had been presented to the 
 Council before that, but the Council did not 
 act, and would not act, because they were 
 not sure of their power. As soon as it was 
 determined, that this legislation of Manito- 
 ba did infringe upon the privileges of the 
 minority, then, and not till then, the time 
 began to run when Manitoba might faiily 
 be expected to remedy the wrong, if wrong 
 there was. But I have pointed out to the 
 hon. gentleman, that the ink was not dry 
 upon the judgment before the government 
 of Manitoba, instead of being invited to do 
 justice to the minority, were hailed as cul- 
 prits before the bar of the Privy Council 
 and threatened with coercion, if they did 
 not restore the separate schools to these 
 people. 
 
 Mr. KENNY. The majority coerced the 
 minority in Manitoba. 
 
 Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) The hon. gentleman 
 gees— and no man has a clearer mind— that 
 it was not till the Privy Council's judgment 
 was given in 1885, that it was known, that 
 there was any infringements of the rights 
 of the minority. The judgment of the Privy 
 Council In 1892 had run in an entirely differ- 
 ent direction, and had shown that the Act 
 of 1880 did not infringe any privilege which 
 Hon L H D— 2 
 
 our Roman Crtholic friends were supposed 
 to have. But, Sir, I want nothing more 
 than the main lines laid down by the hon. 
 gentleman in his speech last night. 
 
 P. E. ISLAND SCHOOL LAW. 
 
 Sir, I come from a province where the Free 
 School Act was Introduced as far back as the 
 year 1877. I had the honour of introducing 
 that Act myself. I was charged with doing 
 an act of grievous injustice to the Roman 
 Catholic minority of that province. Nothing 
 was ever further from my thought and 
 wishes than to do an injustice to anybody, 
 minority or majority. I knew I had not 
 done an injustice. Petitions were sent from 
 all over this Doriinion to the Federal Gov- 
 ernment to disallow tb • law, but the Do- 
 minion Government refused to disallow It. 
 I was attacked venomously by my opponents 
 for having dealt a cruel blow at the Roman 
 Catholic separate schools. I was told, that 
 I was the enemy of the church ; I was told 
 that I was a Protestant bigot ; I was told 
 that I was a man who had not the interest 
 of the people at heart I was denounced, 
 day in and day out, until, I fancy, a large 
 number of people must have thought that I 
 was a kind of ogre, ready to do wrong 
 wherever I could against those of a different 
 faith from mjr own. I had the privilege of 
 meeting with the predecessor of the present 
 Archbishop of Halifax, the Right Reverend 
 Dr. Hannan, who talked the whole matter 
 over with me. He had the matter submitted 
 to him by the then Bishop of Prince 
 Edwar-d Island I submitted to him, the 
 provincal government's side of the story. 
 The Archbishop talked it over with the 
 Right Reverend Bishop Mclntyre. And 
 what was the result ? The result was a 
 settlement upon lines so broad, so tolerant, 
 so generous and so just, that, ty anty years 
 after that Act was passed, although there 
 has hardly been an amendment, even to the 
 extent of dotting an " 1 " or crossing a " t," 
 and, although, when it was passed, nearly 
 half the population were up and denouncing 
 it, I stand here proudly, in this House, asii 
 say, that not a man can be found in Prince 
 Edward Island to-day who will say, that a 
 scintilla of injustice is being perpetrated 
 upon the Roman Catholics of that province. 
 And why <s that ? If we Prince Edward 
 Islanders had been taken by the Uiroat then 
 and told : We will coerce you into yielding 
 this, that and the other ; if the minority of 
 Prince Edward Island had been taken under 
 the wing of a majority of this Parliament ; 
 if this Parliament had then attempted to 
 dictate to 
 
 Mr. WELSH They couldnt do it. 
 
 Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)— hOt/ we should act, 
 what concessions we should make, is there 
 a man here who : magines that we would be 
 living in the blissful state we are to-day, 
 under a system which gives even-handed 
 
' 
 
 18 
 
 Justice to all, and which is complained of 
 by none ? Sir, do you doubt that the same 
 results which flowed from the policy of con- 
 ciliation in Prince Edward Island and In 
 Nova Scotia would also follow the adoption 
 of the same policy towards Manitoba ? Do 
 you doubt, Sir, that If you do to them as you 
 did to us— If you adopt towards that province 
 the statesmanlike policy which was adopted 
 towards New Brunswick In its day of trial, 
 and which was adopted towards Prince Ed- 
 ward Island In Its day of trial— the bitter- 
 ness, and the strife, and the party, racial and 
 religious differences which threaten to divide 
 and dismember this new confederacy alto- 
 gether, will be entirely allayed and done 
 away with ? Sir, I appeal against 
 the whole policy of coercion, to the 
 experience of a quarter of a century 
 in the maritime provinces ; and I say that 
 you are not statesmen If you Ignore It. 1 
 gay if you adopt a policy of coercion which 
 is hateful to this age, you are adopting a 
 policy which will undermine the founda- 
 tions upon which this great confederation 
 has been established. 
 
 A POLICY OF lOLERATION AND CONCILIA- 
 TION. 
 
