159
[COMMONS] 160
THE SCHOOLS OF MANITOBA AND
THE N.W.T.
Copies of all petitions, memorials and correspondence in reference to the appeal made
in the
name of the Roman Catholic minority of the
province of Manitoba, in reference to the school,
laws of that province: also, copies of reports to?
and Orders in ('ouncil in reference to the same:
also. copies of the case submitted to the Supreme
Court of Canada respecting aforesaid appeal, and
including factums and all materials in connection
therewith, and copies of all judgments rendered
and answers given by said court on or to the questions referred to them.
He said: Mr. Speaker. in making this motion. I do not intend at the present. time
to
discuss the merits of the question that is involved. I shall wait tmtil all the papers
are.
put before the House and until the members
are fully cognizant of the details of the question. I have my own opinion as to the
merits of the case, and as to the action that has
been taken thereon, and I intend, later on,
as, I have no doubt, an opportunity will be
given, to express that opinion in an unbiassed
and in a fair and impartial manner.
Motion agreed to.
Copies of all school ordinances, school regulations or by-laws and amendments thereto,
adopted
by the Legislative Assembly, the Executive. andd
by any Board or Council of Education, in reference
to the establishment, maintenance and administration of schools in the North-west
Territories since
1885: also, for copies of all petitions, memorials
and correspondence in reference thereto: also, for
copies of all reports to and Orders in Council respecting the same.
He said: My remarks on the previous motion also apply to this.
Motion agreed to.
1. Copies of all correspondence between His
Grace Archbishop Tache, of St. Boniface, and any
member of the Government since last session, and
in particular of the memorial recently sent to the
Governor General, or to the Prime Minister. respecting the Manitoba schools, and of
the ordinances .
adopted by the Legislature of the North-west
Territories in 1892, and now in force; 2. Copies of
all memorials, petitions and letters addressed to the
Governor General in Council, or to any Minister
asking for the disallowance of the said ordinances:
3. Of correspondence between the Lieutenant
Governor of the North-west Territories or the
Executive Council of the said Territories, and the
Dominion Government: 4. Copies of the instructions to the Lieutenant Governor of the
North-west
Territories, and of communications sent to the
Executive. of the Tcrritories in order to induce them
to amend the ordinances of 1892.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I feel it to be my
duty to put this motion in your hands and to
offer a few remarks upon it; and, imperfect
as my English may be, I venture to ask the
attention of the House while I attempt to
address it in that language. Since the beginning of the session hon. members of this
House. on both sides. have carefully discussed the commercial and financial position
of this country. Nobody has yet alluded to
its political situation. or rather to the grave
national crisis with which we are face to
face today—thanks. I am sorry to say, to the
unwise, imprudent and irritating policy of
the Government on the school question. Permit me. Sir, to use, as a description of
that
crisis, a speech which has recently been delivered in the city of Montreal by one
of the
leading Conservatives of the province of Quebec—fine Hon. T. C. Casgrain. the Attorney
General in the Taillon Cabinet. That hon.
gentleman, speaking at a meeting of the
Cartier-Macdonald Club. a few days ago—I
quote from the Montreal 'Gazette' of the
28th of February—expressed himself as follows :—
A terrible wind is now blowing even at the very
doors of the province of Quebec ; and the storm is
so strong that it is shaking Confederation to its
very foundations. It is a difficult and delicate
question which I am now taking up, and I wish to
say that I am now speaking only as a citizen of
Canada. I am now speaking of the question of
separate schools in the North-west.
Confederation was the result of a cmnpromise.
In order to protect our fellow-countrymen. who
had carried the seed of civilization to the Northwest, we stipulated that they should
always have
the right to separate schools. Now, I contend that
no one has the right to do indirectly what the law
forbids to do directly. No one had the right to
deprive the Catholics of the North-west of their
separate schools. The Hon. Mr. Haultain, the Premier of the North-west Territories,
understood
that perfectly well. That is why he went in a
roundabout way. He overhauled all the ordinances relating to the schools ; and while
the new
ordinance reaffirms the rights of Catholics to separate schools, it makes these dependent
on such conditions that they are virtually suppressed. So that
Mr. Haultain has done indirectly what he could not
do directly. The question put to the Federal Government was, whether the law should
be disallowed.
