IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) s\V #. 1.0 I.I 1.25 If 1^ m 12.2 us 1^ 10 1.8 U ill 1.6 m m ^ /a ^/. ^fjf.^ /A '/ Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4 J03 ^>^ V '^ » ■

^ S'J- School Question » »♦* < SPEECH OF MH. JftlHES flSHEH, M. P. P., IN THE Manitoba Legislahcre, 2)id March, Mf. THE SCHOOL QUESTION. Speech of Mr. JameH Fisher, in the Legislature of Manitoba, on Mfi^rch 2nd, 1803, on moving his Resolution in favor of adopting the Ontario School System. > ♦ * Mr. Fisher spoke as follows : — 'Mr. Speaker: Id rising to move the resolution on the BchC'ol question which appears on the or- der paper, I think it will be convenient thr*° I should read to the house the reso- lution itself. I desire to move, Sir: — " That in the (n>inion of this House one of the chief difficulties in government that harassed the statesmen of the old Canadian Provinces, under the Union of 1840, and for which a remedy was sought in the present larger union, arose from the impracticability of adopting laws re- garding education for the respective Pro- vinces, that were acceptable alike to the Protestant and Roman Catholic popula- tions therein. 2. " Thid unhapp^'difficulty was due to the irreconcilable differences between the opinions of the Protestant population and the dogmatic teachings of the Roman Catholic church, on the subject of denom- inational instruction in public schools. 3. " The only solution, and that bv no means universally satisfactory, which the framers of Confederation arrived at in dealing with this question, was that found m the educational clauses of the British North America Act, which practi- cally prohibited Provincial Legislatures &om passing laws prejudicially affecting rights with respect to denominational schools which the law of the Province recognized at the Union, and giving to the Catholic or Protestant minority in any Province wherein such schools should be established after the Union, a right of appeal to the Federal powers against any law affecting the rights thus establishea, with power to the Dominion Parliament to pass remedial legislation under that appeal. 4. "The House recognizes that this provision, the application of which was not limited in its terms to any part or parts of the Dominion, was an essential feature of the terms of Union, and that it was in fact, as described by Sir Oliver Mowat, when speaking of it m reference tQ the old Canadian Provinces, 'So essen- tial that without it Confederation could never have tt;ken place.' 6. * The same difficulty confronted the Parliament of Canada when framing the Constitution of this Province, intensified, however, by the suspicions and jealousies aroused at that time among the native population of the settlement, and con- formably to the spirit of said clauses in the Act of Union, as well as with a view to remove all grounds for such feelings on the part of the settlers, the difficulty was met by the educational clauses of the Manitoba Act, limiting the power of the Legislature under certain conditions to pass laws respecting education, and pro- viding in some cases for an appeal to the Federal power on the part of the minor- ity, against provincial laws relating to that subject and for remedial legislation by the Federal Parliament. 6. "Subject to these limitations the Legislature of Ihis Province has the ex- clusive right to make laws with respect to education in the Province, and this House will at all times most zealously defend and maintain that right, within the true intent and meaning of the Constitution and to the full extent thereof, against any encroachment thereupon or interference therewith by the Federal authorities. 7. " The Legislature having in 1890 passed the School Law now in force in the Province, and the Roman Catholic minority having contested in the Courts the power of the Legislature to pass that law on the ground that it prejudicially affected their rights existing at the time of Union, this House declares that the re- cent judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affirming the com- petence of the Legislature to pass that law IS decisive and final, and sets at rest for all time the question of Legislative juris- diction in so far as passing such a law is concerned. 8. " Without passing an opinion upon the question, which is one lor a judicial rather than a political body to determine, whether there be still any right pf appeal to the Federal Jurisdiction open tO: the y I I I Roman Oatholio minority, this Home is conscioaB that the judgment of the Judi- cial Committee does not necessarily ex- dude such a right, while it is known to the House that such an appeal has in fact v adopt- ing an ediLcational system based on that of Ontario, modified however as far as need be, to meet the circumstances of this Province, and stripped of any minor fea- tures that may in a liberal view of it be deemed objectionable by this House." I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I never in this House or elsewhere, rose to speak with a deeper sense of responsibility than I feel at.this moment, and it is only from a dear sense of duty that I decided to bring before this House for its adoption a reeomtion of the eharacter thati have just read, and that I venture to offer my reasons for so doing. I did not have tne privilege of being present to take part in the discussion that took place in this House in 1890, when the acnool act of that year was introduced - and passed. At the same time, I suppose there was no one then in the House who did not know pretty well what my views were upon that question; Sir, it is not necessary tor me here to say that in so sar as the simple question of national public schools — non-sectarian schools -as against separate and sectarian schools is concerned, no man would go further than I would to have non-sec- tarian schools established if there were no serious objections or just cause jwhich stood in the way. I am old enough to have taken a deep interest in that ques tion when it agitated Upper Canada many years ago ; I am old enough to remember the strong, the bitter fight that the lib- eral party made on the (question at that time. I formed my opmion then in favor of national and against separate schools, and I have never had occasion to change that' opinion. And the views I formed at that time, against separate and in favor of national sdiools, are just as strong to day as they were then. The question as to the pro- priety or the impropriety, the advantage or the disadvantage of adopting the one or the other of the two systems, national or separate schools, I am not called upon tonight to discuss. I simply mention the fact that in forming my own opinion in years past I preferred national as against separate schools. We are confronted to-day with another issue which compels us to consider the question from another standpoint. Three years ago we established our present sys- tem of national schools, ana the great majority affirmed its adherence to that system. We are threatened now with proceedings in the nature of an appeal to the federal powers which may lead to re medial legislation by the Dominion par- liament, and which may also lead to the serious consequences that I have indicated in the resolution which I have just read, and I am going to trouble the House to listen to me wmle I state my views on this most grave and important question, not so much from a le£^ aspect as from an historical point of view. Honorable members will, I hope, bear with me patient intend I before The vince appeal 1 ity, an(3 attentio that thd appeal ces. Tl read th| wording in our minion Imperifl that oui| sive poi to educ limitati( is as fol preiudic with rei which ai practice And t (2) "^ npr-Qen^ decision or of an] any'righl or Rom Queen's tion." Now t shall lie Council t of this pi Roman ( educatioi There is and as th under th olic mine id piesi The onlj make oui they do i But we I that thes denv the to the be can be i ilimitatio ■powers 1 leducatio] rcumst) ultras sesini) ta adoption a at I have just offer my A} )ge of being iflcuBsion that I 1890, when 18 introduced le, I suppose in in the pretty well tat queation; ) here to say question of ion-sectarian kud sectarian an would go ave non-8ec« bere were no cause jwhich I enough to n that ques Danada many bo remember lat the lib- istion at that on then in Qst separate never had ,t~ opinion. t that time, I of national day as they i to the pro- e advantage ling the one ms, national called upon mention the opinion in d as against ith another insider the int. Three present sys- the great ice to that now with appeal to lead to re inion par- lead to the re indicated I just read, House to lews on this |estion, not from an [onorable with me patientiy while I go over the facts that I intend to recmll in laying the matter before them. The question now agitating the pro- vince is whether there is a right of appeal against the law open to the minor- ity, and to this I first propose to direct attention . We have the undoubted fact that there is by ,the constitution such an appeal idlowed under certain circumstan- ces. To know that we need only just read the statute. Let me refer to the wording of the Uw. We have it set forth in our Manitoba act, passed by the Do- minion parliament and ratified by the Imperial parliament That act provides that our legislature shall have the exclu- sive power to pass legislation with r^ard to -education, subject however to two limitations : The nrst of these limitations is as follows : — (1) 'Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools, which any class of persons have by law or practice in the province at the union ;" And the next clause is in these words : (2) *'An appeal shall lie to the Qover- nor-Qeneral in Council from any act or decision of the legislature of the province, or of any provincial authority, affecting any 'right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman CathoUc minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to educa- tion." Now that is plain English. An appeal shall lie to the Oovemor-Oeneraf in Council against any act of the legislature of this province affecting any right of the Roman Catholic minority in respect to education. That I b&j is perfectly plain. There is then an appeal, in certain cases, and as that right to appeal exists by law under the constitution, the Roman Cath- olic minority clearly have a right to assert and present it in the manner prescribed. The only question is whether they "can make out a case for such an appeal . If they do not they cannot succeed in it. But we must not deny their right to assert that they have such a case, nor can we deny their right to submit it for decision to the body to whom alone the appeal can be made. There are plainly two lUmitations, as you will observe, to our powers to legislate on the question of teducation. Tne first is that under certain :cumstances our law may be bad, that ultra vires. The second is that in some )es in which we may indeed pass a law. there is an appeal against that law, after it is passed, to the federal power. The first contention of the Catholic minority was that • our legislation was ultra vires. Why ? Because, they said, it prejudicially affected certain rishts with respect to Cath- olic schools which they had enjoyed at the Union. Upon that question they went to the courts and have failed. The second contention was that in any event they had a right of appeal to the Federal power even if the law was in the mean- time good. Upon that question they did not go to the courts, because the remecfy provided by law is by way of appeal to the Qovernor-Qeneral in Council. I am not now discussing the question whether the minority have a case that will entitle them to succeed in their appeal. I sim- ply desire to make it clear to honorable gentlemen that there is, beyond question, a right of appeal under certain circum- stances, and that the minority have the right now to set up the contention at all events that it is a proper case for appeal. Referring to the two limitations upon our power to legislate on this question, I think it was Mr. Edward Blake who thus described the position from a provincial standpoint. "We in the provinces can, within the boundariea of these limitations, legislate on the question of education when, where and how we please. But if we out-step tLose boundaries in one cer- tain defined direction our legislation is ultra vires — if we out-etep those boun- daries in another direction, it i«^subject to appeal to another jurisdiction." Let us bear in mind in the next place why these limitations were created. The law plainly states that they were created for tne protection of the minority, as be- tween Protestants and Catholics. It is an