IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) A ^ .v^. 1.0 I.I ^i"B IIM 2.0 ^ 1^ mil 2.2 US Ui 1*0 mm 1.25 1.4 1.6 ■• 6" ► VQ <^ ^. n / % ''4 y /^ iration 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^* CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D n D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde □ Covar title missing/ Letit titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g^oQraphiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. D D D n Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcoiordes, tachetdes ou oiqudes D Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es I ~] Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materia Comprend du matdriel suppldmentaire I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont dt6 film^es d nouveau de faqon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J 12X 16X - 20X 24X 28X « 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: University of British Columbia Library L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la g6n6rosit6 de: University of British Columbia Library The images appearing here are the best quality possible consioiering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover w;ien appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commen^ant par la premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — »- signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s A des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seu* cliche, il est film6 d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombra d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 ■::'':t - i t 4 5 6 i>^l flous^ 0I Commons Bcbales SIXTH SESSION-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT SP»EEOE[ OP J. MAETI>^, M.P. ON THE MANITOBA SCHOOL BILL OTTAWA, FRIDAY, Ct^ii MARCH, 1896 Ml'. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, the hou. geu- tleman who has just lakeu his seat i^Mr. Moncriel'f) has spoken iu a spirit of reason- ableness as regards his attitude towards the Roman Catholics, and I was very pleased to hear his remarks in that direction. But I have been informed that the hou. gentleman iu a recent contest which took place iu Ou- •tarlo expressed views whioli scarcely coin- cide Avith those he has e-muciated with so much vigour and eloquence to-day. I am in- formed that the hou. gentleman was a very active and strong supi)orter of Mr. Gurd, the P.r.A. candidate for the pioviucial assembly. I understand that among the planks of the P.P.A. organization is one that no Catholics shall be dealt with, that no Catholics shall be employed by a member of the as- sociation. I lind it difficult indeed to recon- cile the attitude which the hoa. gentleman takes here to-day as a member of this House with his attitude in an election for the On- tario legislature and the candidature of the member of the order to which I have refer- red. I am told that the hon. gentleman was so anxious and desirous tlmt the support given by him to Mr. Gurd should be known that he went to the ballot box and ostenta- tiously dropped his ballot marked for that candidate. We know that the local legisla- ture contest iu the county of Lambton Irom the P.P.A. standpoint was very bitter indeed, that all means possible were taken to in- cense the people against the Roman Catho- lics ; that the supporters of Mr. Gurd, chief among whom was the hon. gentleman who has .iust spoken, brought into that country a woman named Margaret Sheppard. who maligned the Roman Catholic people and the Roman Catholic clergy, and who introduced into the contest there elements very widely different from the sentiments which the hon. gentleman has addressed to the House to- day. The remarks 1 am now making with respect to the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Moncrieff), I am sorry to say, apply to a number of other hon. members from the province of Ontario. "When it was a ques- I tion of opposition to Sir Oliver Mowat their attitude towards Roman Catholics was very different. Those very same men who find in every piece of legis- lation carried through the Ontario legis- lature by Sir Oliver Mowat some pro- posal to hand over the affairs of the pro- ! vince to the Pope, are to-day filled with pleasure and delight at the action of this Government in connoction with the Remedial Bill, I think It is very evident and clear i how that change of opinion has come about. ! '71 -, ■ t In the one case the effect of the attacks was against Sir Oliver Mowat, the Liberal Premier of Ontario ; in this case arguments of that kind are calculated to tell against the Government which hon. gentlemen support here. 1 am very sorry to notice this change of view as rcg.irds the hon. member lor Lamhtou (Mr. Moncrieff), and I think it takes away very largely from the effect of the very fine sentiments he enunciated to-day. The hon. gentleman spent considerable timi; In dealing witii the matter which was first brought into this debate by the Minister of Justice, and one as to which 1 crave the in- dulgence of the House while 1 offer a few remarks. The hon. gentleman elaborated time and again the position of the province of Quebec. It is urged tJuit the cliange by which Protestants obtained representation in the Council of Public Instruction took place sulisequent to 1SG7, that the only remedy the I'rotestants could have in case the provincial legislature of Quebec should ropeiil that law and refuse to Protestants representation on the Council of Public In- struction, would be an appeal under the ap- peal clauses whicli we are dealing with in considering this Bill now under discussion. I do not think it would be a matter of very great importance to the Protestants in QuelH>e if tliey wei'e denied representation on the Council of Public Instruction. It is very proper they should have such represen- tation, and it is very creditable to the Roman Catholic majoricy that they should freely have accorded this representation to Protes- tants, and allowed, freely and without com- pulsion, the Protestant board to decide all questions affecting Protestant or dissentient schools in that province. But for many years prior to 18(5!). the Protestants had no such right or privilege in that province, and yet they did not appear to suffer very largely on that account. The ^linister of Justice at- tempted to convoy the idea, that the Council of Public Instruction in the province of Que- bec had control over the text books, and if the Protestants were eliminated from the board the council might impose such text books on the dissentient schools as would be disagreeable to Protestants. I admit at ouci; ; that if that were the fact it would be a mat- j ter of very considerable importance, but it ' is not the fact. The law with respect to the selection of scliool books is the same as it : was prior to 1807. The law is exactly what it was in ISOl, under which the Council of Public Instruction have no power to select text boolvs wliich refer to questions of mor- als and religion. So far as other text books 1 are concerned it is a matter of no impor- ' tance. Protestants can learn arithmetic \ from the same book as Catholics, or vice | versa ; it is not as regards text boolis or ' arithmetic, geography, or grammar that any difficulty would arise. It could only be upon questions of morals or religion, and as to that, the provisions of the Quebec laAv are the same as they were in 1861. They pro- vide, that these text books are not selected by the Council of Public Instruction ; nor are they selected by the school trustees of the districts. Section 05 of the Common Schools Act of the statutes of 1801, gives the duties of school commissioners, and as to the course of study, &c,, subject to this proviso : But the cure, priest, or ofBciating minister, shall have the exclusive right of selecting the boolts having reference to the religion or morals, tor the use of the schools for children of his own religious tenets. Now, Mr. Speaker, that applies just as well to I'rotestants as to Catholics, and, therefore we see, what this idea introduced l.>y the Minister of Justice amounts to. It has been suggested to nje by an lion, mem- ber, tliat this idea was rei)eated by the Min- ister of Trade and Commerce, who repre- sents particularly in the House and in the 'lOvernmeut— rati er in the Government than in the House— the Protestants of Que- bec. It was stated as an aigument of great strength by liim. But there is uotliing what- ever in ir, because, as I say, while tlie Pro- testants perhaps would regret and feel in- jured, if their representatives on the Board of Education were done away with, yet, it would not be considered as an attack upon their ri^ligion, or as an attack upon them in any respect at all. If it were true, as sug- gested by th3 Minister of Justice, that by a change in tlie law of Quebec the text books affecting morals and religion for dissentient schools were to be selected by a Council of Public Instruction exclusively Catholic, then there would be an opportunity for great wrong, and a proper reason for pro- test. It being Six o'clock, the Speaker left the Chair. After Recess. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was alluding to the point raised by the hon. Minister of Justice, and repeated' with considerable emphasis by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is the Pro- testant representative of Quebec in the Government. The point they made was : that there have been changes in the law of the province of Quebec since confederation, which, if repealed by the legislature, would place the Protestants there in an anomalous position, and one which they could only ob- tain a remedy for under the clauoe whicli we are discussing in connection with this Bill. I was able to show that the law in tbe province of Quebec— which was important to the Protestants ^Aith regard to the choos- ing of text-1)ooks and with regard to rriurals and religion— was the same prior to con- federation as it has been since. That being so, under the British North America Act any attempt to change that law would be ultra vires of the legislature of Quebec and -nould have no effect at all ; because the Protestant minority of the province of Quebec are entitled under the British Nortli America Act not only to all the rights and privile,?es enjoyed l)y the Catliolic niiuority in tlie province of Ontario, but also to all the rights and privileges the Protestant nilr rity in the province of Quebec enjoyed at tiie time of the union. So, any point that is attempted to be made for the Governr.ieut based on this aspect of tlu; affair falls to the ground ; and we come to liud that the only chanjjp of importance to I'rotoslants In (Juobec that was made since confedera- tion, was a change by which, under the law, they ai'e entitled to a certain num- ber of members on the Board of rnWic In- struction. As I said before, a repeal ( f that law would not be pleasant or palatable to the Protestants there ; but still it would not bo such an infringement of their rights as to create any trouble or difficulty ; and therefore it is a matter of very little mo- ment, so far as this Bill is concerned. One other matter with regard to the I'e- n\arlcs of the hon. member for East Lamb- ton. He made use of an argument wliich I have lieard used upon the stump, in con- nection with tills question, but which I liavo not heard in tlie House, and had not expected to hear in the House from any lawyer of stand- ing. It was not put forward by the hon. Minister of .Justice on behalf of the (Tovernment. and it requires only a iuo- ment's consideration to show its absurdity. The hon. gentleman read from the formal jiart of tlie Order in Council adopted by tlie Imyterlal Privy Council on the report of the .Tudiclal Committee. It Is as follows :— Her Majesty tiavlng talcen the said report into j consideration, was pleased, by and with the ad- ' vice of Her Privy Council, to approve thereof i and to order, as it is hereby ordered, tha*^ the ! recommendations and directions therein contained ■ be punctually observed, obeyed and carried Into j effect in each and every particular. Whereof [ the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada for the time being, and all other persons whom it may concern are to take notice and to govern themselves according. The hon. member for East Lambton inter- preted that to mean that we were bound to do what the Government proposed to do by means of this Bill. In the speeches on the stump to whicli I referred, gentlemen representing the Government, reading these %vords, have alleged that it would be high treason to Her Majesty on the part of the Government, here to refuse remedial legis- lation to Manitoba in pursuance of th(^se woi'ds. Now, Sir, evei-y lawyer knows that these words are contained in every Oi'der in Council that Is passed on the recommen- dation of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council— that they are purely formal, and have no reference particularly to this question. And if it were necessary to allude further to an argument of that kind, it mere- ly drives us back to the question what the Privy Council decided in their judgment con- tained in the Order in Council ; and, so J M-1^ far as these words are concerned, they throw no light upon the question one way or the other. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Secre- tary of State, In moving the second reading of this Bill, dwelt at considerable length upon the negotiations which linally resulted in tlie confederation of the lirst four pro- vinces of Canada. As I understood him, ho urged as an argument why this Bill should be passed, that dlthcultles and troubles ex- isted at the time of the union and Ioult prior tliereto with regard to tlu; question of separate schools in the province of On- tario, and the question of dissentient schools in the provinee of Quebec. As the founders of confederation were able to adopt certain provisions contalneil in section l)."i of the British North America Act for the purpose of finally settling those disputes, he held that to be a reason why tills coercion Bill should be passed. Now, in t' e lirst place it is evident that tlie negotiation's and the legis- lation resulting thereiroiii had no reference whatever to any other ])r()viiu'e than tlie four provinces in question. The consti- tution of Manitoba was established long after that time, and the section as to education in pursuance of any provi- sions of the British North America Act. If it were intended, at the time that settlement took place, that in the new pro- vinces of Canada as well as in the old provinces, this agreement Jis to separate schools for C.'itluilic minorities. ;ind as to dissentient schools for Protestant minori- ties, should api)ly, we would have found a provision in the British North America Act that in establishing a constitution for a new- ly-created province th(>reafter, the same provisions should lie inserted. But nothing of that kind was found in the Aet. and the provisions made with regard to the pro- vinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are quite different from the provisions made with I'egard to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Although the words are tuc r.anie in the first subsection of the clause giving to any class of persons the rights and i)rivi- leges they enjoyed at the time of the union, it is well known that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick enjoyed by law no rights and no privileges, and therefore those two pro- vinces are confined to that section providing that If, after confederation, any rights and privileges should be confeiTod by legisla- tion, there should be an appeal to tlie (iov- ernment here. So eacli province was dealt with according to its own circumstances, and nothing wliatever was said with regard to new provinces that might iift(>rwards be brought into the union, n^, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and Manitoba have been. Tlierc'fore, I fall to see what iiossible reason can be derived from the negotiations which then took place, or from the Darlia- mentaiy settlement that was made In pur- suance of those negotiations with rigard to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, why this particular Bill sliould b(^ passi^. The lion. Socrotary of liitato (Sir Charles Tuppor), all through hia speech, seemed to put tho question upon tl>o basis, that there had l)oen in Manitol)a an (Mijoymont, prior to the union, of a riyht or privile«i> by tlie Roman Catholic minority wliicli the legisla- ture of Manitoba afterwards interfered with. He repeated that statement, time and again, in that speech. It is scarcely neces- sary, it seems to me to point: out to this House, every member of whicli has very fully, for the past Ave or six years, studied and discussed tliis question, that in no way is that the question involved, because it has been determined by the Privy Council, in the case of Barrett vs. Winnipeg, that the statute of 1890 in no way affects injuriously any riglit or privilege which the Roman Catholics enjoyed at the time of the union, and the riglit which the Privy Council, in its second judgment, has determined to be- long to the minority in Mr.nitoba. is a right claimed to have arisen owing to the passage of the Scliool Act of 1871. That is the ques- ticu wo have to deal with. And the question, it .:;cyms to me, which should divide those who are for and those who are against re- medial legislation, is : Had the statute of 1871 tho effect of giving to the Roman Catho- lics in Manitoba tho right never to have that statute changed 'i And does the fact, that the statute of 1890 repeals the statute of 1871, and thus takes away the privileges con- ferred upon the Roman Catholic minority by that statute, demand, in itself, from the f^overument, in the tirst place, by its reme- dial Order in Council, and from Parliament, in the second place, by its Remedial Bill, ipso facto, without anything further, tlie in- terference of the Government and the House ? It is contended, on the pai't of the Gcvernraent, tliat the mere fact, that this statute of 1871 gives separate schools to Manitoba, and that the statute of 1890 takes aw-ay tliose separate schools, compels the House of Commons, no matter what the views of its members may be, to pass a Re- medial Bill, restoring those separate schools. Now, I take issue with that. The opponents of remedial legislation contend, that that is not a constitutional interpretation of our fundamental law there ; they contend, that that is not the decision of the Privy Council in the second cass. but that, on the contrary, what the Privy Council decided was, that the statute of 1890 having taken away from the minority certain rights and privileges conferred upon them by the statute of 1871, a case arises under the Srd subsection of section 22 of the Alanitoba Act, Avhich gives jurisdiction to the Governor General in Council to hear and determine the appeal of the Romaic Catholic minority, but, just as the Privy Council in its judgment expresses it, it is for the authorities— that is, the Gov- ernor General in Council here— to determine what relief shall be given, and the nature of the relief. It must be either one way or the other. Either we are bound, without any option, without any opportunity of dis- cussion, as a mere machine, to restore every- thing tliat was taken away, or there is tlie right i)t inquiry, and there is the responsi- bility of the Government, in tlie first placo. and Parliament afterwards, of determinins; jtist how far it is fair and riglit to tlie majority and the minority in Maui ^ba to interfere with local lt;,islatlon, which does take away any of these rights and privi- leges thus conferred. And it is our conten- tion, that the very first thing necessary, under the circumstances, is for the Gover- nor General in Council here to thoroughly understand all the circumstances, to take up the law as it was in 1871, and as it A\as airended from time to time up to 1890. to consider the rights and privileges conferred upon the minority l)y those laws, to learn ion what pretext the legislature of Manitolia in 1890 took away some of those rights and privileges, and Avhether the taking away of those rights and privileges was an luifair oiipression of the minority, or a legitimate exercise of the provincial jurisdiction in tlie matter of education. That is our conten- tion, and that is a very different matter, in- deed, from the suggestion put forward by the Secretary of State, that, the Government was merely tlie constitution. I contend, not carrying out the constitution, tend, that they are attempting to interpretation up';u the Manitoba that they are seeking to evade sponsibility in the premises. They certainly have never heard the case of Manitoba. They have only heard the ease of the minority. L'p- i on the strength of that case, they have, by in doing this. carrying out that they are I con- place an Act, and their re- j a remedial order, I