IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.25 1.0 li:"^ ISi 1.1 t"- I- ^ lllll 1.8 U III 1.6 V] V^ 7 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 W^ST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notea/Notet tachniquea at bibliographiquaa The to th The posa of th filmi The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaily unique, which may altar any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire qu'SI lui a 6tA possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthode normale de fiimage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur ^— Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Orig Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagAe ^— Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies begi thel sion othe first sion or ill Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou peilicuiie — ^ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou peiliculAes Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque S Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dAcolortes, tachet^es ou piqudes Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es The D Coloured init (i.e. other than blue or blacit)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) ^ I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D D n n Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reii6 avec d'Qutres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est fiim6 d partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 /Tto \^^^lMi\\. > jwimn 7 ft'fl! (. "^ \ i» V ' "• v; I- N\ijo\^,p THE REMEDIAL BILL FROM THE Point of View of a Catholic Member BY SENATOR POWER (IIALII^W, N.S.) OTTAWA: TUOUURN & Co., PKINTERS. iwrn. Ill] U-; ^ c,3 >* £-. ■ ^ National Library BiDliolheque n^itionale m^r ot Canada du Canada L"" % THE REMEDIAL BILL From the Point of View of a Catholic Member. INTRODUCTORY. Many persons tlironghout Ciinada aro just now asking thorn - selves and their neighbors, if the Remedial J>ili is such a measure as every Catholic member of Parliament siiouid vote for. To the minds of niost Catholics, this (juestion is substantially the same as the other, " Would the passing of tiie Remedial liill be a benefit to the interests of our religion in Canada^" This paper is a humble attempt to answer that question. It will be well, however, before dealing directly with the Remedial Bill, to recall the important facts in the history of the Manitoba school question. Having done that, we shall be better able to clearly understand the present position. i HISTORY OF THE HANITOBA SCHOOL QUESTION. Manitoba entered into the Canadian Confederation in 1870,. upon the terms set oat in the Dominion Statute of that year,, known as the Manitoba Act, which Act was declared valid and effectual by Chapter 28 of the Imperial Statutes for 1871. The question of education is dealt with by section 22 of the Manitoba Act, which reads as follows : "22. In and for the Province {i.e., of Manitoba) the said Legislature (i.e., the Provincial Legislature) may exclusively make laws in relation ta education, subject and according to the following provisions : (1) Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially afifect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of per- sons have by law or practice in the Province at the uni(n. (2) An appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Coimcil, from any act or decision of the Legislature of the Province, or of any Provincial authority, affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Romam Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to> education. . * 2 (3) In case any hucIi Provincial law as from time to time seems to the fJovernor General in Council requisite for the due execution of the pro- visionK of this Hcction is not made, or in case any declHion of the Governor General in './'onncil on any appeal under th»8 section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial authority in that behalf then, and in every Huch case, and as far only as the circumstances of eacl ise require, the Parlia- ment of Canada may make remedial laws for t due execution of the provisions of this section, and of any decision of e Governor General in Council, under this section." Tlieie were no j)ubli(i schools in Manitoba at the time of the union, hut there were several denominational schools, Catholic, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, of a private character; the first named bein^ supported, partly by feet', from the parents and guardians of the children who attended them and partly by funds supplied by the authorities of the Catholic church in the j)rovincc. What took place after the union is summarised in the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council in the case of The City of Winnipeg vs. Barrett in 1892, from which the followint^ extracts are made : •' Manitoba having been constituted a province of the Dominion in 1870, the Provincial Legislamre lost no time in dealing with the question of educi' /I. In 1H71, (at ils lirst session) alaw was passed which established a sy 1 of (h^nominational education in the common schools, as they were ..icn called, A Board of EiJucition was formed, which was to be divided into twt) sections, Protestant and Roman Catholic, Each section was to have under its control and management the discipline of the schools of the section. Under the Manitoba Act the province had been divided into 24 electoral divisions, for the purpose of electing members to serve in the Legislative! Assembly. By the Act of 1871 eticli eUctoral division was constituted a school (Mstrict, in the first instance. Twelve elt;ctoral divi- sions, •comprising mainly a Protestant population,' were to be con-;idered Protestant school dislricis, twelve, 'comprising mainly a Roman Catholic pojjulation,' were to be considered Roman (catholic school districts, With- out the special sjinction f)f tiie section there was not to be mort; than one school in any school district. The male in'.iabitants of each school ilistrict, assembled at an annual meeting, were to decide in what manner they shoulil raise their contril)tinons towards the su[)part of the school, in addition Co what was derivcil from public funds."' " The laws relating to education were modified from time to time, but the system of dejiominational education was maintained in full vigor until IH'.U). An Act passed in iHSl, following aii Act of 187"). provideil among other things that the establishment of a school district of one denomination should not prevent the estal)lishment of a school district of the other dtmora- ination in the same |)lace, and that a Protestant and a Roman Catholic district mi;.