 We are a country of different races, 
 of different creeds ; we cannot live to 
 goiher except we are prepared to ex- 
 tend to each other I'easonable toleration, 
 fair-play and e- eu-handed justice. I re-echo 
 the words which the hon. member for Hall- 
 fax (Mr. Kenny) uttered last night, that In 
 bis opinion, the people of all jparts of this 
 Dominion, the majority of every province, 
 is prepared to extend that toleration, 
 that even-handed justice, If they are 
 only permitted to do so. Why, then, 
 Interfere just now by adopting this hateful 
 principle, repugnant to every British mind, 
 repugnant to every French mind, repugnant 
 to every Canadian mind, a policy which, as 
 I said just now, may result— I hope to God 
 it won't— in disrupting this new confederacy 
 from one end to the other. 
 
 THE REMEDIAL ORDER. 
 
 Now, Sir, it Is Bald that this re- 
 medial order was not a drastic order, 
 that Manitoba should not have taken 
 offence at it, that it was in itself 
 really a species of conciliation. Why, Sir, 
 any man in his senses who takes up that 
 remedial order, will see that nothing could 
 be more peremptory, nothing could be more 
 arbitrary, nothing could be more drastic 
 The hon. Minister of Justice intimated, and 
 the Minister of the Interior followed him, 
 that the remedial order must be read in 
 connection with the covering reasons— the 
 covering order, I think they called It— the 
 reasons given by the Council for its pass- 
 age. Sir, the province of Muittoba had 
 simply to do with the remedial order Itself, 
 
 and that remedial order in its terms was 
 as severe, as drastic, and as arbitrary as 
 the English language could make it. It 
 ordered, and required, and adjudged that 
 they should restore, without further inquiry, 
 and without reference to the facts, every 
 right or privilege which the petitions alleg- 
 ed the Roman Catholic minority of the pro- 
 vince had received by post-union legisla- 
 tion. It gave no room for conciliation. It 
 gave no room for compromise ; it gave no 
 room for treating as between the contend- 
 ing parties and seeing if a fair and Just 
 basis could not be arrived at, which would 
 do even-handed Justice to both parties. In- 
 stead of negotiations, you had Judgment ; 
 instead of conciliation, you had this per- 
 emptory order ; Instead of discussion, yoa 
 had this absolute decree ; and In face of 
 that, what could the Manitoba legislature 
 do, but resent It ? You did not give them a 
 chance to do otherwise. There was nothing 
 left for them but to say what they did say. 
 And what did they say ? They said : In 
 our judgment, we doubt very much whe- 
 ther you have examined into the facts ; you 
 cannot have known the facts ; if you had 
 the facts before you, you never would have 
 made such an order. Sir, let me call atten- 
 tion to the reply given by the Manitoba leg- 
 islature to that drastic order of the Privy 
 Council, in order to see whether there was 
 that bitter spirit of animosity prevailing In 
 that country which It Is alleged there was ; 
 or whether, on the contrary, there was a 
 desire to settle this question upon a fair, a 
 just, and an equitable basis. Sir, I And, at 
 page 355 of this blue-book, that in the fol- 
 lowing month of June, the legislature of 
 Manitoba met, and In replying to the re- 
 medial order, they state : 
 
 The privileges which by the said order we are 
 commanded to restore to our Roman Catholic 
 fellow-citizens are substantially the same pri- 
 vileges which they enjoyed previously to the 
 year 1890. Compliance with the terms of the 
 order would restore Catholic separate schools 
 with nb more satisfactory guarantees for their 
 efficiency than existed prlcr to the said date. 
 
 The educational policy embodied in our present 
 statutes was adopted after an examination of the 
 results of the policy theretofore followed under 
 which the separate Roman Catholic schools (now 
 sought to be restored) had existed for a period 
 of upwards of 19 years. The said schools were 
 found to be inefficient. Ab conducted under the 
 Roman Catholic section of the Board of Educa- 
 tion they did not possess the attributes of effi- 
 cient modern public schools. Their coTtduct, man- 
 agement and regulation were defective ; as a 
 result of leaving a large section of the population 
 with no better means of education than was thus 
 supplied, many people grew up In a state ot 
 Illiteracy So far as ve are aware there has 
 never been an attempt made to defend these 
 schools on thlr merits, and we do not know of 
 any ground upon which the expenditure ot public 
 money in their support could be lUL.lfled. 
 
 And further down : 
 
 We believe that when the remedial order was 
 made, there was not available then to Tour 
 
19 
 
 
 Bzcellency In Counctl full and accurate Informa- 
 tion av to the working of our tormer system of 
 ■cboola. 
 
 We also believe that there was lacking the 
 means of foriping c correct Judgment as to the 
 effect upon the proviuoe of changes In the direc- 
 tion Indicated In the order. 
 
 Being Inipresaed with this view, we respectfully 
 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 choer- 
 fully aitsiut in affording the most complete infor- 
 mation available. An liivcatigHtion of .«urh a 
 kind would furnish a substantial basis of fact 
 upon which com lusiuus c:)Uid bo formed with u 
 reasonable degree of certainty. 
 
