IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) A 1.0 I.I Li£12.8 |io "l^ £f li£ 112.0 2.5 2.2 I ^ la 1.25 |||U ,,.6 ^ 4// ► Vi o> /3 'V ^;. '/ /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN SYRUT WIBSTER, N.Y. M5S0 (716)i72^S03 q"^ 'o ^/^ ^/^ CIHM/ICMH k^ Microfiche ^p Series. ;\ \ "^^ CIHIVl/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelliculde I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates (*nd/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages dStach^es r~7^ Showthrough/ 0^ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression I I Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6x6 film^es 6 nouveau de fapon 6 obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. The copy fi to the gem Thomt Univer The image: possible c( of the orig filming cot Original cc beginning the last pa sion, or th other origi first page sion, and ( or illustrat The last ri shall conti TINUED") whichevei Maps, pla different i entirely in beginning right and required, method: 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X SOX / 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X ire ddtails les du modifier ler une filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Thomai Fisher Rare Boole Library, University of Toronto Library The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping w Privy Council, tliat tlie law was constitu- tional, that it did v t deprive the minority of any right they were entitled to under the statute, that it was within tlie power of the province to pass— then, naturally enough, those who had been promised in 1.S91 that their grievances should be redressed if the event lia))pened. which did liappen, were back j.gain at the Council Chamber demand- ing that the i)romise made to them should be kept. And what did tlie Government do V In 1891 there was no liesitation about the power of this Government to pass tlie re- medial order. But -10 sooner had tliey start- ed on the course of considering this ques- tion of the infringement of the rights of tiie minority than they were suddenly seized with the consciou.sness that they might not liave the power. Tlien, for the lirst time, did it occur to them tliat tlie promise Avliich had been made in 1891 was a promise which was impossible of fuliilmc'nt. And the pro- ceedings having been commenced with all due solemnity, a committee having lieen ap- pointed, and a judicial inquiry, or so called .iudicial inquiry having been instituted— then, for the lirst time, the Goverume.wt paused. Whether they paused for the pur- pose of making sure their jurisdiction was well founded, or whether they jiausLHl with the hope that the courts would say that they had no jurisdiction, I do not intend at this moment to offer an ojiinion. But, at all events, it gained delay. 'I'he questions were tlien referred to the (.-ourt iind(>r the Act which had been passed at tlie preceding \ session upon tlie suggc^srjou of Mr. Edv/ard Blake for the purjiose of informing the Governor General in Council whether or not His Excellency liad jiower to entertain the ap])eal, as it was called, and to grant a re- medial order, which was ihi^ measure of relief that the petiti(iiu>rs sought. The ques- tions having gone from the Supreme Court to th(! judicial committee were, as we all know, ultimately determined by the judicial [ committee deciding in favour of the right of the pet;itloners to have their appeal en- '■ tertained, tiiid pronouncing that the Gover- j nor General in Council had the authority I to deal with the matter and to grant the relief l>y the passage of a remedial order. Now, Sir, that is the first point upon which I desire to state, as eraphatically as I pos- sibly can, that I think the Government was : wrong. I mean to say, Sir, that that ques- i tion came before the Government as all ^ other questions come before the Government, , to be dealt with, I am not going to say, not in accord with juscice, but according to justice and according to riglit and accord- ing to what was wise and prudent in the interest of the province Jind in the interest of the community as a whole. But I utterly deny, and I challenge any person to estab- lish by any kind of reasoning or proof that in actir.H in that ^yay His E.vcellency the Governor General and his advisers were a judicial body. The Government of this coun- try has ceased to be a judicial body, or rather, the Government has never, since confederation, been a judicial body. Un- doubtedly there was a time when our govern- ment, our kings, exercised judicial powers. But, since the abolition of the Star Chamber, that authority ha-' been taken from the Government of England ; and, so far as I know, the Government of Canada never possessed it. And. when we have a Supreme Court, it would be an extraordinary pro- ceeding that the Supreme Court, deciding matters judicially, should be passed by, anil the politic;xl body, the Government should be called upon to pronounce upon (luestions with judicial authority. Therefore, Sir, this question came before the Government just as would any other question. I do not mean to say that the Government were not at liberty, if they thought lit, to hear both sides. The Government have in many cases, adopted that course. Bu.t it does not follow that because the Government, in the exer- cise of the authority vested in it in any matter, thinks fit or proper to call the partV opposing the claim to argue or state his reasons therefor, the Government is acting judicially. If the Government were actuig not upon the responsibility of Ministers at the Crown but as judg;;s, then the Govern- ment coidd not be held respoiiNible for any conclusion they might hont'stly arrive at, uo matter how erroneous it might be, any more than a judge upon the bench could be held responsible for the wrong conclusions he reaehes— and we all ]"un\ that our judges do frequently arrive wrong conclusions. But, Sir, according t aat view the Govern- ment would Jiave to be perfectly free from all politiciil considerations, they "would have to act as our judges act— with a single eye to the judicial office and judicial duty Avhich they had assumed. Now in this case we jierfectly well know that that was not the character assumed. "Why, Sir, the Minister of IMiblic Works, a short time before the hearing of this appeal, publicly announced at a meeting that unless a remedial order was made, his duty would be to retire from the Government. Now, it is impossible to suppose a judge or any gentleman filling a judicial jwsition, in anticipation of the argument of the case dechirlug that if the ease was not decided in a particular way his duty would be plain and clear— to abandon bis position. A time minority remedial binet %v( with tho soon as rendered, decision tuticn, to do, ment. Now, snbstant iS quib wishes in acco did not medial accept I do iif stand • •ousi:iitu his colic lie niad( tlie Stat judicial ment, ai if the stitutiou it— and —was from tl only co; it is p] chance be enfoi D M - Mr, FOSTER. Doos the hon. gentleman know that that has been denied ? Mr. MeCARTHY. I have the proof here, and if it is denied, I will be most happy to submit it. Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUri'EIl. You say he stated that if the remedial order was not passed he would retire. • :Mr. McCarthy. I did not pretend to use the exact words of the hon. Minister, but I gave the substance of what he said ; and I think that the hon. Minister of Public Works, when I quote from his statement, will not say that my recollection of his language on that occasion is not substanti- allv correct. The speech made by the hon. Minister at St. Hyacinthe reported in the Government oi'gans of the 25th February, 1S95, was as follows :— Mr. Oulmet satd he was one of those who de- mandert that justice should be given to the mi- nority. They had Uken an appeal to England at their own expense, and had been successful. The appeal of the minority had not only been maintained, but had been solemnly confirmed. The Privy Council had once for all decided that not only had the minority in Manitoba a right to schools of their own choice, but that nobody Imd a right to deprive the minority of their schools. The course now open to the minority was to demand the re-establishment of the sepa- rate schools which they formally enjoyed. Mr. Ouimet stated there v/as unanimity amongst the members of the Government on this question. A time had been fixed for the advocates of the minority to plead their cause, and to show what remedial legislation should be passed. The Ca- binet would be called upon to act in accordance with the judgment of the Privy Council. As soon as the case was heard, a decision would be rendered, and Mr. Ouimet added that if that decision was not in accordance with the consti- tution, there would be but one thing for them to do, and that was to retire from the Covern- laent. Now, Sir, I think that what I said was sultstantially true. If the hon. gentleman is quibbling, or desires to quil)ble, and wishes to state that the decision was not in accordance with the constitution, and did not mean that there should be a re- medial order, I would be quite willing to accept the hon. gentleman's statement. But I do not think the hon. gentleman would stand up in this House and say that the (•(insriitution did not require of liiin and Ills colleagues that a remedial order shouW lie HKide. So thiit I am right. I think, in the statement I made that tliis so-called judicial oflicer, in anticipation of the argu- ment, announced at a political meeting that if the order was not made, that if the con- stitution, according to his interpn'tation of it- and that meant the passage of the order -was not obeyed, then be would retire fi-oni the Clovernment. and tliat was the only course left for him to do. Now, Sir, it is plain that he thought there was a chance that this remedial order could not be enforced, and would be of no effect. No D M U judge wl'.o had paid the expenses of au appeal to England— because that is one of the boasts tljat the hon. gentleman made — no judge who had made sucli a statement as that, could be permitteer night, that neither was the (Jovern; ^ :ior tlie Secre- tary of Srate. nor anyboJ ise. responsible for" what had been done; ihat it was cruel to speak of the matter, cruel to hold him to any account ; that his duty conimenctvl and ended with passing the province of Manitoba, might have been saved, which arc now causing end of which no man the order on to Sir, this trouble these difficulties, a disruption, the in this House is probably able to foresee, might all have been avoided by a little firmness in tlie begin- ning. T do not mean to say tliat there , should not have been every effort to con- / clliate, that tliere should not have been com- ^ munications with Manitoba, as there ought to l)e when complaint was made by any section of tlie community upon a question as to Avhicli this Government had authority aind jurisdiction. But I do mean to say I that if the Government had consulted Mani- 'toba, had invited, as the Government after- ', wards did witli reference to the North-west, \ a statement from Manitoba of the causes Iwhich led to the change of the school law, the matter ought to have ended at that time. Why, Sir, we have had here witliin recent years a complaint made by the same ecclesiastical authorities with reference to the administration of the school law in the North-west Territories, where they had sepai-ate schools. There was a formal com- plaint and petition, accompanied by all the usual circumstances, and that petition was sent on to Mr. Haultain, the gentleman who administered the affairs of that territory, and his answer having been received, and the Cominiittee of tlie Privy Council here having investigated it, thought that tlie answer had disposed of the alleged griev- ances, which were stated in the petition, and no redress was given to them with re- gard to the North-west. We had complete power and authority, either to veto their laws or to repeal them ; this was not a province, but merely a territory ; and yet that was the result of the investiga- tion that was made of the so-called grievances with regatdto the separate school system in the North-west Territories. But, Sir. tlie Goveriii lents controlled by the same infiuence that is controlling still, by the infiuence of lion, gentlemen opjiosite, who, held tlie pistol to their heads and threatened their destruction, the (loverii- ment, regardless of tlie conse(i|uences, and to escape the diflicxilties which tlien jire- sented themselves, said tli(\v would' deal with this matter in such a way as, if pos- siine, to save tliemselves the responsibility, l)ut also to enable tlie minority to have their separate schools re-established in the province of ]Manltoba. And so the remedial order was made. The clrcunistjuices attend- ing the mailing of that remedial ordt have been already adverted to. I will pass over them very briefly ; I want to make my .state- ment here complete, or I would not refer to them at all. I ask you. Sir, and tliis House to remomber that tlie Government which finds delay now such an important matter, a matter that ought to entitle tliein to crinlit at the hands of this House, acted Avith un- due precipitation wltli respect to dealing witli the province. Let me give the dates. The judgment of tlie Privy Council Avas pro- nounced ou'i 2t)th of hist .laiiuary : the order was not made till 2nd February. I ' am Informed, and I think I am correctly informed, that it was not until the IDtii February that the formal order reached this country. I may be wrong as to tliat, for the time seems long, but that is my infoi-ma- tion ; and three days before, t!ie province was summoned by telegram, on the Kith, to apperr ten days afterwards at the bar of justice here, or injustice, whichever you may choose to term it, to show cause why a remedial order sliould not be issued. Ton days is the time allowed, in ordinary suits between parties ; but ten days' notice of trial is given with the knowledge tiiat a day has been fixed for trial, and if the c:ise is coming Ion, tiie defendant will have notice ten days before. But here the pro- vince is summoned, and summoned by tele- gram, with only ten days' notice, to appear to answer for its legislation on, perhaps, the most important subject within its jurisdic- tion. Well, Sir, I received instructions on behalf of the province to appear, I think it was on the 2-itli, tlie lioariiig being fixed for the 2(itli : that was two days liefore the time fixed for the hearing. I api>eared on the 2(ith, and asked for delay. I asked for delay until the session of the legislature ' closed. I pointed out that no one was com- petent, or as competent, at all events, to state to this Government why it was tlint the legislation had been changed as the Attorney General of the province, wl > was \ the head of the department ; but h was , then engaged in leading tlie IIous the ; Prime Minister of the province being ill in bed. That indulgence was found to be im- r vl/ %■ la- 4« possible. I was jrranted— for I was appoint- ed witliout any instructions except tiie ro- metlial order papers— a delay in order tliat I niitrlit ooiiinmnicate, and eiUier so to Winnipotf to set iufornivition on tiie snli).1ect, or to set a sentl(Mnan to come from Winni- peg and inform me. But that is not wliat I aalced, and it was not what the province was entitled to <>xpect. And wliy was this linrry '.' Tlie linrry was because Mr. Ewart, on the otlier side, said the minority had been suffering so long tliey could not allow a session to pass, they must have redress this comins session, they must insist on tliat. Tliat was t)ie view wliidi prevailed. The order ])assed in order that tliis House uiisiit be within its jurisdiction during the l)resent session in imidementing that order if it became necessary to do so. Tlie order was made, and since then we liave had con- tticting statements in regard to the effect of tlie remedial ordei', and with respect to the rcspdnsihility of the (Jovernment according to the (luarler in wliicli tho.