We have the right to insist that the protection given
our countrymen shall be respected. If the understanding arrived at when Confederation
was formed
can be violated by one party, then that contract is
only a paper which can be torn at will. The Federal Government has the right, and
I will say has the
161 [MARCH 21, 1894] 162
duty, to disallow all laws contrary to the general
interests of the Dominion, and such is the new
ordinance. Speaking for myself, I say that fanaticism has long enough had its way.
We have had
enough of the McCarthy's, O'Briens and of the P.
P. A., which wanted to ostracise everything that is
Catholic. We are citizens and useful citizens of
this country. I can claim to be moderate on these
questions. I fought the Riel agitation. But when
it comes to decide the question whether Catholics
have rights in this country. I say that it is time to
be up and doing. I appeal to all moderate men,
irrespective of creed. Fanatics are not the majority
in this country ; and if, to prove it, it is necessary
to make a daring move—in French, a coup d'etat—
let it be made. The man who will make it shall
have the united support of the province of Quebec.
If to succeed it becomes necessary to call around
our flag all moderate men, we will do it and we will
again go over the work of Confederation. If we
allow the sacred rights of our countrymen to he
violated, we will vainly work for the progress of
this province.
These were very strong sentiments, and they
had the more importance because they were
uttered in the presence 0f the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec and four or
five of his colleagues. Naturally enough,
that speech created a great sensation, in the
province of Quebec at least. It was widely
discussed. The whole ministerial press, with
the sole exception of ' La Minerve,' the personal organ of my hon. friend the Postmaster
General endorsed it. ' L'Evénement,' which
is one of the leading organs of the Conservative party in Quebec. and which is to-day
under the able supervision of my hon. friend
the member for Gaspé (Mr. Joncas), spoke
as follows :—
The speech delivered by the Hon. T. C. Casgrain
at the Conservative Club in Montreal has created
quite a sensation, and will have a telling effect.
The Attorney General has echoed the feelings of
all those in this province who understand that the
system of active persecution is organized against
them and that the time has come for us to take
the necessary means of imposing respect for the
rights which have been granted to us by the constitution. Mr. Casgrain deserves the
congratulations
of his countrymen on account of the patriotism,
the firmness and the energy he has shown.
Another paper of great importance, and
which is the organ and the property of one
of the Quebec Ministers—I mean ' Le Courrier
du Canada '—said :
We are the more happy to applaud those
vigorous and manly declarations because they respond to the feeling that our readers
have found in
the columns of ' Le Courrier du Canada' during the
last few days. Mr. Casgrain has exclaimed at a
certain moment that if the central power is unable
to protect the minorities, the guarantee contained
in the right of disallowance is nothing less but
worthless paper.
This is exactly our opinion. We said the other
day that in the question of the schools of the Northwest, the Federal Government had
the power to
disallow, that the circumstances justified disal
lowance, and that if the right of disallowance cannot be used to protect minorities
it is not worth
much. We congratulate the Attorney General on
the energy and the frankness with which he has
developed this idea that the central power is bound
to protect the oppressed minorities, if the future
of this confederation is going to be assured."
The newspaper, the 'Empire,' having taken
upon itself to lecture the Attorney General of
Quebec in the same way as it had lectured
in former days my hon. friend from North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). ' Le Courrier du
Canada' replied in very plain language :
The ' Empire ' says that nobody has been found
to approve the conduct of Mr. Casgrain. We
have the honour to inform our contemporary that
he labours under a strange error. On the very
evening of his speech, Mr. Casgrain was warmly
cheered by the Conservative meeting to which he
was addressing himself, and since then the most
cordial congratulations and the highest approbations have come in great numbers to
him. The
' Empire ' is no more veracious when it insinuates
that Mr. Casgrain's colleagues blame the Attorney
General. We are better informed than the Toronto newspaper, and we beg him to believe
that
Mr. Casgrain did not express an isolated opinion
when he spoke as he did in Montreal.
A few days afterwards, the Cartier—Macdonald Club met in the. city of Quebec. That
club is composed of the best class of young
men in the Conservative party at Quebec.
They thought proper to adopt the fullowing
resolution :—
That, in the opinion of this club, the last
ordinances of the Legislative Assembly of the
North-west relating to education contain dispositions which affect the established
principle of
separate schools and constitutes a new violation of
the rights and privileges possessed by the minorities
in this confederation.