extraordini^ry thing that we read so much from day to day m the newspapers about the so-called wickedness of interfer- . ing with the will of the majority in this matter. Will hon. gentlemen please bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this provision was inserted m the constitution for the one and only purpose of protecting the minority, and if there was not a minoiity to be' protected and a majority to be re- sisted there would not have been such a law. The fact is that the protection of the minority is inseparable from our Fed- eral system The majority do not usual- ly need protection. They can protect tnemselves as a rule, but tne minority re- quire the arm of the law to step in and Mfeguard them. Take the Irish oaie. What i« Mr. Qladstone doing to-day? He is standing before the House r I Commons in England with a bill providing home rule for Ireland, one of the main and most essential features ol which is the protection of the Protestant minority in that country. If Mr. Gladstone carries that measure and it becomes law a limi- tation will be placed upon the power of the parliament of Ireland to legislate with respect to all questions affecting the rights of the Protestant minority in that coun- try. Will it be said that the Catholic majority in the Irish parliament will be justified in denouncing the Protestant mi- nority because the latter may attempt to take advantage of that provision and to seek thereunder the rights and remedies that the constitution provides for them? Surely not. lam not now discussing the propriety or impropriety of the pro- visions m our constitutional Act. I am simply taking the law as it is, and point- ing out that it is what it is, and that we are bound by it. This right of appeal from a majority is seen in ordinary life every day. In the field of sport, for in- stance, it may be at foot ball, or I care not what it is, there may be a division amongst the contestants on some question, with perhaps 26 voices against 6. The majority may declare one way, but the minority have their protection in an ap- peal to the umpire, and that one man's voice may overrule the majority and sus- tain the minority. So it is in every case in which a parhament makes a law for the protection of the minority This right of appeal does not depend upon the equality or inequality of tne contestants, but simply on tne question whether the law gives the right. In the case we are considering, the law does certainly give the right under cer- tain circumstances^ and we cannot com- plain if the minority seek to avail them- selves of it. The only question is whether the present circumstances justify the claim now asserted. Undoubtedly the majority have a perfect right to contend that they do not. It is equally clear that the minority have the like right to contend the contrary. The remedy soueht by the minority, as I have said, was twofold. Petitions were sent to Ottawa in the spring of 1890, immediately after the Act was passed, asking first, that the Act be disallowed, and second, that an ap- Eeal be allowed under the clause that I ave read. The Federal government had to deal with these two application^ and how did they do so 7 They refused the first. They said in effect "we will not disallow that Act, because the legislature of Manitoba had a right, prima facie, to pass it. It had the right if the case does not come within the limitation in the first clause. If the law is beyond the power of the legislature to pass there is no need for us to disallow it, and as to that ques- tion the courts will determine it. and to the courts you have already appealed. Jf it is bad, there is an end to it; it is waste paper, and there is no need of dis- allowing it. Whether it is appealable is a different question, which we are not gating to decide now. Oo on with your action at Uw first and if the court holds that the law ia bad you have your remedy, but if the court holds the law ia good we will then consider whether you have a right to appeal. " To my mind that was plain common sense. Now I want to point out to hon, gentle- men that there was a strict precedent for all Uiis in the New Brunswick school case. That province, through its legislature, in 187 1, passed a school Act, somewhat like the Manitoba school law, declaring that there should be no sectarian schools The Catholics of New Brunswick went to the government of Canada and asked them to disallow that law, as preiudiciidly affecting them in relation to eaucation . The first clause of the B N. A. Act, it will be remembered, protected denominational schools only in so far as they existed by law at the Union. In this respect it wa^ scarcely so wide as the Manitoba Act. The presumption beii^g with the province, those who attackiid the law had to showj affirmatively that the legislature exc ed its powers. In New Brunswick, as it hap pened, there was no law providing for o authorizing denominational school at the] time of the Union, therefore it didnoti come within the case provided for in the constitution. Sir John Macdouald's an- swer was in effect: ''I find no law on the statute book o New Brunswick creating or sanctioning] denominational schools at the time of thi Union." There having been no such law ex isting at the time of the Union, m rights under such a law could be inter fered with by the new law, and therefor( he refused to disallow it. The minorit;^ were not satisfed to let the matter rest] and they put in a petition to parliamen for redre8s,and the question arose wfaethe! pplioatiotiiL and By refaaea the it "we will not the legiBlctore prima facie, to if the caM doee ition in the first ^ond the power ^ere is no need as to that ques- rmine it. and to dy appealed. Jf nd to it; it is } no need of dia- ls appealable is a we are not gating ith your action zovLTt holds that B your remedy, law is good we ler you have a r mind that was it to hon. gentle- ct precedent for iwick school case, its legislature, in t, somewhat like r, declaring that ian schools The rick went to the md asked them as prejudicially n to education . A. Act, it will denominational they existed by respect it was | Manitoba Act. ith the province, I aw had to showj islature exc<' ede^ iswick, as it hap-j )roviding for oi lal school at thel ifore it didnuti vided for in thef Macdouald's an-l statute book ot or sanctioning] the time of the such law ex-{ the Union, nc could be inter] V, and therefor^ The minorit} the matter rest! . to parliamenl }n arose wbethel [IS parliament conli^ interfere. There was no supreme court in existence at that time, to which, as now is the case, a ques- tion of that kind could be referred. It so happens that the wording of the Bri- tish North America Act limits the rieht of appeal, as well as the objection of ultra vires, to cases in which there were rights existing by law, the right of appeal bemg extended to protect rights created by law after the Union as well as before it. Neither before nor after the Union, 4iow- ever, had there been any law sanctioning denominational schools in that province At the same time while New Brunswick had not separate schools at the time of the Union, recognized by law, they were practically allowed to exist; that is, al- though the law did not authorize them the administration of the law permitted them. And the majority in parliament said that though the law did not protect the Catholic nunority these people, hav- ing practically enjoyed their separate schools ought to be allowed to continue > them. When it was found that the min- ority had no legal redress, so far as the government coiud see its way to give it to them, who do you think was the man, above all others who stepped out of his place to help them ? A man Sir, whose name has been for many years on the lips of the people of Canada, and on the lips even of my hon. friends who in- troduced this law of ours, as the purest and most hiehminded of Canadian States- men — that honorable and honored man, Alexander Mackenzie. And associated with him was that other creat man, equ- ally honored and admired oy all Liberals, Edward Blake. Thev both spoke on the question, and contended that the theory underlying the settlement made at the Union was, that whatever rights practical- ly existed at the Union should never be taken away from the minority. Mr. Mac- kenzie ana Mr. Blake were bold enough, honest enough and fair enough, to get up in the House and express their real views and their honest convictions in the matter. After a resolution had been introduced by Mr. Colby, a Lower Canadian Protestant, urging the legislature of New Brunswick to allow the Catholic minority in that province to continue in the enjoyment of the privileges that they practically had at the Union, whether it was by 1^1 sanc- tion or not, after that resolution Isay was carried by an immense majority in the House, Mr. Mackenzie moved to supple- ment it by adding to it these words: "And this House deems it expedient that the opinion of the law officers of the crown of England, and if possible the opinion of the judicial committee of the privy council should be obtained* * ♦ with the view of ascertaining whether the case comes within the terms of the 4th sub- sec of the 93rd clause of the B. N. A. Act which authorizes the parliament of Canada to enact remedial laws," &c. That is to say, the government felt that they could not interfere because the .CatnoUc minority were not protected by strict law. Mr. Mackenzie was not satis- fied that that was fairi He in his big, generous, honest, manly heart felt that he could not be satisfied to leave them without redress, and ho declared that if there was any way at all by which these people could get what he called justice, ne was going to help them to get it and he therefore moved!^ that that additional clause be added to the Colby resolution, so that if at all possible some means might be found by which the parliament of Canada might interfere and pass reme- dial legislation. That clause, too, was carried by an immense majority, the Liberals of Ontario voting for it. Mr. Mackenzie would give the minoritv all the assistance he could. He thought it was a proper thing to give them their rights — not only what they had in strict law, but all that they had by practice enjoved. He was built that way. He said in effect : "as there is a doubt whether we have power to aid the minority, we will sub- mit it to the law officers in England and to the privy council if possible to see if we cannot, give them redress." Mr. Dalton McCarthy thinks it absurd, as does also our own attorney-general, to submit such things for judicial enquiry. But Mr. McCarthy is not Alexander Macken- zie. Let me remind you what Mr. Mac- kenzie's position was in the House at that time. He was the leader of the opposi- tion, while Sir John Macdonald was the leader of the government. When this question — the most troublesome the then government ever had to deal with, apart From the Pacific scandal — came up, Mr. Mackenzie, had he been a different man to what he was, could have raised a reli- gious cry ; he coxild have mounted the protestant horse and could have ridden mto power. But he thought justice and honor and fair dealing of more im- portance than office; and would sacrifice any chances that he had rather than take 8 advantage of a religious cry to get into power. The opinion of the law officers of the Crown waa in due course obtained and it was just the same as that of Sir John Macdonald, which he had previously given. It could not very well be other- wise. The law officers could find no law on the New Brunswick statute books which gave the minority any legal rights at any time. The government also en- quired whether the q^uestion could b^ heard before the judicial committee of the privy council, and the answer was that it could not, unless the question came up before them in a law suit. Let me now lead you to the next step. This answer came to the parliament of Canada as I have just stated, in response to Mr. Mackenzie's resolution, that nothine could be done in the Old Country. Did Mr. Mackenzie even then give up th^ fight for the Roman Catholic minority ? No. He was the sort of man who always fought for the weakest side, and the mi- nority, so loncas he thought it the side of justice. The government of New Brunswick found that their act of 1871 was faulty in some respects, the tax by- laws under it were illegal and they had to pass another act, maBng these by-laws vahd. They passed this act in 1872. Well, when this answer came back to the parliament ofjCanada, Mr. Mackenzie apd nis followers again said "we are not satis- fied with that. We will allow the minor- ity to frame a lawsuit which they can take into the courts —like the Barrett case in our time— and enable them to get a