America Act, which is our written constitution. Sir, it must be apparent to every one that it we were to attempt violently to lay lands upon that compact for the purpose or aiding a minority in New Brunswick who have a grievance, no matter, however, just that grievance may be-and from my point of view of think it is one they have a right to complain of -however, much we might entertain that feeling we have no right to do anything that will violate our obligation to defend the constitution under which we live. I may point this out to hon. gentlemen in this House and to the country that; if it were competent for this House directly or indirectly to set aside the constitution as regards one of the smaller Provinces, it would be equally competent for this House to set it aside as regards the privileges which the Catholics enjoy at this moment in Ontario. It is not desirable that we should make the way open for such purpose, and it is not desirable that anything should be done which would excite religious discussions and promote religious animosities. Hon. Mr. CAUCHON Irreligious animosities pro Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE The hon. gentleman says "irreligious animosities!" I will say animosities about religious subjects. I, therefore, pose to move in amendment :-That all the words after "that" in the original resolution be omitted and the following substituted :-"In the opinion of this House, legislation by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, encroaching on any powers reserved to any one of the Provinces by the British North America Act, would be an infraction of the Provincial Constitution, and that it would be inexpedient and fraught with danger to the antonomy of each of the Provinces for this House to invite such legislation." On referring to the 93rd section of the British North America Act, it will be seen that the second sub-section states that "all the powers, privileges and duties at the Union by law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects shall be, and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in Quebec." The section further says:- "Wherein any Hon. M Mackenzie. Province a system of separate or disentient schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an appeal shall lie to the GOVERNOR GENERAL in Council requisite from any act or decision of any Provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education. In case any such Provincial law as from time to time seems to the Governor GenERAL in Council requisite for the due execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in case any decision of the GOVERNOR GENERAL in Council or any appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial authority in that behalf, then and in every case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any decision of the GOVERNOR GENERAL in Council under this section." If we were to proceed under that section we would proceed to enact a school law for New Brunswick here, but the very fact that the hon. member for Victoria moved an address to the Imperial Parliament inviting this legislation, shows that he admits we have no power under the Constitution to proceed with this matter. I have no desire to protract the discussion because I believe I have said in very few words all that is absolutely necessary under the circumstances. Hon. Mr. CAUCHON said he hsd listened with very great attention to the hon. Premier, and not only with attention, but with pleasure. The liberality of the principles which he had expressed was such as would be satisfactory to the people of the whole country. The hon. Premier had his own opinions upon the question of separate schools, but as a true statesman he respected the opinions and the principles of others, and that was the only way Government could be carried on in a country like ours, composed of different and sometimes conflicting elements. (Mr. CAUCHON) agreed with the Premier that it was exceedingly dangerous to violate the compact entered into by the several Provinces by the Act of Confederation. He was not one of the framers of our Constitution, but it would be admitted he had done his utmost by pen and speech He to carry it out faithfully and successfully. | was a duty to perform in this matter it was He believed that there had been great want of foresight in the framing of that Constitution, because, while it secured separate schools to the minority in Ontario and Quebec, it placed the Catholics of New Brunswick upon a different foot ing. That was a great misfortune. If the Catholics of New Brunswick Lad believed they would not be placed upon the same footing as the minority in Upper and Lower Canada by the Act of Confederation they would not have agreed to Confederation, nor would the Catholics of Lower Canada, and therefore this question would have had to be settled then while the Constitution was being framed. But at the invitation of leading men in Quebec, Confederation was accepted and now we should not violate the Constitution we had accepted even to redress a wrong which should have been foreseen and guarded against by the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately since then legislation had been enacted in New Brunswick which had aroused such a feeling as, if