 MANITOBA'S INVITATION. 
 
 Well, Sir, I submit this i-eply was oalculateil 
 to i»roiaot«' a eouolliatory .sottl ui'Ut, .ind that 
 the olive Itrancli wliW-li was i.«'l(l out bj tlio 
 Manitolta k-^'islaturi' iu the words 1 liavc 
 just read should have been accepted li.v (»>u* 
 Government. They bay : We cannot conceive 
 that- iu making that drastic order you really 
 underetood the w liole case. We ihi nut want 
 to do Injustice, we Invite you to examine 
 what was the cliarncter and worlciug of the 
 old school system, and we invite you to 
 examine what was the effect of the new 
 system. We do not dispute your power to 
 interfere, but do not interfere, do not order 
 us to do anythiuK, until you find out the 
 facts. Could anything be more in accord- 
 ance with common sense ? Could anything 
 be plainer ? Could anytbing be more rea- 
 sonable ? I say that if the Government had 
 been animated by any desire to do what was 
 right and fair, they would have accepted 
 the invitation, and would have entered upon 
 the Inquiry ; and I venture to say that if 
 they had d( le so, we would not be to-day in 
 the miserable condition in which we fliul oin-- 
 selves, with parties divided upon the eve of 
 an election by i acini and leligious difl'erences 
 fanned to white heat. Now. Sir, what was 
 done then ? For the first time, the Gov- 
 ernment of Canada began to discover that 
 they had done wrong. There was an hon- 
 ourable backdown on their part. It is well 
 known that the Cabinet is entirely divided 
 as to the manner of dealing with this mat- 
 ter. The members of the Cabinet who de- 
 sired to settle the matter on a conciliatory 
 basis were for the moment in the ascend- 
 ancy. They determined to negotiate. They 
 practically withdrew the remedial order. 
 They penned an Order In Council which in- 
 dicated a desire to settle this matter by 
 means of a compromise. They did not want 
 to ciirry out the remedial order of July. 
 They were perfectly satisfied then to get a 
 half loaf. They seemed to be on the ere of 
 accepting the offer which the Manitooa gov- 
 ernment had made them, and I have never 
 been able to find out why. having written 
 the Order in Council they did in July. 189.'>. 
 they afterwards retreated to the coercive 
 policy which they had adopted in February. 
 1895. What do they say : 
 
 In the Interest of all concerned It will not be 
 disputed that If possible the subject of education 
 should be exclusively dealt with by the local 
 legislature. Upon every ground In the opinion 
 of the sub-committee this course Is to be pre- 
 ferred, and with the hope that this course may 
 yet be followed the sub-committee have now the 
 hcnour '.o recommend that Your Kxcellency v/lll 
 be pleased to urge upon the government of Ma- 
 nitoba the following further views which may be 
 pressed In connection with the remedial order. 
 
 The remedial order coupled with the answer 
 of the Manitoba government has vested the Fe- 
 deral Legislature with complete Jurisdiction In 
 the premises, but It by no means follows that it 
 Is thu duty of the Federal Government to insist 
 tliat provincial lecislation to be mutually satis- 
 factory should follow the exact lines of this order. 
 It is hoped, however, that a middle course will 
 commend itself to the local authorities, so that 
 Federal action may become unnecessary. 
 
 With a view to a settleniont upon this basis. It 
 »eem« desirable to ascertain by friendly negotia- 
 tions what amendments to the Acts respecting 
 education In public schools In the direction of the 
 main wishes of tho minority may be expected 
 from the Manitoba legislature. 
 
 That is all which could be ^lesired. There 
 is a disposition shown to accept the offer for 
 inquiry. What became of it ? Why did 
 they not act upon It ? No investigation was 
 iield, nobody was sent. Why did not a 
 member of the Government go out to Mani- 
 toba ? Why was this movement not follow- 
 ed up with an Inquiry of some sort ? No 
 one knows, no explanation has been given. 
 The only explanation Is that the coercive 
 branch of the Government again gained the 
 ascendancy, and the olive branch which they 
 had been willing to hold out was again 
 withdrawn. 
 
 MANITOBA'S ANSWER IN 1895. 
 
 Then we have the final reply of the Mani- 
 toba government, dated December, 1805, in 
 whieli they say : 
 
 It is a matter of regret that the invitation ex- 
 tended by the legislative assembly to make a 
 proper Inquiry Into the I'acts of the case has not 
 been accepted, but that, as above stated, the 
 adivsers 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 reason- 
 able Justification and must create the conviction 
 that the educational interest of the people of the 
 province of Manitoba are being dealt with In a 
 hostile and peremptory way by a tribunal whose 
 members have not approached the subject in a 
 judicial spirit or taken the proceedings necessary 
 to enable them to form a proper opinion upon 
 the merits of the question. 
 
 The Inquiry asked for by the reply of the legis- 
 lature to the remedial order should. In the opin- 
 ion of the undersigned, be again earnestly In- 
 vited, and in the event of the invitation being 
 accepted the scope of the inquiry should be sufB- 
 clently wide to embrace all available facts re- 
 lating to the past or present school systems. 
 