legal decision." But Mr. Mackenzie with his followers went a step further. He urced that until the law suit should be de- cided, the legislature of New Brunswick should not put the act of 1871 into force, and that legislature refusing to delay the operation of the act, Mr. Mackenzie and his followers voted for the disallowance of the act of 1872, under which alone the act of 1871 became effective. I dare say I am speaking of facts not known to some of my honorable friends, and I am sorry more of them are not in their places to hear these facts. I ask you, sir, where is the distinction between the action of the then government in the New Brunswick case and that of the present Federal gov- ernment in this case 1 There was the same refusal to disallow ; there were the same steps to get up a lawsuit for a test case; there was a consideration of the question of appeal for remedial legi8lation,and what think you of this, sir. the govemment of that day actually paia th« oosti of the New Brunswick minonty. It was thought a reasonable thing that the minority, havins come to get reoreas, and it being dedrea by the govemment at Ottawa that the question should go to the courts to obtain a judicial opinion upon it, it was thought nothing but reasonable, I say, that the govemment should pay the costs of ob- taining that opinion. As to the sugges- tion that the Dominion Qovemm^t are pursuing a policy of delay I am not called on here to express any opinion upon it. Now, Mr. Speaker, an attempt is being made to lead tne public to believe that this proposed appeal of the Manitoba mi- nority is an appeal to the federal powers against the decision of the privy council . Mr. Dalton McCarthy, in his Stayner speech, spoke of '*a so-called tribunal un- dertaking to reconsider, rehear and possi- bly to reverse the decision of the privy council in favor of Manitoba." He surely knows very well that ^this is not an attempt to revise or reverse the dedsion, and that it has nothing in fact to do with that decibion, excepting that that decision has the effect of leavinc no other remedy open to the minority than that by way of appeal. There is another mistake Mr. McCarthy makes, and that is saying that the privy coundl decided that the legislature nad a right to do away with separate schools, l^e judgment of the privy council did not say that; it said that Bomaii Catholics had exactly the same right now to keep up their separate schools tnat they had at the time of the union. The privy council said, indeed, that the Cathohcs of Manitoba had an undoubted right to be Srotected in the enjoyment of every priv- ege that they practically enjoyed at the union. But they said the Catholic schools at the union were only voluntary schools, that there were no state grania given to them at that time, and that oeiu;^' the case, they are in the same position to- day as they were then, and that the refusal to give them state grants now left them in practically the same position that they were in at the time of tne union. Again Mr. McCarthy said : — " Everybody supposed that as a court of the highest character, a court of the high- est and greatest renown, had pronounced in favor of the constitutionality of the Act of the province, that that would be the last of it." How could Mr. McCarthy have expected that that woiild be theladti of it, wasa< years so. Three on the that 9 I government of eoBta of the New 't WM thought a minority, having it being dedrea Ottawa that the court! to obtain L it was thought I say, that the the costs of ob- ls to the sugges- QovemmAit are |r I am not called dnion upon it. attempt is being to believe that le Manitoba mi- i federal powers e privy council . in his Staynei led tribunal un- rehear and possi- n of the privy oba." He surely ^this is not an rse the decision, fact to do with hat that decision 10 other remedy n that by way of te Mr. McCarthy that the privy egislature nad a eparate 8chool»>. ivy council did d that Bomau same right now schools that they ion. The privy I the Cathohcs oil )teid right to bi- it of every priv- enjoyed at the the Catholic I only voluntary no state grants and that oeiu^' me position tu- that the refunal now left theiui sition that they union, id:— hat as a court of] urt of the higli- lad pronounced I lality of the Act! it would be the! Mr. McCarthy] otild be the laatl of it, knowing as he did that the anneal wai actually before the govemmentcRl'Sw years ago ? He says everybody thought so. ^U, i certainly never thousht so. Three years ago nearly, in a letter J wrote on the subject, I pointed out the certainty that the very thing that has hapuened DOW would happen if the decision snould be for the province. I will read for the information of the House what I then said: "Assuming that the strictly constitu- tional (][ueetion — that is the question in volved in the Barrett case — is decided in our favor, I see another and greater difh- cultv before w. There is a further clause in the Act of Confederation, re-enacted, vrith some modifications in thb Manitoba Act, which aifects the question very ser- iously." I proceeded to ()Uote the clause of the B. N. A. Act giving a right of ap- peal and then showed now that clause was as I contended, made even more clear in the Manitoba Act in favor of an appeal. And I said: "Once more we must give the legislation a meaniue, and who can doubt that it was intended, and that it has the effect, to give to the Catholic minority in Manitoba an absolute right to appeal to the governor-general in council agamst any legislation affecting their rights in re- lation to education. * * Granting once more that there is a possibility of a decision that sub-clause one, even as modified in the Manitoba Act, does not restrain us al- together from legislating in the direction of abolishing separate schools and creat- ing a system that does not permit of their existence, is there any doubt that under sub-clause three the Roman Catholics have a clear right of appeal from our new law. Failing to succeed on the constitutional question is there any doubt that they will make the appeal ?" I say for my part that I will be no party, and I ask this House to declare by this resolution, that it will be no party, to the re-opening of the privy council deci- sion. The Catholic minority chose to go to the courts in the way they did to seek that particular form of redress, and the court has declared (being very careful however, to say that they do not give any opinion as to the justice of the com- plaint of the minority), that under the law they could not give them that redress; and we are justified in opposing any pro- ceedings that will re-open that question. At the same time I say there is still left open the question of appeal which has not been effected by that decision. Now I wish to point out to you that other men saw that such an appeal aa this was lUcel} to arise if Mr. Dalton Mc- Carthy never saw it; and that greater men than he saw it, and that tliuy most wisely saw fit tj^ provide, three years ago, for this verv Appeal being fairly and pro- perly considerea and adjudicated on. As soon as we passed this law here in 1890, petitions were sent to Ottawa, aa I have stated, both hv wajiof appepl and for dis- allowance With these petitions as I have said the government had to deal. There was in the parliament of Canada at that time a man of commanding position, a giant in intpV->ct, a man of wide and lib- eral views, whom uiost of us in this House were proud to own as our leader for many years. I refer to the Hon. Edward Blake who at that time was not bound to any party, but who occupied an independent position in the House, while in full ac- cord generally with the party of whom Mr. Laurier had became the honored leader. Sir John Macdonald was then at the head of the government, and when the question of the Manitoba school case came up Mr. Edward Blake and Mr. Laurier could have combined together to make trouble for Sir John. But what did Mr. Blake do { He at once moved a resolution making express provision for the disposition of this matter. That man whose position was untrammeled, a man of high character, lofty statesmanship and pure aims, foresaw a most serious trouble arising, and he rose to the occasion. I am going to read the resolution which he moved in the Commons and will follow it with some quotations from the speech which he then made upon it. On the 29th of April, 1890, Mr. Blake moved: "That it is expedient to provide means whereby on soImuu occasions touching the exercise of the power of disallowance, or of the appellate power as to educa- tional legislation, important questions of law or of fact may be referred by the ex- ecutive to a high judicial tribunal for hearing and consideration, in such fn< de that the authorities and parties interested may be represented, and that a reasoned opinion may be obtained for the inform- ation of the executive." That was the resolution, and I am going to read you something from the Hansard report of his speech. I want first however to tell this House, that this resolution was moved by Mr. Blake main- ly for one reason, and one reason only, as his speech indicates, and that was to facilitate the settlement of the Manitoba -^> » i— w»«>: 'wi iii^,j 10 vi. -OP *; t''^ 1 school case, and that e8peci»\llv in view of the presentation of the appeal to Ottawa, that we have now before us. At uage 4084 of the Hansard 1890, Mr. Blake is thus reported: "Recent, cmxent and im- . minent events have combined to convince one that it is important in the public in- terests that this motion should receive at- tention daring this se^on, else I should not have propounded iWkt this time * * The general notion that the executive the legislative and the judicial departments of government ought to be so far as practica- ble separate and apart is one held by many of the most eminent cuuDtitutionalists, as a fundamental principle. * * The absolute union of these departments * * * is absolute despotism. * * The degree to which, without overweakening or overcomplicating the action of the ma- chine, you can separate them, marks the degree to which, in this aspect of a con- stitutional system, you have attaineu per- fection. I do not.say that they can be absolutely and always separated. It is not so. * * * 1 by no means propose to withdraw from tht executive, its duty. * * * I make no attempt at this time to discuss the propriety of these constitution- al provisions (referring to the two matters, disallowance and appeal that came with- in the scope of his resolution.) * ♦ * My object is without discussing how far they are wise, taking them as they are, to facilitate the better woiking of them." Mr. Blake then goes onto explain why, under the first clause of his resolutior^ be wishes the question of exercising the power of disallowance as to school legisla- tion to be -submitted to a court. He points out that if an act is ultra vires it IS void, and "it is now generally agreed that void acts should not be disallowed, but should be left to the action of the courts." That is just what Sir John Thompson, as Minister of Justice, said when he gave his decision on the question a year later. Continuing, Mr. Blake said, '"The other class of cases to which my motion alludes is that of the educa- tional appeal which arises under section 93 of the Constitutional act, and under the provisions of the Manitoba act." _ He concludes therefore that the ques- tion whether an act is ultra vires or not is a question of law for the courts, and referring once more to the Manitoba appeal case he says, "Again, when you act on the appellate educational clauses, as, for example in the case of Manitoba, the very case which is now in a sense penjjyMf, as to whether recent legisration bb'^ within the rights of the provincial I^slature, and whether any relief is due under the appellate- clause to those who claim it, you have a legal question, or rather in this case a mixed question of law and of fact, * * and it seemed to me that in this particular instance I was constrained to provide for an emergency which may arise. " Dwelling still further on the danger of a political body like the Dominion execu- tive having to decide delicate questions like these without the aid of a judicial body, Mr. Blake proceeded: "Now £ aver that in the decision of all legal questions it is important that the political executive shouJdT not, more than can be avoided, arrogate to itself judicial powers, and that when in the discharge of its political duties it is called upon to deal with legal questions, it ought to have* power in cases of solemnity and impor- tance, where it may be thought expedient so to do, to call in aid the judicial de- partment in order to arrive at a correct solution." * * # "My own opinion is that wherever, in opposition to the con- tinued view of a provincial executive and legislature, it is contemplated to disallow a provincial act an ultra vires, there ought to be a reference and also that {^ere ought to be a reference in certain cases where the condition of public opinion renders expedient a solution oflegalprob- lems, dissociated from these elements of passion and expediency which are rightly or wrongly often attributed to the action of political bodi(3s. And again I would recommend such a reference in all cases of educational appeal cases which necessarily invoke the feelings to which I have alluded and to one of which I am frank to say my present ' otion is due." Thus we find Mr, Blake earnestly ad- vising a reference to a judicial body in all cases of educational appeal, and he frankly tells the House that he introduced his resolution with special reference to the Manitoba school case and in order to pro- vide machinery for the submission of that very Manitoba appeal. So desirous was he indeed that full consideration should be given to the appeal and a sound con- clusion reached, that he particularly dwelt on the necessity for all paities taking part in the argument before the tribunal. Let me quote Jiis words : "I attach little comparative importance to judicial solu- tions, reached inthout argument. * * * The experience of mankind has established "•?.'