the whole of their a remedial order, had been carried Manitoba, would conceded to the minority claim. They have passed the effect of which, if 't out by the legislature ot have been to restore ex- ! actly the state of things that existed in 1890. I prior to the passing of tho School Act o<: i that year, lliat is the only way in wliich I the legislature of Manitoba could have j obeyed the remedial order. Then, up to that I point tlie Government acted in accordance I with their own theory. They passed the remedial order, which correctly carries out tliat interpretation of the constitution ; but they stopped short wlien they came into this House, and presented a Bill, not in the terms of the remedial order, but another kind of a Bill. It ha.s been said, on their part, by speakers outside of this House, and proba- bly inside this House, that the Government AAould never restore to Manitoba the ineffi- cient schools which were proved to have been in existence there under the legislation prior to 1890. On what principle do they refuse to restore these inetHcient schools ? According to their own argument, they must do It. Accord'tig to their interpreta- tion of the constitution, we have no discre- tion, we have no right to inquire whether it is well for the minority that these schools should bo restored, or uot, auy more than wo arc oiitillod to iiKinire \vhc>tlior it is fair that tlie majority should liavo done as th"y have doiio. II' the mechanical theory is tlic correct one, tlien it is useless lor them to say that by their remedial legislation tliey will nialce the schools elHcient, for that is not the complaint here. The complaint is that llio Riatnte of 1S71, having confernnl a riglit or privilege— no matter how ex- treme, no matter if it had gone ten times as far as it actually did go—it is binding for all time, and tliat if the local legislature of Manitoba r(>peais that Act, or intorf(M'es witii it, wo are l)onnd, under the interpretation put forward l)y the GovcM-nmont, to give 1)aclv to them what was taken away, whe- ther we think it is right or not, whether we think it is fair or not. But, Mi'. Speaker, that contention they have entirely failed to carry out. And why ? Why lias the Bill, as presented here, failed to follow the terms of the remedial ord'^r ? Because, in spite of the Government's decision to close their ears, in siiite of their decision to act witliont any investigation into the con- ditions in Manitoba, facts have come to tlieir knowledge since the passing of the remedial order which have shown them that these Rcliools were inefficient, that there were many reasons why the legislature of Manitoba were quite ,;nstified in dealing with the state of things as it existed in I^Ianitolia prior to ISDO. And they admit tlint iiy snying tliat tliey will not, in their Bill, givo to the minority the relief that tlie remedial order givo,^. but they will temper that by making, of their own accord. ]irovl- sions Avbicli did uot exist in the old law. and which they propose to put in now, for tlie purpose of making tliese scliools effi- cient. Surely they must be wrong, eitlier in one Instance or in the other. If we are a mere machine in tliis matter, if wo have no discretion, then the only thing that we can do is to pass the Remedial Bill in the terms of the remedial order, giving back to the minority in Manitolia whatever they had before, without any attempt to inquire whether whnt they liad before Avas riglit or wrong, fair or unfair. if, on the other hand, avo have the right to do as the Government have done in presenting their Bill, if avo have the risrht to take in- to consideration the circumstances, to lool-: at the law th.at Avas pnssed. and mnke up our minds upon our responsiliility as legis- lators, bOAV far we will restore tliese Bcbools, hoAV far we Avill imnnse conditions upon the restored schools, with the view of making them more effective in t1io interest of the minority, for wliose bonefit they Avere est'iblished, if that is our duty in makinsr a Remedial Bill, surely it folloAvs that that was the course that the Government should have taken in connection with the remedial order. And I say. Mr. Sneaker, that there is Avhere the whole difficulty in this ques- tion has nrisen. as t shall shoAv when T come to deal with the sugsres+ions whioh the fact tiiat there Canada a great deal very hostile criticism and he endeavoured have been made, and nre being made, day after day, pointing to a compromise or settl(Mnent of this (luestiou througli the Manitoba government. Now, the Minister of .Tustico recognized had been tliroughout of very uufavouraliie, of the remedial order; to shoAV that on the 21st March, 1805, Avlien it was passed tliero was really uo course open to the (JoAoru- meut l)Ut to pass tlie remedial order in the terms in Avhich it is couclied. liOt mo ex- amine for a few mom(>nts the reasons given by the lion. Minister in support of tliis con- tention. In tlie first place, he said, it Avas Aveil knoAvn that Manitolia inteiuled to do nothing in the premises, and. as a proof of that very broad and. I must say, vcn-y un- true statement, he instances tlie fact that in 1891 a communication Avas sent from the Government here calling tlie attention of INIanitoba, and also of the Xortli-Avo.st Ter- ritorit>s to the unfair position of tiioir school legislation, as affecting Ronum Catholics, and that, in answer, the government of Manitoba sent a communication slating tliat they Avere satisfied Avitli their scliool legis- lation, and did not intend to depart from it. Surely, INIr. Speaker, it cannot be argued tliat tliat AA'as any indication of the ]>osi- tiou tliat Manitoba Avould take in vi(>AV of the present position of tlie question. For tliat correspondence tooli place before the decision of the Privy Council Avas knoAvn, and the decision of the Privy Coun- cil entirely altered tiie position of Mani- toba. The government of Manitoba have never said that tlK>y intended to defy tlie constitution , they have ahvays admitted that they Avere bound by the constitution. But In 1891 th(?re Avas no decision Avliich made It clear to them. Therefore, anything they may liaA'o said or dime ]irior to tliat decision is no Indication Avhat ilieir posi- tion Avould be after tliey had the decision of tlie highest tribunal in the land pointing out to them the position in which the pro- Aince Avas placed, and shoAving them that in case they refused to redress these griev- ances the GoA-ernment hero and tliis Parlia- ment had the poAver to take the sub.i(>ct of education out of their hands, and h^irislate for them. The next thing tliat the lion. Minister of Justice cites as an indication of the position of Manitoba is the speech from the Throne, in 189.">. and this, I may say, is the only indication whatever that Manitoba had given, up to tlio time of the passing of the remedial order, of what their position would be. I will road it. and I ask the House to consider whether what is said in the Speech from the Throne in ^innitoba. in 1895. is couched in .such language as to induce the Government here to believe that there Avas no use in attempting to negotiate Avith Manitoba upon this question. These are the words : It is not the intention of my Government In any Avay to recede from Its determination to up- % 6 hold the present public school aystem which, If left to its own operation, would in all proba- bility soon become universal throughout the pro- vince. Now, Mf. Spciiker, It soems to nio, that Is a very iiKtdorate assertion of the rinlit, of the Intention, of the province to stand by its l»>(;islation. Tliere is no suwKeslion there tliat tliey do not propose to be bound l)y the constitution ; there is no suKKcsHon tiiere lliat ti.ey are not prepared to receive coiniuunlcations, to enter into negotiations witli tills (joverunient with regard to that matter. Yet tliat is really the only evidence that is put forward l)y the (lovernnieut as tft any indication of its attitude given by tlic le^'lslature of Manitoba >rior to the 121st Marcli. 189."), when they, ,,'itliout any iu- (luiry, on the shortest possible notice to Manitoba, Avitliout any endeavour to inves- tifjate tlie fiicts. passed tlie remedial order, which, Mr. Si)eaicer, I say is an order cailini,' upon Mauitol)a to restore tlie old law jusr, a ; It was, with inellicieiit s(;hools and every- thing else, no matter what mifJiht be con- tained in liiose statutes that were iu force prior to ISOO— all iuid to be restored. Now, let me read the niaterl.il part of the reme- dial order in proof of what 1 have to say. After reciting all the facts, the remedial order, the kernel of it, is this : The rights and privileges of the Roman Ca- tholic minority of the said province in relation, to education prior to the 1st day of May, 1890, have been affected by depriving the Roman Ca- tholic minority of the following rights and pri- vilege^ "^'-h, previous to and until the 1st day of Ma , su^h minority had, viz. : — (a.) 