 The desire of the legislature and government 
 of the province throughout the whole course of 
 the proceedings, beginning with the enactments 
 
so 
 
 of tbe statutes of 1890, tats been to provide the 
 best possible means of education for the children 
 of our citizens. To that end every possible effort 
 has been put forth and every possible pecuniary 
 sacrifice made In order that there might be estab- 
 lished a school system based upon sound princi- 
 ples and equipped and administered In accord- 
 ance with Improved modern educational methods. 
 Though very much remains to be accomplished 
 it may be fairly asserted that a reasonable meas- 
 ure of success has attended the efforts which 
 have thus been put forth. 
 
 In amending the law from ' *'.ne to time and 
 in administering the system it is the earnest de- 
 sire to remedy every well-founded grievance and 
 to remove every appearance of Inequality or In- 
 justice that may bo brought to notice. 
 
 With a view to so doing, the government and 
 the legislature will always be ready to consider 
 any complaint that may be made In a spirit of 
 fairness and conciliation. 
 
 Nothing could be more poinini'iidnblo than 
 the language of this Order in Council, no- 
 thing could evince a more strong oi- sin- 
 cere desire and disposition on the -part 
 of the Manitobii f;('V(n-uniout to do what 
 was right, and to .submit to any or- 
 der that might be made by tliis Gov- 
 ernment, or any legislation that might 
 be carried by tills Parliament. i)ro- 
 vlded only they were granted wliat was 
 asked, namely, a full and proper Investiga- 
 tion of the facts. 
 
 ARE WE BOUND TO LEGISLATE ? 
 
 Now, we have this Bill before I'arlia- 
 ment, and hon. members are bound to 
 ask themselves : Are we bound to legis- 
 late '? Everybody say.s, certainly not. The 
 Lord Chancellor says, certiiinly not. un- 
 less Parliament Is convinced that there Is 
 a substanti.al ground for their action. No- 
 body denies that. But how are we to be 
 convinced ? Is is to be by speeches deliver- 
 ed across the floor by hon. members of this 
 House, or is is to be by the production of 
 evidence ? There is no evidence on \s-hich 
 we can arrive at an honest conclusion. 1 
 do not deny the power of this Parliament to 
 legislate ; I do not deny that under cer+ai'i 
 circumstances we ought to legislate ; 'out I 
 assert that our right to legislate depends 
 entirely on the decision as to whether the 
 case is one of urgent necessity, whether 
 there has been a flagrant injustice commit- 
 ted. If Manitoba had declined absolutely 
 to remove that grievance I say we ought 
 to legislate. Our powers are to be exercis- 
 ed as a last resort, and as a last resort only, 
 and the best remedy we can apply will be 
 a poor and impotent remedy, compared with 
 that which can be given by the local legis- 
 lature. The Minister of Justice and the 
 Minister of the Interior admit that one 
 ounce of a remedial proposition carried out 
 by the provincial legislature is worth more 
 than one pound of remedial measure at- 
 tempted to be carried out by this Parlia- 
 ment. It is admitted on all hands that even 
 If you approach the subject with a fervent 
 
 and strenuoat determination to do right, It 
 is the most difQcult matter possible to 
 carry out. You are beset with difficulties on 
 ail sides, and when you pass your law there 
 are no moans of carrying It, Into effect. 
 Wljat have we here ? We have urgency 
 denied, we have Injufltlce denied, we have 
 investigation asked for, we have the pro- 
 mise of fairness and conciliation by the 
 local government, and if, on Investigation, 
 any Injustice is sliown, we have the pledge 
 of tlie lo<'al legislature, reiterated l)y the 
 government of Manitoba that they will ap- 
 ply a remedy. Under such clrcumstan- 
 ces, It will be a high-handed act on our part. 
 It will be .1 tyrannical exercise of our con- 
 stitutional rights, and an abuse of those 
 rights to endeavour to force a coercion Bill 
 through Parliament, and Impose on that pro- 
 vince a system which the enormous major- 
 ity of the people say they are opposed to. 
 How can we Impose such a system against 
 the wisher) of the people. Can it be suc- 
 cessfully argued that you can do so In the 
 interests of the minority ? No. The inter- 
 ests of the minority are not subserved by 
 passing au abortive law which can nevor 
 go Into effect ; the interests of the minor- 
 ity are not conserved or preserved by at- 
 tempting to pass a law which Is admittedly 
 Ineffective and which, unless supplemented 
 liy further lofrislntion. will not be worth 
 the paper on which it Is written. 
 
 THE HIGHER LAW THE GOLDEN RULE. 
 