That, while we take into account the spirit of
justice of well-thinking citizens in this country and
their enlightened patriotism, nevertheless in presence of the regrettable events,
of the increasing
appeals of intolerance and fanaticism, that we have
witnessed for some time past, in some portions of
the Dominion, this club thinks it is its duty to
protest more firmly than ever, and beg to state
that it approves on this point the energetic attitude
taken by the Hon. T. C. Casgrain, one of the Ministers of Quebec, and the declarations
which he has
publicly made in Montreal, on the 28th of February.
Well, it is easy to understand that there
was some reason for such a series of
speeches and articles. What was the reason ? Of course, we were not allowed to enter
the sanctum sanctorum in which so many
angelical spirits preside over our destiny
Nevertheless, the quarrels of the gods were
made public to us through the indiscretions
of some of their organs. There was a big row
in the ministerial press of Quebec. ' La
Minerve ' supported very warmly and very
ably, my hon. friend the Postmaster General,
and contended that he was the only patriotic
163
[COMMONS] 164
man in this country. On the other side. ' Le        Â
Moniteur de Levis ' lectured him in a severe
way indeed. Through those indiscretions. it
was made known that a sub—committee of the
Privy Council had been formed. composed
of my hon. friends the Minister of Finance.
the Minister of the Interior, and the Minister
of Agriculture. Those hon. gentlemen set to
work with all the ability and energy we know
they possess. They held long and mature deliberations. Still we have not yet been
able to
see the colour of their work. but there was
a rumour to the effect that the three hon.
gentlemen could not. agree. Patriotic as they
were. resolved as they were to work for the
prosperity of their country. they were not
able to agree. and the question was referred
to the whole body of the Privy Council. But
during the passage from the sub-committee
to the Privy Council, there were very wicked
rumours indeed circulated, and circulated by
the organs of the Ministers themselves. We
were told very plainly that four of the hon.
Ministers—three of them I see on the Treasury benches now-had made up their minds
that if the Privy Council did not see its way Â
to disallow the North-west Ordinances. they:
would not be in a position to be of any
more use to the Administration. We Â
were even told that three French Ministers
solemnly took the pledge that they would
resign together if these Ordinances were not
disallowed.
Mr. LANDERKIN. Not a bit of danger of
that so long as the salary runs.
Mr. FOSTER. That is where it strikes
an appreciative chord in you.
Mr. TARTE. We heard another rumor. I hope it is false, but I think I am justified in putting
it before the House-simply as a rumor. It went so far as to say that the hon. the
Postmaster General(Sir Adolphe Caron) went back on his colleagues without warning
them. I trust the rumor is false; I put the question The rumor may be false, but still
this is the rumor that the good friends of the Administration have widely circulated.
At any rate, one thing is perfectly clear. and that is this- that none of the hon.
Ministers have seen fit to resign. I just remark that the hon Minister is laughing
heartily. I may submit to him presently. for greater enjoyment. the opinion of a journel
which is under the direct control of the most intimate friends of the Minister of
Agriculture-I mean 'Le Moniteur de Levis':
Some Montreal newspapers having stated that alone amongst all our Ministers Mr. Ouimet
had differed from the majority of the Cabinet on the question of the schools of the
North-west, we have argued that it could not be so in presence of the most significant
fact that the sub-committee of the Privy Council composed of Messrs. Foster, Angers
and Daly had not been able to arrive at a conclusion
Mr. Angers had consequently differed, and that
difference of opinion had naturally been expressed in the Privy Council, especially
as Mr. Angers has found an ally in Mr. Ouimet. As to Sir Adolphe Caron. we have, to
inform us on the position he has taken in the Council, no other indication to that
effect that he went two or three days after wards to defend the conduct of the Government
before a political club.
Is it natural to suppose. is it logical to conclude,
that Sir Adolphe Caron would have defended an
opinion which would not have been his own ".
By publicly taking before all his countrymen the
position that has been indicated in the newspapers, has he not sufficiently pointed
out to
those who are candid and also those to who are not
candid the role that he has played in the Council :
Our deductions are, then. perfectly logical. ' La
Minerve ' itself, who pretends to laugh. shares our
opinions when it says : " Have there been differences between the French Ministers
: We don't
know anything about it, but the thing is possible
and even probable."
" Probable." says ' La Minerve.' And why
" probable?" Would there be Ministers who have
betrayed their oath of office to inform ' La Minerve.'
or has ' La Minerve ' arrived at that conclusion by
simple deduction.