■' '•^'' ?i'ssif >r" 11 ;ent legislation the Drovinci&l IV relief is due to those who I question, or id question of it seemed to instance I was an emergency the danger of jminiou execu- icate questions e aid of a oceeded: "Now >n of all legal lat the political re than can be iudicial powers, Ischarge of its upon to deal )ught to have* ity and impor- ught expedient le judicial de- e at a correct own opinion tion to the con- 1 executive and ted to disallow es, there ought so that tt^ere 1 certain cases )ublic opinion of legal prob- elemeuts of Lch are rightly to the action gain I would in all cases of Lch necessarily rhich I have :h I am frank due." earnestly ad- ial body in all iud he frankly troduced his erence to the order to pro- lission of that desirous wati ■ation should a sound con- cularly dwelt 3S taking part the tribunal. I attach little iudicial solu- ent. * * * as established as the eaaentlal ingredients for the attain- ment of justice between man and man the opposine arguments of the parties before a tribunal and the reasoned judgment of that tribunal, * * * i^f the oppos- ing views be stated, presented and sifted in public and in the presence of the parties, so that the best material for con- sideration will be obtained." His idea then was that all parties interested ought to appear before that tribunal and discuss the question, and I would have said to my honorable friend, the Attorney-Gen- eral, if he were in his seat, that I sincerely hope he will take the advice of Mr. Blake, and recede from tbe unjustifiable position of ignoring the appeal, which his organ has authoritatively declared he in- tended to take and which he has thus far taken, and T trust if the matter goes to the Supreme court he will be represented there, for I fully believe as Mr. Blake has pointed out that the only way to get a satisfactory solution is to have both parties represented. And now T. desire to point out to hon - orable members that this resolution, mak- ing provision on the face of it, and in ac- cordance, with the express declaration of the mover, for this identical case of ours, received the unanimous vote of the Commons. Mr. Dalton McCarthy, I have no doubt, was there, and our own minister of public works was no doubt there too, and proudly cheered Mr. Blake when he stood up and urged that prudent disposition of the Manitoba school case. Mr. Blake's advice could not be carried out that session by act of parliament as the end of the session was then near at hand. One speech only I may say was made in reply to Mr. Blake. It was made by Sir John Macdonald, and it was indeed an appreciative speech in which he thanked Mr. Blake most warmly for his wise and timely counsel. There were however two points made by Sir John. The first was that in every case provision should be made for an appeal to the privy council, so as to get a decision and an opinion from the highest court in the land. The second point was that no matter what the opmion of the court might be, such opinion should only be ad- visory, and that the government should be responsible for their action, so that there should be no withdrawing of the question from executive responsibility. When we hear so much said to-day about the Fed- eral government shirking their responsi- bility in the matter, by placing it on the •houlders of the Judges, we are forced to conclude that the people who talk that way have never read tne speech or resolu- tion of Edward Blake advising the refer- em^e to the judges, or the statement of Sir John Macdonald that such reference should not lesson executive responsibility. In 1891, two years ago now, a law was passed by the Dominion parliament in the terms of Mr. Blake's resolution. It made provision for referrii' g, as Mr. Blake suggested, to the Supreme court for its opinion, any appeal that might be made to the government under the educationtd appeal clause. It provided also, as sug- gested by Sir John Macdonald, that any opinion of the Supreme court may be brought by way of appeal before the privy council. And I must not omit to state that it expressly provides that the opinion of the judges is to be only advisory. It does not and ciyi- not therefore enable the gov- ernment to escape responsibiuty. Now when I remind you, Sir, that this Act as well as Mr. Blake's resolution on which it was based, received the unani- mous siipport of the House of which Mr. Dalton McCarthy was a member, and that presumedly they must have received his personal support, it seems strange that only a few days ago he used these words in a letter which he wrote to a Toronto paper: "Public interest is centered more on the novel and uif exampled proceedings that are now pending before the privy council at Ottawa, with a view, if it be possible, to find a reasonable pretext to overturn the decision of the judicial com- mittee of the privy council. * * If Sir John Thompson's view is correct, that the Manitoba question is to be considered judi- cially, then no matter what conclusion the tovemment adopt, there is complete free- om from responsibility. The ministers cannot be called to account in parliament, even though the order-in-council as a re- medial measure should direct the legisla- ture of the province to repeal its school acts for 1890, for a judge or judicial tri- bunal is not answerable for his or its bad law." Can it be possible that Mr. Mc- Carthy had forgotten the action of the House in 1890 and 1891 as well as his own approval thereof ? I now wish to give you a quotation from an in- terview granted by my hon. friend, the attorney-general, to a "Tribune" repre- sentative on the 30th of last November. "It is said," remarked the attorney-general "that the Dominion government assumes is ii the pow«r to Mt u some kind of a oourt of appeal in this mattei:, and to reeeive petitions, and to hear arguments." And presently he added, "We deny the right of the Dominion government to interfere in this matter in any way whatever. On no ground of principle can such interfer- ference be justified. Further, the Do- minion government has no legal power to take such action. By the constitution the power lies wholly within the jurisdic- tion of the provincial covernment. The privy council dealt with that very point. • To appeal from the privy council to the Ottawa ministry would be the height of absurdity. " Surely my honorable friend the attorn- ey-general can not have been wholly unaware that three years ago the Com- mons by a unanimous vote, in which one of his own coUeagues took part, gave a 'Inandate to the government to ded -with this very question, by referring it to the courts for advice, and that again two vears ago the parliament of Canada with equal unanimity, supported by the same colleague, had in an act provided the ma- chinery for carrying out that mandate. I now turn to another and a different phase of the (]^uestion. I suppose it will not be denied that there is a general opinion among the protestant majority in this province that the educational clauses in the Confederation act, protect- ing or purporting to protect the Catholic minority, were incorporated in the consti- tution at the instance of Roman Catholics. I think I am safe in saying that it is the universal impression in protestant circles that the Romish hierarchy, or Sir George Cartier, managed shrewdly to protect Catholic interests by the insertion of those clauses. And how often have we heard it remarked that if the public men of the protestant faith had not failed in their duty, through pandering to the Catholic vote, these clauses would never have appeared in the constitution. Just to give you an idea that I am speaking cor- rectly as to what the general impression is, I will quote from Mr. Dalton McCarthv. Addressinga great protestant meeting in Ottawa in December of 1889, he said: — "What have we to boast of as the out- come of the act of Union ? A separate school system imposed on the people of free Ontario by their own votes i No. Search the records and you will dnd that the act for the settlement of the separate school question was imposed on the peo- ple of the Upper Province by the vote of the people of the Lower ProTlnee, and against the will of the people of the Upper Province." It is entirely correct to say tha^it was by the votes of the French representatives of Lower Canada, and against the votes of the representa- tives of Upper Canada, that the separate school system was finally settled in Upper Canada in 1863, and so far I quite aeree Mdth the speaker. Mr. McCarthy tnen takes up the education dauses in the £. N. A. Act and continues: — "Search the B. N. A. Act and you will see that it was attempted to be fastened on you for all time by this organic law, tlie B. N . A. Act, as a part of the bargain made at the time of Confederation. That and similar enactments have we to thank for the present state of affairs ; that is the result of Lord Durham's well meant labors. He brought us together, thinking that the English majority wouH ultimatefy govern; he brought us together with the belief that he was doing the greatest possible benefit to us and to them. We came to- gether; we assembled in a common par- liament, but by the skilful direction of the French Canadian vote, and the desire for power among the English and conse- quent division among them, the French Canadians were ultimately able to place their feet on our necks and impose laws on us contrary to our will, and we came out of the partnership taking the smaller share of the assets." Possibly this lan- guage may be open to two meanings, but I understand the statement that the sep- arate school system was " attempted to be fastened on us " by the B. N. A. Act, to mean that it was something sought to be fastened on Protestants by Catholic!