-^e slatemonts were made. It seems there is auotlier view, a. view whicli certainly liad not occurred to me li( rore, in addition to tiie view put for- ivani l)y tlie lion, member for Leeds, th.it this \A IS merely passing on Her Majesty's order t^ the pi'ovince of Manitoba, and it is not X view wliicli is accepted l)y every one who discusses this (piestion. The other view is that tlie Government felt they were bound, irrespective of tlie merits of the case altogether, and witliout regard to its merits, in disregard, I may say, of its mer- its, to pass the remedial order in the most ample terms in which it could be passed, granting every demand made by petKion, so that tiie petitioners miglit come here, and tills House would have jurisdiction to tike into consitleration their case, their hard- sliips and their grievances, and deal with tliem. Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. Hear, hear. Mr. McCarthy. That is the new policy, tlie last worship ; and I trust we shall liear no more about passing on the order to ^Manitoba, that we shall hear no more about Her Majesty having commanded the Cana- dian Government, because it is a slander on Her Majesty. Her Majesty does not, in- terfere in England on a matter of this kind, and certainly she does not interfere in Can- ada. The theory is that wlien tliey apply /here, it Is not the duty of the Government to consider the merits of tlie case, but it is tlieir duty so to open the parliamentary doors that the minority may come here and , get remedial legislation. Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. That is your own view. Mr. McCarthy. I thought it was ac- cepted, judging by the cheers tiiat came from the Treasury benches. Mr. MONTAGUE. It was your own argu- ment. I will read you your argument, if you like. I Mr. McCarthy. I win state ray own argument, and therefore it is not necessary to read it. I cannot refer, of course, to I wliat was said in anotlier debate, but I am in the judgment of tlie House as to whe- tiiCL- I have misinterpreted tlie view of the Government. Wliat I am anxious to do is I to try aud lix the Government down to some I statement ; I want to know exactly whei-e I they stand, what their view is. Is it inere- i ly passing on the order, is it that they were ' bound to open the parliamentary doors, is ; in tliat tlicy considered tlu! mei-its of the case ? Let us know what their position Is. i The merits of tlie case were presented on \ beiialf of the minority by my friend, Mr. , Ewart, and I suppose lie made the best ease the circumstances would admit. And what was the case that gentleman made, j and on which the Privy Council pronounc- I ed ? First, it was tiiat, according to the I treaty whicli was entered into at the time ; ^Manitoba became a part of Canada, there I was a guarantee given to the minority that i tliey sliould have their separate schools. , Then there were several statements made j that at various times in the history of the province, promises had been made by I members of various Governments that the \ separate schools should not be taken from j them. Those latter statements were sup- ported by certain affidavits, but the affl- j davits having been read and filed without i notice, they were withdrawn sooner than allow an answer by affidavit to be made. .\nd so tile atlidaviiJ* which should not liave ai)peared in this blue-book, unfairly appeared in tl)is blue-book which h;is been circulated all over tlie country, casting re- flection upon my hon. friend for Winni- peg (Mr. Martin), and making statements wirli reference to ^Ir. Greenway and <;ther geutloiaen. Thes" were atlidavits which | were formally withdrawn at the time of the/ hearing, and as to which there was no op-, portuuity of laaking a reply. In printing I tliem here, and circulating them through ' ] out the country for the purj>ose of dam- aging men and damaging pai'ties who had no opportunity of answering them, the Gov- ernment were guilty of a transaction which I wisli I could characterize witliin parlia- ' mentary terms. Well, Sir, the case that Mr. Ewart presented A\as this simple fact as to which there was no possible dispute, and as to wliicli there could be no pos- sible disimte : That separate schools had been established in J'^anltoba in 1871, and iliat separate schools had been abolished in 1890. If that constituted a ground for relief, then undoubtedly the case for the l»etitioners was complete, and, in fact, there was vo necessity for argument, and the wlioie tiling was a gigantic farce, because that was tlie basis on wliieh the hearing of tlie case was heard. The Privy Council had determined that under the words of the constitution of Manitoba, as contained in tlie Manitoba Act, the establishment of sepa- i'ate schools subsequent to confederation, iuid the ropcal of that separate school Act. constituted what, for want of a better term, is called a frrievance : constituted, at all evuuts, the rijjlit to jrive the minority the power to conie to the Privy Council and ask frnnient to make a re- medial order, which being disobeyed, gives this Parliament juriKdiction to carry out tlie terms ri'J the remedial order so far as tliat is within tlie constitution and jurisdic- tion of llic province. But. Sir, I want lirsl to deal with a matter whicli lias affected a good number of people. It has been de- termined as a matter of law that the con- stitution, as worded, and the Manitoba School Act, as drawn, did not guarantee to the minority separate scliools. It has been (hMermined tliar the rights which were guaranteed to the denominations in Mani- toba—and it was a riglit appertaining not merely to tlie Roman (Jatholics, but to the Anglicans and rresb.yterians and jiossibly the ^lethodists— was a right to do as they liad been doing iit the time that part ot Rupert's I^ind became a province. That was the ri,','ht,, and that is tht; right alone which is guaranteed now under the highest inter- pretation of the suitute which v/e have got from the Judicial Committee. Therefore, aa a simple question of the construction of the constitution, tliere is no more to l>e said about it. But, Sir, I go a long way with those who say : If the constitution by a slip of the pen has omitted to guarantee rights which were intended to be guaran- tesd by this Parliament, and which were the result of a treaty between the settlers at that time and the autliorities here ; and be- cause the strict letter of the law iloes not give that right. Avould you deny it to the people of the province ? Well, I have two observations to make about thar. In the tirst place, when yon speak of this as a treatj it must be borne in mind that Rupert's Land had become a part of this Dominion. We had piu'chased the territory from the Hudson Bay Company. There was no such thing as a treaty acquiring it from a foreign, or even a quasi-foreign authority, and it is erron- eous to speak of It as a treaty at all. What was Intended by Her Majesty, and what was prociaiined to the settlers there at thai, time was that the rights of the individuals inhabiting that part of the country which Canada had acquired should be safeguarded to them, and the right, whatever it may be, is a i)ersonal right, differing in that respect alcOgether from the right that belongs, for instance, to the province of (.Hicbec. by vir- tue of the treaty which was made at thfc time of the cession, between the King of France and the Crown of England. What Her Majesty the Queen authorized the Gov- ernor General to do here, and what the Governor (ieneral proclaimed he would do. and what this country, I venture to say, has done, was o guai'antee to the people ot that province— the few inhabitants as they were— protection in their rights and their ' privileges. That was an Individual protec- tion, and not one which by any possibility of construction could extend to bind the province lor all time. Rut. Sir, ptM'haps that view matters little. I am prepared to estab- lish here by the most conclusive authority — and I am glad to know that If I do that I will remove the only cause which moves the Prime Minister of this country to adopt' the jiolicy of a remedial order and to pro- mise to introduce a Bill. The Prime Mlnister> is moved simply by the considerati;)n that separate schools weri' guaranteed as part' of the treaty, or part of the bargain made between the Inhabitants of the Red River country at that time and the authorities here at Ottawa. It being Six o'clock, the Speaker left the Chair. After Fef'es'3 :\£r. McCarthy. Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out, \vhen the House rose for recess, that Mr. Ewart, ii5 his presentation of the case on belialf of that portion of the Roman Catholic minority whom he represented, had taken altogether six grounds. The tirst ground was the historical one, that there iiad been a bargaiu entered Into between the inhabitant.^ of the Red River country and the people of Canada, as it then existed, that there should be separate schools, and that that bargain was to be considered as a treaty— as a parliamentary pact, to use thf language of the Lord Chan(;ellor— whicli ought to he given eft'ect to, although it did not appear within the four corners of the Act of Parliament. The other arguments presented by Mr. lOwart— and I do not de- sire to do him any Injustice— I will not trouble the House with, be.vond mentioning, that when disputes arose with reference tov' the abolition of the Senate of Manitoba, cer-A tain guarantees had been given by the Eng- lish, and that pledges had been given on behalf of the Liberal party, prior to the time they attained power in :Manitoba. These urgnmeuts were sup)>ort(>d by attidavits, and were withdrawn. The other argument was of a similar character, depending upon an (>xpyess agreement or promise made or ei\z^ tered into by Mr. Greenway in person with the late Archbishop Tache. This also de- , ponded on attidavits, and was withdrawn. ~ I now propose to establish, as I think I can in the most conclusive manner, that there was no bargain between the settlers and the authorities at Ottawa that the,\ should have s(>parate scliools. It Is as clear as anything can be that, in the disturbances that took [ilace In the Red River district prior to its incorj)oratlon in the Dominion, thei'e wore two bills of rlglits, or lists of rights, as they were called. One list of rights, which was prepared, I think, in the month of November preceding the year in which the negotiations took place, I think in 1869, > <.i' 1 their protec- slbiUty 1(1 Iho ps that c'stab- lority— that I moves ) adopt to pro- [iuistor )ii that^ IS part' 1 made I River iiorities [eft the I Avas ' recess, of the Koinan od, liad le tii'st t there 'eeu tlie ry and - ■'i /^ ed, that id that d as a use thf whieh it did of the uineiits not (lo- ll ot iouinj.', lice 1o ja, cor- Eus- 011 on ' le time These s, and nt was K)ii an or eiitC': u with ' so de- , drawn. ~ I can there nd the , liave ' ythingf t took to its were Its, as which ith of ch the 1869, r> V :1 makes no reference at all to separate schools; it is not asserted by any pei-son that it does. Tlu! second list of rights was prepared by the 4(t j,M'ntlemen— 120 French-Canadian Plalf- bn^ods and 'JO Enslish— who were elected and called a provisional assembly. Tlieso lists of riiclit.s were snbmitted to Sir Donald Siiiitli, tlie hon. gentleman whose plac(^ is beside mine here, and vhey are to be fonnd ill our iiarliamentary returns. Sir Donald Smitli, wlio was sent with tsvo otiier delo- .uates from <~)ttawa, sisnilied. on l>elialf of this (Joveriiraent— althougli, of course, he liad no autliority to bind the Government— what h(> supposed it would bo prepared to do. But, Sir, that list of rights No. 2, which will be found in the sessional papers of the followlni; year, does not contain, I think, nor is it pretended by any person that it does contain, any reference whatever to separate seh(K>ls. So far there is no dispute. It is admitted on all hands that neither list of rights No. 1 nor list of rights No. 2 made any demand on behalf of the settlers of Rod Kiver for separate schools. The only de- mand that was made with reference to schools was that a grant of money— $30.0(JO per annum, I think— should be made towards the supjjort of separate schools so long as tliat part n^mained a territory ; for at that time it was not supiiosed that it would be incorporated into a province. A dispute arises as to whether there was a fourth list of rights— umiuestionably, there was a third list of rights— because in what is called the fourth list of rights there is a demand for siniar.ate schools in paragraph 7 ; and the whole of this controversy turns on whether or not the fourth list of rights is a genuine document or a spurious document— whether, in point of fact, there was a fourth Bill of Klghts or wliether No. 3 was the last and the one whic'i was brought here by the de- legates, and on which negotiations took place for the settlement of the terms for the admi*!sion of ]N[anitoba as a province of the Dominion. Now, Sir, let me, as briefly as I can, give to the House the relation with regard to the fourth list of rights. It is claimed tliat that document was in the pos- session of a gentleman who is still living, a Fatlier Ilitchot, and th.at upon it there were marcrinal notes made by him as one of thi> delegates to Ottawa, indicating that that was the document on which the negotiations had talcen place. He was the chief of the three negotiators sent from the Red River down to Ottawa to enter into negotiations witli the Government here with reference to the admission of that territory as a pro- vince. It is admitted. Sir, that that docu- ment is not now to be found. It is claimed, however, that a copy of it was put in at the trial of Lepine, who was tried for high trea- son, I think, as late as 1874. It is said that Father Ilitchot appeared as a witness at that trial and produced the original docu- ment, which has been mislaid. But foi'tun- ately, it is said, a copy was made of the original document, which copy was sent of rights, and I d with perfect fair- w favour. Now, the 'ibtedly an au- pretends that rights ; no one •ights was not c luncil of which hero to the Department of Justice ; and a certified copy of that document was pro- duced before the Privy Council at the argu- ment to wliicli I have referred. Nobody heard of it ; though, when I say that, of couihc, I have to assume, in the absence of any evidence to the contraiy, that those who Were at the trial of lA'pine heard of it ; but it was not generally spoken of or known as a claim that Avns put forw.ird by any section of llie popiilatloi) until 1SS!