^ht include the same territory in whole or in part. From the year 1870 until 1891), enactments were in force declaring that in ,o case should a Protestant ratepayer be obliged to pay for a Roman Catholic school, or a Roman Catholio ratepayer for a Protestant school." The Board of Education was made to consist of twelve i 3 i Protestant and nine Catholic iiitMnherp, and the inoneyH voted by the Let^i.shitnre, instead of heiiii,' divided ecjnally between tlie two sections, were to be divided in proportion to tlie number ot cliiidren of scliool a^e in tlie pchools under the care of the Pro- testant and Catholic, sections of the Board respectively. In 1890, the system of denominational public schools which had existed for nineteen years was in a most summary way swept out of existence. A Department of Education and an Advisory Board of seven members were substituted for the Board of Education and its two sections, and mixed public schools, sup- ported by assessment upon the whole population and by a grant from the province, took the place of the Protestant and Catholic schools which had been established after the passing of the Act of 1871. This action of the Provincial Lejrislature few undertake to defend. Whether technically unconstitutional or not, it was a substantial violatloii of the ai^n-eement understood by Catholics and Protestants to be embodied in the Manitoba Act It was arbitrary and ungenerous, and was revohitionary in its char.icter. It took the people of the province Ity surprise. If the (yatholic schools were inferior to the other jjublic schools and unsiiittjd for the work which tliey had to do, wliicli, when one considers that they were in a large j)roportion intended for tlu! beiu'lit of the half-l)recds, seeins soinewhut donbtftil, the wis(! iind fair course would have been to reform niid not to nholish tiieiu ; to provide that the teachers sli(»ul(l bo duly (jiialitied. and rlie schools properly inspected, instead <»f sweeping away a system which had been in operation for so many ye.irs, and re|)lacing it by one to which the great bulk of the Catholic, population Iiiirl conscientious objections. We are jiistilied in believing that the Acts of 18!)0 were not due to any general discontent; amongst the ]*rotestant popula- tion, who couKl not be materially injured by the alleged inetHcien- cy of the Catholic schools, uov to ;iny strong sympathy felt for the inferior condition of the Catholics, nor to any scruples about spending public money tor denominational rchools. There is little doubt but that these Acts were passed as a piece of party strategy, and were interiiled to secure a victory for the Govern- ment at the ensuini; provincial general election. The niernbers of the Government were |)rohai)ly not themselves actuated hy any feeling of hostility to Catholics hut appealed to and excited the feeling dormant amongst the electors. The passing of these Acts caused general surprise through- out (/anada, and the great majority of our |)oople, lawyers as well as laymef*, were of opinion that they were unconstitutional. The hest and wisest course for the Dominion Government would have been to have promptly disallowed both Acts, or, at any rate, the "Act respecting the J*id)lic Schools." If this had been done, tlieold system would have been coiitimied in operation; n(j expense nor difHculty would have arisen, and the disallowance, being not unexpected, would probably have been a sui)ject of little discus- sion. The course adopted by that Government in April, lb91, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, which left the validity of the Acts to be fought over in the courts, was objec- tionable, because it gave tinje for the overthrow of the syctcm existing at the passing of the Acts of 1890, and involved expendi- ture and re-construction, under the provisions of those Acts, which the disallowance would have prevented. Whether the Acts were, as was generally believed, ultra vires, or were not, tliey were, a& history has shown, inimical to the peace and good government of Canada, and should on that ground have been disallowed. The principal excuse offered for the failure of the Dominion Government to disallow the Acts was the fact that, in the session of 1890, the House of Commons, on the motion of Mr Blake had adopted a resolution in favor of providing a means of referring constitutional questions, such as that involved in the Manitoba school case, to the higher courts for decision. But that resolution was not law ; and the Act providing for a reference to the courts was passed in the session of 1891, months after the petitions of the Archbishop of Saint Boniface and others praying for disallow- ance had been igrtored and the Acts allowed to go into operation. Further, it has not been generally observed that Mr. Blake, in moving his resolution, took care to indicate that there were cer- tain cases where disallowance should take place without any 1i rcforoTn^c to a court; and his liUi«;nngo would seem to show that he liad in liis mind some such case as tliis : '* It is, novortlu'lfSH, and I think witii nound ronson, coiitonded. that circuniHtanceH of great K^nfral iiiconvonipnoe or preiudicc from a Domin- ion Htandpoiiit. and involvinjf dirticulty, tlolay or Iho impoHHibility of a reNort to law, may justify the policy of disallowance." Sir John A. Macdonald also, in acci'pt'ri^ Mr. Blake's resolu- tion, declared that it should not he construed as proposing to take away the discretion or the resj)onsihility of the Dominion Government, and added : "The Governnient may dissent from tliat decision, (of the court to ■which the reference is madeK and it may be their duty to do so if they differ from the c(»nclusion to which the court' has come." It is worthy of note in this connection that two P)ills, j)MPsed by the JA'i;islatnr(! ol Manitcha at the same session with tlie School Hills, were disallowc!