'i :ht to build, maintain, equip, man- age, conuu.i, and support Roman Catholic schools In the manner provided for by the said statutes, which were repealed by the Acts of 1890 afore- said. (b.) The right to share proportionately in any grant made out of the public funds for the pur- poses of education. (c.) The right of exemption of such Roman Catholics as contribute to Roman Catholic schools from all payments or contributions to the support of any other schools. Tliose Avere the three things wliich the Roman Catholic minority were deprived of by these Acts, and the remedial order goes on to say : And His Excellency the Goveinor General in Council was further pleased to declare and de- cide, and it is hereby declared that it seems re- quisite that the system of education embodied in the two Acts of 1890 aforesaid, shall be sup- plemented by a provincial Act or Acts which will restore to the Roman Catholic minority the said rights and privileges of which such minority has been so deprived as aforesaid. Not any modification, not any change, but restore those rights and privileges of which such minority has been so deprived as afore- said. And which will modify the said Acts of 1890, so far and so far only as may be necessary to give effect tP the provisions restoring the rights and privileges in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), herein- before mentioned. Now, Mr. Speaker, could words b(> clearer ? Is it possible to state in more detlnlte Ian- gunge, that wliat they are called upon to do is to restore tliose statutes In ;>o far as they afl'ected the Roman Ciilholic minority, ex- tvctly !is they were, witliout any regard to wlietlier th'-re was anything in tliem provid- ing for elliciency, without any regard to any matters of detail, witliout any otiier eonsid- eiation at all, except tin" one fact, that tliey should iiave those scliools as they were be- fore, tliat they could not be taken away from them, and, if tliey wen; taken away from them, or if tliere wms an attempt to ti'ke them away, liy tlie iociii legislature, then thia Government and tills I'arliament intervened to restore tliem, not because they were right, not liecauso they were fair, but because tlie constitution compelled us to give them back those schools exactly as they were. Now, the Minister of Justice said that the remedial order did not say tliat. He said it pointed out, by recital, the judg- ment of the I'rivy Council. I would like to \ ask the Minister of Justice : If you are : reading a. document, or a deed, do you look for the recitals for what the deed is to pass? Uo you look at the recitals, or do you look at tlie operative pai't? I say, that you liave got to look at what they are ordered to do. i'he remedial order orders tliem to do some- thing. It recites the, facts and the circum- stances which have led up to the passing of the order. The Minister of Justice says it recited the judgment of the Privy Council, and the remarks of these judges that it would not be necessary to repeal the Acts of 1890. Well, I suppose, no one has contended tliat : it has nev(,'r been contended by any one, that it would be necessary absolutely to repeal the Acts of 1890, because it is ad- mitted, on ail hands, that it had the right to change, as we did change, the constitution of tlie Protestant board. But what the re- medial order does, is to say, that you must cliange the Act of 1890 so as to give these three things to tlie Roman Catholics ; there is uo qualification, there is no suggestion whatever in the remedial order itself, that anything less than a complete compliance with it would be an answer to it, and it was so interpreted by the people of Manito- ba. When it was laid before the legislature, the legislature took the ground that they could not obey it, and they refused to do so. I sliall allude later on to suggestions made by the legislature in making that refusal. But what I am trying to emphasize now is, that the Government had precluded them- selves and had precluded the government of Manitoba, from entering into any negotia- , tions, from proposing or suggesting any com- promise, from doing anything at all, except what they did, that is, in a dignified manner to refuse to obey the remedial order. I say, that, so far as that aspect of the case is concerned, the whole difficulty in which the- ;), hereln- cloiuvr ? iiito Ijin- »(>ii to do as tlioy rity, ox- v'Ain-d to I provhl- (1 to iiiiy r conskl- liiU they WL'i'o be- ll away II away tempt to ;4isliiture, I'lianiont use tliey fair, but (1 us to :ac'tly as f Justice say that, tho judg- Id like to you are you look 5 to pass? you look you have od to do. do some- eircum- )assiug of ?e says it ^ Council, s that it le Acts of contended d by any ibsolutely i it is ad- e right to nstitution It tho rfi- you must :ive these cs ; there uggestion self, that )mpllance t, and it f Manito- gislature, ;iiat they to do so. 3ns made ; refusal, e now is, ed them- ument of negotia- , any com- II, except d manner I'. I say, i case is i'hich the- Government finds Itself to-day, and In wiiifh this rariiaiiH'ut tlnds liself to-day, has arisen from tlie fact, that tlie (lovernment have passed tills exceedingly drastic, this exceedingly far-reaching Order in Council, without, as 1 say, attempting to exercise any discretlou In the matter, pretending that tliey were a nu're machine ; and now, when they liiul tliat tiicy arc uot able to propose to Bill in the terms of Older, tliey begin to think They began to think time for negotir.lion. tills House a I lie remedial of negotiations, of compromise. The the thiK! for compro- mise, the time for consideration, the time for inquiry and for investigation, was be- fore Judgment, and not after judgment. These hon. genth'men, acting in a judicial capacity, have given judgment. Tliey ar(> about to proceed with execution, and tliey hesit!it(> in executing tlieir own judginent, and send Sir Donald Smith to Winnipeg to see if there is not some possibility of tlic government of Manitoba doing something, anything to get them out of this lioU>. even If it was only to ihrow out a suggestion. I believe at the present moment they are on tlieir knees to Mr. (TrecMiway, lm])lor!ng hiiji to come to Ottawa in order that tliey may say that he is coming here for tlie pur- pose of settling the difHculty. Settling what difticultj ? Getting the Government out of the trouble in which they have plac- ed themselves by passing this mopt unfortu- nate remedial order. It may be that Mr. Greenway will come here. I can scarcely see how he can avoid It. on tlie principle he has laid down, bec.nnse he has said, tini" and again : We admit the constitution, we do not dispute the decision of the Privy Council : we desire to control our educa- tional affairs ; we .'ulniit you have jurisdic- tion to take them out of our hands ; wo are prepared to do justice in the premises, to give every facility for investigation, and if, after Investigation, a case is made? agai:ist ns, we are prepared to make matters right ourselves. We do not desire coercion ; we do not desire to be interfered with. But I can say this, that if Mr. Greenway does come here, that will be no sign and no in- dication that there is any hope whatever th.at the government of Manitoba will do anything in the premises. They cannot do It. Tlvo Government here have rendered it impossible for them to do it. Every attempt has been made. His Excellency sent for Mr. Gref^nway and Mr. Sifton. They came here. They met His Excellency, aiid they discussed the question with him. Nothin'j came of it-. Sir Donald Smith went to Win- nineg. He met Mr. Greenway and Mr. Sifton. They discussed the question to- gether, and nothing came of It. Nothin'r \A'I]1 come of any negotiations or anv at- tempt at compromise or settlement of tliis onestlon. unless one thinsr is done, find th" Government were early in the dnr inform- ed of that. Tf they are prepared to retrace the false step, if they are prepared to re- lieal the remedial order, and place tiie mat- ter l»ack wliere It was when liiey madi' that fatal blunder, tlie door of negotiation, the door of comproinlst' will be (.pened, and they may have some chance of obtaining what all hon. meml)ers in this House, on bolii sides, would deem to be the most fortunate result tliat could occur under the circumstances, a settlement of tliis case by Manitoba herself, and one satisfiu'tory to tlie minority. The .Miidsler of .lusric(>, "it Is true, in ref<>rrlng to tlie conimimic'itionM which passed in IS'Jl, jind tlie Spcecli from the Tlirone in ISO."), threw out the sugges- tion that sonu'thing had happened since the passing of the remedial oi-d(>r as a justillca- tlon of his position. He stated tlial tlie hon. member for \orth Simco(> (Mr. Mc- r.-irtliy) had stated, in .Inly last, in this IIou.se that Manitoba conid not rec('(l(> from her position. Surely nothing that occiin-ed after the passing of the remedial order could be any justification for the passing of that order ; and I can say this, that what the lion, member for Xorth Slincoe meant by saying that Manitoba could not reeede from its position was, as T have b(>en endeavouring to exiiiain, that tiie people of Manitoba considei-ed tlie remedial order a, most harsh judgment given against tlnMU In their absence, without any opportunity, on their ])art, to meet tlu» case made .•vj.'iinst them, and they believed they were justified in the interest of the province In answering tii.'it remedial order by a dignified rcrusal to obey it. The legislature of Manltolia liad, I believe, <^he apjirovai of nineleen- twentietlis of ilie people of that province in their answer to that order, and surely, under those ci;"cumstances, hon. niembers could not expect the government to recede from th(Mr position : they could not do it if they desir(Hl, for they wonhl lose the pub- lic confidence Avliich they now enjoy to so lar!:re an extent if they receded one iota from the position they took in .Tune in an- swer to that order. But that is all tliey h.ave done. They have never said tliey would refuse to do justice in the premises. They have only said they would not obey the remedial order. I therefore say that until and unless the remedial order is re- scinded, and the question put back where it Avas on 21st March, there can be no hope of any settlement oi* any comprf>mise. There is an Incidental feature of this case to which, at this stage. T may refer, .and that is the appearance In the printed doeu- menfs tliat have boon laid before lliis House of a number of atTidavits which were pre- sented to the Goveriior General In Ooiiiicil by Mr. Ewart on behalf of the minority, but whir-l! were Avitlidra wii. The hon. mem- ber for PIctou. the ex-MInister of .Tustieo, boldly justified the coi:rse of the Go-crii- ment in printluir tliose .affidavits. But [ wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in l.SO." the Government wore challeuired with the imnronriety of printing affidavits which were withdrawn or not al- ii lowi'fl to ho ontcrcd, affidiivltH on \vlil