^. That may be Mr. Dalton McCarthy's opinion, but I want to say if that be his meaning that there is not a word of trutli in it; and to prove that I am right let mi^ give you in a few words the situation of the Protestant minority of Quebec before the Union, Quebec, of course as you all know, is filled chiefly bv a French Cana- dian population. The immense majority are French Roman Catholics. They hail in the province two systems of schools as they had in this province before 1890. In Ontario the Catholics had their separ- ate schools; in Quebec the Protestant miii- 1 ority had their dissentient schools. When the proposition for Confederation came up the Protestant minority in Quebec weie exceedingly afraid that they would lie put under the control of the Catholic ma- jority of that province in respect to cdu 18 em, the French eation. They made two demands m a condition of union, first, that there would be a provision in the constitution where- by any rights that they had at the Union in respect to their schools should never be taken away from them, so that the legislature of Quebec should have no pow- er to interfere with these rights, ana sec- oiid, that before they entered the Union the school law should be amended so as to remove certain objections then made to it by the Protestant minority. They de- manded that the school law should be im- proved so as to satisfy them as a minority before the Union, in order that in the fu- ture they would have the law as amended guaranteed to them. One of the changes they demanded, as I recollect the history of it, was that they should have a separ- ate board of education. Now it is" fair to state that the position of the Protestant minority in Quebec was in my opinion diflferent altogether from that of the Catholic minority in Ontario In the lat- ter the system of the majority was non- sectarian, in Quebec it was a Catholic sys- tem. It was natural therefore that the Protestant minority in Quebec should be anxious about their position in the Union. I now propose to show the demand made by that minority for protection against tue provincial legislature. Mr. L. H. Holton was then, as you will remember, one of the leading Pro- testants representing Lower Canada. Speaking in the Confederation debate on behalf of that- minority at an early period in the debate he said: ''Another question which he had proposed to pat had reference to the educational system of Lower Canada. The honorable gen- tleman (Sir John Macdonald) must be aware that this was a question on which there was a great deal of feeling in this section of the province amongst the English-speaking, -or the Protestant class of the population . Among ^that class there was no phase or feature of those threatened changes which excited so much alarm as this very question of education Well the minister of finance had said that the government would bring down amendments to the school laws of Lower Canada, which they pro- posed enacting into law before a change of government should take place, and which would become a permanent settle- ment of that question. The question he desired to put was whether they intended to submit these amendments before they asked the House to pass finally upon the scheme of Confederation, as it would undoubtedly exercise very considerable influence upon the discussion of the Con- federation scheme, and probably in the last resort from several members from Lower Canada." On a subsequent date Mr. Holton said: "The English Protestants of Lower Canada desire to know what is to be done in the matter of education be- fore the final voice of the people of this country is pronounced on the ques- tion of Confederation." To this state- ment Sir John Macdonald replied : — 'There was a good deal of apprehension in Lower Canada on the part oi the min- ority there as to the possible effect of Confederation on their rights on the sub- ject of education and it was the intention of the government, if parliament approved the scheme of Confederation, to lay before the House this session certain amend- ments to the school law to operate as a sort of guarantee against any infringe- ment by the majority of the rights of tne minority in this matter. > » * Before Confederation is adopted the government would bring dovm a measure to amend the school law of Lower Canada protecting the rights of the minority." Mr. Holton was not satisfied with that for a few days afterwards he returned to it again and said, "I would like to ask the Hon. Minister of Finance as to the course to be pursued in reference to the Lower Canada school law which was promised to be introduced this session. " To this the like reply was made as before, but still Mr. Holton was not satisfied and repeat- edly thereafter he brought up the ques- tion again, indicating the intense interest felt in the situation by the Protestants of Lower Canada. . Hon. Mr. Sanboi-n, another Protes- tant representative from Lower Canada, gave expression to the same feeling as follows : — " The English, who were a fourth of the population, and who, by. habit and tradition, had their own views of public policy, were left entirely with- out guarantee other than the good feel- ings and tolerant spirit of the French. Was this safe V In the hope of disquieting these fears of the Protestant minority from his province, Mr. D'Arcy McGee, an Irish Catholic from Lower Canada said : — " I have no doubt whatever, with a good deal of moderation and a proper degree of firmness, all that the Protestant mi- nority in Lower Canada can require by „v.- ■t*--. Ml ^ ■ / way of security to their educAtional sjb- tern will be dieerfully granted to them by this House. " The Jlon. Geo, Brown, the noted champion of national schools in Upper Canada, had given special attention to the education clauses, and he recognised fully the deep anxiety felt in Lower Canada on the question. Referring to the satisfaction that existed in Upper Canada vdth the existing arrangements as to education, he declared that "it was not so as regards Lower Canada, for there were matters of which the Brit- ish population have long complained and some amendments to the existing school act were required to secure them et^ual justice. Well when this point was raised gentlemen of all parties in Lower Canada at once expressed themselves prepared to treat it in a frank and conciahatory man- ner with a view to removing any injustice that might be shown to exist; and on this understanding the educational clause was adopted by the Confederation." Sir. E.«P. Tache, then Prime Minister, in further reply to the fears expressed by Mr. Sanborn, said: "Mr. Sanborn gave expres- sion to the fear that the Protestant Eng- lish element of Lower Canada would be in danger if this measure should pass. He said as much as this, that in the legis- lature of Lower Canada acts might be passed which would deprive educational institutions there of 'heir rights, and even of their property. But if the lower branch of the legislature (that is the provincial one) were insensate enough and wicked enough to commit some flagrant act of injustice against the English Pro- testant portion of the community they would be checked by the general — that is the federal— government." Hon. Mr. Dorion, the chief of the Rouge party of Quebec, referred to the demand made by the Protestants of Lower Canada, for protection, and ex- pressed his sympathy with them in these terms: "There is at this moment a move- ment on the part of the British Protes- tants m Lower Canada to have some pro- tection and guarantee fur their educational establishments in this province put into the scheme of Confederatijii, should it be adopted; and far from finding fault with them, I respect them more for their ener- gy in seeking protection for their separate interests. I think it but just that the Protestant minority should be protected in its rights in everything that was dear to it as a distinct nationality, and should u not lie at the diBoretloQ of the majority in this respect, and for this reason I am ready to extend to my Protestant fellow- citizens in Lower Canada, of British origin, the fullest justice in idl things, and I wish to see their interests as a minority guar- anteed and protected in every scheme which may bie adopted." Hon. Mr, Laframboise, a French Cath- olic from Lower Canada, expressed himself in this candid way? "There is one certain fact and that is that the Protestants of Lower Canada haye said to the govern- ment 'Pass a measure which shall guaran- tee to us the stability and protection of our edueational system and of our reli- gious institutions and we will support your scheme of Confederation; unless you do we will, never support you, because we do not wish to place ourselves at the mercy of a local legislature three fourths of the members of which will be Catho- lics. ' I admit that in doing this they have only done their duty; for who can say after all what ten years may bring forth." Sir John Rose, one of the most pro- minent representatives of the Lower Can- adian minority, expreseed his sense of the keen feeling that prevailed among his peo- ple in these terms: "It is a very grave and anxious question for us to consider, especially the minority in Lower Canada, how far our mutual rights and interests are respected and guarded." Again Sir John Rose returns to the subject in these words, referring to the Protestant minor- ity: "I know you must satisfy them that their interests for , all time to come are safe, that the interests of the minority are hedged round with such safeguards that those who come after us will feel that they are protected in all they hold dear." And again he says;* "Looking at the scheme then, from the stand-point of an Engb'sh Protestant in Lower Canada let me see whether the interests of those of my own race and religion in that section are safely and properly guarded. There are certain points upon which they feel the greatest interest, and with regard lu whidi it b but proper that they should be assured that there are sufficient safe- guards provided for their preservation." And once more Sir John Rose declare-; "I believe this is the first time almost in the history of Lower Canada that there has been any excitement or movement or agitation ou the part of the English Pro- testant population of Lower Canada in reference to the common school question. lear, h story ly seric lem re( jif their Irable f r rhether force e proc stem, d tha eithe all con b this r Georj tentioc iw then 15 lear, hear):' It is the first time in the liistory of the country that there has been jy serious Apprehension aroused amongst lem regarding the elementiury education jif their children. * * T would ask my hon- [rable friend, the attorney -general East, rhether the system of education which is force in Lower Canada at the time of le proclamation is to remain and be the ^stem.of education for all time to come; id that whatever rights are given either of the religious sections lall continue to be guaranteed to them." ^0 this last question of Sir John Rose, ir George Cartier answered : — "It is the itention of the government that in that |w there will be a provision that will Mure the Protestant minority in Lower panada such management and control over leir schools as will satisfv them." Col, [aoltain, a militant Protestant from J^pper Canada, said : — "An opposition to us scheme has been very decidedly ex- ressed by a cei tain section of the Protes- |int minority in Lower Canada. I am fare from personal intercourse with jiany gentlemen belonging to that section f the community that ihey do feel a very lirong aversion to this scheme because, as ley say, it will placethem at the mercy the French-Canadians. * * And I lust say, for my own part that, I do think le Protestant minority have some rounds for this fear. * * # I speak }fhat I know when I say there is a feeling distrust on the part of a great many of »e Protestants of Lower Canada " 'I have troubled honorable members, [r. Speaker, with somewhat long extracts )m the Confederate debate. I wished impress on the House that throughout lat mscussion, from the beginning to the |d of it, there was hard'y a question ised about the rights that were to be Ifotected by these educational clauses, Icept for the Protestants of Lower Can- la. Hardly one word. The only sug- Istion that was made on behalf of Rom- Catholics was, that if, iu answer to the Imands of the Protestants of Lower linada these safeguards were eiven,*it ')uld only be fair that the Catholics of jper Canada should have the same pro- Etion accorded them. And the broad Id fair and tolerant spirit of Protestants \e George Brown and Gait, Mackenzie, Jcdougall and others prompted them to |ovide as a matter of course that the le rights which were conceded by ^tholics to the Protestant minority, at urgent demand of the latter, should be conceded to Roman Catholics in the provinces where they were in the minority. Thus it was that the settlement was aimed at in a manner satisfactory to all classes. The House will now see how utterly far from the truth is the oft repeated and generally accepted statement that the educational clauses of the Confederation act, protecting the rights of the minority in respect to education, was a concession to Roman Catholic demands. I now desire to refer to another circum- stance connected with this same matter — a circumstance even more striking than that I have referred to — and I dare say some of my honorable friends on the government benches had not heard of it. The debate I have quoted from took place in the old parliament of Canada in 1865, some time before the Confederation act was adopted. That parliament was then discussing the Confederation resolu- tions that had Deen agreed on between the two Canadian provinces and the Maritime provinces. The provision with respect to education, embodied in these resolutions, protected only those rights of the minor- ity which existed at the time of the union, but there was not one word in them in- dicative of an intention to preserve under Confederation any rights that they might acquire afterwards, although such a S revision was afterwards put in the act [ow did the change come to be made? Here's an interesting bit of history that I want to tell you, and you have only to study the debates on the question to find out the truth of it. I read you the promise made by the government