(l hy the Dominion Government, with- out any reference to the Suj»rein(; Court. The titles of the IJills were "An Act to authorize ('oinpanies, Institutions, <»r t Corpora- tions incorporated out of this Province to ti'ansact l»usiiu!S8 therein," and " An A<*t respectiui^ the Diseases of Animals." See Coin's J., isui, p. i:;5. We know that Sir John A. .\riic(lonald and Sir .lohn Thomp- son were both friendly to separate schools; and it is mutter for rejj'rcit that they did not act accordiiiij: to the dic^tates of their own feelin<;s and promj)tly disallow the Acts of l>'0<>. They probably tlioufijht that, ultimately the courts would hold the Acts uncon- stitutional, and that the easier way for tlie Government out of the difficulty was to leave the decision to the courts. They fenced with the difficulty instead of jrrapplin^- with it; and the result has shown that in this, as in so many other cases, a bold, straightfor- ward policy is wiser than one which is temporising and irresolute. Clearly the failure to disallow was a vital mistake, made at the beginning of the Manitoba school difficulty, and opened the door for the floods of dissension and ill feeling which have since more and more overspread the wliole country. The Catholics appealed to the courts under the first sub-section of section 22 of the Manitoba Act, already quoted. They were unsuccessful at Winnipeg. At Ottawa, tlujy Kiicccedtid : tluj Su|)ieiuo Court lioldinpj tluit Parliii- tncfit must liavo li:ul Home iru5iiniiijL^ wlieii panHinj; the sul)- secrion in (jiiesMoi) ; that tliere imint have heeii Home special riLrht or j)rivil('i^(i as to deuoiriiiiatioiial nehools, en joyiid hy praetiee at tlu! titrie of th(! union ; tliat tlu; power to maintain their own Bciiools at their own expense, while eontrihutinj^' to the support of mixed Kchools of which they in3, referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. That Court held tliat there was no appeal, which decision waa rovei'sj'd hy tlu! .fudic iul C'otnniittcc of the Imperial Privy (^>un- cil, wii(» (It'cidcrl tliiit tUvrv. nvjih an ji|)|m'ii1 t<» the Governor (toncriil in Council, lu'cauHC tlie Aotn of IS'.MI had alTccted ri;>ditH of tli»! ('atliolic minority in Mar'toha, cnjt»y(Ml hy virtue of the Act of 1871 and the Hiiveral amenHl ion is Hiihniittod wiM'thcr tlu> (J(>v<>rnor Oenpnil in ronncil has power to iiwikf the (Icclarat ions or rt'ni*>neral in Council han juris'liction, aixl that the appeal is well foundeil, hut the particular conrHe to h(4 pursued nnist h<> (U'termic 'd liy the authorities to whom it lias heen committed hv the statute. It is not for this trihunal to intimate the pr«!- cise steps to he taken. Their ;^eneral <'haracter is sidliciently detlned hy the third sul)Hection of section *J'i of the ^hlnitoha Act. It is certainly not es«enlial that the statutes repealed hy the Act of 18W» should he re-enacted, or that the precise provisions of thes(> statuteK should aj^ain ho made law. The system of edu(^ation emitodied in the Acts of IHiM), no douht, commends itself to, ;ind a appeal i» founded, ami were moditied so far as mi>^ht hi' necessary to give etfect to these provisions." The third .suhseetion of section '22 of the Manitolta Act, to wliicli \V(! are referred for information as to the ^oneral character of the stc])s to ho tak(!ii for the purpose of carryinij out rlio Committee's decision, reads tlms : *' (-)) In case any sucli provinci.'d law. as from time to time secmt* to the (rovernor (leneral in Council requisite for the due execution of tlie provisions of this section is not nui from the language of the Premier that this was not the first 8 meeting for tlie purpose. It will be admitted that the Govern- ment allowed remarkable energy and promptness in dealing with the matter, at this particular stage. Let us look calmly and dispassionately at the question from the poin<^ of view of a disinterested and practical bystander. What line of action would such a one recommend? He would probably suggest that it would be well — having already vvaited for five years— to hasten slowly, and to pay, as during all those years, reasonable deference to the feelings and even the prejudices of the people of the self-asserting Prairie Province. He would recommend that a copy of the judgment of the Judicial Commit- tee of the Imperial Privy Council should be forwarded to the Government of Manitoba, with a friendly request that they should at their convenience give it their careful consideration, and, if j)ossil)le, take snob steps as to reu'ler action by the Domin- ion Government and Parliament imnccessary. W(; liuve seen v;hat the course actually followed was. Tiie argument had begun before copies of the judgment in England l»ad been received from Downing Street. The Government and Legislature of Manitoba were give!i no time to consider, but were, bv the ajiii'ressivc line at once assumed by the Dominion Govern- ment, driven to adopt a detiint attitude. Human natni-e is the same in Manitoba as elsewhere, and the average man resents aiul resists threats and attempts at dictation and cotnpulsion. The eause of the Catholic minoritv in Manitoba was tjood enouerh, in natural justice and in law, to have allowed reasonable time for consideration and discussion. The hasty action and aggressive tone adopted in connection with tlie Judicial Committee's decis- •v'Ti made an unwise beginning of the efforts to carry that decision into effect, '"put up," so to say, ''the back" of Manitoba at the start, ,.nd rendered concession on the part of the province difficult and