"What ' La Minerve ' says on the oath of office is
grave and we invite it not to insist. The lesson
that it wants to teach has been very badly learned.
It is addressed to the wrong party.
Let ' La Minerve ' ask of the party who inspires it
I think my hon. friend the Postmaster General will understand the hint-
——for the narration of a little trip to Montreal during the last days of January by
a person in a very high position. If its investigation is well conducted. it will
learn to its great scandal that indiscretions have been committed which are of a nature
to exempt ,La Minerve,' the confidante of the gods, from proceeding by way of deduction
and which allows us to invite it to submit its extracts from Todd to other parties
than to us.
If 'La Minerve' wants to know more. we are at its disposal at its first request.
Of course, 'La Minerve'did not want to know anything more- it had had enough of it:-but
Sir, we were told that this crises was going to be averted by Mr. Haultain, the Prime
Minister of the North-west Territories, insisting that the Legislature should amend
the ordinances of 1892. Mr. Mackintosh. the Lieutenant Governor of the territory,
by a happy accident, was at the time on his way to the Capital. A few days afterwards,
Mr. Haultain. while passing through Winnipeg, made a speech, in which he stated that
he would not submit to any outside interference, that he thought the ordinances fair
and just, and that he would not be a party to any amendment to them. Well, in the
presence of these statements, I want to know how it is that the French Ministers,
who had put their resignations into the hands of the Premier, have been able to retain
their seats as they do to-day? Mr.Speaker, a question
165 [MARCH 21, 1894] 166
arises—were the Ministers from the province
of Quebec serious or were they not when
they instructed their press throughout the
province of Quebec to state that they were
asking for justice, and that they were in
sisting upon the disallowance of these ordinances ? If they were serious, how is it
that
they are still on the Treasury benches ? If
they were not serious, they were simply
pursuing the same imprudent course that has
characterized the policy of this Government
on the school question from the beginning ;
that is to say, they were contributing to
increase the dangerous agitation that we
have to face to-day. But, Sir, to save
themselves from the humiliation in which
they have been placed by their organs,
they began to appeal to the most
dangerous prejudices. Would you allow me
to quote the last sample of that bigot
sentiment that the organs of the hon.
Ministers of the province of Quebec are
trying to excite to-day? As every one knows,
my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Martin)
was introduced in this House by the hon. the
leader of the Opposition and by my hon.
friend from Queen's. P.E.I. (Mr. Davies). It
is a courtesy that we owe to one another to
introduce one another in the House. My
hon. friend (Mr. Martin) was elected, not on
the school question, but as a tariff reformer ;
he was elected by the votes of Liberals
and Conservatives alike. If I went further,
I would not say, perhaps, that he had
been elected by the Catholic vote, but
certainly, as he said the other day,
he has received a great many Catholic votes.
And why ? Because the Archbishop of St.
Boniface thought proper to be interviewed
during that election. Of course, His Grace
is not as good a Catholic, or as orthodox, as
my hon. friend the Postmaster General, still
he is something of a Catholic. His Grace
was interviewed on the 11th November, 1893,
and this is what he is reported to have said :
The interviewer ventured to ask His Grace how
he expected Catholics to vote in the Winnipeg by-
election. The archbishop replied that he thought
the vote would be divided. If either candidate
were an advocate of separate schools it might be
different, but as the case now stands, those Catholics who desire tariff reform will
many of them vote
for Mr. Martin, though some will withhold their
vote from resentment. Catholics, he said, were
perfectly free to vote whichever way they saw fit.
Well, according to His Grace, the Catholic
voters of Winnipeg were perfectly free to vote as they pleased ; but when my hon.
friend the leader of the Opposition introduces to the House a gentleman duly and legally
elected, he commits a crime against heaven and society. Now, let us see the extent
of that crime according to one of the most important ministerial organs in the province
of Quebec. 'Le Courrier du Canada,' the organ of one of the Provincial Ministers in
Quebec, Mr. Chapais. The heading is very suggestive :
LAURIER MARTIN DAVIES!
A SUGGESTIVE TRIO.
It is done! We wrote a little while ago that if
Mr. Laurier dared to do it, he would introduce Mr.
Joseph Martin, leaning on his arm. into the House
of Commons, the persecutor of the Catholic minority
in Manitoba.