not allayed, might be dangerous to the Confederation. He took the ground that we should stand by the Constitution, but at the same time that it was the duty of every lover of this country to so work the Constitution that no class of the people would be oppressed under it. If we wished to keep the Confederation together and promote harmony in all its parts we must yield one to the other. He did not ask any one to sacrifice important principles, but we shall all respect the principles of each other and do nothing that would be regarded as an act of oppression to any portion of the people. It was only by such means that we could have harmony within the Confederation. For these reasons though he approved of the motion of the Premier as far as it went, he thought it was not complete. Mr. BABY-Hear, hear! Hon. Mr. CAUCHON said he was prepared in this instance to stand by the framers of the constitution-the men who were the leaders of hon. gentlemen who were now crying "hear, hear!" If any one was to blame for the difficulty in which we were now placed it was those men who framed the constitution. Why did they not place in it those safeguards which would have prevented all this trouble? If there Hon. Mr. Cauchon. they who should have performed it. If All he Premier, ment to the motion of the the consequences growing out of this new motion. The Government had asked for an adjournment of the debate on Monday night, though the motion was on the notice paper, for a long time, and though the House seemed prepared to vote. He was satisfied that if the vote had been taken at that time, there would have been a majority in favor of his motion. Since they had been obliged so ask for an. adjournment of the debate, it was unfair to refuse him an adjournment now. There was one objection which he had to this amendment, and it was one of the reasons on which he based his claim for delay. Up to this time the House had not affirmed the principle that it could not take the course suggested in his motion. If he inderstood the reading of this amendment, it clearly laid down the principle that the Catholics of New Brunswick would be debarred for ever from coming to this House again to have their case considered. Hc quite appreciated the political advantages to be derived from such a course. He could well understand the inconvenience which this question might cause to some hon. members in this House, but he would regret if any hon. member who had heretofore expressed himself favorable to The resolution he had referred to was passed by a vote of 117 to 42, and that resolution he proposed should still be adhered to. The basis of his resolution was the same as that which the House had adopted, and those who voted for the former resolution should, if they wished to be consistent, vote for this resolution, unless they had changed their minds and were ready to say that the Catholics of New Brunswick should not have schools which they could conscien- | his proposition should hasten to bind himtiously support. He proposed to repeat the expression of regret that we had pronounced before, and as that had proved insufficient, to go further and ask HER MOST GRACIOUS MAJESTY to use her influence in the same direction; and everyone who wished to have this question settled without uselessly breaking up the constitution should support him in that course. Mr. COSTIGAN said before a vote was taken on this amendment, which he presumed contained very important principles, he felt obliged to ask for an adjournment of the debate (cries of No! No!). He hoped his request would not be refused until he had stated his reasons. The House was well aware that before the discussion on this question commenced, his motion had been on the paper for several days. This was not done on this occasion. He, for one, had no opportunity of knowing what the amendment was. He had heard it imperfectly read, and he thought it was due to those who were favorable to his motion, that they should be given an opportunity to realize to the fullest extent Hon. Mr. Cauchon. self by adopting this amendment which would preclude him from giving that justice to the minority of New Brunswick to which they were entitled. The object of the hon. member for Quebec was to reaffirm the principal affirmed in 1872, and which was followed by failure. moved the adjournment of the debate. He The Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said there could be no difficulty in understanding the amendment, and there was no reason why this debate should be adjourned. Government did not ask for the adjournment last Monday night. An hon. gentleman made the motion and the debate was adjourned accordingly. The whole night was set apart for the consideration of this question, and the House might as well finish it at once. Mr. MASSON said the original motion, with the amendment of the hon. member for South Bruce, and the amendment of the hon. member for Joliette, had been placed on the journals, so that all coald see them and understand what they were asked to vote upon. That was an open and honest way to deal with the question. For two days the Government had been Blain, Borden, Cockburn, Pouliot, on the Coffin, Power, Cook, Pozer, Davis, A division was then taken motion for adjournment, which