unlikely. Why this attitude — only assumed for a few weeks — was adopted by the Government of Canada, only those who were members of the Cabinet at the time can say ; but there seems reason to believe that the rumor that the Government intended? after passing the Remedial Order, to appeal to the country in the spring of 1895, without holding a session, was well founded : certainly, their subsequent action has been altoijetlier inconsistent with that taken between tlie decision of tlie Judicial Committee of the Enirlish Privy Council and tlie issue of the Remedial Order, The natural and logical sequel of the Remedial Order was, either action by Manitoba in accordance with its terms or, in case of her neglect or refusal to act, the ])assing of a statute by the Parliament of Canada at the earliest practicable date, for the purpose of rendering the Order effective. On the IDth of June, 1895, the Legislature of Manitoba in replying to the Remedial Order of 21st March, used the following language : — "We are therefore compelled to respectfully state to Your Excellency in Council that we cannot accept the responsi- bility of carrying into effect the terms of the Remedial Order." Why Parliament, which sat for a month after the receipt of the answer of which the foregoing is the gist, was not called upon then to pass the Remedial Bill is a matter for conjecture ; the postponement of action has rcndci'ed it more ditHcult, and has given time for an extension of the sphere of the unfortunate agitation on the question of the Manitoba schools which now prevails from Cape Breton to Vancouver Island. The course 1 have indicated is that which one would have expected after the energetic and aggressive character of the Dominion Government's action between the decision of the Judicial Committee of the English Privy Council and the passing of the Remedial Order. That course was not adopted. The tone of the Government's communications with Manitoba became less decided and imperative, and a strong desire was shown that Manitoba should dispose of the matter, as well as a willingness to accept any concession that might be regarded as meeting the reasonable demands of the Catholic minority. The reader is referred to the Dominion Order in Council of the 27th July, 1895, from which the following extract is taken : — *' In the interest of all concerned it will not be disputed that if possi- ble the subject of education should be exclusively dealt with by the Local Legislature. Upon every ground in the opinion of the Sub-Conimittee this course is to be preferred, and with the hope that this course may yet be followed the Sub-Committee have now the honour to recommend that Your Excellency will be pleased to urge upon the Government of Manitoba the following further views which^may be pressed in ^connection with the Bemedial Order. 10 The Remedial Order coupled with the answer of the Manitoba Govern- ment has vested the Federal Legislature with complete jurisdiction in the premises, but it by no means follows that it is the duty of the Federal Government to insist that provincial legislation to be mutually satisfactory should follow the exact lines of this Order. It is hoped, however, that a middle course will commend itself to the local autlionties, so that Feflei'al action may become unnecessary. With a view to a settlement upon this basis, it seems desirable to ascertain by friendly negotiations what amendments to the A •^s respecting education in public schools in the direction of the main \\ i hes of the minority may be expected from the Manitoba Legislature. It is I.elieved by the Sub-Committee that the religious opinions and rights which have been recognized in the judgment of the Judicial Com- mittee of the Imperial Privy Council, could be sufficiently met by the Local Legislature without impairing the efficiency or proper conduct, )nanagement and regulation of the public schools." My opinion at the time was, as it is now, tliat Manitoba should have met the comparatively friendly advance of that Order in Council in a similar spirit, and should have taken steps to supply the practical needs of the Catholic minority. This could have been done — as is shown by the practice in certain portions of the lower provinces— without any serious interfer- ence with tlie existing school law. No doubt, extremists on both sides would have been dissatisfied; but governments are supposed to act and legislatures to pass laws, for the average, reasonable, give and take element which includes the majority of the people. The average, reasonable man, when the case is put fairly before him, will see that there is no distinction in principle between compelling a parent to contribute to the support of a school to which he cannot conscientiously send his child, and compelling liim to contribute to the support of a church whose services he and his family canno*" ionscientiously attend. The Government might sot up a state church, and, to paraphrase the language of the Executive Council of Manitoba on the 20tli October, 1894, they might declare that "the religious exercises are non-sectarian, and are not used, except with the sanction and with the direction of the legislature elected by all voters without distinction of creed ;" but they would find that Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists would unite with Catholics in refusing "to take advantage of the public church" and in resisting the payment of church rates for its support. But. while recognizing the fact that in substance the Domin- 'i 11 ion Government were right and the Manitoba Governtnent were wrong, one must admit that, even after the former Governm 'nt adopted the moderate and conciliatory tone which appears in the Order in Council of 27th July last, they showed a want of tact and — in my humble judgment — business capacity, which under the cir- cumstances, was much to be regretted. Having intimated a willingness to make concessions, the Dominion Government should, between the close of last session and the beginning of the present