>, when the agi- tation with regard to separate sdioola arose. Plien .\rehl)isli(i]) Taclie produced a copy of tliis i'ourtli list of rights, which contained a claim fssiU'y I slioukl do. Tlicn what conclusion arc wc driven to V 'I'liat In llic tlirec different lists of rights l>ni)ar(>d by tlio peojdo of the lied River, one in November, one In the early part of March, one in the latter part of March— une by the council In November, one by the counc'l of forty and one by the provincial government— no claim was made in refer- ence* to tlie schools excei)t in one, I liave for- fiotten which, that tliey should have a cer- tain amount of money annually for the sup- port of tlielr schools. W'a are tlierefore left In this position— that whatever appears in the Act of I'arllanient was the free yrant or free pi ft of the people? who were nesotiat- Ing here; it was not the result of any demand, jit was not in cousequoiice of any claim ; l)ut It was ])robably sujrpested here by the same influence.which have from lirst to last claim- ed that in all our constitutions of the Nortii- \\est and wherever we had th(> power, we should insert not merely a clause of this kind, but also a clause with reference to the dual lanpua;;e. Now. I tliiiilc tiiat is a fair explaiiMtion of it. and tlie conclusion of it is this whatever the Act, of I'arliament gives, and to the extent that the Act of Parliament gives, we are bound to resp.-ct It, we are l)ound to abide by it so long a« It is the law of the land. Bui when it is claimed on behalf of the minority tliat they are entitlwl to get s<^>m(>thing l)eyond what the Act of Parliament contains, something that they sa.v ought to have? been included, but which through inadvertance was omit- ted. I think I have shown satisfactorily t) any impartial man that the claim utterly and entirely tails and that there is no ground Avliatever for supposing that they are entitled to anything outside the four corners of the document itself. Sir, iiitrin- sieaily. it is impossible to imagine that there cculd have been any such claim. One of the paragi-stphs which these delegates were permitted to treat about, that is to surn>nder or not to insist upon, is paragraph No. 7. Tills paragraph No. 7 is the one said to con- tain the claim to separate schools. But pai-agraph No. 7 as it reads here, is as fol- lows :— That a sum of money, equal to 80 cents per head of the population, shall be paid by the Do- minion of Canada to the local legislature until s'".ch time, And so on. A very natural one to be treat- ed about ; a ver.v proper one for negotiation. But if you insert instead of that the clause with reference to the schools, and if yon imagine the people there are interested in their schools and separate .schools to the extent that has been represented, it is evi- dent that the delegates would not have had any power to abandon It or to escape insist- ing upon it. Then, Sir, I come back to the cases that Is presented— and I adopt this case yet entirely clear- point upitn whicli indulgence of the because I think that It Is fltting that I should do so. I know of no place where the claims of tlie minority iiave Iteen so foi-mally set forth as In tliis deliberate argu- ment by the counsel ; and tlierefore I take It a-s the best case that could be put I'ortli on their behalf. But before i pass to the main question I propose to deal with, let me clear up a matter about whicli 1 am afraid there Is a good deal of misapprehen- sion ill the minds of members of this House, or .some of them at all events. 1 do not think that the hearsay that has been so in- dustHously circulat(>il that the action of the (Joveriiment here was in pursuance of tiie mandate of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, hiis been ed away ; and that Is a I desire now, with the House, to olte not so much my own view, which Is jjcrfectly well known and. perhaps, goes for very little, but the view propound- ed by the gentleman who argued the case before the Judicial Committee. I will fortify that with the language of the Law Lords who heard the case, and I will add perhajis something that has not yet been brought to the notice of the Canadian I'arliament, although I see it was referred to by the; Attorney tJenoral In the discussion whicli took place In Manitoba. Now, in the fhst place. I do not think my hon. friend thi; Minister of Justice, who may perhaps take part in this discussion, will risk his reputa- tion as a lawyer by contending there that the Judicial Committee of the Priv.v Council had juii.sdiction to give a mandate to the (.lovernor General of this country, or that the Judicial Committee had authority to say what this Parliament should or should not do. Sir, the Judicial Committee merely stood in the place of the Supreme Court of Ca- nada. Their only .iurisdletlon it derived from the fact that by our own Act of Parlia- ment we authorized the Governor General lu Council to submit questions of difficulty either In fact or law for the information of the Government ito the Supreme Court of this couii'try. And we gave the right to any person who was Interested In the decision of our Supreme Court to carry the case to the Judicial Committee. And It will be re- membered, for It has been often cited, that when Mr. Blake made the proposition thatV* such a Bill ought to be passed. Sir John Macdonald took excei^tion to the argument that Mr. Blake presented. He l>ased his • objection on the misunderstanding, as itf afterwards turned out, that ^Ir. Blake pro-| posed to substitute the opinion of the cou;'tj for that of the Privy Council of this coun-j try and to remove from the Privj' Council f its ministerial responsibility. Sir John said : " Believing as I do in responsible govern- ment, I will be no party to any system which will lessen the responsibility which ought to be borne by the Government, or allow the courts to say what the Govern- ment of this country should or should not :/ ^J^ 10 ii • do." And, In tbe Act Parliament frnmecl upon that It will be found that care was taken to let it be made perfectly clear and plain that the questions to be siibmittod to the court were for the information of tlii' Privy Council. I need not quote the words of Sir John Macdonald, for his statement has been referred to frequently before. But I will read Mr. Blake'a expression of ojiiniou upon the same subject when be made his proposition : I by no means propose to withdraw from the executive its duty ; my object is to aid it in the efficient execution of its duty. Further on in bis speech he said : It is but au enabling proposition ; it but eia- powers the executive to obtain— by a procedure replete with tbe essential requisites for the pro- duction of a sound opinion — the viewj on legal questions, leaving to the executive so aided the rcsponsioility of final action. Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. Hi.s the hoii. gentleman any more of Mr. Blake's speech there as to the reasons for his action ? ^ Mr. McCarthy. No ; I took this from " Hansard," but I have only the paragrapli applicable to this point. Loolc at tlio Act of Parliament framed upon that, and it will be found that it declares th;^t questions may be put to tlie Supreme Coui't for the information of the Governor in Council. Well. nov,'. (juestions were put. tlio Su- preme Court answered those questions. Tlio ; parties who were interested applied from the deci'^icn to the .iudicial Committee, and , that committee said that in some respects the answers of the Supreme Court wei''> erroneous and ought to be corrected, and they corrected them accordingly. How. th ;:, can it be said that the .Indicia 1 Com- mittee, .eyieaking in appeal from tlie Su- preme rt, pronouncing the judgment ■ that i'..' .^'lii.reme Court ought to have pro- nouncvd and that alone— that anything that fell f. < ( that judicial body could be treat- ed 'ei ! i ■ ja mandate to the Government i^ .IS country ? Why. Sir. that quesdou liGrer was before the Supreme Court. Tlioy M-ere asked whether a grievance had occur- red, and whether there was junsdiction, and tlie anrwer i,s in the attirmative. It w;is not denied that we had jurisdiction, but how that jurisdiction was to be exercised, was i not befon? the courts, was not argued, and is not present. How, tliorefore, could tlieir derision possi)3ly be a binding decision ?-- how be of any effect at all one way or the ' other, upon tlie Government of this country V Sir, I do not think this groat ParliamenT, ■ and the Govermient which leads this Par- '■ llameut. have yet come to tlie position of being ohidieut to the mandate of any court. I know no court wlilch can command the Governor General of this country. What is done here is done by the Administration of ^ this country In tiie name of the Crown, in the name of Ifis Excellency the Governor General, who represents the Crown. They are his advisers, but the acts of the Admin- istration is the act of the representative of tlie Crown. But if there was any pos- sible question about it, that is absolutely set at rest Avhen one ' ds the discussion tliat took place before t,nat body. I am really asliamed to occupy the attention of this House witli a discussion of what seems to me perfectly clear ; but I know that amongst many members witii whom I have had tlie lionour of conversing, doubts are entertained, from reading newspapers, and probably newspapers on one side of poli- tics only, where it has been persi-itently and iiu]ustriou.sly stated and cirfulated that the Govtirnment here, in order to escape re- sponsibility— I am speaking uoav of the newspaper argument in their behalf — had merely done wliat they were obliged to do, and wliat tliey liad been ordered to do, and sucli as all loyal and good subJL^cts ought to have dene. For u moment, however, I will tresi)ass upon the time of the House by re- ferring to th(.' argument before tlie Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Mr. Blake \vas the leading counsel in that argument, and. at the a ory beginning of his statement, wliicli Avill be found on page 2(] of the Mani- toba Scliool case, tiie Lord Chancellor in- terrogiitod him as to wliat was the mean- ing of tlie app*ejil, what were the facts in- volved in it, and Mr. Blake very frankly and very properly answered in this wise : ' The LORD CHANTELLOR. It is not before us, what should be declared, is it ? Air. BLAKE. No ; what Is before Your Lord- ships is, whether there is a case for appeal. The LORD CHANCELLOR. What is before u.s is the functions of the Gq,vernor General. Mr. BL.AKE. Yes, and not tho methods in which he shall exercise t'lem — not the discretion whip*^ "re shall use, but whether a case has arisen o': the facts on which he has juri.sdiction to in- tervene. That is all that is before; Your Lord- Khips. Ml-. Blake repeatedly referred to it again. I will trespass upon the House by ivading one or two references more from Mr. Blake, on iiago 32. Mr. Blake is here quoting from the minute made by tlio Council, of wliicii Sir .lohn Thompson was diairmaii, and he says : Your Lordships will observe tho phrase " at present." He is speaking of the Minut/^ of Council in whicli tills language is used : The application conies before Your Excellency in a manner differing from applications which €Tro ordinarily made under the constitution to Ycur Excellonpy in Council. In the opinion of the sub-committee, the application is not to be dealt with at present as a matter of politlcnl character or involving political tiction on the part of Your Excellency's ndvlsei's. A\'hat does Mr. Blake say to tliat ? Your Lordships will observe the phrase " at present." On the preliminary fjuestlon, which is a (luestioii whether there are grounds to entertain i •> he Admin- resentative 5 any pos- absoliitely discussion ly. I am ttention of ^hat seems inow that om I have loubts aro ipers, and e of poli- tently and d that the sscape re- w of the ehiilf— Iiad Red to do. to do, and s ouRht to ver, I will use by re- le Judicial Mr. Blake argument, statement, the Mani- icellor in- tlie mean- ) facts in- y franlvly is wise : not before Your Lord- jpeal. t is before ueral. iiethods in discretion has arisen tlon to in- ifour Lord- it again, v ivading Ir. Blake, ting from of wliich 1, and he hraso " at ounci! in Excellency Dns which itutlon to opinion of not to be i political in the part irase " at which ia I entertain 11 i \ Jri ^ an appeal, the committee thought they were going ! to act judicially, but, very properly, they added the words " at present," because it is quite obvi- ous that when ihey enter upon the sphere of ac- tion of entertaining an appeal, their functions must be political, of expediency and of discretion, just as much as the functions which, in the last resort upon their recommendation, are assigned , to the Parliament of Canada Itself, of course, a political bo(i»'. How can anything be plainer than that, so | far as Mr. Blake's opinion goes, the gentle- j man wlio is acting on behalf of the Iloman i Catholic minority that is referred t) ."e- peatedly all through the argument. For ui- ; stance, at page 37, Lord Shand says : If the appeal is before the Governor, would he ' be entitled to take political considerations into view ? I Mr. BLAKE. Doubtless. j Lord SHAND. That is what you get into if your appeal Is a successful appeal ? 