Well, Mr. Laurier has dared to do it.
Yesterday afternoon. the chief of the Opposition,
escorted by Mr. Davies, introduced into the House
the illustrious Martin. Laurier, Martin, Davies ! !
This spectacle is extremely suggestive. Mr.
Davies is the author of the persecuting law of Prince
Edward Island, of 1877. Mr. Martin is the author
of the persecuting law of Manitoba of 1890. Both
are fanatical adversaries of separate schools and of
the rights of minorities.
And Mr. Laurier, the man that the ' L'Electeur '
asks us to aid, opens the session by an official parade
in company with these two men. Under the existing circumstances this introduction,
usually a very
ordinary affair, assumes a very grave character and
signification. One would suppose that Mr. Laurier
wished to break the ice, and to show upon the first
day what the attitude of the Opposition would be
on the school question.
Frankly, politics causes the observer to witness
strange scenes.
My hon. friend from Queen's. P.E.I. (Mr.
Davies), is perfectly able to take care of
himself ; still, if he allows me, I will
briefly describe the law that the hon.
member for Queen's passed in 1877. If I am
rightly informed, the first school law in
Prince Edward Island was passed in 1852.
It is natural to suppose that a school law
which had existed for 25 years in a progressive province, needed to be amended after
so long a period of time. The election of
1876, was carried on the question of
the necessity of improving the law. It
was fought, not by one political party
alone, but by a combination of public
men belonging to both political parties. My
hon. friend succeeded at the polls, and he
then formed a coalition Government, of
which he was the leader, but the majority
of his colleagues were Conservatives. The
law which was passed in 1877 did not change
the principle of the old law ; it only amended
it by giving more power to the school trustees and making some other changes. At
any rate, the law was adopted. There was
some little friction, no doubt. Archbishop
McIntyre thought that the improvements he
had made on his school property were to be imperilled, and he applied, as I understand,
for the disallowance of the law. His request was not granted ; and a short time afterwards
His Grace and my hon. friend came to a perfect agreement, and since that time His
Grace has declared himself entirely satisfied. My hon. friend was de- defeated in
1879, and his position was taken by Mr. Sullivan—now, I think, Chief Justice
Sullivan—who was a strong Conservative
and a Roman Catholic. He remained in
167 [COMMONS] 168
power for the long period of twelye years.
and no amendment was made to the law.
Sir, this is the law for whith my hon.
friend for Queen's has been hurled into eternal
flames by ' Le Courrier dn Canada.' Now I
want to know what we are going to do, and
what is going to happen in the presence of
such appeals to prejudices. I suppose my
hon. friends opposite will not tell us
that all these appeals come from this side
of the House. I have quoted speeches,
articles and statements made and written
by their most important friends in the province of Quebec, and I will challenge hon.
gentlemen opposite to find a single statement
like this coming from any hon. gentleman
on this side of the House. We have claimed
justice, we are still claiming justice ; we do
not claim anything more than justice. I know
that some of us, especially myself, have been
shamefully misrepresented by some of the
Ontario papers. I think I am the oldest
newspaper man in this Chamber, one of them
at least. I may have read more newspapers
for the last twenty years than any other
member of this House, for the simple reason that being able to read both English and
French, I have read all the papers I could
from England, from France, from the
United States and in Canada. Sir, I am
sorry to speak as I am going to do, but I
must say that in my long experience I have never read a paper more wickedly mendacious
than the Toronto 'Mail.' I know I
am using a very strong expression, but
I am confident that the fact justifies it. The
province of Quebec is day by day systematically traduced. Its public men are
calumniated and denounced to their fellow-
countrymen. Yesterday one of my friends
whom I now see, told me, " Tarte you are
doing in Quebec just the work that is being
done by McCarthy in Ontario." I asked him
this question—because he is a very sensible gentleman—" Sir, can you read
French ?" He replied, " Unforttutately, I
cannot." " Did you ever read any articles
signed by me ? "—for I generally sign my
articles so that eyery one may know
where I am. He said : "No, I cannot read French." Then, I asked, " Where
did you find the evidence that I am
playing on the feelings of my countrymen as Mr. McCarthy is doing in your own
province ?'" Of course he was obliged to
say : " In the translations that appear in
some Ontario papers." My own personality
is insignificant and of very little value, but
my dear province of Quebec is something
after all, and I throw back that slur cast
upon it. We have a right to be respected by
our fellow-countrymen of English origin ;
we have a right to be treated like men who
love their country and do not want to ruin
it. Well, every day the Toronto ' Mail ' which
is not refuted, I am sorry to say, by many
Toronto newpapers, denounces the province
of Quebec, its men and institutions, in such
a manner that Ministers of the Crown should
take cognizance of it. As a governing body
they should ask their own organs to be
more just to us. A few moments ago
I was asking : What is going to happen ?