one, have tried negotiation, if any opportunity; offered. Was there an opening for negotiation ? I think there was, I think that the passrages which 1 am about to quote from the answer of the Manitoba J^egislature given in June last to the Remedial Order ot March 21st, show that a door was opened by the province of which the Dominion Government might and should have availed themselves. "We believe that when the Remedial Order was made, there was not available to Your Excellency in Council full and accurate information as to the working of our former system of schools. We also believe that there was lacking the means of forming a correct judgment as to the effect upon the province of changes in the direction indicated in the Order. Being impressed 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 cheerfully assist in affording the most complete information available. An investigation of such a kind would furnish a substantial basis of fact upon which conclusions could be formed with a reasonable degree of certainty . It is urged most strongly that upon so important a matter, involving, as it does, the religious feelings and convictions of different classes of the people of Canada and the educational interests of a province, which is ex- pected to become one of the most important in the Dominion, no hasty action should be taken, but that, on the contrary, the greatest care and de- liberation should be exercised and a full and thorough investigation made '' " We respectfully suggest to Your Excellency in Council that all of the above considerations call most strongly for full and careful deliberatit)n, and for such a course of action as will avoid iritating ccmplications." Had a Committee of the Ottawa Cabinet been selected to meet a Committee of the Provincial Executive and discuss the whole question, or had a Royal Commission been appointed to go to Manitoba and iii(|uire into the circumstances referred to in the answer of the Provincial Legislature and any others that might be decided upon, the mere fact of the parties to the controversy meetiuir and discnssinjj: the matters in difference might have led 12 to a friendly settlement, would certainly have tended to lessen tbj bitterness of feelino; on both sides and would at least have aff' 'd- ed information which would have been most useful to the Domin- ion Government when they came to frame tlieir Remedial Hill — if such a measure were necessary, Instead of following either of these courses, tlie Ottawa Government seem to have contented themselves with tirinij^ off an Order in Council or two at long range ; a performance which inay l>e impressive, but which has proved in this case to be as ineffective as might have been ex- pected. The answer given by the Manitoba Government on December 21st, 1895, to the Dominion Order in Conncil of July 27th, having been made on the eve of the provincial general election, may be regarded as being, like the Dominion Remedial Order of March last, in some sense a caiMpaign document ; and yet we lind that even in that answer the sui;,;estion that an inqn'ry should be made by the Dominion Government is renewed. " It is a matter of regret that the invitation extended by the Legisla- tive Assembly to make a proper inciuiry into the facts of the case has not been accepted, but tliat, as above stated, the advisers of His Excellency have declared their policy without investigation. It is eciually a matter of regret that Parliament is apparently about to be asked to legislate without investigation. It is with all deference submitted that such a course seems to be quite incapable of reasonable justification and must create the con- viction that the educational interests of the people of the Province of Mani- toba 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 Legislature to the Remedial Order should, in the opinion of the undersigned, be again earnestly invited, and in the event of the invitation being accepted the scope of the inquiry should be sufficiently wide to embrace all available facts relating to the past or present school systems." The Dominion Cabinet having apparently decided not to inquire nor to negotiate furrher, it was their duty to legislate effectually. They have chosen to legislate ; and, to make that course defensible, their legislation must be such as to guarantee that the reasonable claims of the Catholic minority in Manitoba shall be satisfied without any substantial fear of disappointment. The measure introduced to Parliament should also be complete and final in itself ; as there are grave doubts whether further legis- lation on tlie subject at Ottawa would be either practicable or li ( 13 |] -ff i constitutional ; an;!, in any caso, it is the duty of the Government here to do what they can to sliorten the life of the existini; agita- tion. THE REMEDIAL BILL. It may be well, before examinini:; any details of the Bill — The Remedial Act {Manitoba) — introduced ir. the House of Commons on the eleventh of February, 181U), by the Minister of Justice, to observe that the Bill in question is a copy — with a few modifications — of the Bill submitted to the Dominion Privy Council, by Mr. Ewart, Q.C., counsel for the Catholics of Mani- toba, at the hearing preliminary to the granting of the Remedial Order of March last. Mr. E wart's Bill again, j)roposed to ro-enact in substance the law with regard to separate schools in force in Manitoba, immediately befo.o the passing of the Acts of 1890 abolishing those schools. One very important consideration to be borne in mind is that Mr. Ewart's Bill w;u- to be enacted by the Legislature of Manitoba; so that there could arise no question as to its being constitutional or Ijeing fully and freely obeyed, while the Remedial Bill is to be enforced in the face of a hostile pro- vincial government and legislature and of municipalities in most cases unfriendly, with the certainty that every possible difficulty will be thrown in the way of its operation. There is no object in dwelling on the good points of the measure, to which as a whole, if passed or accepted by the province, there might be little objection ; but it is necessary to look at some of the clauses which, under the actual circumstances of the case, are likely to lead to serious difficulty. The first clause provides that, " The Lieutenant Governor in Council of the Province of Manitoba shall appoint, to form and constitute the Sepai'ate School Hoard of Educa- tion for the Province of Manitoba, a certain number of persons not exceeding nine, all of whom shall be Roman Catholics.'' Without dwelling on the fact that, while we have heard of school boards and o:*^ boards of education, a school l)oard of edu- cation is something new, it must strike one at once, tluit this clause puts it in the power of the Government of Manitoba to ren- der the measure us(3less and nugatory, by appointing a board composed of, say three Catholics opposed to separate schools. 