1 Mr. BLAKE. I should say so. | Sir CHARLES HIBBEIIT TUPPER. You i call that obiter, I suppose ? ' :\rr. :Mv'CARTHY. No, not obiter, be- i (a use the courts there are ascertaining i wliat tliey have got to decide. Counsel re- presenting tliom says : With these ques- tif>n3 Your Lordslnps are not to be troubl- ed. If the counsel representing them says to tlie court. We do not want information upon that point, how can it be claimed that the court is giving an opinion which my , hon. friends here are bound to obey ? It is j a concession on the part of the appellant ; counsel, tliat upon these questions, which, j ir Uicmselves, are plain enougli, there is uo jurh-idiction for the Judicial Committee, any , more than tiiere was for the Supreme Court of Canada, to determine tlie responsibility of tli(> Governor General in Council. Lord Watson says, at page 30 : I suppose »ve are not aslysd to give any such finding or opinion as would tie the Governor General to follow any recommendation of the Canadian Parliament. Mr. BLAKE. I do tot think Your Lordships are. I do not like to make an absolute conces- sion at this time. Lord WATSON. I rather took it from your statement that we are In a position In which we ought not to do that. Mr. BLAKE. I think Your Lordships are not bound to go turther. Lord WATSON. I suppose wc are bound to give him advice in this appeal. He has asked nothing else but advice throughout. He has not asked for a political decision which shall fetter him in any way. Mr, BLAKE. It could not be. Tho law which creates the tribunal for the purpose of giving ad- vice, expressly states that in their political capa- city they are no; bound by that advice. Tliat is tlie law to whlcli I referred a mo- I'lont ago. The Lord Chancellor, at page 02, says : The question seems to me to be this : ' If you are right In spying that the abolition of a system of deni luinatlonal education which was created by a post-union legislation, is within the 2nd section of the Manitoba Act and the 3rd subsec- tion of the other, if it apply, then you say there Is a case for the Jurisdiction of the Governor General, and that is all we have to decide. Mr. BLAKE. That is all your Lordships have to decide. What remedy he shall propose to ap- ply is quite a different thing. At page 87, Lord Sband intervened : There must be a marked difference, with refer- ence to anything interfering with what was the state of matters at tho un'on, and anything inter- fering with the state of matters which had been changed by the legislature after the union. In the one case it would be bad in point of law and ' ultra vires," in the other you can destroy the right, but that destruction of the right is liable to appeal. Mr. BLAKE. That is precisely the line which I am about to adopt. Lord WATSON. It may be qualified or abro- gated. Mr. BLAKE. The case does not arise, if there are privileges which have not been broken. I suggest that the provision of tho enabling clause, with subsection 1, Is absolutely complete in Itself. That is the first clause, which restrained the legislature from making laws which would deprive any religious denomination, or any class of persons, of the rights which they possessed at the time of the union. It requires in its nature no supplement of any kind — uo appeal to a political executive tribunal, as the Privy Council of Canada — no appeal to a legislative tribunal, as the Parliament of Canada, is wanted. Nothing exists for the executive tri- ))unal or for the legislative tribunal to operate upon. No question of expediency, no question of discretion arises. The course of the law Is all, and it Is enough. That is the whole theory. .A-gain. at page 88, I fiud : The appeal it, to a poUtical and non-Judicial tribunal. ^ And it goes on to show how, absurd it would he to suppose tiiat the appeal was to any- body except a non-judicial tribunal. I now will mention Mr. Bl-ake's references, on page !l>3 : Lord WATSON. I apprehend that the appeal to the Governor is an appeal to the Governor's discretion. It is a political administrative ap- peal, and not* a judicial appeal In any proper sense of the term, and In the same way, after he has decided, the same latitude of discretion is given to the Dominion Parliament. They may legislate or not, as they think fit. Mr. BLAKE. Only within the limits of his discretion ; they cannot go beyond. Tlic clo.shig words of his reply may be referred to witli advantage. At page 266 will 1>(> foiuid his last words : Mr. BLAKE. What wo ask your Lordshipa Is, What the privileges were, and how far thty have been Infringed ; and then we propose to ask the Governor General to determine how far ho will go. I do not ask your Lordship to mako any suggestion as to his action, which, I conceive, from the beginning is political. He Is to bo in- Etructed as to the law ; and then his action and 12 the action of the Parliament will carry the thing out. Thei'o is no doubt at till tliait tlio instruc- tion 01" dircetiou was as to tlie qUL'Stiou of law. I Avlll ('ouie in a inouient to tho (luos- tious tliiit were asly Lm'd Wat- son : Lord WATSON. The power given of appeal to the Government, and upon request by the Government to the Legislature of Canada, seems to be wholly discretionary in both. Mr. EWART. No doubt. My hon. friend the Minister of ,Tu.stice will perhaps endeavour to reconcile a mandatory order with this statement of the law, which say it is discretionary. I leave that for the hon. gentleman to do. liOrd Watson then said : Lord WATSON, Both in the Government and in the Legislature. Mr. EWART. Yes. At page 18,'i, Mr. Ewart says : Before closing, I would like to say a word cir two as to what wo are seeking. As it has been already remarked, we are not asking for any de- claration as to the extent of the relief to be given by the Governor General. Although it was not asked, we are now told it was ordered. 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. « One or two extracts from the opinion of the Law Lords during tlie cour.se of the argu- ment. At page 121, to whicli I have not referred. Lord Watson makes this emphatic declaration. Mr. Ilaldaue's argument was that this clause applied to clause No. 1, that the right of appeal only existed where clause No. 1, wMch was prohibition, had been vio- lated. The argument on the other side was t.hiit clause No. 1 was complete in itself ; that clause No. 1 said it could not be done, but it was d(me ; the law was all-powerful to give redress and afford relief. The clause under consideration could not be held ap- plicable to that, and in order to give a fair and nvisonable meaning it must be held to apply to some other part of the constiitu- tiou. Lord WATSON. T am prepared to advise the Govornor General and decide on tho meaning of this clause, but I am not prepared to relieve hlni of the duty of considering how far he ought to Interfere. Lord Watson, nt page 180, said : Lord WATSON. The power given of appeal to the Government, and, upon request by the Government to the legislature of Canada, seems to be wholly discretionary in both. I think I read this quotation before in con- nection with Mr. Ewart. Mr. Ewart said, " No doubt." At pages 258-59, TiOi'd Mac- naghten made these observations : Lord MACN.\rrHTBN. We are a Judicial body, and he is not sitting as a judicial body. The h^aiMied judge seemed to have antici- pated tlie argument which might possibly be UKide. Mr. HALDANB. There come in those consid- erations which I will not venture to repeat. Lord MACNAGHTEN. He is to take into con- sideration many thing.s which we have not to. Then tho Lord Cluincellor int(>rrupts. The LORD CHANCELLOR. He cannot do any- thing himself. At the last resort the only per- son or body who can do anything more are the Parliament of Canada, who are certainly not under legal compulsion to act, and certainly would not act unless they conceived there was some substantial ground for it. Mr. HALDANE. Certainly not. I think I have n-ad oi)inious expressed by Lord Watson. T^ord Sli.-nid and lionl Mac- naghten. and tlie Lord Chancellor in iwo or three itli'.ces, tliougli not in all tlie places in whicli he made remarks. So far as I have gone, if I am not misreiiresenting all that occurred, if 1 am not citing passages without their ai)propriate (H)nlext, which would lead to a different conclusion, ev(>ry hon. member must r(>iili/.e that beyond all (luesiion it can- not be said that in anytliing the Covernment were doing tliey were acting under com- puisioii or in obedience to any ni;indat<»ry order. Let me now submit the (luestions which were asked, and on which tliis Juris- diction was founded. Hon. members will not lind in tliis list of questions submitted to the Supreme Court of Caiiad:i. atid which iifterwards came before the .ludicial Committee, one solitiiry word of comfort for the case I am now anti<'ii)ating. There is not a (|uestion here which in the slightest degree gives countenance to it. There are six (luestions. No. 1 was : (1.) Is the appeal referred to in the memorials and petitions stated in and made part of the case and asserted thereby, such an appeal as is admis- sible t)y subs'jction 3 of sestion 9.3 of the British North America Act of 1S67, or by subsection 2 of section 22 of the Manitoba Act, 33 Victoria (1870), chai)tor 3, (Canada) ? That was dt'cided, as we know, in this wise, th;it the ani>eiil was ;> t well founded under the British North America Act, but that it was well lounded under tlie Manitoba .\ct. The second (lueslion was : (2.) Are the grounds set forth In the petitions and memorials such as may be the subject of an appeal under the authority of the subsections above referred to, or either of them ? The ;inswer was. Yes. In other words, that the iinsr union establishment of separate schools and the abrogation of separate 1 t 13 . 1} schools gives the riffht of appeal. It was a cause, or in language with which I am moie familiar, it was a cause of actiou. The an- swer to the third question is : That the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Barrett against the city of Winnipeg, and Logan against the c'ty of Winnipeg, ^toes not dispose of nor con- clude, the application for redress based on the contention that the rights of the Roman Catho- lic minority which accrued to them after the union under the statutes of the province have Ijeeu interfered with by the two statutes of 1800 complained of in the said petitions and memo- rials. The answer was, therefore, that the de cisions in tlie cases of Logan and Barrett, did not conclude or determine the complaint whicli is made now. It was not pretended it did. All that Logaji and Barrett deter- mines Avas that the Act of 1890 was intra vires, that the legislature had the power to pass it. and the question which now arises is of quite a dilSerent character. The fourth question I liaA'o dealt with because it is included in question No. 1, and merely ivpeated. The fiftli question was : Has His Excellency the Governor General in Council power to make the declarations or re- medial orocrs ? Has His Excellency " power." The question is not : Is he bound to make the declarations, but has he power to make them. In other words, has he the authority to make these declarations. (5.) Has His Excellency the Governor General in Council power to make the declarations or renie'dial orders which are asked for in the said memorials or petitions, assuming the material facts to be stated as therein, or has His Excel- lency the Governor General in Council any other jurisdiction in the premises ? The answer to that question was, that His Excellency the Governor General had the power, and I will read the answer in de- tail : (5.) Answer to the fifth question— That the Governor General in Council has jurisdiction and the appeal is well founded, but that the particu- lar course to be pursued must be determined by the authorities to whom it has been committed by the statute ; that the general character of the steps to be taken is sufficiently defined by subsection 3 of section 22 of the Manitoba Act of 1870 These answers are all that we are bound by, and we are not bound by them, accord- ing to the opinion of Sir John Macdonald and Mr. Blake, which was. that this was only for tlie information of the Governor in Council. Speaking technically, and speaking strictly, of course they were not binding upon the Goverument, and if they were not binding upon the Government, of course they cannot be binding upon Parliament. Many people think that the two judgments of the .Tudlcial Committee cannot be reconciled. For my part, I am able to see the distinction i and can realize how the Law Lords arrived at the conclusions they did. I do not at- tempt to set up my authority or my opinion ! against the decision of the highest court ; in the realm. Two observations are to be made with regard to the answer to question No. 5. One is, that their Lordships have gone beyond the question, and to the extent which they have gone beyond the question, if it was at all important, which 1 do not ' think it is, it is not binding in any sense. Let me see if I am not right in that. The two quesUons are asked with reference to jurisdiction, and therefore if their Lordships had gone on beyond the simple answer Avhich would liave been quite sufQcient by the word " yes," it is simply something that their Lordships were not invited to give their opinion upon, and of course the Government would not be bound in any sense to follow it. But what their Lord- ships did was to say ; That the Governor General in Council has jurisdiction and the appeal is well founded, but the particular j course to be pursued must be determined ' by the authorities. That is, by the Governor in Council, to whom it has been referred by the statute. Then they go on to say, , Avhich is a mere obiter, and which after all I does not add to Avhat Ave knoAV. and does j not take from it in the slightest degree : ■ That the general character of the steps to be taken is sufficiently defined by subsection 3 of section 22 of the Manitoba Act of 1870. ; That is the judgment, and noAV let me come I to the reasons for the judgment. When their Lordships were dealing Avith this matter in : the judgment (and that is Avhat we heard so mufli of) their Lordships say this : [ For the reasons Avhich have been given, their Lordships are of opinion that the second sub- i section of section 22 of the Manitoba Act is the governing enactment. In other words, the British North America Act does not apply : And that the appeal to the Governor General in Council was admissible by virtue of that en- actment, on the ground set forth In the memo- rials and petitions, masmuch as the Acts of 1890 affected righ's and privileges of the Roman Catholic minority in relation to education with- in the meaning of that subsection. No person disputes that, at this date at all events. Whatever controvei"sy there may have been as to Avhether tliere Avas an appewil upon these subsections before, this decision has noAV set at rest, and it is completely and absolutely concluded by this judgment. Their Lordships go on : The further question is submitted, Avhether the Governor General in Council has power to make the declarations or remedial orders asked for in the memorials or petitions, or has any other jurisdiction In the premises. Their lord- ships have decided that the Governor General in Council has jurisdiction, and that the appeal la well founded, but the particular course to be pur- sued must be determine* by the authorities to whom it has been committed by this statute. It u is not fair for this tribunal to Intimate the pre- cise stops to bo taken. Perhaps my liou. friend^wlll base an argu- ment, because they say the " precise " steps to be taken, but I point out to the House, that we did not ask what precise steps should be taken. What we asked was : Has the Government jurisdiction to entertain this appeal ? To put it in plain language so that every one can understand it, what we asked was : Was the repeal of tlie Aet of 1871, (which was passed after the union), by the Act of 1890, a deprivation of the rights which the Roman Catholic minority then en- joyed which gives them the right to come here and complain. These were the two questions and they oxliaust tlie whole sub- ject. Their Lordships say : Their general character is rjufflcieutly deflned by the third subsection of section 22 of the Manitoba Act. Negatively their Lordships add what their Lordships are not called upon to add : It is certainly not essential that the statutes repealed by the Act of 1890 should be re-enacted or that the precise provisions of those statutes should again be made lav.'