in 1865, that before that session was over they would amend the legislation so as to satisfy the Protestant minority. There was a calamity befell the government however, that prevented this being done. There was a defeat of the Union scheme in New Brunswick, and the legislature had suddenly to pro- rogue without passing the amended law. The Protestant members from Lower Can- ada protested, but Sir George Cattier, Sir A. T, Gait and the rest of the leaders said, "We promise you we will pass the law next session," and they had in fact anoth- er session before the Confederation Act was passed. Well the parliament met in 1866 andabillwasintroduced to amend the law as desired by the Protestant minority. What became of it? Somebody in the House got up and moved that if that pri- vilege be given to the Lower Canadian Protestants a like privilege ought to be 16 granted to the Catholics in Upper Canada. The Protestant majority of Upper Canada kicked against this, and the covemment seeing tluit they wbuld be defeated on it either withdrew the bill, or it was defeated on coming to a vote. They failed at all events to carry out the promise given the Protestants in Lower Canada . What was done about.it? It is worth while to recall those interesting events in connection with our position to-day. The govern- ment were thus placed in a most awk- ward position. The Protestant minority of Quebec had positively refused to come into Confederation if they could not get their law amended, and they had been told that they would never be asked to come in until they got it, and unless it was guaranteed to them for all time to come. The difficultv thus threatening the Union was solved by Sir Gteorce Car- tier the great chief of the Catholic French- men representing Lower Canada. He said to tne Protestant minority of his pro- vince in effect, "I ask you Protestant gen- tlemen of Lower Canada to take my word for it, and I now give you my pledge, that when Confederation is formed, and when Quebec has a parlia- ment of its own, one of its first acts will be to put upon its statute book the law that we could not get on our statute book here to-day. " That I say was the promise given by that French Catholic chief, and the Protestants of Lower Canada took his word for it. They believed that the pro- mise of a public man, solemnly given on a solemn occasion and respecting a solemn claim of a section of the people, would be solemnly respected, and it was respected. I don't know whether it was in the first or the second session of the Quebec legislature that it was done, but that promise was carried out in good faith. Sir George Cartier was himself elected to that legis lature. and I believe he sought election with the one purpose of being in a posi- tion to carry out his solemn pledge, and so he got the promised law passed The educational clauses adopted in 18G5 pro- vided as I have said only for the safe- guarding of rights the minority had at the time of the Union. Sir George ( artier therefore found himself in this position. He could not, before the establishment of the Unior, give the Protestants of Que- bt : what he had promised to give them, he had to go and get the legislature of Quebec to give it. But the Confederation scheme as then settled did not provide for protecting or safeguarding rights that might be crested by the legislature of Que- bec, after the Union. To effect this pur- pose it was necessary to modify, or rather to widen, the educational clauses. When therefore the government completed their draft Confederation Act they inserted in it this further provision, that not only should the rignts of the minority at the time of the Union \(ith respect to schools be perpetuated and never taken away from them, but that if any legislation was passed with regard to them after the Union by any provincial legislature the rights created thereunder could never be taken away from them. T have attempted to show you, Mr. Speaker, and I trust I have offered suffi- cient evidence to satisfy the House, that there has been a misapprehension, to say the least, as to the cause of these clauses appearing in the Confederation Act for the protection of the minority as to edu- cation. I hope I impress some of the hon. gentlemen present, at least, that these pro- visions were not, as some have tho ught, the work of either pope or a rch bishop, but that they were placed in the statute with a view chiefly to protecting the Protestant minority in the maintenance of what they thought their legal and just rights I want to know if it will ever be charged4again, in Manitoba at least, that this was a scheme of the Roman Catholics. And yet I read a few minutes ago from a speech of Dalton McCarthy's delivered in 1889 in which he said it was. I have another speech of his here delivered in February 1890, in which he uses the fol- lowing language to the same effect : — " I do hope that before long the delega- tion from the province of Ontario will call on this House for its aid to blot out the separate school clause from the British North America Act, which limits and fet- ters the people of that province. That clause was carried by a majority of French Canadians, and was imposed upon the people of Ontario against their will," * * * " and I am sorry to differ from my hon. leader on that question. He tells us— ^and I never feel more humiliated than when I hear him speak on that subject — that he participated in imposing that separate school system upon us." If Mr McCarthy was speaking, of the imposition of the school system on Upper Canada in the first place, he was speaKmg the truth, but if he applied it to tne B.N , A. Act his statement was utterly without foundation. As a matter of fact Lower Canadians I were more strongly decided — I mean their | 17 ension, to say leading men were— yagainstConfederatiou, than Upper Canadians ware. It was the Upper Gimadian members indeed that car- ried Confederation, and many of the lead- ing Frenchmen of Quebec were against it, so that it could not be true, as suggested by Mr. Dalton McCarthy, that these limi- tations in the B. N . A. Act were imposed upon us at the dictation of Lower Canada. I wish now to read another interesting bit of the hbtory of that time, not relat- ing to the School Question, but shewing the spirit of the concessions demanded by, and provided for the, Protestant minority of Quebec. We' have heard something about the representation of the French minority of this Province in our Legisla- ture having been at one time excessive in proportion to their numbers. As a mat- ter of fact;, it arose from the circumstance that the French speaking settlers were mainly in the older districts, which had an undue number of members, and the charge of over representation applied equ- al y, therefore, to the Protestant popula- tion in the same districts At all events the evil, so far as it was an evil, was reme- died in 1888. And it will be remembered that, amongst the French speaking minor- ity, there was a natural feeling of alarm at their loss of influence in the Legislature, which would follow from the application of the remedy. Well, I wish to remind the House that a like feeling of alarm stirred the minds of the Protestant minor- ity in Lower Canada, when they were in- vited to enter the Union. The Protestant population, outside oi_ Mon treal, was mainly settled in the distnci Kn?> Wn as the Eastern Townships. At that time they controlled twelve seats. Under the terois of Union the Provincial Legislatures were empowered to re-arrange the provincial constituencies, as regards the Provincial Legislatures. The Protestant minority of Quebec were afraid that the Legislature of that Province might cut and carve the constituencies therein, so as to weaken the Protestant representation, and they want- ed to be protected by the Confederation Act, so that the Catholic majority could not. by any act of redistribution, interfere with their representation. And they got that protection. It is in the statute book to-day— in the Act of Union. It was pro video in the Constitution that, in respect of these twelve counties, the Legislature of Quebec should have no power whatever to luake any alteration, unless the bill was supported by a majority of the twelve members themselves. Thtit is, against the votes of the twelve Protestant representa tives of Lower Canada, and ag^st their own wishes, these constituenciss could not, by the L^slature of Quebec, be in- terfered with. Here was a most remark- able instance of protection to a minority, and that provision, like the provisions in Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill, was in- tended for the protection of the Protestant minority. But there was placed in the Constitu- tion, at- the demand of the Prostestants of Lower Canada, a still more remarkable provision than even that, for the protec- tion of the minority, to which I must not fail to draw attention. Power was beine given by the Union Act to the Provincial Legislatures with regard to passing laws witn respect to immigration, and the Pro- testants of Quebec saw that the L^isla- ture of that Province, under French and Catholic influence, might promote immi- gration in such a way as to encourage im- migration of their own classes only. And so it was that, at the demand of the Pro- testant minority of Xower Canada, there was a provision put in the Confederation Act, whereby, Wnile the local legislatures may pass laws with respect to immigration, the Dominion Government is also given power to legislate with respect to the same subject. And it is provided that the local law faUs to the ground, so far as it con- flicts with any law of the Dominion, with respect to that subject. In other words, the laws of the province, with respect to immigration, are sulyect to revision by the Federal Parliament The discussions of the time shew that, as I have said, this was done at the instance of the Protestants of Quebec, and Parliament yielded to their demand. But I must return to the subject before the House, having made this digre^itffi just to shew that even in other "inSttei's than the question of education, very spe ■ . cial and peculiar safeguards, for the pro- tection of the minority, were provided in the Constitution, and that mamly for the protection of Protestaats. Coming once more to the question of education, I de- sire to draw attention for a moment to the terms of the educational clauses in the B. N. A. Act limiting the powers of local legislatures to pass laws with respect to that subject. The language of these sub-sections Elainly shows uiat their operation is not mited to any particular part of the Dominion as then created. The clause as to the right of appeal is such that it 18 1} w. 'i may be applicable to all the provinces. It was a settlement of a question that had ' disturbed the statesmen of old Canada for many years, and it was thought best that there should be no limitation as to its application, except this, that it should only apply to provinces in which there were separate schools legally existing at the union, or wherein they should be legally established afterwards. Sir Oliver M^wat tells his people in Ontario that that settlement of this question was an essential element of confederation, so essential that without putting these pro- visions in the Act, confederation would not be to-day an accomplished fact, and that we would not have in Manitoba or in any of the provinces of the Dominion, a Provincial Legislature. I have endeavoured to show the House, Mr. Speaker, and I think honorable gentlemen will admit that I have con- clusively proved, that the educational clauses of the original Act of the Union were not placed there as a concession to the Cathohcs. Did the parallel clauses in the Manitoba Act involve such a concess- ion? I am free to sav that the Roman Catholic members of Parliament demand- ed their insertion in the Manitoba Act. But were they after all an improper concession ? It was but the extension to Manitoba of a part of the essential basis of Union, of provisions that, as expressed in the Act of Union, were not limited to any part of the Dominion. If there was no impropriety in incorporating such provisions in the B. N. A Act there could scarcely have been any serious impropriety in putting the like provisions in the Manitoba Act. In the case of Manitoba, however, there were special reasons why that concession Xfas made to the minority, and I wish to refec to some of them for a moment. It will be remembered by honorable gentle- men that at that time there was a rebel- lion in this province, the settlers rising in arms because they were not satisfied with having this union imposed upon them ; and it became a matter of deepest solici- tude and anxiety to the Dominion, as well as to