14 The whole working of the Bill depends on the Board of Edu- cation, and, if tiio board neglects or refuses to act, nothing can be done. Under the circumstances of the case, it is, I think a serious mistake to provide as does the second sub-clause of clause 3, that, " The Department of Education may also make, from time to time, such regulations as they may think fit for the general organization of the separate schools," This provision vests in the hostile Government of Manitoba the organization and initiation of the new system, and may lead to serious ditHculty and delay. Clause 23 deals with the annual school assessment on each municipality, and provides how the Catholic supporters of separ- ate schools shall be assessed for what is known as the municipal levy. The clause is a somewhat complicated one, consisting of seven sub-clauses, and would probably give rise to difficulty and litigation in case an attempt were made to operate it. For exam- ple, the lirst six sub-clauses assume, what is most unlikely, that the municipal authorities will help to carry out the separate school law ; while the seventh undertakes to provide for the case of their neglect or refusal. This seventh sub-clause does provide for the assessment and collection of the tax, but makes no provision for the disposal and apportionment of the moneys thus realised, and does not substitute any authority for the council or local inspector to whom important duties are assigned by the preceding sub- clauses. Clause 24, which deals with the district tax, is perhaps less open to serious objection than clause 23, but yet is liable to cause complications and litigation when an attempt is made to work under it. Having spoken briefly of the clauses which undertake to provide the machinery by which the Catholics of Manitoba shall assess themselves for the support of thejr separate schools ; it next becomes neccessary to say something of their exemption from liability to contribute to the support of the public schools of the province. The only provision with respect to this exceedingly important ii itter is contained in the second sub-clause of clause 28, which reads as follows : :t 15 " No Roman Catholic who is assessed for tlu' support of a separate scliool shall be liable to be assessed, taxed, or rocjiiired in any way to con- tribute for the erection, maintenance, or support of any other school, whether by provincial law or otherwise ; nor shall any of his property in respect of which he shall have been so assessed be so liable." This liingiuige is clear enongli, and in tiio long run tliis sub- clause would probably be held valid : but that decision would be arrived at only after tedious and expensive litigation. That is only what should be expected ; but we are not left to conjecture, for in tlie answer of the Manitoba Legislature of June last it is said that,— " It may be held that the power to collect taxes for school purposes conferred upon school boards by our former educational statutes was con- fened by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 92 of the Brit- ish North America Act, and not by virtue of the provisions of section 22 of the Manitoba Act. If this view be well founded, then that portion of the Act of 1890 which abolished the said right to collect taxes is not subject to appeal to Your Excellency in Council, and the Remedial Order and any BUDsecjuent legislative act of the Parliament of Canada (in so far as they may purport to restore the said right) will be ultra vires" Again, in the reply of the Provincial Govern tnent, of the 2l8t December last, we read : " It has been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that the present educational statutes of Manitoba are constitutionally valid. The more recent decision of the same court, in no way weakens or impairs the force of the former decision which stands as an authoritative declaration that the said statutes wiiich abolished separate schools, are constitutional, and therefore that such separate schools are not guaranteed to the minority by the constitution. The Legislative Assembly of the Province has repeatedly declared it- self to be resolute in its determination to maintain the principle of the present educational law. The people of the Province, iQ, the general election held during the year 1893, were expressly asked td pronounce upon the same principle, with the result that all parties joined in declarations of their determination to uphold it." The result of the general election held the other day, must tend to strengthen this determination. Clauses 45, 55, 61, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82 and 83 appear to assume that the trustees and other officers under the Separate School Board, will, if the Bill becomes law, be in a position to expect friendly and concurrent action from certain provincial and municipal officers. This expectation is almost certainly doomed to disappointment, and difficulty and confusion are likely to follow. 