 H\it, Sir. liio lion, uentlcnijin who moved 
 rlir r,ill (Sir t'li.'irles TiipperK and the lion, 
 gentleman who spoke this afternoon (Mr. 
 l'%>.si('r). both ;ii)p(';ilf(l to tills House in 
 wiinu .'111(1 iiiu\Tssiouod language, not only 
 to pass this law because it was within our 
 conipotcnce. not only to pass this law be- 
 cause the constitutional duty lay upon us ; 
 but they appeal to the liigher law, to the 
 golden rule, to do unto others as we would 
 tha^ others should do unto us. And by 
 virtue of that higher rule, they ask us to 
 force this coercive law upon the people of 
 Manitoba. How can any maritime province 
 man, who remembers the history of his own 
 province vote for this Bill on any such plea ? 
 Sir. if I adopted the higher rule of doing 
 unto others as I would be done by, then 
 I must refuse to vote for a coercive Bill, 
 carried in Parliament without Investigation, 
 and in the face of the denial by the pro- 
 vince to be coerced that any injustice exists. 
 I must refuse to do towards Manitoba what 
 I would resist if other people tried to do 
 towards the province I represent, and 
 inasmuch as I would resist coercive legis- 
 lation being applied under similar cir- 
 cumstances to Prince Edward Island, I 
 should according to the higher law 
 and the golden rule, refuse to apply coer- 
 cion to a people who are piteously imploring 
 us to investigate the alleged injustice and 
 pledging that they will do justice if you 
 only give them a chance. 
 
 \ 
 
31 
 
 THH LROAL ASPECT OK THE CASE. 
 
 Now, Sir, let us look at tho lo^nl nspect 
 of this law wblch Is now propoHod. Is ♦.he 
 law Id itself of any ure 7 Can It legally bo 
 made of auy offect ? Is It a flimi law or 
 can you legislate after tvards upon It 7 Sir. 
 Is our l(>Kislatlon In thiH matter tinal and 
 Irrevocable, or npt ? The question Is on Im- 
 portant, If not a vital one. If the answer is 
 In the afflrmative few would eare to 
 pass It now In the dying hours of a mori- 
 bund Parliament, just before an appeal \n 
 to be made to the peoi)le. If. on the con- 
 tmry. it Is ordinary leuislatlim. iimeudable 
 and repeahiblt' ti'(»ni senMlon to session the 
 evils, the defects and tlie dangers an' 
 neither so great nor so grave. But our Juris- 
 diction Is neither exeluslve nor general nor 
 concurrent with the provinees. We pos- 
 sess simply a limited power, absob'tely de- 
 pendent upon certain neces-sary antecedent 
 conditions and once exercised it cannot 
 be recalled. Tlie Bill once passed, cannot by 
 us or by our suceensors Ix' re[)eale(I. When we 
 properly legislate, our legislation becomes 
 part of the educational law of Manitoba. As 
 such It would seem to follow that it must be 
 open to amendment from time to time by the 
 Manitoba legislature, subject, like the rest of 
 the educational laws of the province, to an 
 appeal to the Privy Council l)y an aggrieved 
 minority. But If our power is a strictly lim- 
 ited, conditional one, then it follows that 
 once exercised II could not by us be recalled, 
 the power once < •rystaili/'.(>(l into law 
 the law could not afterwards by us 
 be repealed. A fortiori. It could not 
 be repealed In part by amciidnient or modi- 
 tlcatlon. To justify a sul)S('qiient interfer- 
 ence, we must siiow some v:en(>ral power. 
 We have none. If we can amend we can 
 repeal ; if we can recall in i)art. we can 
 In Avhole. and tliat necessarily implies a 
 general, If not an exclusive, jurisdiction. 
 Nor does it seem we can reserve our powers 
 in part for a future Parliament to exercise. 
 In my opinion, it Is a power to be exer- 
 cised ' ad hoc' We cannot delegate it. 
 neither can we reserve it wholly or partial- 
 ly. In so far as .ve fall to legislate for tlie 
 remedy of any grievance, whether A, B or C. 
 adjudged by the remedial order, just In so 
 far do we and have we exercised and ex- 
 hausted our discretion. By the very act of 
 accepting and enacting " A," and declining 
 to accept or enact " B," we have exercised 
 and exhausted the limited statutory juris- 
 diction vested In us. We can determine to 
 postpone action, or we can decline to act at 
 all, but if we do act, our action will be final 
 and must be complete. 
 
 HAVE WB JURISDICTION ? 
 
 Does the Bill exceed our jurisdiction ? Our 
 power to legislate Is based entirely on the 
 remedial oder. It is argued with much 
 force that we can only legislate to carry 
 out the identical findings and decrees of 
 