  • case certain ailldavlt evidence was j)resented l)y tlu' pl.vinfilT, an»i lor one rea- son or another, was vitlidrawn. and nut entered, and not considered Ity the court in its judgment, yet, on certifying' a case, as the court is l)ouiid to do, for repeal to the Supronu? Court of Canada, llie court slionld Include in that cast; for iippeal llie a(11- davils tliat liad been withdrawn. ^^'l!y, if would l»e considered an outrage \u that case, and it is nil the more an outrajjc on the part of the CJovornniont, because if a court is bound to lie f;ilr, how much more 1 ^ the Governor Oeiu'ral in Council, the r(>pre- sentativ(! of the Queen, bound to be fair in a matter of this kind. And so the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Dickey) consid(M'ed It at th;it time. Last session the matter came up on the motion of the hon. n]em1)er for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), and Mr. ]>ick(>y with regard to that matter spoke as fol- lows :— Mr. DICKEY. I desire to make a personal ex- planation, not to offer any remarks on tlio sub- ject before tiio Mouse. The hou. member for North Slnicoe (Mr. McCarthy) referred to the publlahing of some allldavits which were put in evidence at the hearinq; before the Privy Council of Canada, and aulisequently withdrawn as the case proceeded. The hon. tjentleman seemed to feel that that was a great injustice, not only to himself but to others, and the present Govern- ment as an organization has quite enough faults to answer for without answering for my personal faults, and I therefore desire to take the personal responsibility of publishing those affidavits. They were put in and read, and subsequently, as the proceedings show, were withdrawn. Mr. Ewart claimed they should be printed, and there was no contest over it. In fact, the question was never raised. I was then Secretary of State, and the Printing Bureau sent and asked me whether they were to be printed, the message being re- ceived by me Just as I was going into the room on the second or third morning, and without con- sulting ray colleagues and without giving the matter serious attention, I said, " Certainly, they are part of the proceedings, print them, and print that they were withdrawn." I may have been entirely wrong, perhaps I was ; I must say, on considering the matter when the printed book was placed in my hands, I thought I had made a mistake. What I want to say is that any ob- servation founded on want of good faith or on the Idea that there was any intention on the part of the Government in so acting is entirely mis- taken. \Vc are still subject, and I personally and particularly am subject to any remarks as to any practical injustice that has been done, but I do not want the House to suppose that there was any intention in placing the affidavits there, of taking any unfair advantage, and that there was anything more than a mistake made. Tht mis- take occurred Inadvertently, and the hon. members may refer to It as they think proper, but they should consider it not an intentional and wrong act. .Now, Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me t'lat is a most manly, liouourable, and strai,^ht- forward e.xplanailon, and it was so accepted liy the House. Itiii what do we Iind lids ses- sion V W(> Iind the lion, the e.x-.Mlnister of .Justice comiuu forward boldly, and clnim- inu it was riulit, ciaimlnj; then' was nothin;? wronu about it, tliat it was dou(Mlelli»crately and inteulioiiaily, and that it was Juslitiable. I say, Mr. SpeaUtM-. thai it is an outrage. I say tiiat no greater wrou« (!ould l)e done than to ]>ublish evidence' witlidrawn by tho plaintiff, and ni'ver allowed to lie answered, it is sometimes suf;Kcsted ; but wiiy do you not answer these allidavils now. Wliy, tluit is worse than what I was talUiuK about ; it is s^'ttlin^' the case after .iud«ment. Tliey want us to j^ive our evidence after Jud^nnent lias been rendered apiinst us. What is the obJ(>ct of that V I suppose If we answered tlu'se atlldavits now, there would be counter nttidavits In reply, and the nnitter nd^ht tio on for some time. Hut I say this, Mr. Speaker : There is an answer to tlu'se alfi- davits. I can say furtlier, tinit thesi; alll- davits are not true so far as they refer to a. lion^i of mine. 1 do not jiropose to discuss them iu're. or to consider tliem at all in con- nection with this case. They were not made a part of the case. 1 never knew of th&m until after Judjinient was given. It is so manifestly unfair, and against the Ideas of .justice, that tliese allidavits sliould be pub- lished, tliat one wouhl have thought that no governnu'ut wouhl do it, no nuitter how de- ]»raved, no nnitter how lost to all idea of fair- play and decency, as this Government iu many cases has shown itself to be. Surely one would tldnk they would have euougli manliness, and enough decency, and enougli fai)"ness. not to attempt to prejudice the people of Canada, by sending broadcast, with the otticial stamp, docunn-uts that are no documents at all. affidavits that are not atfl- davits in this case, and which were with- drawn and never considered. Yet, with a view of attempting to influence the people of Canada, this Government have descended to this petty means. What do you think of a govei-nment capable of that ? Were it not that this is in entire accordance with their conduct in many instances, my surprise ■would be greater than It really is. Mr. AMYOT. Are you talking about St. FranQois Xavier now ? Mr. MARTIN. Yes, with regard to St. Francois Xavier. What does the hon. mem- ber (Mr. Amyot) think with regard to that ? :Mr. AMYm\ If the hon. gentleman will allow me to tell him, I will tell him. . Mr. MARTIN. Yes. Mr. AMY'^OT. I think it was a most extra- ordinary way of imposing upon the people by false promises. False promises were made, while it seems it was the intention of the 9 I camlldato, and tif tlio (jrovenuiioiu at tlio time to di'c'olvo tho people. Mr. MAUTI.N. Now, -Mr. Speaker, tlioie ve have au example of what we are com philniii^' of. Even a niemher ol' this House has iilldwd his Jvul^iiieiu to be lulliu'iiced by tbe.'L' .'iflldavits. lOveii a lawyer, and a QiK'on's Couusel I am told Mr. .A^IYOT. Yes, and able to read. Mr. MARTIN. I do not think that tiie title of (^.C. adds an., /ery Ki'i'ut lustre to tile hon. Ki'iitleman's position. Mr. AMVOT. 1 do not a^reo with the opinion of the lion, yentleman. Mr. DALY. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Martin) is not one. Mr. MARTIN. I do not thluic that title adds any very ;;reat lustre to the hon. ^'ontle- man'.s position, (.'onsiderin>,' that ever.v tiftli- class luwyer in the country is a tjueeu's Couusel. Mr. DALY. E.xcept yourself. Mr. MARTIN. If he is a ^'oi-y. Mr. DALY. 1 suppose you iucluv! the Attorney General of ^lanltoba. Mr. MARTIN. But, he is nor a Tory. A dislinf,niislied Queen's Counsel siiid to me the otlier day in Winnipej;, that ho wislied he could f;et rid of his riglit to be a Queen's Couusel, because, h(> said, nov.-adays ir, is a greater distinction not to be a Queen';:! Counsel thnn to bo one. Why, my opponent In the city of Winnipeg, a very resi»oetable lawyer but a gentleman who hardly ever ap pears in court, when he was defeated, he was made a Queen's Counsel. Mr. SOMERVILLE. He was not paid any money. Mr. MARTIN. No. Here we have tiie hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Auiyot), a lawyer, a Queen's Counsel, and a member of this House, actually telling me what he thinks of what occurred in Manitoba, l>ased on statements contained in these atftdavits. If the hon. gentleman were a .judge would he express the slightest opinion upon a case, either of the defendant or the plaintiff, based upon affidavits which the other side had not had an opportunity of answering V Mr. AMYOT. I do not speak of these affi- davits. I speak of the facts of the case as they appeared at St. Frangois Xavier. It was promised there, that if the Greenway , candidate was elected, and if the govern- ment of Mr. Greenway succeeded, tliat never would the Catholic schools be touch- ed, that never would the French language be interfered with, and that the territorial divisions would not be changed. But im- mediately after, when on account of tliese solemn promises the Greenway candidate j was elected ; the first opportunity was taken I by that government, to deprive the French j of their schools, of their language, and of their terrlfori.'tl divisions. Tlu> hon. member (.Mr. Miirtlu) lias hiid •■Iglit yenrs to confra- d!fl tlnit, aiKl he never could cnutradiet It, .•ind Ik' never will be able to contratliet It. Mr. MARTIN. These are the very nllldav- lls I hiive referred to. The hon. geptleman wiM tiiid them on piige T.'it ol' tiie jkiimm's in rcfei'iMU'e to ttu; .>ianlt<>b;! seiioul cnse, pre- sented to I'.'irllaiiU'iU during llie session of lSn,'». The first one he will find is iiii alll- deny llieir truHifiiiness. .Mr. MARTIN. I S!iy, I am able to deny the trutlifiiliiess of the statements ninde in those nllidavits : but I never had an opiior- tunity (if doing so, liecause tiiey were with- drawn. The gentl by me, to discredit through me the 1890 Act of Manitoba, I de- sire to explain just what I did. I have no- thing to witlidraw. I stand liy every word that I have said on this question. But T protest against the unfair manner in which advocates of the Government have misre- presented my attitude witli regard to this que.stion. Last year, on the 25th June, while the House was in session, having observed in one of the jiapers here, that the hon. Min- ister of Public Works (Mr. Ouimet) had stated in au interview, that, if the Roman 10 Catholics were allowed to have religious ex- ercises in their schools iu Manitoba, they would be perfectly prepared to accept the 1890 Act; as it was, I wrote the following' letter to the " Citizen " newspaper of this city :— Editor Citizen, — I notice in j'our Issue of to- day's an interview with tlie Hon. Mr. Oulmet, from whicli the following is au extract : — However, it won! . be idle to discuss that now as no legislation has been asked by the Catholics of Manitoba giving them the right to share in the funds provided for education by the Government or by the local authorities if their schools are not up in secular teaching, to the public schools of the province. All that they ask Is to be at liberty to add to the secular education required in the public schools such religious teaching as will meet their religious views. I may say that if that had been provided for in the -legislation of ISSO, we would never have heard of the Mani- toba schools question. There has been all along a very serious mis- understanding between the Roman Catholic church and tlie people of Manitoba, if the above is an accurate statement of the position of the church. 