16 • There is ;ui otDission in (clause 54, which is of very serious etxisequcTKM'. Tiie corres|)(»ii(iin«if chiuse (55) of the Bill subinit- l"o(l hy Mr. Ewart (Contained a paraijjrapli (/), wliieh declared it the duty of each hoiird of city or town trustees to appoint, with the concurrence of tlie Board of i'idncation, an inspector or manajjrcr of the sciiools witiiin the jurisih'ction, wliose duties, as defined in tliat paraill. The clauses of the two Bills are respectively as follows : Mr. Ewart's Bill : - " 70 The Board of Education shall have power to appoint inspectors who shall hold office durin>j; tlie pleasure of the Board ; to define their duties and to provide for tlieir remuneration; and such inspectors shall visit the schools and report thereon at least twice a year." The Remedial Bill :— '* 09 The Hoard of Education shall have power to appoint inspectors subject to the i»i»proval of tlie Tiieutenant (Jovernor in Council (who may within one luontli aftfr tlie notification of the appointment disapprove it, whereupon the (jllice shall become vacant) who shall hold office subject to such disapproval, durinj;: the pleasure of the Board and of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to define their duties and to provide for their remun- eration : and such inspectors shall visit the schools and report thereon at least twice a year."' It is perfectly clear that tlie clause of the Remedial Bill would be useless atid nugatory. The Government of Manitoba would, as a matter of course, disapi)rove of the appointment of an inspector of Catholic separate schools. The approval of the Local Government seems much less called for in the case of a Bill passed by the Dominion Parliament than in that of one passed by the Provincial Legislature, more especially as the sej)arate schools would I'ot receive any portion of the legislative grant from the province. Just why the language of Mr. Ewart's Bill was so altered does not appear. Having attempted to give the Catholic minority in Manitoba the right to legally assess^tliemselves and the right of exemption from. liability to contribute to any other school fund than their • 17 own, the Hill assnmoB in clauso 74 to doal with tlie vital cjuestion of the provincial ^rant. The clause reads as follows: " The right to share proportionately, in any grant made out of public funds for the purposeH of education iiaving been decided to be and being now one of the rights and privileges of the said Uoinan ('atholi(r njinority of Her Majesty's subjects in the Province of Manitoba, any sum granted bv the Legislature of Manitoba and aj)pro|iriated for the separate schools shall be placed to the credit of the Board of Education in accounts u> be oiujned in the books of the Treasury Department and in the Audit Otllce." To this Legislative grant Mr. Evvart's P>\\\ devotes five care- fully drawn clauses; and it is evident that the Dominion Govern- ment, when they inserted this clause 74 in their i3ill, did so as a mere matter of form i..id without any exj)ectation that it would he acte I'cceive. Un ler the circum- stances, one can hai'dly niiderstaiid what the (TovcrniiuMit intend- ed when they inserted this clause in the 1*111. There is no penal- ty for iioii-comj)liance with its rccMminendatiiMis ; iiiid no attempt is made to compensate the Catholics for their fiiilui'c to receive a share (_>f the grant. The Catholics of jVlanitoba are as a rule comparai'vely poor, and in their case the provincial gra»it l)ore a much larger proportien to tlie amount raised by assessment than in the case of the Protestants. This fact makes the entire with- drawal of the Legislative grant a far more serious matter for them than it would be for their separated bi-ethren. U tliere were any doubt as to tlse attitude of the Provincial Legislature, it would be removed by the following j)aragraph of the memor- ial of that body to the (Tovernor (reneral in Council, adopted in June last. " As to the legislative grant, we hold that it is entirely within the con- trol of the lee:islature of the province, ;< that no part of the public funds of the province ould be made available , r the support of separate schools without the voluntary action of the legislature. It would appear therefore that any action of the Parliament of Canada looking to the restoration of Roman Catholic privileges must, to be of real and substantial benefit, be supplemented by the voluntary action of the Provincial Legislature." 18 Tlic luHt clause of tlie Hill 1^112) is as follows: " Power iH l)or«»l)v rPHcrved to the I'urliaiiient of Canada to make hucIi fiiitlii.T ,in(I other niiMcdial I iws as th« provisions of th»> said section twenty- two, of chapter three, of the Statutes of 1S70, ami of th(^ decision of tlie (fovt'rnor iiiC'oiincil thereiMKh'r may reipiire." 'I'liis clause 1 Ixilitn-e to he tiHii'loss and illusory. In th(; first place, tlioro is «;fave doiiht as lo tlie j)o\ver of Pailiaitieiit to ainend a Ilinnerlial Act. This is admitted hy the Doiiiiiiioii Gov- eniineiit in the rej)ort upon which the Remedial Ofder was based, wherein the following lan<.;tiair<^ is used : — " It was iirfjfed by counsel on behalf of the Province that sliould Parlia- ment lejj;islate under these circumstances its enactment would be absolute and irrevocable as far as both Parhament and the Provincial Legislature are concerned. The (Jotnmittee, witiiout necessarily adopting this view, observe that section ',J'3 of " Tiie Manitoba Act" may admit of that con- struction." In the second place, when one considers that it has taken the Dominion (lovernnient six years to prodnce this 'lame and im- potent'' Remedial I»ill, can he have the faintest hope that, in the excited condition of public feeling all over tlie country, that (iovernmetit will ever make any attempt to render the measure complete and effective ( My faith is certainly not ecjual to such a strain. The Remedial ()r(ler, of Alarcli, 1805, set out what the Remedial Rill should do, and what the Catholic minority of Manitoba and their friends naturally thou<;ht it wt)uld do. The 15111 should reston^ to the Roman Catholic minority, the followitii^ riijjhts and privile».