 the remedial order, neither less nor more, 
 and that only If and wheu the legislature 
 refuses to carry out these Undlngs. It is 
 denied that we have power to legislate to 
 carry these Undlngs out In part for the rea- 
 son that the legislature might have carried 
 that part out If ordered so to do. In other 
 words. If the remedial order directs " A." 
 "B" and "O" to be done, and the legis- 
 lature declines to carry " A," " B * and " C " 
 out, then this Parliament has not power to 
 to enact " A " alone, or " A " and " B " 
 alone, for the reason that tiie legislature, 
 if it had been reciulred to carry out such 
 a limited remedial order, might have been 
 perfectly willing to do so. It is said that 
 it is only the legislature's refusal to net 
 wiilcli gives UH jurisdiction at all. and as 
 tiiere has been no refusal to remedy griev- 
 ance '• A " alone or grievance " B" alone, 
 or "A " and " R" alone, we have no juris- 
 diction to do so. The argument Is a very 
 strong one, and iias the .sanction of eminent 
 legal authorities. If sound it 's absolutely 
 Itital to tills Bill. But wiiether tiiiij be so 
 or not, and on that I express no opin- 
 ion, at any rate, U Is plain beyond dis- 
 l)ute that tills Parliaiiunt cannot legislate 
 t)eyond the very terms ami specific adjudica- 
 tions or findings of the remedial order. In 
 my oiilnion, such an order, liel .g the control- 
 ling basis of all legislation, never ought to 
 Ite made witliout a thorougii investigation 
 Into all the dis\uited facts. The Pdvy Coun- 
 cil, to wliicii the appeal is made, must tlrst 
 determine wliat facts are proved, -"hat griev- 
 ances actually exist, and then, as a matter 
 of state policy, how far i'. is proper or wit 3 
 or prudent to go In ordering redress. The 
 extent of their decision necessarily limits 
 our powers, and we cannot act as a court 
 of appeal with unlimited jurisdiction and 
 decide on adopting other or different modes 
 of redress to those decreed and adjudged 
 by the remedial order. We can determine, 
 under the circumstances, not to act for the 
 iiresent, not to exercise at this particular 
 "time our statutory discretion, or we can de- 
 termine to exerciso it in whole or in part, but 
 our statutory discretion is necessarily limit- 
 ed by the terms of the order. Now, look at 
 this order. It prescribes as a remedy " A," 
 ' 'B " and " C," and those only. It does not 
 in any other respect alter, abridge or amend 
 the Acts of 1890. It authorizes us to enact 
 such legislation as Is necessai^ to carry 
 " A," " B " and " C " Into effect, but nothing 
 l>eyond that. We cannot Interfere with the 
 general scope of the educational machinery 
 of Manitoba, except to the extent that is 
 essential and necessary to carry out " A.' 
 " B " and "C." The remedial order says 
 nothing about establishing a separate Board 
 of Education. It is absolutely silent on the 
 subject. Unless it is necessarily implied in 
 " A." " B " and " C." we cannot legally con- 
 stitute such a board. All the rights and pri- 
 vileges conceded to the Roman Catholic mi- 
 nority by the remedial order can as well be 
 
 \ 
 
n 
 
 cunieu out bv th«.' »'.\l8tliiK noard of Educn- 
 tlou of Miiul'tdbii iiH l).v II iti'imratt' bonrd. 
 If th« contrary was tlioiixht. the n'liu'dlal 
 onler Bhoiihl liavc fXiir.'MMly nn'Htluiu'd It. 
 But a M'paratt' l*(iard Is not in'cc8»ary to 
 give tli»-' inliiorltv "A," "U" and " C." If 
 the Manitoba leKlHlatun- had by h'KlHhitlon 
 of ItH own, in t)bedlfn(f to tin- ronu'dlal 
 order, conceded the Uonnm Catholic ndnor- 
 Ity the rlulit to build, maintain. etpUp, nian- 
 aK«' ii"d conduct ami support lloniau Ca- 
 tholic HchoolH under tlic supervision of the 
 extsllnj; Hoard of lOducalloii. \vc could not 
 Interfere to supplement their legislation by 
 cHtabllshlnK such a seitarate board. Neither 
 can we do so uidess such Is adjudged and 
 ordered by the remedial ordi'r. The cHtab- 
 lIshmtMit of such a boaitl is neither exprcHS- 
 ly adjudged by the remedial order, nor 
 neces.sarlly to be imidied from the three 
 gpeoifle rl'uht.s adjudged nor esHentlal effec- 
 tually to coul'iT those rluhts. TIiIh lu'liig 
 80. we have no power to constitute sueli 
 a board, and the Act hcntre us .telng ultra 
 vires in Hint rcsjicct. will be only useful as 
 a source of (udlmited litigation. 
 
 I liave reduced my \lew8 on that abstract 
 legal question to writing with very great 
 care, and I commend tliem to the hon. Min- 
 ister of .lustlce or to a»y other legal gentlu- 
 innn ou the other side of the House who 
 feels disposed to controvert them. If I am 
 right in my conclusion, the measure you 
 have before you, if passed, will not be 
 worth the paper on which it is written. I 
 may be wrong ; I nm open to conviction If 
 I am wrong. That, of course, Is a practical 
 legal question which only legal gentlemen 
 win Indulge In, I am satisfied that the rea- 
 soning cannot be controverted ; and unless 
 you can show conclusively that Involved and 
 necessarily Involved in A, B, and C, Is the 
 constitution of a separate board of educa- 
 tion, "then y>u have no power whatever to 
 constitute It. I havo argued, and I am satis- 
 fled beyond a doubt, that A. B, and C can 
 be carried out successfully by the present 
 Board of Education as established. That 
 being so, A, B, and C is the extent of the 
 remedy you can propose, and you cannot add 
 to that remedy an additional one. You can- 
 not constitute a board which the remedial 
 order did not call Into existence or require. 
 
 COERCION AND CONCILIATION. 
 