the Imperial authorities, to put down that rebellion and satisfy the people. The Governor-General of Canada requested Archbishop Tache to come all the way from Rome to assist in putting down tne troubles, and he wrote a letter of instructions to the Bishop, dated 16th February, 1870 in which he says "The people may rely that respect and attention will be extended to the different relisioiu per8ua8ion& * * and that all the n-an- chises which have subsisted, * * shall be duly continued and liberally conferred. In declaring the desire and determination of Her Majesty's Cabinet, you may safely use the terms of the ancient formula ; 'right shall be done in all cases '." f am not going to assert that there is any promise there as to schools, but I simplr point out the spirit of the prom- ises that were made to the old French Half-breed settlers, through their arch- bishop, by the Queen's representative, that their religious persuasions would be re- spected, and that the franchises which subsisted would be continued to them. Then there was a Royal proclamation issued by the Governor-General in which he said : "By Her Majesty's authority I do therefore assure you that on the union with Canada, all your civil and religious rights and privileges will be respected, your property assured to you, and that your country will be governed, as in the past, under British laws, and in the spirit of British justice." A delegation was properly appointed as representing the people of this Pro- vince, through the intervention of Sir Donald Smith, who came here as the envoy of the Government, in order that such delegation might proceed to Ottawa to settle terms of union. That delega- tion went to Ottawa ; they were officially received as such, and negotiations were carried on and completed with them as such delegates on the part nf the people here, by tne Federal Government, and the result was the Manitoba Act. I am not going to say anything with regard to the Bill of Rights, said to have been presented by the delegates, demanding the main- tenance of Separate Schools, except that I think Archbishop Tache nas failed to establish his contention with regard to that. I say, however, that the delegation went to Ottawa duly accredited as repre- senting the settlers : they there discussed the whole matter, and they arrived at a nonclusion which was embodied in the Act, As it did not give them any greater rights than the CatnoUc minority oi Ontario had, there was nothing unreasonable in it. I say that upon the faith of the statements made and of the legislation itself the settlers had a perfect right to expect that their institution were guaranteed to them. I now desire to draw attention to the fact, that all this difficulty which thrfc^tens us, because of the duty cast upon the Fed- 19 nd Powers to interfere with provincial legisUtion reBpecting education, was clear- ly foreseen ana foreshadowed. There was fit the time of the Confederation debates,in the 0I4 Canadian Parliament, a very prom- inent man, a Roman Catholic of Ontario, who was opposed to Confederation, and who clearly pointed out the troubles that would arise on a contest between the two govemments on that question. Indeed he protested most earnestly against any pro- vision which would witndraw the subject of education from the control of the pro- vincial majority, and with the clearest fore- sight, he predicted the very circumstances that have arisen in Manitoba to-day. I refer to the late John Sandfield Macdonald, for some years premier of Canada, and afterwards premier of Ontario. In a speech in that debate he said : — " I wish hon. members to bear in mind that the experience that we have had in this coun- try proves, that a denial of the right of the majority to legislate on any given matter has always led to grave consequences. * * By making a constitutional restriction in respect to the schools of the minority, we are sowing the seeds from which will in the eud arise a serious conflict, unless the Constitution be amended. The minority will be quite safe on a question relating to their faith and their education in a colony under the sway of the British Crown, but if you expressly withdraw that question from the control of the majority, the rights of the minority will not be safe in either section of the province, if you dis- trust the action of tne majority. It is our duty. Sir, to see that a question that affects us so dearly as the education of our children,* * * shall not be withdrawn from the management of the Local Legis- latuie. We ought not to deprive them of a power which uiey will want to exercise, just because they are deprived of it, and provoke a desire on their part to altei the system. ♦ ♦ The minority is safe against undue encroachment on its rights, and I am willing to trust to the sense of justice of the majority in Upper Canada to preserve the religious and educational liberties of the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada." Mr. Macdonald proceeded to place his views formally on record by moving, by way of amendment, when the House was going into Committees on the Confedera- tion resolutions *' that it be an instruction to the said Committee to consider whether any constitutional restriction which shall exclude from the Local Legislature of Upper Canada the entire control and direction of education Mubject only to the approval or disaporoval of the General Parliament is not calculated to create wide-spread dissatisfaction and tend to foster ana create jealousy and strife between the various religious bodies in that section of the province." And h« dosed in these words : "I desire to have the expression of the opinion of the mem- bers of this House whether it is not better to let the Catholics of Upper Canada and the Protestants of Lower Canada protect themselves, or rather, trust for protection to the sense of justice of their fellow subjects. " Thus did Sandfield Macdonald want to entrust the rights and interests of his co- religionists, although in the minority, to the majority, while he clearly pointed out the danger of Federal interference. Who do you think, of all men in the House, replied to him ? It was no less a man than Alexander Mackenzie, who, although he must have seen that the trouble predicted was a very possible one, yet felt that with all its disadvantages the scheme was the best that was available. In his reply Mr. Mackenzie said : " Hav- ing already \^oted for the whole of these resolutions, I cannot have any hesitation in votine against the amendment. I can only tell him (Mr. Sandfield Macdonald) that I, having struggled as much as any one to prevent legislation tending to break up our common school system, and having found my efforts utterly ineffec- tual, ao not see that our position would be any worse if the resolutions are car- ried into law. I formerly stated that I- thought the separate school system would not prove very disastrous if it went no further. I do not now think they will do much harm if they remain in the ^ same position as at present, and therefore. * though I am against the separate school system, I am wiUing to accept this Con- federation, even though it perpetuates a small number of separate schools." Mr. Mackenzie went on to point out that the abolition of separate schools had been found impossible, and that, with all his objection to them, he preferred to put up with the system, especially after some years' experience had proved they were less injurious than he had anticipated. And he preferred to risk the cunsequences so strikingly pourtrayed by Sandfield Mac- donald rather than have the old question re-opened. The words of Sandfield Mac- donald are pregnant with meaning to us here to-day, and so are those of Mac- r^im^'m^p^ ao kenzie, t^pedally in the light of his action in the New Brunswick case. The leaaon is one of toleration on the part of the majority for the prejudices of^ the minor- • ity, ana the avoidance in that way of any justification for an appeal to the Federal power with its unfortunate consequences, oy the exercise of that toleration in the Local LedeJature, as was so earnestly urged in tne case of New Brunswick. I now desire to speak of a delicate mat- ter, which may be somewhat distasteful to some who hear me^ but I am bound to tell the truth, even if it mav offend some . I make the grave charge that this school legislation was put upon the statute book of this province in defiance of the most solemn pledges of the Liberal party. In January of 1888, an event occurred which brought the Liberals into power in this province. My hon. friends had for years been engaged in an effort to defeat the Norquay Government, in which I helped them all in my power, because we felt tnat it would be to the advantage of the pro- vince to have a change. The crisis came when the St. Francois Xavier election took place at the time I have mentioned. Dr. Harrison was at that ti^ie premier of the province, and he chose as his provincial secretary Mr. Joseph Burke, who, though he bears an Irish name, is really a French Canadian. He was living among bin own people in the district of St. Francois Xavier, and had been elected as a member of this House in 1886 by acclamation. On accepting office he went back for re-elec- tion. It was proposed that we should oppose him, though for myself I thought it was useless. Mr. F. H. Francis, an English speaking Presbyterian, and a son in-bw of the late Rev. Dr. Black, the great pioneer Presbyterian missionary of this country, was assed to take the field against Mr. Burke in this French constitu- ency. He could not possibly be elected, un- less he got a lai^e proportion of the votes of the French population. Without this, I say, his election was an absolute impos- sibility. Now I state, on information and belief, that Mr. Francis, when consulted by leading members of the Liberal party, and asked to accept the nomination, said he would not accept unless empowered to give the electors a pledge that if the Lib- erals got into office they would not inter- fere with the institutions c f the French, their language or their school laws. I am informea that he was authorised to make that promise that he went to the electors and gave them the pledge. I did not know that of' my own knowledge, but I knew from the newspaper reporta, and firom in- formation brought to the Winnipeg Liber- Is, that strong speeches were being made by Mr. Burke and his friends in the Riding, calling upon half-breeds and French Caite- dians to vote against the Liberal candidate, on the ground that Liberals would likely pass laws interfering with their institu« tions. It was said, " are you going to put into power people, who, when they get into office, will legislate away your schools and your language," and the elec- tors were appealed to to oppose Mr. Fran- cis for that reason. This became practi- cally the leading question of that campaign, and the contest was a crucial one. Snonla the Liberals win, it was plain, in view of the losses sustained by the Government, that the^ must resign. So that the success of the Liberal candidate meant that die party would at once attain power, while Uie election of Mr. Burke would almost cer- tainly ha\e ensured the continuance of the Liberals in opposition till this day. It became necessary for the party leaders, therefore, to meet this appeal to the reli- gious and race feelings of the French and Half-breed voters, the pledge given by Mr. Francis appearing to be insufficient to satisfy them. Now the Liberals had a de- fined platform, and their views were well understood. Personally I knew well what our policy was. Perhaps no one, apart from Mr. Green way ana Mr. Martin, wa>: in a better position to know fully our at- titude on these questions. There was no doubt about that attitude. There is no doubt we were denouncing the abuses ot the Norquay Government with regard to the French printing, the large amount of money expended, and Liberals were de- termined, if the party came into power, that they would do away with those abuses; but the idea of interfering with rights guaranteed, or supposed to have been guaranteed, by the Constitution, had never been suggested. On the contrary, it had frequ^intly been pointed out on tne public platform by Liberal leaders that these institutions were protected, and that our remedy was in correcting abuses and not in abolishing the institutions. It was I remised that tne expenses arising from the use of the French language would be cut down and the grant to education in- creased. No one nad ever asked or sug- gested that we should go a step further. When the question about the Liberal pol- icy became so prominent and urgent in St. Francois Xavier, I was eonsulted with , but I knew ind from in* ni^eg Liber- being made n