was defeated on the following division: YEAS: Messieurs De St. Georges, De Veber, Roscoe, i Bourassa, Kirkpatrick, Ferris, Scatcherd, Bowell, Lanthier, Fleming, Scriver, Flynn, Shibly, Brooks, Little, Cameron (Cardu Macdonald (Kingston), Forbes, Sinclair, Fournier, Skinner, Caron, McDonald, (Cape Breton) Fréchette, Smith (Peel), Cheval, Me Dougall( Three Rivers) Cimon, MacMillan, Galbraith, Smith (Westmoreland), Gibson, Gillies, Snider, Stirton, Costigan, McQuade, Gillmor, St. Jean, Coupal, Masson, Gordon, Currier, Mitchell, Goudge, Hall, Cuthbert, Monteith, Holton, Taschereau, Thibaudeau, Thompson (Haldimand) Horton, Trow, Desjardins, Mousseau, Domville, Orton, Donahue, Quimet, Wallace (Albert), Jones (Halifax), Wood, Yeo, Jodvin, West, and Centre-would record their votes against this amendment, which was no other than that of the hon. member for South Bruce accompanied by a little soothing draught to make it more palatable. It was difficult to discuss this very important amendment. The House had hardly been afforded the necessary time to look into it, and to compare it with the other motions which had been submitted. the hon. member for Quebec Centre had contended that the House must respect the constitution. There was not a member in this Parliament who respected the constitution more than he (Mr. MASSON) did, as would be seen by the vote he recorded on the proposition to change the constitution of the Senate. There were no serious grounds for that change, but in the present instance there were reasons which necessitated some amendment to the constitution. He remembered when the CHAUVEAU amendment was before the IIouse three years ago, the hon. member for Quebec Centre, who was then very favorable to the Administration (it was very extraordinary, but the hon. gentleman was always in favor of the Administration of the day) was entirely in favor of changing the constitution, and of an appeal to HER MAJESTY to do justice to the Catholics of New Brunswick. The hon. member on that occasion voted for a resolution almost exactly the same as that which the member for Victoria had submitted to the House, and further in his correspondence to his own paper, the Journal de Quebec on the 25th May, he read as follows:-"In my last letter I spoke of the COSTIGAN motion and the consequences that would follow, but all danger is now past. It is Mr. CHAUVEAU who has cut the Gordian knot of the resolution. He has by that means caused all the perils of the case to disappear. In fact his proposition which will be accepted by the Government, will also be accepted by Mr. COSTIGAN, who is it appears, himself, far more satisfied with it than with the motion, which would have brought on a Ministerial crisis. This amendment comes to the assistance of the Provinces who had separate schools before the Union, whether those schools were established by law or not; but an Imperial Act would be more just and more far-seeing (prévoyant) if it a ve tɔ the minorities of the Provinces Mr Masson. He distinctly the right to separate schools." This was the same hon. gentleman who now told the House that there was danger in asking the Imperial Government to alter the Constitution, because he happened at this moment to support the Government, as he did on the former occasion the late Administration. Every member of this House must have heard with deep regret the expression which fell from the Minister of Public Works, when he threatened the Catholics of Ontario. The minority in that Province had nothing to fear from the adoption of this resolution or the disallowance of the unjust law of the Province of New Brunswick. had no fear that the majorities of Ontario and Quebec would ever deal unjustly with the minorities in those Provinces, but if they should, he hoped such legislation would be thrown to the wind by this Parliament. The hon. member for Quebec Centre found fault with those who framed the Confederation Act, or rather threw the responsibility of the deficiency in this Act, which permitted such legislation ass the New Brunswick School Act, on the framers of the Constitution. Well, when the British North America Act was under discussion in 1866, an amendment could have been introduced to remedy this defect if the previous question had not been moved, shutting out all amendments. Among the hon. gentlemen who voted for the previous question was the hon. member for Quebec Centre, who, therefore, must share the responsibility for the existence of this defect in the Constitution. The amendment before the House was a proposition to exercise moral suasion, and was similar to the COLBEY amendment of 1872. Among the members who voted for that "chicken broth" motion three years ago were Messrs. FOURNIER, GEOFFRION, and HOLTON. If these hon. gentlemen did not think at that time they should vote for a suasion motion, how could they vote for this amendment especially after they had seen the result of the moral suasion plan? Though he voted against that motion himself, he admitted there were reasons for supporting it at that time. They had assurances from the representatives of New Brunswick in this Parliament that the Legislature of that Province would do justice to the Catholic population. Three years had passed and nothing was done by the local |