 Now, Sir, I ask the Government what are 
 they doing In the jnatter of conciliation ? 
 In July they were prepared to conciliate. 
 Where do we stand to-day ? We stand 
 here, with the Secretary of State inviting 
 urging, almost Imploring, this House to pass 
 a coercion Bill In one ijreath, and in the 
 next breath telling us that he Is about to 
 Invite the Premier of Manitoba to enter in- 
 to consultation with him for the purpose of 
 comin;? to an amicable settlement. Sir, he 
 asks us to forge a club for him which he 
 may hold over the head of the Manitoba 
 Premier, and, with that club In his hand, 
 
 say to him : " Now, Sir, 1 want you to como 
 to an aiutcablu settlement with we." Does 
 he Buppoae that It li within the bounds 
 of poHslblllty to reach an audcHble set- 
 tlemeut In that way ? And what did we 
 hear to-day V That there was not a ■clu- 
 tllla of baHls for the statement be made to 
 the House the other day, as to any proposi- 
 tion have been Initiated, by Mr. Oreen- 
 way at all. The very teh-gram he (pioted 
 was only (pioted In part, anil Mr. Gretuway 
 has comidalned bitterly In the local ^gls- 
 lature that the whole of It. which he dems 
 Impoi'tiiiit, was m»t tiuoted. But, Sir, If tie 
 llovernnient are only discharging their duty 
 under the consiitutlou. If \'hut they are do- 
 ing Is Imperative upon fheui, and they are 
 not going further than the constitution re- 
 quires them to go, 1 ask, what do they want 
 with consultation, with conciliation V If 
 they are being Impelled by a stern sense of 
 duty under the constitution, how dare they 
 hesitate '! How dare they retract or with- 
 draw ? It shows the utter fallacy, the 
 rldlcul(»usly nonsensical fallacy, of the ar- 
 guments behind which they seek to shelter 
 themselves for want of better. It shows their 
 want of sincerity. I say that these gentlemen 
 are acting in a way which, If human nature 
 Is the same In Manitoba as elsewhere, must 
 prevent a frank, friendly, and flnal settle- 
 ment of this difficulty. Sir, what Is their 
 true policy ? If they want to settle It. they 
 can honourably withdraw the Bill yet. 
 There Is no dishonour In withdrawing the 
 Bill. They have been told, time and again, 
 and I repeat the statement, that on this side 
 of the House we want to make no political 
 capital out of this question. We are 
 anxious to have It withdrawn from tht> 
 arena of Dominion politics. We are sin- 
 cerely desirous of having conceded to the 
 minority In Manitoba the rights and privi- 
 leges which they ought to enjoy ; and we 
 think that can be done, and will be done. If 
 you abandon coercion and enter upon a po- 
 licy of negotiation and conciliation. We know 
 that conciliation has marked out satisfac- 
 tory results elsewhere, and we believe 
 If you adopt It here, an honourable and 
 lasting arrangement, based upon truth, hon 
 our and righteousness— which alone can 
 make such an arrangement permanent— can 
 be entered Into. You can make an arrange 
 ment, which, while doing Justice to the ml 
 norlty, will not violate the conscience of the 
 majority or unnecessarily Invade the autono- 
 my of the province. You can recognize pro- 
 vlnclaJ rights, while, at the same time con 
 tending that Injustice has been done to the 
 minority which should be remedied ; and 
 when you come to determine Just how far 
 that ought to be done, It must necessarily 
 be a matter of compromise, and be done in n 
 conciliatory spirit, if done at all. 
 
 REASONS FOR OPPOSING BILL SUM 
 MARIZBD. 
 
 Holding these views. T oppose this Bill. I 
 oppose this Bill because it is a political 
 
 fraud, a 
 
 om bod lei 
 
 mlulniun 
 
 a coerclo 
 
 fessedly 
 
 cause. In 
 
 by callli 
 
 occessarl 
 
 religious 
 
 Involves 
 
 rights, 01 
 
 and afte 
 
 existence 
 
 the legist 
 
 because, 
 
 ers, it Is, 
 
 ally outs 
 
 called-for 
 
 constltutl 
 
 resorted 
 
 ed. I oi 
 
 pretendtn 
 
 mbjority, 
 
 and wbll 
 
 machtner, 
 
 to start 1 
 
 pose It I 
 
 provinces 
 
 In each p 
 
 do even-l 
 
 oppose It 
 
 llshed pn 
 
 creates a 
 
 oventuall; 
 
 oracy. I i 
 
 the grave 
 
 brought b 
 
 most far-1 
 
 Is beyond 
 
 ing Parlta 
 
 I oppose 
 
 more thai 
 
 It can aft( 
 
 this Parll 
 
 to us to li 
 
 that dependent 
 
 ent condit 
 
ou to couu> 
 ae." Doe* 
 be bouudH 
 ioHble set- 
 int did we 
 not a «clu- 
 ie made to 
 uy proposl- 
 Mr. Ureen- 
 he (|U()tc*l 
 O ret u way 
 loc'iil ^kIs- 
 li he dei tib 
 , Sir, If ti e 
 : theli- duty 
 hey nro do- 
 id they ure 
 itltutlou re- 
 } they want 
 itloii V It 
 TU seiiBe of 
 V dare they 
 ict or wlth- 
 fallacy, the 
 , of the or- 
 k to ghelter 
 showH theli 
 je jfentlemeu 
 uuau uature 
 where, must 
 final settle- 
 hat Is their 
 Bttle It. they 
 e Bill yet. 
 drawing the 
 e and nguln. 
 on this side 
 no political 
 We are 
 n from the 
 We are sin- 
 eded to the 
 8 and prlvi- 
 )y ; and we 
 be done. If 
 upon a po- 
 >n. We know 
 out satlsfac- 
 