the Riding, ^ench Cufti- ral candidate, nrould likely their institn- goingto put len they get away your and the eiec- )8e Mr. Fran- scame practi- bat campaign, one. SnoiUa in, in view of Qovemment, &t the success lant that the wer, while the i almost cer- atinuance of 1 this day. It )arty leaders, 1 to the reli- e French and given by Mr. isufficient to rals had a de- jws were well 8W well what 10 one, apart . Martin, wa>: fully our at- There was no There is no the abuses ot rith regard to ;e amount of als were de- into power, with those erfering with )sed to have ititution, had bhe contrary, ed out on the leaders that cted, and that a abuses and lions. It was arising from age would be iducation in- asked or sug- step further, e Liberal pol- id urgent iu (>nsulted with 21 others about it, and Mr. Martin was abked to go out and aasist the candidate. I was tola that he went out and attended a meetinf^ and I was told of promises he had publicly made, which were, to my knowledge, in accord with what was in- tended he should make. I went with him myself to a second meeting. It was a large Kthering mainly composed of French and Ifbrera Catholics. The same charges were made by Burke as to what the Liber- als would do if in office. The same ap- peals were made to his countrymen und co-religionists to defeat Mr. Francui for that reason. Mr. Martin, in a powerful speech, denounced the statements of Burke and his friends as false. He told the meet- ing that it had never been the policy of Liberies to interfere with the language or irstitU'tions of the French Catholic popu- lation, and he appealed to them to trust the laberals, and to support their candi- date, At that time I was President of the Provincial Association of Liberals, and Mr. Martin referred to my presence at the meeting, and said I could put him right if he was wrong. He went further, and not only said Liberals had no idea of interfering with these institutions, but he fave a positive pledge, in the name of the iberal party, tnat tney would not do so . I have always thought that the movement to establish the present school law, abol ishing all Catholic schools, against the strong protest of the minority was, under the circumstances, and in the face of that promise, a gross wrong. Personally I made no promise, but I felt as much bound by the pledge given as if I had given it myself. Now I wish to say this of Mr. Joseph Martin, that I have understood it is claimed that he had forgotten that pro- mise of his in 1888 when he decided and promised in 1889 to introduce the new School law. I wish to say also that per- sonally I quite believe that he did actually forget the promise. He is possessed of too true and generous a nature to make such a promise, and afterwards deliberate- ly to go back on it. unless his having promised had escaped nis memory. Those who know him best know that he is a most impulsive man— and impetuous— and that ne often acts hastily on impulse and not of deliberation ; and 1 can imagine him, fo:Ketful of the deliberate promise at 8t. Francis Xavier, making the promise for the abolition of Separate Schools under such an impulse. I can the mora readily understand that Mr. Martin had quite forgotten his pledge, because the circumstances had in fact, so far as I can now recall, gone out of my own memory for the time, and until I saw or heard it mentioned afterwards, when the circumstances came clearly bade to my mind. Now I know that Mr. Green- way, the Premier, was a part yto the giving of that promise, and I am sorry he is not in his place so that I might nay so in his presence, because he is the man th it I hold responsible for the whole trouble. As far as I was concerned, when it was pro- Eosed to introduce the present law, had I een of the opinion that we ougnt, not- withstanding that promise, to pass the legislation of 1890, sooner tnan be person- al^ a party to it I would rather have quit this House forever. It so happened, however, that without even rememoering for the time the circumstance of the pro- mise, and altogether irrespective of it, the moment the announcement was made in August 1889 about the proposed enact- ment, I formed the most decided opinion, an opinion which I then communicated to many of my friends, that we were about to make a great mistake. This was the opinion I formed on the question on its own merits, having regard to the history of the question in the east, with which I was somewhat familiar. It was my judgment, even then, that we ought not to enact the proposed law even on its merits and apart from any pledges ; and it was my opinion, and I so expressed myself most openly, that we ought to adopt a system consistent with the spirit of the settlement of 1865 at confedera- tion, a system such as they have in Ontario, where it has given so much satis- faction. I wish here to refer to a statement made by my honorable friend the Attomey- Oeneral, during the debate of 1890, to the effect that even if the pledge was given by Mr. Martin for the party, it did not bind the party, and that we were free to disregard it. First of all, I say that I cannot subscribe to that proposition. I say that the pledge was given in the name of the liberal party, for a party purpose, and that it did bind them under the cir- cumstances in which it was made. With- out that promise the party could not have carried that election, and by that election alone they attained to power. That power was obtained on the faith of that solemn pledge, and it was the Liberal party, as a party, that benefitted thereby, and tnat accepted power and took advau- 22 tage. for that purpose, of the vote« given on tne faith thereof. In the lecond pUoe even if it were felt that the promiBe did not bind Liberals to support separate schools at idl times, I say tnat they were bound at all events, before making the change, to put the minority, whose 8ttp« port was BO obtained, back into the posi- tion where they were when we took advantage of their support. The Liberal party Bhuuld have resigned office and res- tored the minority to tne vantage ground they held at the time the pledges were given. I think we made a mistake and that we ought to retrace our steps and do what is right in this matter. I think. Sir, that we can do this with- out going back to the old laws. I think that all we have to do, in order to secure a fair school system for our province, is to adopt that which has been in operation in the good old Province of Ontario for the past 30 years. Do we want a better sys- tem of education than that they have in that province to-day 7 They have a public* school system there, and it is a public system all through. Every school m the land is under government r'^ntrol and inspection. Where there is a settle- ment of Catholics large enough to have a school of their own they are allowed to have their own rsligious exercises in it, but that school is practically as much un- der the control of thn Government, in so far as secular education is concerned, as the public school. And if in some res- pects the system there falls short we n^ight improve on it here. There is no such a thing as Catholic schools in Ontario, in the sense that Catholic school existed in this province under the old system. The Catholic schools that existed here then, and that exist here now, so far as thev exist against the law, are Catholic schools pure and simple — church schools. But in Ontario, where Roman Catholic have a settlement sufficiently large to have a school, they are allowed to have one, but only on coming within the law and under the law, like the public schools, so as to be under state control Every Catholic in the Province, not in a separate district, and not joinings the separate school, pays his taxes to the public school, and only the Catholic who joins that separate school pays his rates to it, and need not pay taxes to tlie public schools. And what is the result in Ontario ? There are 700 muni- cipalities in, the Province with more or less of a mixed population, I fancy, in them all, and yet over 500 of them, I am told have not a separate school. There are over 60,000 CatnoUo children in that province and the immense minority of them, over 60,000 are going to tne public schools, while it is only the minority of the Catholic children that go to the separate schools. And why 7 The only reason is that they are not being deprived (if them by the majority. There is something of a contest I believe going on between uie Catholic laity and the Catho- lic priesthood with regara to this school Question, the laity in some measure pre- ferring tne public schools and the priest- hood insisting on the use of the separate schools. In Ontario Protestants and Catholics are living in harmony. There is no ill-feeling between them, and there is no attempt made by the majority to deprive the minority of what tne latter deem their rights. Catholic parents, see- ing that no attempt is made to deprive them of their rights, are not called upon to be constantly asserting these rights and struggling to maintain them. You can imagine yourself, Mr. Speaker, claiming to have a right to the enjoyment of some privilege, which perhaps you are not availing youraelf of. As long as no one denies your right you would, perhaps, nut go as far as the door of this chamoer to use it, but let any person try to take it away from you or to deny your right to it, and you will fight for it like a bulldog. This is human nature, Mr. Speaker, and it is an element that we have to recognize in these questions. Let Sir Oliver Mowat show himself so weak, or so wicked, as to start an agitation to deprive the Human Catholic minority in Ontario of what they deem their lights, even though they do not Iturgely use them, and what will be the result f Why in less than six months many of the Catholic parents who are now sending their children to the public schools MrilT be sending them to the separate schools Look at New Bruns- wick. Will any oae say that the Govern- ment there have been able, even with their strict law, to abolish separate schools 7 On the contrary, in St. John Fredericton and other places in that pro- vince, you will find Catholic teachers, in their garb, teaching the tenets of their church in schools that are called public schools, and that receive public aid just like the public schools. David Mills too, as the result of lung observation, says the public school system of On- tario is the best he has ever known for a mixed community. He was for tliirty % 23 shool. There Idren in that minority of to the public 3 minority of ; go to the ? The only eing deprived f. There is ieve going on ad the Catho- this flchool measure pre- d the priest- the separate bestants and lony. There tn, and there majority to lat the latter parents, see- e to deprive t called upon Bse rights and n. rou can cer, claiming aent of some ^ou are not ig as no one , perhaps, nut 1 chamoer to try to take it your right to ike a bulldog. :$peaker, and e to recognize Dliver Mowat wicked, as to the Roman irio of what though they . what willbte m six months snts who are to the public hem to the New Bruns- ; the Govem- 5, even with sh separate in St. John in that pro ; teachers, in lets of their called public .blic aid just David Mills observation, stem of On- ever known He was for .*> nmny yearn a school teach »?r, and for many yuar-s afterwards an inspector, and nfter all thai uxoerience h(> practically says that ho woulariHh schools, and pay for these boHides. And what is the ])iactical result on the oiluca- tiou of tho (Jatholic children ? In the fiv.st place the majority of them are not gettiuy the advantage of a necula) primary '■(lucation under the control of the uverument at all. In Ontario on the otliiii h.iiid all thi- catholic children, ev^u i.iie minority attending the Separate Schools, receivo an education directly under State control and management. There i.'» scai'cely a leading i)ublic man or eJucationi.st in Ontario to-day, after a thirty yearsexnerience of it, who doea not limit that the system there is fairly -.vtisfactoiy. Even tbi; Eijual Rights As- r^' I'latiou gave it a general apjiroval. All iliey demanded was a slight amendment of the law which t'lrned out to be provid- ed for already. 1 think we might well I'o ploaued if we liad sufh a system heje. And I earnestly ask this House to cout^ider whether we should not now accept it, and liiUR put an end, a? T belicvt we would, to al! this charge of injueitice and this Leling uf discontent. And we would aviid the very seriouij, ])erhaps most dangerous, Aj^itatiou and disquietude that may ariose -ihould the Federal powers attempt, even if justly, to impo-3P remedial legislation upon us. It is with a most sincere hope that Riich a result may be obtained that 1 have brought the