The Government is amenable to the
charge of being the cause of all the agitation that is going on to-day. I do not speak
in a party spirit, and I do not want to be
so understood. The prime duty of a Government is to have a distinct and clear policy
on all the important questions of the day.
The hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches
have endeavoured since the school question
has entered the political arena to escape the
responsibilities of their office. What have they
done in the Manitoba school case ? They
proceeded by way of making promises, privately and publicly. They proceeded, moreover,
by way of references to the courts,
their only object being to gain time and
placate public opinion if they could. As a
matter of fact they have taken money from
the public treasury to save their heads as
politicians. What is the result to-day ? The
judgment of the Privy Council was given in
due course. The hon. Prime Minister, who
was then Minister of Justice, had proclaimed that if the Privy Council decided
against the demands of the Catholic minority,
there would be a remedy still. And whatever may be the efforts and ability of
those who may undertake to defend the
Government and the First Minister, is language means anything. I want to know what
these sentences of his which have already
been read to the House, but which I will take
the liberty of reading again, can possibly
mean. They are as follows :—
If the legal controversy should result in the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench
being sustained,
the time will come for Your Excellency to consider
the petitions which have been presented by and on
behalf of the Roman Catholics of Manitoba for
redress under subsections 2 and 3 of the Manitoba
Act, quoted in the early part of this report, and
which are analogous to the proyisions made by the
British North America Act in relation to other
provinces. Those subsections contain in effect
the provisions which have been made as to all the
provinces, and are obviously the provisions under
which the constitution intended the Government
of the Dominion should proceed if it should at any
time become necessary that the Federal power
should be resorted to for the protection of a Protestant or Roman Catholic minority
against any
act of the legislatures of the provinces or of any
provincial authority affecting any right or privilege
of such minority in relation to education.
Well. Sir, that pledge will be remembered by all men of good faith as
having been made by the Fitst Minister. I
do not accuse the hon. gentleman of bad
faith, but I do accuse him of weakness.
He has unwillingly perhaps, deceived the
Roman Catholic minority. No sensible man
who read the statement at the time—and
observes that it was published broadcast—
could fail to understand that the right hon.
gentleman pledged himself to provide this
169 [MARCH 21, 1894] 170
remedy, that if the courts of justice decided
that according to the strict letter of the law,
the Catholic minority has no statutory rights,
the hon. gentleman pledged himself to recognize and consider the claim that the Catholic
minority in the province of Manitoba was
promised and given, in 1870, the same rights
as the English minority of the province of
Quebec enjoy, and have long enjoyed, with
our cheerful consent. I therefore say the hon.
gentleman is amenable to that grave charge.
I know the Catholics in Manitoba are weak.
It is a fact which there is no use in denying ;
but I will never agree to the idea that in a
British colony, where the people were brought
up under British liberty, the majority would
undertake to trample upon the rights
of the minority. The policy and pledges
of the Government are to-day pretty well
understood. After the judgment of the Privy
Council it became the duty of the Government to keep their pledge and to consider,
to use the words of the First Minister, the
petitions of the Roman Catholic minority.
It did not do so. It had recourse to a
new referendum, to the courts of justice, and the judgment has recently been given.
Peculiar to say, the hon. Solicitor General
who is an able lawyer, went before the
Supreme Court and said nothing. The Government had one of the most important
cases that could be presented before a court
of justice, and still, Sir, the Government had
nothing to say. They said nothing. and the
Catholic minority got nothing. I would like
to repeat a question which I put last year
to the House, and to which the Prime Minister at the time refused to answer. I want
to know : What is the policy of the Government now ? The Supreme Court has decided,
but as the hon. gentleman knows,
this decision is not binding. The Government is still at perfect liberty to take any
course they like. They have the responsibility of the Government, of the peace
and of the good harmony of this country on
their shoulders. They are a strong Government, backed by a large majority. Can
it be possible that on such an important question, involving such great results,
the Government have no policy ? Are they going to
appeal from the decision of the Supreme
Court or are they going to abide by it ? I believe that we have a full right to receive
a distinct answer to this question.