 » 
 
 :s.=:=; 
 
 fraud, a parlianientnrv Juirtfle ; beenuHe It 
 ombodlea the uiuxitnuni of evil with the 
 mlolmum of good ; because, while applyluK 
 a coercion hateful to all Canadians, It Is eon- 
 feMedly Inettlclent and unworkabU* ; he- 
 cauRC, lu its very face, It lacks tlualliy, and 
 by calllUK for further amendments must 
 necesBarily rekindle and encourugf racial and 
 religious disputes. 1 oppose It because It 
 Involves an Interference with provincial 
 rights, only to be tolerated lu the last resort, 
 and after careful Investigation proves the 
 existence of wcil-foimded grievances, which 
 the legislature will not remedy. I oppose It 
 because, while technically within our pow- 
 ers, It is, under present circumstances, mor- 
 ally outside tliem, and because it Is an un- 
 called-for and arbitrary exercise of a limited 
 constitutional privilege or power only to be 
 resorted to when all other means have fail- 
 ed. I oppose it because, while ostensibly 
 pretending to remedy the grievances of th«' 
 minority. It gives them no effectual relief, 
 and while creating a vast and obnoxious 
 machinery, provides no motive power, either 
 to start It going, or keep it moving. I op- 
 pose it because the experience of all the 
 provinces has shown that the majority 
 in each province will, if left to themselves, 
 do even-handed Justice to the minority. I 
 oppose it because, while violating the estab- 
 lished practice of a quarter of a century, it 
 creates a precedent which, If followed, may 
 eventually disrupt and destroy the confed- 
 eracy. I oppose it because, involving one of 
 the gravest questions of state policy, ever 
 brought before us, a question pregnant with 
 most far-reaching and dangerous results, it 
 Is beyond the moral competence of this dy- 
 ing Parllameut, in it« dying bourse to enact. 
 I oppose It because in my Judgment it is 
 more than doubtful whether, once passed. 
 It can afterwards be altered or amended by 
 this Parliament, because the power given 
 to us to legislate at all strictly limited and 
 believe that dependent upon certain necessary anteced- 
 
 ourable and 
 n truth, hon 
 alone can 
 manent— can 
 an arrange- 
 e to the ml- 
 clence of the 
 e the autono- 
 ecognlze pro- 
 me time con- 
 done to the 
 nedled ; and 
 Just how far 
 t necessarily 
 be done in a 
 
 [LL SUM- 
 
 > this Bin. I 
 a political 
 
 ent conditions once exercised Is exhausted 
 
 and <-aunot be again acted upon because it 
 Is probably final and Irrevocabli", so far as 
 Wf are concerned, and, iherer«)re, doubly 
 nillK for prudence, care, time, liud investl- 
 pitlon on oMr i>art before helnu; made the 
 law of the land. 1 oppose It because the 
 preseut exercise by us of the power Is bit- 
 terly opposed to the wishes and desires of 
 the vast majority of the Manitoba people I 
 oppose the Hill because the higher law. and 
 tile golden rule bids Uie do unto others as 1 
 would be done by, and as I would bitterly 
 resent coercion being applied under similar 
 circumstances, to my province, so I will 
 decline, ntiless la the last resort, and after 
 fullest Investigation, to Join fn applying It 
 to another province. I oppose It because I 
 do not believe In force as a .emedy for 
 wrong. 
 
 Hut while 1 oppose this Bill, 1 know 
 there Is a better way. a nobler path to fol- 
 low, a simpler and more British method by 
 which the grievances may be removed, and 
 Justice for the minority obtained. That 
 way, that path, that method. Is the equit- 
 able and British method proposed by the 
 leader of the Liberal party. His earnest- 
 ness, his sincerity, his ability, are beyond 
 cavil or doubt. Ills race, his creed, his ex- 
 perlenoe render his position unhiue. and h\» 
 powers In such a case ns this, very great. 
 Tils noble stateHmanlike views jxit forward 
 In his speech during this debate have estab- 
 lished for him a reputation and a confidence 
 rarely before enjoyed by a Canadian public 
 man. His proposition for a settlement com- 
 mends Itself to our common sense, and 
 Involves an amicable settlement through 
 provincial legislation, based on conciliation 
 and compromise, and after thorough discus- 
 sion and Investigation. Sir, I cannot but be- 
 lieve that with coercion abandoned and con- 
 ciliation substituted the Protestant major- 
 ity of Manitoba will be ready to accord to 
 their weaker brethren a full measure of Just- 
 Ice, pressed down and running over. 
 
 ^t, .-