1 suppose, however, that we must take for granted that Col. Oulmet is in a position to formulate the wishes of the Roman Catholics in connection with this question. If so, then I may say at once that there is no need of any remedial legislation In order to bring about such a state of alfairs. I believe the people of Mani- toba would be willing to give the Roman Ca- tholics all that is asked fcr. Everybody wislies that a solution of the ques- tion may be found without any coercion on the part of the Dominion Parliament, and if the de- mands of the minority are correctly expressed by the Minister, I am very much at sea In my acquaintance with the views of the Manitoba people, if they will not bring about of their own accord all that is asked. When I Introduced the School Bill of 1890, I pointed out that in so far as It provided for re- ligious exercises in the schools, it was in my opinion defective. I am one of those who deny the right of the state to interfere in any way with niatters of religion. I said then, and I still think that the clause of the 1890 Act, which provides for certan religious exercises, is most unjust to Roman Catholics. If the state is to recognize religion in its school legislation, such a recogni- tion as is acceptable to Protestants only, and in fact only to a majority, of Protestants, Is, to my mind, rank tyranny. The desire of those with whom I think in this matter is to eliminate every question of a religious nature from the school laws and to make the school laws purely secular. This has not been done in Manitoba, and that course is apparently not supported by a major- ity of the people there. That being so, surely it will be admitted that the nature of the re- ligious exercises or religious teaching (I am un- able to make any clear distinction between the two) should be such as is agreeable to the con- sciences of those whose money is taken to sup- port the schools. I have sulTicient faith in the liberality of the Manitoba people to declare on their behalf that if a final settlement of this question can be reached upon the lines suggested by Col. Oulmet, they will do their part. What Manitoba has insisted upon is that the Roman Catholics shall not have a system of separate schools such as existed prior to 1890, which were exempt from the general laws as to efficiency. If the Roman Catholics are willing to accept the I schools as they exist at present and as they may from time to time be modified with the addition of such religious teaching as they may desire, then there should be and I am sure would be no difficulty in reaching a settlement of the whole question without any legislation on the part of the Dominion Parliament. Youra truly, JOSEPH MARTIN. Ottawa, June 25th, 1895. Now, Sir, I still adhere to every word in that letter ; and I again make the statement, that, if this is the only objection that tlie Roman Catholics have to our legislation in Manitoba— that there are religious exercises there which are not acceptable to them, though acceptable to Protestants— the people of Manitoba, in order to settle this question, would be willing to remove from their schools all religious exercises. If tliat were not done and it were insisted upon by I'ro testa nts that the religious ex- ercises which are acceptable to them should remain tliore, tlie people of Mnnitol)a would be prepared to give those schools In Catholic districts tlie same right to have religious ex- ercises suitable to them. I have no doubt of tliat. And if it were not so, if the peo- ple of Manitoba were prepared to consider tlie conscience of Protestants and not the conscience of C'atholics, they Avould l)e guilty of the rankest tyranny ; and knowing the people of ]\Ianitol)a as I know them, J. am satisfied (hat they would not rest umhn* any such imputation. I aai opposed myself ro any religious exercises in the schools, simply for the reason that I consider that we have no right to deal with the question of religion in the legislature. I believe it I is one of the subjects that, under the Bri- 1 tish North America Act, belongs neither to 1 the Dominion Parliament nor the local legis- j latnre.s— the determining of what religion a I citizen of Canada shall profess or be tau^rht. i That, it seems to mo, is something, under our constitution, over which none of our legis- I latures have control or should have con- > trol. and I say that any attempt to deal ' with the question of religion in a community wlio are not all of the same religion, is , wrong. I say further, in support of the stand ' I take, tliat the schools should be seculai', and that, so far as the religious exercises provided I'or by law in Manitoba are con- cerned, tliey are of no importance what- 1 ever. Tliey are merely formal, and I may : say that one of the leading divines of the Prosliyterian Church in Manitolia. when 1 put the (]uestion to him : Do you consider ; tlint the reading of rliose passages of Scrip- ture and tlie praypis provided have any ef- fect at all upon tlie religious education of tlie children in tlie schools, he admitted to iMo that they had not, that the matter was one nuroly of sentiment, and that the renson he desired those religious exercises was In order that the people miglit not 1-e able to say that we had godless schools. Now, surely there is nothing iu tlint. If religious 11 may lition !slre, )e no vhole rt of excrcisi's are oi' such purely formal cliar aeter as to have no effect upon the charac- ter or the relifjious education of the children, then surely we can well afford, ratlier than have any citizen of that countiy feel that he is Imposed upon in his conscientious be- lief, to do away with that small modicum of religious exercises. That is the stand I take ; and I must say this, that the wrong is about as small as can be under the circiunsfances, because, in tlie first place, the question of havins; religious ex- ercises is entirely within the control of the trustees in each district. If the trustees are. as they may be under the Act, all Catholics, or a majority Catholic, they can refuse to have these religious exercises. If they are I'rotestants who think like me, who are opposed to religious exercises on the ground that I take, they can refuse to have them ; and I must say that I be- lieve in the majority of school districts in Manitolm tlify do not have them, l! l)elievo, in actual practice, most of the schools in Manitoba are .irodless schools in the sense In which I refer to them. Therefore, I say it was a great mistake that wlien we wero making this Act of 1890, we did not elimi- nate from it all suggestions of any attempt to intluence the cliildren one way or the other, iu a? religious sense. Because the mo- ment you go beyond the purely formal ex- ercises in the schools, you get at once into trouble. The moment you attempt to incul- cate religious dogma in a mixed community, tlie question is, what dogma ? Even amongst Protestants, supiiosing tliere are no Catho- lics, the question would be whethei- you would inculcate Christianity, as understood by the Prosl)yterians or by the Episcopa- lians. If you are going to have religion as one of the subjects to be taught in tlie schools, it follows that tlie teacher must be competent to give religious instruction. Therefore, he must be examined upon reli- gion. What is to be the test ? Is lie to answer questions according to the Episco]ia- liau. the P.aptist, the Methodist or the Pres- byterian view ? Mr. DAVIN, I want just for my own information and tlie information of the House, to ask my lion, friend, who was Min- ister in Manitoba at the time. I believe, whether one set of districts and one set of inspectors and one set of trustees wore nil abolished, and one set retained— wheth whatever on the sul)ject. The hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) refers to a matter which is being put for- ward as an objection to tlie 1S90 Act. It may lie that it is an objection, it may be th.'it perliaps there niiglit have lieen some unfairness in tliat respect, but I do not thii'k so. 'I'lie ISOO Act abolished all the old laws and started out with a new system en- tirely. It interfered as fully and as completely with tlie Protestant schools as it did with the lloman Catholic schools. There were two Boards of Education. One was composed exclusively of Catholics and had entire control of matters in Catliu- lic schools, and the other was composed en- tirely of Protestants and had entire con- trol ' in Protestant schools. The govern- ment, of which I was a member, being a Liberal government, being imbued with the idea that the government should bear full resiionsibility for the expenditure of all money entrusted to them for the carrying out of the laws, in 1890, came to the con- clusion that that system was not right, re- garding it from that standpoint. Tliey held that the government had no right to hand over to a board of Catliolics or a board of Protestants a large amount of govern- ment money, and allow that board to spend the money and regulate these schools, and thus relieve themselves from all responsi- bility as to the manner in which those schools were carried on. They believed that it was the duty of the government to see to the execution of the school laws. For that reason they abolished both boards. The point that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) more particularly alluded to. as 1 understand it, was with re- gard to school trustees. Now, there was, in most cases, no difliculty. In most cases throughout the province the Catholic school districts were quite separate and apart from the Pron^stant districts, and the law was the same in both cases. The old district was declared to be n new district under the new law, and the old trustees-in the case of n Catholic district, the Catholic trustees, and in the case of a Protestant district, the Protestant trustees— were continued in office until the next election. When the next election came round, every person who own- . ed land in the school district, whether he 12 was a Protestant or a Roman Catholic, was a latepayer iinfler the law, and was entitl- ed to vote in the election for trustees. There were, however, one or two cases in the pro- vince where the school districts were co- tormiaus, the Protestant and Catholic dis- tricts covering the same territory. Some special provision had to be made for these Ciisos. I do not tliinii that lliis occurred in nuy other place than the city of Wiunipofr. The statute provided that in such cases tlie Protestant board should be the scliool board under the statute until the next election. Now. it may be that there was some slight unfairness in that. P.ut, in discussing that provision, I stated to the House tliat if the Roman Catholic members of the House thought that it was not fair, the government were prepared to change it in any direc- tion thoy suggested. It was a, matter of very small importance. This was in the mouth of May, and in December the annual school trustee elections came on, and it was a mere question whether we should order a special election In Winnipeg in May to choose trustees for the unexpired portion of the year, or continue the Catholic or the Protestant board in control of school mat- ters until