. Tha 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 ground of com- plaint would be removed If that system were supplemented by provisions which would remove the grievance upon which tlie appeal Is founded, and were modified so far as might be necessary to give effect to these provisions. There is the whole of it, and that is per- fectly Irue. That statement is an opinion, and a very correct opinion. If lliis petition was to 1h' ont(Mt;iinpd. if tlic or(l(>r was to be made, their Lordships intimated, just for wiuit it was wor'cli, that tlie order need not retiuire tlio repeal of th(^ Acts of 1800 and tlie re-enactment of the Acts of 1871. hut tliat all legitimate causes of complaint would 1)0 removed if a statute or statutes were passed adaptecl to and grafted upon the Pulilic Scliool Aet of 1S!)0, whieli would practically restore to the Catliolics the rights they had enjoyed prior to tliat enactment. Now, Sir, it certainly will not l)i> argued by any person wlio cares at all for his st^uidiug in tlie coniiiiunity as a iirol'essioiial man, tliat there is anything in this that is manda- tory or compulsory— -that there was not the most complete and ample discretion to be exorci.sed on the part of Ilis KxeelhMicy's advisers— that they miglit liave gone so far, or miglit have gone tlie wliole lengtli, as tliey have done, or miglit have dismi.ssed tlie petition and said. All tilings considered, there is no sutticieut gi'ound to call upon us to interfere. For. Sir. the position of the (rovernor General is tills : He has to act be- fore this Parliiiment can be called upon to aet ; he is Interposed between the local legis- lature and the Dominion I'arliament. I can quote the language of .the Law Lords to that effect. Before the minority can come to this arena, the Governor General must have pass- ed upon the (luestion ; so that there was not to be a direct appeal from the local legis- lature to the Dominion Parliament. The Governor General in Council, upon his re- sponsiliility, was to investigate the claim for redress put forward in the petition, and un- less he saw suHicient cause, this Parliament was not to have any jurisdiction to inter- vene. Now, Sir. ^Ir. Cliristopher Robinson is a gentleman of whom I am siu'e my lion, friend has the highest opinion as a pro- fessional man, and we liave Mr. Christopher Roliinson's opinion, obtained by the Attorney tJeneral of Manitoba, on this very question. It was stated on the platform 'in Ilaldimand —in an election campaign it is not to be ex'iected tliat the imagination will be kept witliin ordinary liounds— tiiat Mr. Cliristo- pher Robinson had given an oj. nion that the Governor General in ("ouncil was liound to pass tlie remedial order. In the Winnipeg " Tribune." I tind in Mr. Siftou's speec!' the opinion of Mr. Roliinson set forth. He is asked tlie question : Whether the Governor General's determination upon the application or .•i))|)eal w:is not a question of political policy, and whrtlier he was bound to make Jill order by anytliing called for either by tlie statute or by tlie judgment of the .Tudi- cial Committee. Mr. Robinson's opinion is as follows :— The restoration of the privileges of Roman Catholics in Manitoba Is undoubtedly left open by the judgment, in the sense that It is entirely in the discretion, both of tho Governor General In Council and of the Dominion Parliament, to what extent, if at all, they will act upon the ap- peal or upon the Order in Council, respectively, in affording a remedy. It cannot, I think, be said that the mere fact of right of the Roman Catholic or Protestant min- ority in relation to education having been affected by provincial legislation, entitles them, in every case and under all circumstances, to the restora- tion of such right, or to any relief. Their right is to appeal, but the result of such appeal must depend, as I have said, upon tho judgment of the Governor General in Council and of the Dominion Parliament, whose course would no doubt be de- termnined by a sense of justice and right, and by a due regard to the letter and spirit of the con- stitution, in view of all the surrounding facts and circumstances in each particular case. The expressions of opinion of the Judicial Com- mittee in this matter are in no legal sense bind- ing upon the members of the Dominion Govern- ment, or of tho Parliament of Canada, so far as any action to be taken by either is concerned. Both are at liberty to exercise their own dis- cretion, and not the less because it is declared that a grievance exists. As I understand the judgment, it cannot be said, strictly speaking, to decide more than that the appeal will lie. Tiiat is all. and that is its far as I am willing to go. It is quite sufficient, of course, to give the jurisdiction to the Gov- ernor (Jeiieral in Council, and quite suffi- cient If the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benciies are prepared to accept the respon- sibility of their action. I am only arguing that they cannot shelter themselves under '■ V urse, in tlic broadest sense of the term— .-igninst the hon. genu, men on the treasury benches. I am assuming tliat they were actuate,": by l)roi)er motives, and not by the mere count- ing of party noses, and by tlie considera- tion of what would best suit party exi- gencies ; and I venture to say that if you road .Mr. lOwart's argument from beginning to end, you will not Hud in it one word that will justify this (Council or this I'arliament in over-rldlng the will of the local legis- lature and re-estiablishing separate schools In Manitoba. When this question came, in 1890, before the province, what was the Ipro- per ground for the province to consider ? That system of schools has been in force for nineteen or twenty years. Tliere had been separate schools for the Catholic and the Protestants, and there were the results to be found from this system— results patent and open, results well known throughout the whole of Winnipeg and the provinci'. And it is because the results of that system have been absolutely and utter- ly disastrous, because there was not, as I believt?, one solitai-y soul ever emerged from a separate school emerginl from his original position, because illiteracy prevailed from beginning to end of them. Because the public money was Avasted which the local legislature were entrusted with to provide for the education of the people, be- cause the object of a school system was not attained, taat the legislature, after due and careful consideration, decided that what sliould be done was to establisli a system of public and national schools. That* was the ground upon v,'bich their decision was based. That ground was frequently estab- lished, and has never been contravened. I Not one word will be found in the argu- ment pre.sented, and upon which the Coun- cil acted, not one word will be found in the ! remedial order to show that the question j ever entered the consideration of hon. geu- I tlemen ; but they, in ha,ste, as if it were ! a matter of no consequence whatever, laid I a mandatory order, commanding a great j province, no„ very fully represented in this j House, and represented by gentlemen who do not seem to cai*e very much what be- I comes of the province— they are being wak- ■ ened up, I am glad to see ; the hon. Min- ' ister near me has been called upon to hand j in his resignation. Mr. FOSTER. That is what you want Mi: McCarthy. My hon. friend seems always to dread that above everything else. He never dreads anything but that. An hon. MEMBER. That remark does not come in very gracefully from you. [ I Mr. McCarthy. Does it not ? Here is I a province with six representatives in this I House. ; Mr. DALY'. Quite capable of looking after themselves and the interests of their province. Mr. McCarthy. We win see about that. In tlio meantime, I draw attention to the fact tliat tlie province is but a small one, so far as numerical representation goes ; but, I venture to say the hopes of this country depend upon Manitoba and the North-west, and you arc disturbing it ; you are inter- fering with Manltotxii. Mr. DALY. Who ? Mr. McCarthy. I am not speaking of my hon. friend, but of the Interfering by 16 11 this remedial order. You are interfering Willi MiUiitniia. you arc (ii)i)n'ssin;;. you arc attempting to coerce Manitoba, and you will yet live to rue the day Avheu you attempt- ed to trample upon the riplits of a pro- vince without cause, without any ground, without considei'ation or investigation. It appears that of tlie public money granted to lloman Catholic schools, there Avas no audit, no account, and the same system was to be restored under the remedial order. Mr. FERGUSON (Leeds and Grenville). No. Mr. McCarthy. The hon. gentleman has not read it or he would not say that. The remedial order requires that system to be restored, and I will refer to it in a mo- ment if the hon. gentleman doubts it. ''n- (Icr tliat, systciu. i)ublii' moneys A\ore dis- tributed to schools which wore not kept open more than a day or two in the week ; and by some hocus pocup, which I am not able "to fathom or imderstand, it went to Roman Catholic and Protestant teachers in the ratio of $349 to Roman Catholics against $170 to Protestants, althougli it should liave been distributed on ha equal basis. And these schools, which were supposed to be kept open, taught by Roman Catliolic priests, were kept open a day or two lie re or there, and the money went to the main- tenance of the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. GILLIES. Where does that appear ? Mr. McCarthy. Iu the statement of Mr Sifton. Mr. GILLIES. That is not law. Mr. McCarthy, it is fact. Mr. MONTAGUE. There was an electoral campaign on where Mr. Sifton made tliese stjitemeiit-!. Mr. McCarthy. I do not know what my hon. friend did in the election campaign. Mr. BERGIN. You know what you did yourself. Mr. McCarthy. I challenge my hon. friena to show that Mr. Sifton made any statement on any platform from which he ,ii together. ll has not yet a poi)Ulaition of 20().0CH). It had at this time a population of about l.")0,00() scattered over the province. It is a country, to use Mr. Sifton's own I statement, of magiiiticent distances. It I is a countiy in wliich the people are si)arsely settled, and I give one more state- ment on the autliority of ^Ir. Sifton. There are now iu Manitoba, 884 schools in opera- ' tion. as they call it, according to the last i returns. ' Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. Are those inclusive of the scliools support- ed by voluntary subscription ? Mr. HUGHES. Do they include the sep- ! arat(; schools V I Mr. McCarthy. I do not know whether tliey include separate schools or not. but I will give the number of separate schools, which does not materially increase or dim- inish. The number of separate schools now is only thirty eight, and probably those are not included. I suppose these 884 schools are the yublic schools. Now, It was proposed by the Attorney General himself to with- draw tie grant of public money from i schools in whicli there is not an average attenda/ice of seven ; but upon investiga- I tion it itppears that if that enactment was ! made, it would deprive no less than loO i schools of these 884 of a share of the pub- ] lie grant, and virtually close tliem up. Now, { if you separate and divide in a country like j that, you make it almost impossible to edu- cate the people at all. Why, with the pub- lic schools, In 150 of wiMch there is not actually an average attendance; of seven pupils V But you are to divide them, you are to separate them, you are to re-enact the law which says that no Protestant shall I I n. gentle- the otber harges ? liberty to 01' House. ed In the my state- s issued, s, I liave 3 tlie hilt. ccopt the lent have remedial say they bur this challenge is to be 1 or is not h rendei's is almost ' sppai'ate 3ba is aa runswick, id I'l'ince ll has ».0()(). It of about pinee. It oil's own niees. It L'ople are lore state- m. There in opora- > the last rUI'PEK. ? support- i the sep- V whether lot, but I s schools, e or dim- liools now those are 1-1 schools I proposed to with- ley I'rom I average investiga- neut was than 150 the pub- ip. Now, lutry like !e to edu- the pub- re is not of seven hem, you ■ re-enact tant shall i I t contribute to a Catholic school, and that no Catholic shall pay a tax to a Protestant school, In order to ud'^ance the educational interest of the people of Manitoba. These are cousiderajtions, I think, that ought to wv'.ili with this Parliament and ought