^es, which, previous to and until the first day of May, 181)0, such minority had, viz : '•('«) The right to build, maintain, efjuip, manage, conduct and sup- port Roman (Jatliolic scliools, in the manner |)roviill become law, ho prac^tieally in tlu! same e(»iidition as tiiey are in at prescsnt, where tlicsy do not woi'Ic nnder the existin;; law of the ProviiKv. An inelTeetnal attempt is made to restore (^<')?^'"^ if sueeessfnl at all, it would succeed onlj after a piolon^'ed and harassiui^ stru^'^le in the courts. In short, the l>ill is such as out; would naturally expect to result from the contest of two hostile sections of a l^ahiuet, war- ring over the Remedial Order, one strivinj^— probably honestly — to restore to the (.atholic minority, the rijjjhts of which they were unjustly deprived by the Manitoba Acts of ISQO, and the other determined that nothinjj: should be done to alienate the lar^e section of the population whieii is opposed to any conces- sion to the minority, and believes that in the matter of education, tlie majority in Manitoba should have a perfectly free hand. Let us suppose the Remedial I)ill to have become law, and try to foresee the probable result. (Jertain school districts, in which a majority of the voters are (Catholic-, have accepted the Acts of 18!)() and are now working under them. The j)eople assess themselves under the law and receive their proportion of the le(j;islative grant. The teachers say (/atholic prayers, and give instructions in the doctrines of their chur cuihoh tho (jiitholic chil(ln>n iittentl the public Hch(K)lH wh(>r<> it is poHHihIf for thotn to do ho. Tw«»nty-H«>v«'ii of IIicho old dirttricrts, toyft'tluT witli niuo tiowly formed ont'H, liav»^ ac('(>pti'i| tlw public; Hchool HyHtcni ; riuikinf^ u total t)f thirty-nix Hchool dintrictH now under ( iovfrmnciit control Of tins lunvly formed diHtricts H«n't'ral arc in mixed Hcttlcmcnts, tho French and Kn^lish bcinn about evenly dividtMl. In hucIi cases I Untl that even when tlie ( !atholicH have lull (control of the district they K«'nerally put in one Kn^lish trustee. In one cat^t^ the only Protestant in the district was unaniniouslj' elected aineinl)er of tlie school board. Convent hcIjooIs supported by voluntary subscripticms, fees, Ac, are in operation at the following places : — Winnipeg, St. Honiface, St. Norliert, St. Jean Haptiste. Ste Anne, St. I'ierre-Jolys. St. Francois Xavier, and Brandon. In addition to these there are some thirty-ei^ht schools through- out the province still condutrted as separate schools and supported l)y vol- untary sub.scriptions. The salaries paid in all such ca.ses are very low." One mi^Iit Ix; di.sposcid to look with hoiiiu suspicion upon the fitatisties of this olH(;»;r, and upon hi.s .statements as to tlie feelin;^ of the Frcn(!h inhal)itant.>i towards the law whi(!li appear in a later porti(Hi of the Hain(; repf)rt. ilowi-ver. I find that he is to a great e.xtent confirmed by Senator IJernier, late t^U|)erintenjj about compliance with the rej;ive any religious instruc- tion in the school after school hours. He told them that they could bcsin and clost" school work by saying the ordinary (Jaiholic prayers and even suggest* d how it should be done. Instead of opening tht school at a certain hour, they might open some few minutes l)efore,and at the closing they might close a few minutesaftertheregular hour, so that they might lie .\h\e to say that there had been no |)rayer (luring the school hours. There are forms of report ])rovided by the Government. I have been informed by certain parties that the teachers of those schools were advised that if the clause as to religious instruction was emliarrassing to their conscience, as this report has to be under oath, they might strike out that clause. It was by such inducements, contrary to the spirit of the law, tliat those schools, in their poverty, thought they might avail themselves of the opportunity presented to them to get their share of the taxes and of the Government grant, and thereby keep up their schools." It is hardly to be expected that tlie districts in question will give up the advantages which they now enjoy, for the purpose of coining under the operation of the Remedial Bill, if it become SI 11 ie le law; and I do not ht'lievo that Sermtor neriiior will seriously bhiiiie tluMii if tlioy fail to do so. Tiiey would piin iiolliiti^ iind would lone a ^reat deal. VVIiatover wo may think of the Local Govenimt'iit'H action in thin coiincction, it cannot he said that it nhowrt any hostility to ('atho!i\is act, fraught with much possible evil, and one which should not be undertaken, ex- cept as a last resort and wlien all otlu;r means havo been used and have failed to bring about the desired result. But when the time for action has arrived, the remedial measure should be thorough and complete. The so-called Remedial Bill, while it ex- hibits the features of coercion in its intrusion into what is usually the sphere of provincial legislation, is, as has been 24 shown, utterly unsuited to the purposes for which it is said to be intended, is calculated to cause the most disturbance with the least corresponding benefit, and has not even the solitary merit of being final. Having looked at the record of the Government in connection with tlie Manitoba school question and having ex- amined the Remedial Bill, [ return now to the question stated at the beginning of this paper, and say that in my liumole opinion, the Bill in question, is not such a measure as a Catiiolic member of eithoi' House of Parliament should vote for. It is calculated to do no good, but rather harm to Catholic interests in Manitoba, and to cause serious injury to the Canadian people as a whole. While I do not question the right of any Catholic member,who can satisfy himself that the Bill is likely to improve the position of his co-religionists in the matter of education, to vote for it, I shall feel it my duty, as a Catholic and as a citizen, to vote against it, should it come before the Senate, in anything like its present condition. L. G. POWER. Ottawa, 3rd March, 1896. S \ \