the regular time for the election. Strictly spealting. it was not exactly fair to continue tlie Protestant board in operation even for that short time. But, as I have stated, I offered to make any clinnge that tlie Roman Catholic members of the legisla- ture might suggest. They declined to malte any suggestions, taking the ground, which. T think, was not unfair, from their stand- point, that they thought the law un^^onstitu- tional, and would not be responsible for any part of it. They were wrong, as it turned out. This has been put forward as a sti'ong argument as against our course, but I think that if there was a wrong, it was a trifling one, and I am sure that if they had made any suggestions, their vicAvs would have been met. Now, I desire to say a few words with re- gard to the effect of the Manitoba Act upon this qnestlon in supplement to what I have already said wiih regard to the remedial order. T take +h5s stand. Mr. Speaker— I believe that the Remedial Rill which is now before us for considoration is wholly un- constitutional and ultra vires, and T shall endeavoui" to satisfy the House of the cnr- rectness of that position from a constitu- tion nl standpoint. ?Tow do we get .lurisdic- tion in this matter ? How does it come that this Parliament is entitled to deal with education in Manitoba it having been pro- vid'^d in the Manitoba Act that the pro- vince shall have exclusive jurisdiction in educational matters. Our lurisdiction arises from the fnct that the Privy Council in Rnirlfind have interpreted the subsections of section 22, which conferred the jurisdif- tlou ns to education upon Manitoba to mean this : That if Manitoba, at any time, pnsses a statute which gives riarhts or privi- leges to the minority, and afterwards re- peals that statute, there shall be a riglit of appeal to the Go\ernor General in Coun- cil, and to Parliament. Subsection 3 pro- vides as follows :— In cas9 any sucli provincial law, as from time to time seems to the Governor General lu Coud- cll requisite for the due execution of the pro- visions of this section Is not made, or In case any decision of the Governor General In Council on any api)ettl under this section Is not duly executed by the proper provincial authority in that behalf, then, and in every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case re- quire, the Parliament of Canada may make re- medial law for thr due execution of the provi- sions of this section, and of any decision of the Governor General in Council under this section. When are they to make it V In case such provincial laws are not made. Now, Mr. Speaker, has the legislature of Manitoba ever had tha opportunity of passing, as a provincial law, the Remedial Bill which is proposed for our consideration ? Never. They have never been asked to pass it. And I say that is the source of the juris- diction of this House— tliat there should have been a first refusal of the legislature of Manitoba to enact such provincial law as " seems to the Governor General in Coun- cil requisite for the due execution of the provisions of this section." Tlfat is one reason. Another reason is that the Gov- ernor in Council has never determined that this Remedial Bill which we are asked to pass is requisite for the due execution of tlie provisions of section 22. I say that this Parliament has no jurisdiction to pass an Act upon the subject of education in Mani- toba until the Governor General in Council, as provided in section 22, has passed an oi'der providing for that Act. And another circumstance must intervene, and that is that the order must be trans^^mitted to tlit legislature of Manitoba and they must re- fu.^o to pass the Act. Now, neither of these things luis been done— there has l)een no Order in Council by the Governor General providing that this provincial law shall be enacted by Manitoba ; there has been no refusal of the legislature of Manitoba to enact tlds provincial law. We propose to coerce Manitoba by this Bill. We propose to usurp the jurisdiction of Manitoba, which I grant, under certain cir- cumstances, we have the right to do, and we are bound to do. But 1 say those cir- cumstances must arise. It is suggested that the remedial order goes further than this, and will Include any Bill not exceeding the remedial order. I say no ; I say that you are just as far wrong when you fall short of the remedial order as when you exceed it. Because the whole thing comes down to this. Has Manitoba ever refused to pass this law ? It Is suggested by some that it cannot make any difference ; that Manltolia has been asked to restore the schools as they were. In answer to that request of the Gov- ernment upon them they might have passed this Act ; therefore they have had an oppor- 13 tunlty to pass It, and it was uo injustice to them for tliis House to do so. I thlnli that is an absurd argumeut. We do not get this jurisdiction as a matter of justice or in- justice to Manitoba ; we do not get this juris- diction as a matter of fair-play to Manitoba ; we only get it under certain circumstances, and those circumstances must arise before we have tlie jurisdiction. It malies no dilSer- ence whether Manitoba has had a chance to do it or not. You might as well say that you need never send a remedial order to Mani- toba. An argument of tliat kind proves alto- gether too much, because, if the transmis- sion of a broad remedial order which cover- ed everytliing, Avhich restored the schools just as they were, gave Manitoba an oppor- tunity of legislating thus far. then there was really no necessity of sending it to them at all. You might say wo have got jurisdiction here, because they should never have gone wrong. It is clear that if they have gone wrong, they shoulil not have gone wrong ; therefore there is uo injustice in putting them right. But our jurisdiction does not arise from any such considerations as that ; our jurisdiction is to come within the ex- press words of section 22, and unless we come within section 22, we have not got any jurisdiction. I would lilie to know how the legislature of Manitoba could ever have foreseen the Remedial Bill proposed now by the Government, from reading the remedial order. Do you think it would havo been possible by any f;uess of the legisla- ture to have arrived at the abortion of an Act which is put forward on behalf of the Roman Catholic minority in Manitoba ? Could they over have supposed, after what has been said by His Grace the Archbishop of St. Boniface, by the clergy of Quebec, by the advocates of remedial legislation— could the legislature of Manitoba ever have sup- posed for a moment that an Act like this would have met the difficulty ? Why, when we come to go into suggestions of that kind, where do we land '? We cannot depart from tlie letter of the law. There is a clear sys- tem laid down, and it is very simple, first, that the Governor General in Council must decide tlie kind of law. and he must embody that in an Order in Council. That must be transmitted to che legislature of Manitoba. If they accent it and act upon it, that ends the whole difliculty. On the other hand, if they refuse to carry it out. this Farliament bas jurisdiction, not to deal with tlie question • of education in Manitoba, not to exercise their discretion as to what kind of a law is proper to be enacted for Manitoba, but to put into the statute-liook tlie law which the Governor General in Council has deemed re- quisite for the due execution of the pro- visions of this section. That is what we can do. and that is the only thing we can do. We have no discretion. I do not say for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that the Remedial Bill must be simply a copy of the remedial order. We have the right, once vested with juris- diction, to devise any expedient that we may think fit to give effect to our jurisdiction. We have a right to provide every kind of detail in order that our jurisdiction may be eft'ectually executed. But we have no right to depart from the provisions of the consti- tution. Our Act must carry out the remedial order in every particular ; every one will ad- mit that it cannot exceed It. I humbly sub- mit tliat the considerations whicli 1 offer for your approval show conclusively that we can no more fall short of it tlian we can ex- ceed it. If that be so, Mr. Speaker, it is to my mind a further argument emphasizing tlie great crime that the Government com- mitted in attempting to decide the nature of this legislation, of this interference, with INfanitoba, in the absence of all knowledge of the circumstances under which a statute was passed, tlie circumstances of the people to whom the statute applies, the probable effect upon the majority and upon the mi- nority of the proposed legislative interfer- ence of this House. The lion, the Secretary of State, in his remarivs upon tliis Bill, con- tended that there was no coercion. Well, I do not know what coercion means, Mr. Spealmedial order, and their announcement of wliat they in- tended to do. And for what purpose did they delay ? Why, we are told. It was for the purpose of seeing if they could not get some settlement out of Manitoba. It was for the purpose of trying again to get Mani- toba to submit to tlie remedial order. And Mr. Speaker, the legislature of Manitoba la.vs down in the clearest language, tliat they are prepared to deal with tliis question fair- ly and reasonabl.v. They say as follows : — It is a matter of regret that the invitation ex- tended by the legislative assembly to make a proper inquiry into the facts of the case has not been accepted, but that, as above stated, the ad- j visers of His Excellency have declared their I policy without investigation. It is equally a mat- j ter of regret that Parliament is apparently about j to be asked to legislate without investigation. It j is with all deference submitted that such a course j seems to be quite incapable of reasonable justifl- I cation and must create the conviction that the educational interests of the people of the province I of Manitoba are being dealt with in a hostile i and peremptory way by a tribunal whose mem- bers have not approached the subject in a judicial spirit or taken the proceedings necessary to en- able them to form a proper opinion upon the merits of the question. The inquiry asked for by the reply of the legis- lature to the remedial order should, in the opin- ion of the undersigned, be again earnestly in- vited, and In the event of the invitation being accepted the scope of the inquiry should be sufficiently wide to embrace all available facts relating to the past or present school systems. The desire of the legislature and government of the province throughout the whole course of the proceedings, beginning with the enactment of the statutes of 1890, has been to provide the best possible means of education for the children of our citizens. To that end every possible effort has been put forth and every possible pecuniary sacrifice made in order that there might be estab- lished a school system based upon sound prin- ciples and equipped and administered in accord- ance with approved modern educational methods. Though very much remains to be accomplished It may be fairly assorted that a reasonable meas- ure of success has attended the efforts which have thus been put forth. In amending the law from time to time and in administering the system it is the earnest desire to remedy every well-founded grievance and to remove every appearance of inequality or Injustice that may be brought to notice. With a view to so Joing, the government and the legislature will always be ready to consider 16 any complaint that may be made In a spirit of fairness and conciliation. It seems, therefore, most reasonable to conclude that by leaving the question to be so dealt with, the truest interests of the minority will be better served than by an attempt to establish a system of separate schools by coercive legislation. \(i\v, .Mr. Spciikcr. 