to have weighed with the Governor in Coun- cil. The cost of the schools, of course, is very great. The scattered nature of the population increases the per capita expendi- ture upon the schools. Are these considera- tions that should have weighed with the ad- visers of His Excellency ? Were they taken into account V Let me give the population as divided between Roman Catholics and I'rotestants. That is a consideration. I do not put it on the ground that the minority is very small and that the right which would be granted to a larger minority this smaller minority are not entitled to. But I put it upon the plain, practical ground that with a small Catholic population and a proportionately large number of Protest- ants, the policy of separating the two in educational matters could not be of advan- tage to either section of the population. Tor tills is uo^t merely a question of Catholic or I'rotestaut. Even in this province, if you divide a school section— and perhaps the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes> will be able to back me up in that state- 111011 1— and make a separate school and pub- lic school, and you must enhance the cost of education and make it less efficient. why you are Mr. MONTAGUE. Is that in favour of separate schoolf' Mr. MCCARTHY. When the lion, gentle- man asks nie something sensible, 1 will answer him. In 1871, the total population of Manitoba was 12,000. of whom about 10.000 were lialf-breeds— 5,000 French and 5,000 Scotch half-breeds— and the other 2,000 were the pioneers who had gone In there to gain 3uch advantages as early settlers may look for. In 1881, when the first census was taken, tlie population had increased to nearly GU,- OUt), of who 12,000 were Catholics. In 1885 the population was 108,000, the Catholics being 14,000. or 13 per cent. They were over 50 per cent in 1877, chey were IS per cent ill ISSl, 115 per cent in 1885. and in 1891, at the last census, there were 20,000 Itomau Catholics out of a population of l.TJ.ooo. making the same proportiwi as be- f„i-o— 1;5 per C(>nt. The only seiiaration of half-breeds from the Quebec French was made in 1S85, when the number of half- breeds was shown to be 4.;;(19. I see it now stated tluvt the half-breeds are practically ex'tlnct. I do not give that on any authority, and I do not know that it is correct, Oom- l)are tlie ligures I have given with those of tlu^ other ]ii'ovinces, where we get on fairly well without the seiiamte schools. In Bri- tii-h Columbin the Roman Catholics are 21 no about which we had so much trouble in the times per cent of the poiiulation. They have separate schools. In New Brunswick, al D y\ 2 gone by, there are no separate schools. There are little infractions of the law permitted, I am told, and they enable the people to get on without difficulty Some hou. MEMBERS. Oh, oh. •. ' Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes ; I have heard that there are little infractions of the law ; but I do not know. If you will trust the local legislatures and not mandate them and not command them, you will find the people settle down very well. But if you attempt to pass remedial orders, you will find your Government disintegrated and crises «ontin- uous, and perhaps hiTve to ask another six months to arrange matters without the time being given you for that purpose. In New Brunswick, the Catholics are 30 per cent of the population ; in Nova Scotia they are 27 per cent ; and in I'rince Edward Island they are 43 per cent. And Prince Edward Island fought hard, as we remember, when the present hon. member for Queen's (Mr. Davies) was Premier of the local adminis- tration, for the right to manage the schools, and against the principle of denominational or church schools. Looking at these figures, one is at a loss to understand how it is that this 13 per cent of the population of this province of Manitoba— who are by no means unanimous— must have separate schools or this confederation is to be torn asunder, the Dominion is to be shaken to its centre. Unless these 20,000 Roman Ca- tholics are to have separate schools managed l)y themselves under their ecclesiastical au- thorities, the life of this Dominion of Can- ada is not worth forty-eight hours' pur- chase. That is the stoi-y we are told. It seems incredible ; it seems strange to im- agine that we are standing upon so insecure a foundation. Some of these reasons — I will not say all— were presented to the Privy Council. All of them would have been heard if the Privy Council had granted reasonable delay. Many of them, no doubt, the Minister representing Manitoba has urged upon his colleagues. And against the.3e reasons not one argument was urged on behalf of the Roman Catholic minority who claimed the re-establishment of Roman Catholic sepai'ate schools. But the Roman Catholics are not unanimous in that claim. A gentleman ap- peared before the Council who came all the way from Winnipeg to speak on behalf of himself and oflier Roman Catholics who dif- fered from those who wanted separate schools. He said, in substance, that, having to travel tlirough the province in the course of his occupation, he had ascertained that these schools were most inefficient, that there was not a master, except in Winnipeg possibly, that understood a vj^'^^'d of the Eng- lish language ; chat he became convinced years and years ago that the separate school system was not giving the Roman Catholic ciiildreii of the province the chances they were entitled to, and for Ills part he was ill favour of the public school system ; that 18 his daughter, although a perfectly good Catholic, was a teacher iu oue of the pub- lic schools, and he himself was one of the school trustees in the city of Winnipeg. Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. He vTas condemned by a resolution of a public meeting, a Catholic meeting. Mr. McC^^RTHY. Unui.ubtedly. I do not think there :« any difficulty in. the priests getting up a iiit'cting s tluit value is given for the moucv. and that the child is being educate( . "Then, what great injury is done ? What is the system that prevail* there ? Why, it is urg- ed that they are Protestant schools, that Roman Catholic children are compelled to attend Protestant schools, or, at all events, U> pay towards their maintenance ; and t s s I t c t f^ n t 19 that they do not, and cannot avail them- selves of the benefits flowing from that system. They are not Protestant schools. That question was conclusively decided In Barrett'^ case. I am not now speaking of the aduiinistration of tlie schools. We are dealing with an Act of Parliament, we are dealing with the School Act of 1890, against wLicli the appeal was taken ; and in the very first clause of that Act Is the declara- tion tliat the schools shall be non-sectarian. 11' ri!i' sciiools iiro not admuiisterod as non- sectarian, redress can be had by the laws of the land, and by appeal to the courts of the province. If they had been Protestant schools by act of the legislature, the judg- ment in Barrett's case would have been re- versed. It could not but have been a de- privation of pi'ivileges to compel Roman Cathiilics to CDutribuito to schools which aro Protestant, and which their conscience could not permit them to attend. ■Mr. :\IILLS (Bothwell). There were other schools open to them, the voluntary schools that they had before. Mr. :\IoCAllTHY Yes ; I am saying that according to the decision in Barrett's case, they were not Protestant schools. My hon. friend shakes his head. I can give him the passage if he wants it. The point was dis- tinctly argued, I argued it myself, and it was decided that they were not Protestant schools. Mr. BERGERON. It seems they are now. Mr. McCarthy, if they are, they are not in accordance with the Act of the leg- islature, and dt was the Act that the appeal asked to be set aside. If an Act of Parliament is not obeyed, the hon. gentle- man knows that redress can be had in the courts, because the Act says that the schools shall le non-sectarian. And it says that no religion shall be taught in the school— and in tl\at respect they would almost sat- isfy the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes)— unless by order of the trus- tees ; and that whatever religious exer- cises are to be allowed, they must be such as nre prescribed by the advisory board. air. AMYOT. Does the hon. gentleman understand that under the present law the schools are neutral, and that no religion whatever can be taught in them ? Mr. McCarthy. I have said that the schools are non-sectarian. I have said that, according to the Act of the legislature, no religious exercises are to be permitted m any school unless the trustees allow iL Mr. LalllVIERE. I beg the hon. gentle- man's pardon. Allow me to read the clause. Mr. McCarthy. I have said that if r^ llgious exercises are allowed the religious exercises are those prescribed by the ad- visory board. :Mi'. I.aRlVIEUE. Clause 7 of the Act reads as follows :— Religious exercises shall be held in the public school entirely at the option of the school trus- tees of the district, and upon receiving written authority from the trustees it shall be the duty of the teacher to hold such religious exercises. Mr. McCarthy. That ds exactly what I SI ■! ; I aim glad the hon. gentleman read the passage. Now, what are the religious exercises ? The religious exercisep are here. Mr. BERGERON. Those are non-secta- rian schools. Mr, McCarthy. That is what the hon, gentleman does not seem to understand. If they are not non-sectarian the hon. gentle- man's coadjutoi* can appeal to the court, because the Act says they must be non-sec- tarian. If the hon. gentleman will read aa earlier section, section 2, I think, it is, he will find that the schools must be non-sec- tarian. So if the hon. gentleman finds the scliools are not non-sectarian, then the schools are not conducted according to the Act of Parliament, and therefore an appeal will He to the courts. Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. These are the words " except as above pro- vided." I will read the clause as made in a quotation given by Mr. Ewart in his argu- ment. He is quoting from the Act and he reads the first part : The public school shall be entirely non-sectar- ian, and no religious exercises shall .be allowed therein, except as above provided. Mr. McC.lRTHY. The hon. gentleman has not read from the Act of Parliament. Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. I am lonly reading a quotation from Mr. E wart's argument Mr. McCarthy. The hon. Minister will find that it is the first or second section of the Act. Mr. WELDON. It Is section 8, which says that public .schools shall be entirely non-sectarian, and that no religious exer- cises shall be conducted, except as aliove provided. Mr. McCarthy, if " as above provided " is giving the advisory board power to regu- late those exercises, it also provides that a school shall be non-sectarian. If the ad- ministration of the schools as carried on by the advisory board !j inconsistent with non-sectarianism, of course the Act is mis- construed, and condemnation should lie against the administration of the Act and not against the Act Itself. Let me point out what the religious exercises consist of, and what the objections are to them. They consist of a ^ort form of prayer and the reading in either version of the Bible, either the Douay version or the version used by Protestants, of certain chapters. Every- i Itj thing that Roman Catholic ecclesiastics could object to is eliminated. There Is no possibility of any portion of scripture being read In the public school that is not such as in Ontario would form a part of what we know there as the Ross Bible, which was approved and cori-ected by the late Arch- bishop of the province. A simple prayer is allowed, a copy of which I am sorry I have not here to read, as it miglit do this House a great deal of good, although I do not want to interfere with the privilege of Mr. Speaker In that respect. Mr. FORBES. Get the hon. member for Haldlmand to give it* Mr. McCarthy. No doubt he would do It better than I, he having more experience. To these simple religious exercises no hon. gentleman who belongs to the Christian re- ligion will object. We are Christians in common, and perhaps we are very common Christians. Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. Speak for yourself. Mr. McCarthy. But so far as that goes there is no question about this, there is not an hon. gentleman who would object to the simple prayer the children are taught to repeat at the closing exercises of the day. The whole objection made by Mr. Ewart to the curriculum in force under the autho- rity of this advisory board, which provides foi< eight grades altogether, was as regards the history of religious movements, Henry VIII. and Mary. The only objection that the Roman Catholic minority make to the book— becaifte, of course, we all understand that it is not a question merely of teaching, but the Roman Catholics want the children to be taught history from the Roman Catho- lic standpoint and not from the Protestant standpoint— was as I have Indicated. No doubt the member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) would like history taught from the French Instead of the English stand- point. Mr. BERGERON. It depends. Mr. McCarthy. The only objection made by the Roman Catholic minority was as re- gards the subject of " Religious Movements, Henry VIII. and Mary." The answer is, that if this histoiT is an untrue representation of the events of that period it should nut be in that curriculum. (But when complaints were made of that book or of the other Mstory, that of Buckley, the advisory board Inquired into the complaint and found that this very history was in use at the convent at Winnipeg, and therefore the board did not think it should be expunged from the curriculum of the public schools. I happen to know that this is the history which is u&ed in the separate schools in the North- west Territories with the sanction aind under the bidding of the ecclesiastical authorities who lare In connection with the school board there. So we have got a system of public schools ; we have a declaration that they are to be non-sectarian ; we have reli- gious exercises on which all agree— they may not go far enough, but so far as they go no person dissents from them— and we have the permission to read certain chapters in the Scriptures taken from the version in which we all coincide. Is that a great hardship ? What is to be done In a new country with 150,000 or 200,000 people scat- tered over a vast territory ? Are the Angli- cans to have peparate schools, because the Lord Bishop asked for them V Ai'e the Ice- landers to have them, for they want them ? Mr. DALY. The Icelanders never asked for such schools. Mr. McCarthy. They do not want to be taught at all. Mr. DALY. They lare very (Intelligent people. Mr. McCarthy, if they do ask for them, will they be denied them ? Mr. DALY. They never asked for them. Mr. McCarthy. The hon. gentleman cannot deny) that the Anglican Church and the Lord Bishop want them. We want to have schools for all, and therefore if a new country like that, and in every province of this Dominion It ought to be the same, thera should be public schools which all can at- tend, in which everything offensive to any denomination will be eliminated, a school system made free and equal for all classes is what consorts with 'the principals of our constitution ;uk1 the underlying doctrine which portiiins to our social state. 