1 hiivi' undcii vdiirt'd lu jxiiiit out, that the rcinodial order has abso- lutely prevented tlie (Joverument of Maui- toba'i'roui entertaiiiinf^ any of the luuncrouK suKKtislions that have been made to theui, l)y and on belialt' oi' the Dominion (Joveiumeut. witli ii view of th(!ir euterinjr into negotia- tions Willi lliis maitta-. If that be so, if that fatal error of tlie (Jovernnient li;is had that (>ffect, liow much more will tlie jiassing of a coercive measure iu tliis Parliament tend in the same divection. I tliinlc it will be ad- milted by every one who favours remedial l(>;islalion, by "the advocates of tlie rights and wrongs of the minority in .Manitoba, that tile most effectual way in wliich to remedy tliose wrongs, is to have them re- medied by tiu> legislature of rianitola. I might go further. I might say thtit in my opinion no coercive Bill passed l>y this IViv- liament could ever be effectually carried out in Manitoba so as to be of real advantage to the minority in that province. As long as the people there believe that they ha\e been unfairly treated, as long. as they feel that the coercive power of this Farliament has bt'en employed unduly and hastily, without giving tlicm an opportunity to sliow tlie facts, and without proving a case agaius" thorn, they will feel inclined to throw every obstacle in the way of the car- rying out of a measure passed by this Tar- liament. Tlie Government themselve.'S. by the provisions whicli tht^y have inserted in this Bill, have acknowledged that, in order effectually to carry out the remedy for tlb' minority \vhich tliey offer, they must liave the concurrence of the governmimt of Mani- toba ; because they provide that the gov- ernment of Manitoba are to appoint a Roman Catholic board, and are to pay over the proper share of tiie government grant to the liomnn Catholic board brought into existence by this Act. By these provisions tluvv admit that tlie law can be properly ]mt into exectition only with the approval and concnrrence of the local authorities. I say. therefore, tliat the Govcrnmenr, hav- ing made one fatal mistake in passing the remedial oiTer in the terms in which it is couched, and under the circumstances un- der wiiich they did pass it, will intensify .'he ditliculty very much, indeed, if they press to a conclusion the coercive Bill now before the House. I believe that if tliat Bill bo withdrawn, and the remedial order of the 21st of March be rescinded, the peo- ple of Manitoba, being law-abiding, and un- derstanding the position in which they liav^ been placed by the second decision of the Privy Council, will be prepared to do jus- tice in the premises. I am not bound to rely upon my own knowledge of the people of Manitoba in making that statement, because we liave it from tl"^ government and the legislature of Manitoba, that they recognize tlieir position, lliat tliey do not prni)ose to tight tl'e constitution, that their objection to tlie remedijil order and to the Ilemcuial Bill is not that this Government and this Parlinment have no .Inrisdiction in tlie premises, but that the jurisdiction confer- red upon the Governor General in Council, and upon this Parliament, has not been ex- ei'cised in a manner calculated to bring about a settlement of this question— in a manner calculated to roall,v aid th«' minor- ity, on whose behalf it is suggested aa'g slionld itass this law. Wq all desire to re- move this (luostion from the arena of Do- minion politics. I believe every word the hon. Minister of Justice gave utterance to as to the intense desire of the Government that tiiey slKrald not lie called upon to ex- ercise this jurisdiction. That desire is re- ciprocated on this side of the House. Wo also would be glad if there were no Mani- toba school question in this House. Tliat there is a Manitoba school question in this Plotise, that we are here taken away from the subjects we should properly be consider- ing, to deal with a matter of interest only to a S' tall community, and delegated by the cOl. ?tittition to the legislature of the province to which that community belongs, is, I sa.y, the fault of the Government who have control for the time being of the des- tinies of Canada. It is Iheir fault. They thought tUey could gain great political cap- ital by the step they took. They had de- cided to appeal at once to the country. They were under the impression that this hasty action would bring to their side tlie votes of a large percentage of the etector- ate of Canada. They have found that in- stead of it bringing them political strengtli, it has brought tlieni political disunion. They have found that in every constituency that has been opened since they passed that un- fortunate remedial order, they have been weakened instead of strengthened. And tliey find now, when they propose to follow their remedial order with a coercive Bill, that they have arrayed against them a large section of Ihe members of this House, wiio were elected to support them, and who agree with them in other matters of policy. I sny, Mr. Speaker, that they have brought all this upon themselves by their own action. Tlie policy of the hon. leader of the Opposition is exactly the opposite of the i)olic.v of the (Jovernment. I am very glad, indeed, from the stand that has been taken by the legis- lature of the province from whicli I come, that T am able to sujiport the polic.v of the lion, leader of the Opposition upon tliis question. As I said before, if that jiolicy were not a fair one to Manitoba, if it were not in the interests of Manitoba. I should feel bound to register my vote against the leader of the Opposition, and, if neces.sary. in favour of the Government. I am not placed in that position. I am here prepar- ? ) ^1 1 m 17 ) ed, heartily prepared, to vote for the six months' hoist of this Bill. By that vote. 1 do not Intend to express the idea that this P.'irllamont should not Interfere In the Mani- toba school question ; but I Intend to ex- press the Idea that the action of the Gov- ernment In this matter has been wrong, from boglnninj? to end, that they have not been actuated by proper motives, that they have taken hold of the question In the wrons way : I believe that there is no man In Canada better fitted to bring about a solution of this troublesome and burn- ing question than the hon. gentleman whom the Liberals have the great good fortunate to have at their hpfid. That gentleman has the confidence, I be- lieve, of a large portion of his native pro- vince. He also has the confidence of a large portion of the people of Manitoba, the pro- vince particularly affected by this question. He has announced his policy as being op- posed to any attempt at coercing that pro- vince unless and until it is shown clearly and distinctly, that the province of Manito- ba Is not prepared to submit to the consti- tution and is not prepai-ed to redress wrongs when these wrongs have been pointed out to It. If that gentleman comes to power, we believe that there will never be any neces- sity for his proposing in this House a coer- cive law for Manitoba. I am satisfied that he will be able to settle this question, not, as I understand the cheers of hon. .gentle- men opposite to mean, because the govern- ment of Manitoba happens to be Liberal and he is the Liberal leader ; not at all for that reason, but because he has taken a states- man-like view of this question. It Is not the J M-2 Liberals of Manitoba who have taken their stand upon this question ; it is the people of Manitoba. Conservatives In that province are Just as strong upon the school question as the Liberals. The government there which would attempt to: use that question as the football of party, would soon lose the support of the people of that province. Therefore, I say, it is not because the leader of the Opposition In this House is the leader of the party tc. which the government of that province belongs, that I look to an ami- cable settlemeut, under his auspices, of this question, but because he, from the first, has taken a high exalted position upon it— a po- sition which Is calculated to Inspire confi- dence in him by the people of Canada from British Columbia to Nova Scotia, Including the province of Manitoba. I look for a set- tlement in that way, but I have no hesita- tion in saying, that the people of Manitoba have not put themselves In the wrong upon this question, no one will refuse to accord this to the legislature of Manitoba, that, upon each occasion when they have been called upon to express themselves upon this question, they have done so in a dignified, statesmanlike way. They have touched the question fairly, and, If they are fairly approached, as I know they will be, by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Laurier), when that gentleman becomes, as he soon will become, the Premier of Canada, we will have heard the last of the Manitoba school question, and this Parliament will proceed to do the proper business of the Dominion of Canada, which requires so much, and has so little, of Its real consideration for the past seventeen years. /