8omo hon. gcnticniau will think this a monstrous state i^f thiufis. Mint these few half-breeds or French or Catholics, call them altogether 20,000 ])Gople if you like, should Ix; compelled U) go to tliose schools. But a liighor author- ity tlian lini gentlemen have pronounced on this subject. Monsignor Satolli, who has been sent to this country for the pui-pose of superintending Roman Catholic affairs for the continent. No, Sir, not to this coun- To this continent I Mr. AMYOT. try. Mr. MCCARTHY. should have said. Mr. AMYOT. We are In the continent here. Mr. McCarthy. He is sent to this con- tinent. :Mr. AMYOT. He is not sent to the con- tinent ; he is not sent to Canada. Mr, McCarthy. Well, I stand correct- ed. He is sent to the smaller half of the con- tinent. Will that d3 the hon. gentleman (Mr. Amyot) ? He has been sent here to superintend Catholic affairs, and when he came here he found a dispute raging in the f •21 con- cliureh as to whether Catholic chlklren should or should not attend public schools ? And what was his decision, and what was his conclusion. Why, Sir, his decision and his conclusion was, and it Is here to be read and seen ; he was representing His Holi- ness of Rome, and I suppose it applies to the Catliolic church of the contiu'int, to Frencli as well as to English, and to all classes of the community. He commends In very clear and definite terms, that tlie child- ren are to attend the best schools, even if they have the choice of going to sepai'ate schools, and that where thei-e is no choice they are to attend the public schools, and they are not to be, nor are their pai'ents to be denied the rights of the church because they do attend public schools. The Arch- bishop says : When there is no Catholic school at all, or when the one that Is available is little fitted for giving the children an education in keeping with their condition, then the public schools may be attended with a safe conscience, the danger of perversion being rendered remote by opportune remedial That is where the term remedial order comes from, I suppose. — by opportune remedial and precautionary mea- sures ; a matter which is to be left to the con- science of the ordinaries. We strictly forbid any one This applies to my hon. friend from Belle- chasse (Mr. Amyot) I suppose : — whether bishop or priest, Mr. AMYOT. Oh, no, that does not apply to me. Mr. MCCARTHY: —We strictly forbid any one, whether bishop or priest, and this is the express prohibition of the Sovereign Pontiff, through the Sacred Congrega- tion either by act or by threat to exclude from the sacraments, as unworthy, parents (who choose to send their children to the public schools). As regards the children themselves, this enactment applies with still greater force. To the Catholic Church belongs the duty and the divine right of teaching all nations to believe the truth of the Gospel, and to observe whatso- ever Christ commanded (Matthew, xxvii., 19) ; in her lllvewlse is vested the divine right of in- structing the young, in so far as theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven (Marie, x., 14) ; that is to say, she holds for herself the right of teaching the truths of faith and the law of morals, in order to bring up youth in the habits of a Christ- ian life. Hence, absolutely and universally spealiing, there is no repugnance in their learn- ing the first elements and the higher branches of the arts and the natural sciences in public schools controlled by the state, whose office is to provide maintain and protect everything by which its citizens are formed to moral goodness, v/hile they live peaceably together with a sufficiency of tem- poral goods, under laws promulgated by civil au- thority, &c., &c. Well, Sir, we have a little experience of that in the province from which I come. We have separate schools there, but my hon. friend (Mr. Amyot) will hardly be- lieve it, that more than half of the lloman Catholic children attend public schools. More than half of them, I say, even though they have the option of separate schools, and tlie privilege of separate schools. Why, Sir, In the county which I have the honour to come from, I made a calculation the other day, and I find there are 2,300 Roman Catholic ciiiidren of school age, and the school accommodation for them in the sep- arate schools is less than 300, and the other 2,000 are attending the public schools. Mr. MASSON. Or not any. Mr. McCarthy. No ; the majority of them are attending the public schools. That is the case in places where they are suffi- ciently numerous to establish a school, if it was advisable to do so. In one township I know, where there is a church big enough to hold a thousand people, and where there are two priests (it has been an established parish as long as I can remember) there are no separate schools. Mr. AMYOT. Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask if they are French schools? Mr. MCCARTHY. I hope not. They ought not to be. We do not want Fi'ench schools. Mr. BERGERON. That is very frank, anyhow. Mr. McCarthy, very frank. I have never disguised that In the least. Now, Sir, tliat being the condition of things, what great hardship is it in that portion of the North-west that there should not be separ- ate schools, and that there should only be the public school system of schools. But it may be said, that this iniquity was per- petrated by the Liberal party, and to many hon. gentlemen here, perhaps the fact that it was a Dibei-al enactment is sufficient, of itself to condemn it. They think that prima facie it must be wrong, if the Liberal party introduced the national school system. I will comfort these hon. gentlemen by read- ing to them the declaration of the Con- servative party of Manitoba. The Act was r)assed in 1890. It was passed by a Par- liament which was two or three years elect- ed. It was passed by a body which had rp' ^ived no direct mandate from the people, and the argument, and the strong argument used was, that when that particular legis- lature had been returned, the change in the school system had not been prominently brought to the attention of the electors. But, Sir, another election took place, and at that election, both political parties declar- ed themselves upon the school question, and the Conservatives as well as the Liberals placed themselves upon record on that sub- ject, and they declared in the clearest pos- sible way that they were in favour of a system of public schools, and they went one better than the Liberal party, and re- solved : I 1. That they are lu favour of one uniform sys- tem of public schools for the province ; 2. That they are ready and willing to loyally carry out the present School Act, should It be held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain to be within the legisla- tive power of the province ; 3. That, in the event of such School Act being held by the Judicial Commlttteo of the Privy Council of Great Britain to be beyond the legis- lative power of the province ; then, they will en- deavour to secure such amendments to the British North America Act and the " Manitoba Act " as will place educational matters wholly within the legislative power of the province of Manitoba, without appeal to the Governor General in Coun- cil or the Parliament of Canada. So that both Liberals and Oonson'atives at the elections which followed tlie passing of the Act united in declaring for a public school system. In the followLng session, when a Bill was brought in to repeal that Act, out of forty momlwrs, thirty-uine be- ing present, all but four, If my memory serves me right, voted in favour of the School Act, and against tliis repeal. We, therefore, have the deliboraite and practic- cally unanimous view pronounced by both parties in Manitoba that the school law should not be interfered with. And now. Sir, I come down to the point at which we have arrived ; and in doing so I shall have to pass hastily over some mat- ters which ought perhaps to have been mentioned. For my part, I frankly accept the declaration made by the hon. gentleman on the treasury benches. I cannot con- ceive that there is one hon. gentleman among their own followers who will pay them so pooi a compliment as to suppose that in ithe ".tatements they have made to this House there is any reservation, mental or otherwise. I think that if I can go so far as to take theon at their word, their own followers are bound to do so with- out question and without cavil. They have had a struggle lasting over several days. It has been an internecine war. It was doubtful which would gain the upper hand. We have not a record of the pros and cons ; we have merely the results. Mr. FOSTER. The member for L'Islet will tell you all. Mr. TARTE. "La Minerve " wrote it; 1 did not. My hands are clean as to that. Mr. McCarthy. The hon. gentleman has advantages that I have not. All I know is the result. I know that from day to day we asked for the position of the Govern- ment, and from day to day we were put ofiC ; and at last, when their position was an- nounced, it led to a terrible upheaval. That breaking up may have been real or it may have been tictitious. One of the hon. gentlemen may have gone out to Tvaitch that more headstrong and giddy creature outside who required control. If so, be per- formed his funotioDS admirably ; he kept his hand upon the pulse of the patient, and a/t tho proper moment, when the reaction sot In, he was brought back in docility to the fold. That thick wltted gentleman, I I think, must always remember the part that was played upon him, if that is not a inis- I conception of tlie situation. But uudoubted- i ly, one hon. gentleman did resign ; lie has I actually retired, given up his poi'tfolio, ! shown his g(K)d faith ; and several hon. gentlemen in tills House have indicated that they have lost conlldonce in the pro- mises of the Administration— and I do not wonder at It. For my part, standing in their shoes, and looking at the different de- clarations that were made to them, look- ing at the passage of the remedial order— which certainly bound the Government in g(X)d faith to go as far as was necessary- looking at all thait, I do not wonder that the.so hon. gentlemen began to think tliat they were being trilled with ; and there- fore their rebellion is not very e.\:traordinary. But I think e are bound to accept that there was a deliberate resolve upon the part of the Government to threaten Manitoba— because that was what it comes to— that If before the first Thursday of January she did not undo what she had done last June, this Government would press with all its power and force, and with all the aid of the party behind it, the passage of a remedial Bill. There was perhaps room in the state- ments that wore made for an escape from this result— so 4t seems to have been thought. I should not have thought so. I should have thought that every gentleman, whether in this Administration or whether in the one that is to succeed It, was bound in honour to stand by the pledge, given in pursuance of the compromise agreed to In the Cabinet. I should have thought, when this Govern- ment obtained authority from His Excel- lency to announce to this Parliameoit that with his consent this House is not to be dissolved, but is to be summoned again be- fore a certain day, that no self-respecting man would ever go back of that pledge or promise. But, Sir, it seems that my hon. friend from Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Glrouard) doubted ; althotigh, so far as he was inter- viewed, he appeared to be satisfied. But he evidently was considered a proper medium for clincliing the matter. The diffi- culty felt seems to have been this ; You may negotiate with Manitoba, and you may get some kind of a promise from Manitoba— possibly that when the legislajture meets they will reconsider the .situation — and you may come down in January next and say, the negotiations is going on very satisfac- torily indeed, and every hope is held out that a satisfactory solution of this unfortu- nate difficulty will be arrived at, and it would be unwise for us to interfere with the province under these circumstances. But my hon. friend shut the door upon that pos- sibility by asking the question which I will read. Not that he is likely ever to forget it, because I think it formed the turning I A- I 1 point of his allegiancf. The qutf tlon which the hoii. gentleman asked, and which the hou. Minister answered In hia place in Parlia- ment was : Will the negotiations to be entered into with Manitoba, relating to the schools, unless they bring an acceptable arrangement on the lines of the remedial order and the terms of the Judgment of the Privy Council of the 29th January, 1895, prechule or pootpone the introduction of the re- medial legislation announced in your statement of Monday last ? Mr. l'X)STER. My answer simply Is, they will not. Xow. Sir, that certainly dotines whp.t a satisfactory settlement of tiie question would be. The doubt arose from these words In the statement of the Government : A communication will be sent immediately to the Manitoba Government on the subject, with a view to ascertaining whether that Government is disposed to raako a settlement of the question which will be reasonably satisfactory to the min- ority of that province, without making it neces- sary to call into requisition the powers of the Dominion Parliament. Now, the question that troubled my hon. friend was, what is " reansonably statisfac- toi-y V" It may not be very satisfactory to some of the Government's supporters In this House. What is meant by that ? So he asks the question, and he is told that nothing will be saitisfactory that is not on the lines of the remetlial order and the judg- ment of the Piivy Counoil. Well, Sir, if that be so, we know exactly where we stand. .The hon. gentleman got it clearly enough that nothing would be deemed satisfaotory " unless they bring an acceptable arrange- ment on the lines of the remedial order and the terms of the judgment of the Privy Council of the 29th of .January, 1895." Why, Sir, if Manitoba does not do that, we are to have the Bill next .Tanuary. And what Bill are Ave to have ? We are to have a Bill, also, on the lines of the remedial order and the judgment of the Privy Coun- cil. That is what we are to have. The difference in phraseology is not intended to imply a difference in meaning : .The Government shall Introduce and press to a conclusion such legislation as will afford au ade- quate measure of relief to the said minority, based upon the lines of the Judgment of the Privy Council and the remedial order of the 21st March. 1895. Now, if no arrangement will be satisfac- tory which is not based on the lines of the remedial order, no Bill can be adequate which is not based on the same lines. Sure- ly that must be so. You are not going to insist that Manitoba shall do more than you are going to do yourself. You have stated what Manitoba must do, and, there- fore, we have got to know what you pro- pose that we shall do. An hon. MEMBER. Hear, hear. Mr. MCCARTHY. An hon. gentleman says, " Hear, hear." I do not know whether he approves of or disagrees from my state- ment, but I think it is a reasonable conclu- sion. I do not know, in the intricacies of this wonderful question, whether the Eng- lish language falls in exactness to convey Its meaning. Mr. FOSTER. You should try French. Mr. McCarthy. French is the langu- age of diplomacy, and I suppose in order to be perfectly exact and precise, the de- claration of the Government ought to be in French. We have got it here, and I a.sk what does It mean. Perhaps we will have some explanation before this debate closes. Wliat does a Bill, based on the lines of the judgment of the Privy Council and the remedial order, mean ? Surely wo are en- titled to know. Here is the remedial order. What does it say ? It says this : That the said appeal be, and the same Is, here- by allowed, in so far It relates to rights ac- quired by ihe said Roman Catholic minority un- der legislation of the province of Manitoba, passed subsequent to the union of that province with the Dominion of Canada, and His EJxcellency the Governor General In Council was pleased to ad- Judge and declare, and It Is hereby adjudged and declared, that, by the two Acts passed by the legis- lature of the province of Manitoba, on the 1st day of May, 1890, intituled, respectively, " An Act re- specting the Department of Education " and " An Act respecting Public Schools," the rights and privileges of the Roman Catholic minority of the said province, in relation to education, prior to the 1st day of May, 1890, has been affected by depriving the Roman Catholic minority of the following rights and privileges, which, previ- ous to and until the 1st day of May, 1890, such minority had, viz. : — Now, what were they deprived of ? They were deprived of, in the words of the judg- ment : Of the risL;. to build, maintain, equip, manage, conduct and support Roman Catholic schools in the manner provided for by the said statutes which were repealed by the two Acts of 1800 aforesaid. They were deprived of the right to share pro- portionately in any grant made out of the public funds for the purposes of education. They were deprived of the right of exception of such Roman Catholics as contribute to Roman Catholic schools, from all payments or contribu- tion to the support of any other schools. Then, it was ordered that these rights should be restoi*ed. Does the Government mean, or does the Government not mean that these rights are to be restored ? I think my hon. friends from Quebec are entitled to know that. I think the hon. member for Provencher is entitled to know that. Nothing less than that will satisfy the hon. gentleman. Mr. I.-).RIVIERE. No, nothing less. Mr. McCarthy, is any thing else in- tended ? Is anything else suggested ? And If so, what ? Because Manitoba was com- 24 manded to do this, and Manitoba has declin- ed, Manitoba is again to be commanded to Jo this, if I understand it, and Manitoba, of course, may reasonably be supposed to de- cline. Then, we are face to face with a remedial Bill. I therefore thinlj it is not inappropriate that I should call the atten- tion of tlie House to this policy on the part of the Government. Am I wrong in saying that tliis Government exists solely for the purpose of implementing the remedial order ? Am I wi'ong in saying that wo are to have a sixtli session of this Parliament solely for the purpose of carrying a re- medial Bill ? Am I wrong in supposing that if it wei'e not for this, there would have been a dissolution before .Tauuary next ? Am I wrong, accepting, as I do, in all sin- cerity and 'honesty, the good faith of the Government, in supposing that that is the whole object and end of the .January ses- sion, namely, to carry through a remedial Bill, without having, as far as we know, any other duty to iierform except to vote the supplies ? Am I wrong in saying that now is the time to challenge that policy and express our opinion about it ? Sir, hon. gentlemen are satisfied to swallow the policy because it grants a temporary re- lief. They are wi'llng, in order that they may escape froia their present embarrass- ment, to do what ? To vote approval, pos- sibly of this ]ioiicy. I shall put it as plain as I car 1l' the resolution in your hands ; I shall pet it a? clear and as plain as langu- age cm makt it. I do not desire to have my hon. friend accuse me of any catch re- solution. I think that those who differ from the Government have the right to clial- lenge their position. I think that those who are prepared to say that, under no cir- cumstances, will they pass a remedial Bill In the lines of the judgraout of tlie Privy Council and the remedial order, ought to .say so now. It is not fair by the Goveniment, It is not fair by the country, it is not fair by anyljody, to go on for six, or more, months longer, simply to come bore next session and vote against the remedial Bill. It is not fair for the hon. gentleman, the Controller of Customs, wliom I do not see, and who ought to be with me on this vote, to go out of tliis House and not vote on tliis question, or to stay in tlie Govenunont and vote down this resolution, for between this and iiext .January I trust that the country will understand this question. 1 trust tliat every school-house on every concession lino will be seized of it and that no man will be called on to cast his ballot without a perfect understanding of the position he takes. Mr. HUGHES. He is ' following dis- tinguished English precedent. Mr. McCarthy, is the hon. gentlemai. authori''od in stating that ? Mr. HUGHES. I speak fi»r no one but myself. Mr. McCarthy. I thought the hon. gen- tleman was speaking on behalf of the Con- troller (.^ Customs. If not, we must pro- ceed in the absence of the Controller of Customs. I believe the English practice, to which the hon. gentleman appealed, is this. That a Controller of Customs, up to the time he is called on to vote, not being in the Cabinet, is not bound by the policy or acts of the Government ; but, from the time that he knew this remedial order was passed, un- less he was assured by liis colleagues that tliey did not mean it, that they did not in- tend anything more than merely to open the legislative door, and that they did not pro- pose to carry the remedial order into effect. I tliink in honour lie was bound to let his colleagues know that ho could not support them in it and to offer his resignation, wliicli it was their business to accept or not. as they pleased. But from the time when they announced on the floor of tJie House that this is their policy and their only policy, I do not understand how any gentleman who differs from them on this groat ques- tion, for it is admitted to be a great question, the greatest since confedera- tion some say, though that may be an exaggeration— can remain quiet and, as public men, deny his advice and assistance to prevent it being enacted into law. I can umlorstaud those gontlemon who agree with the policy supporting the Gov- oriiniont, and of course every geniloman is ontitlod to Ills own opinion. Sir, it is said that the Government have not yot exhausted all moans of sottlemont with Manitolia. and that thoy are Iiound to do so liefore re- s()rtlng to the extraordinary measure of iiass- liig legislation in this Chanilier. I am not giiing tntary sense to believe any gentleman in this House who declares such opinions, but it is only in that sense riiat one is bound lo nccopt so extraordinary a stjitenienl. .M;initob;i. In lier answ(>r, has declared that she cannot ia];e the responsilijlity of obeying, and lias pointed oui many reasons why she should '.ir.t oliey. She liiis invited an investigation which the (iovornmont have ollicially an- nounced thoy do not propose to make. AihI she winds up her answer with those woi'ds : We rcsportfully siipRest to Your Excelloncy In Council, that all of the above considerations rail most stronulv for full and careful deliberation, Kit qiies- a yreat oufedera- luay bo !iet and, P'ioe and cted into ■mon who the Gov- ileiuan is it is said 'xbausted toba. and efoie re- B of jiass- ' am not •li better leadci- ol' tilt! time lot afttn- itli tliat, witii a ) reasou- Councll ■sidiT the 1 to-day, are tliat liaiipin;,' iii('iitai\v is 1 [oiise is only • acf'ept tol)a. in cannot ind lias should liiratinn i!ly an- mak(». li tlioso loncy \n ons call )oration, and for such course of action as will avoid irritat- ing complications. We deem it proper, also, to call attention to the fact that it is only a few months since the latest decision upon the subject was given by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Pre- viously to that time a majority of the members of the legislative assembly of Manitoba h-J -^fther expressly or impliedly given pledges to their crn- stituents which they feel in honour bound loyally to fulfil. Sonic lion. .MEMBERS. Hear. Iiear. -Mr. McCAlJTMY. " Hoiir. hear," some lion, inenibers say. This same lej,nslative body is still in existence and will be in existence nntil .Tauuary next. The same reasons of honour wliieli prevented these j-'entlemen from breaking: their pledges must continue to exist unless the House I)e dis- solved for the purpose of scitlin^' this ques- tion, of which there is no susscstion. We understand that it has been lately sug- gested that private funds of the Roman Catholic Church and people had been invested in school buildings and land that are now appropriated for pulilic school purposes. No evidence of such fact lias ever been laid lieforc us, so far as we can ascertain, but wo profess ourselves willing, if any such injustice can be established, to maly invited iiKjuiry— and this is the olive branch that we have heard so mui'li aliout— into the allegations of which , they have no evidence liefore thiMii. thiit the jn'oiierty of Uonian Catholics was taken away, uiion the establishment of which as a fact they are ready to make restitution. Is there iiny reasonable man in this House who thinks that in the five and a half months left there is any possibilily of a settlement of this (|uestion under wliich Manitob;i will do diffenMitly. Are we not bound to sio]' this agitation ? \ro we not bound to let the Covernment know our posi- tion V Or have ilie thirty-nine stray slieep that wandered came back into the fold again'.' There is a policy which was expressed here. In liinguage which I will not sully my lips i DM 2 Ol- offend your ears. Mr. Speaker, by re- peating. But let me translate it. Sir. It is to keep tlie opposite party out. no matter on what consideration. On one hand is the po- licy, " hands off :Manitoba." and on the other the policy of the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor). On the other hand, some of those wlio want a remedial Bill are satisfied witli the promises they have got. But. Sir, there is not a man from the pro- vince of Quebec who would stand by the Government if the Government announced they were not going to introduce a reme- dial Bill, and if they did not believe or affect to believe that the Government would carry out that promise. But the Govern- ment supporters from the other provinces may probably think differently. Holding views on this question just as strong as my I own that in this community no Government j can ever pass a remedial Bill ; that, while j it may do much by advice and conciliation I and suggestion, just as we are doing with I the (Jovernment of the North-west with re- I ference to their schools, no Government conld ! live forty-oiglit hours after announcing its polic.v of carrying out a remedial Bill. Who is asking for it. I should like to know ? ' What did the educational returns from Mani- folia show ? Let the hon. gentlemen from lli(» province of Quebec drop this agitation and this question will settle itself in two yejirs. Why. Sir. out of ninety separate schools that were in existence at the time the law was passed, there are only thirt.v-eight now left in which the se^ parat(> school system is kept up. I Iiiive here the exact number of those who have come In under the present school sys- tem. Out of 91, there are 51 that have either disbanded or have come under the public school sy.stem, and but 38 are out, and these 38 are out, remember, with all this agitation, with all this fight, with all this hope that remedial legislation may be carried ; and I venture to think that if it was not for that agitation, all these people would have come In long before, the ques- tion woidd have been amicably adjusted tn that province, and amongst the people who are concernetl in it, and it would not have become a bone of contention in this Parlia- ment. I have to apologize to the House for the length of time that I have been obliged to occupy In endeavouring to make plain the view which I hold upon this question, and I conclude by moving this amendment : That all the words after the word " That " be left out, and the following Inserted Instead there- of : — " this House has heard with regret the state- inonts recently made defining the policy of the Government respecting the Manitoba school ques- tion, and Is unwilling by silence to allow It to bo assumed that, at the session to be held lu Jan- uary next, any more than at the present session. It Is prepared to pass a law to restore the system of separate schools In Manitoba ou the lines of the remedial order of the 2lBt March, 1895.