Now, Sir, what has the Government done
with reference to the North-west Territories
school question ? The Ordinances were enacted in 1892.
Mr. DAVIN. What have they enacted ?
You have not told us the grievance. Explain
to the House the issue.
Mr. TARTE. It the hon. gentleman will
allow me, I will try to explain to his own
satisfaction, if I can, what, I am sure, are
grievances, but just now I am asking what
is the policy of the Government, as it is my
right to inquire. What has been the policy
of the Government, I ask, with regard to the
school question of the North-west Territories ?
'l'he Ordinances were enacted in 1892, and
they were going to be enforced in the course
of the month of February last, if not disallowed by the Governor Geneml in Council.
As I explained, there were differences of
opinion between the members of the Government ; there is no possible doubt about that.
We have been told by the organs of the Ministers, that if the Ordinances were not
disallowed, at least the Catholic and the French
minority of the North-west would still get
justice, because the Government had recommended to Mr. Haultain, as was its right
to
do, to amend these Ordinances. We have
seen that Mr. Haultain has already stated
that he would not consent to amend the ordinances. The Government has not disallowed
the law, but it has given inducements,
it has given what I may fairly call false
hopes, to the Catholic and French minority,
and so the agitation still continues. Well,
Sir, why has not this strong Government a
decided and a strong policy ? Do you think
that it would not he better for all parties
concerned if the Government told us plainly
that these two questions are settled ? If they
told us that, we would know where we are
and what means to take. The Government, by
leaving everything undecided and by giving
false hopes, have encouraged the dangerous
agitation which we must face to-day. It may
be said to me : You evidently want to invade
provincial rights. I claim that this Government
has denied the very principle of Confederation, in placing provincial rights over
the
rights of the people of this Dominion as a
whole. We all know how the Confederation
Act was enacted. Confederation did not take
place out of the love that the different provinces professed for one another. No ;
Confederation took place because Upper and Lower
Canada, United Canada, could not get along
together any longer on account of their racial,
religious and national differences. The Government was at a deadlock half the time,
and
then the Confederation scheme was adopted.
Now, the very basis of the Confederation Act
was the right of disallowance, that statement
cannot be disputed. Disallowance and the
right of appeal to the Governor General in
Council were insisted upon especially by the
English majority in this Dominion. And today, when we claim that the right of disallowance,
and the right of appeal should be
exercised towards the French and Catholic
minority, I am sorry to say that we are
treated like fanatics. I want to know, and I
ask the Government : If, in allowing all these
prejudices to take root, they are acting wisely
and as a Government worthy of the confidence of the people of this country In the
speech which my hon. friend the Attorney
General of the province of Quebec made in
Montreal, he stated that if it was necessary
to make a daring move, it would be made in
the province of Quebec. I beg, Sir, to dissent from that opinion. I beg to state,
in
171 Â Â Â Â Â Â
[COMMONS] Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
172Â
the names of my electors, in the name of my countrymen- whom I believe I know as well
as any other man-that we do not contemplate any daring movement or any 'coup
d'e'tat.' We mean to abide by a constitutional agitation, we mean to abide by the
law of the land, we do not want anything
more, but I do not bellieve that we should be given anything else. The Government
profess to be very hostile to my hon. friend from
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) in his policy. My opinion is that they are following the
very same policy, and, if I may be permitted to say so, they are driven by him. The
hon. gentleman from Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has
obtained everything that he wanted to have. He wanted to have separate schools abolished,
and theyhave been abolished with the concurrence of the hon. gentlemen on the
other side of the House. He desired that the school laws of Manitoba should not be
vetoed, and they have not been vetoed. As a matter of fact, the most important plank
of his platform is gone, and, of course, I would not be sorry for it, if we had not
been
sacrificed by the agitation led by him. My hon. friend from Assiniboia, (Mr. Davin)
has asked me a question which I am delighted to answer: he has asked me, what are
your grievances in the North-west? In 1875 an Act was passed by the unanimous consent
of this Chamber, and by a majority of the Senate, establishing separate schools and
the French language in that country. In this Chamber, there was not a dissenting
vote, and I see here today a great many hon. gentlemen who then sat in Parliament.
Well, Sir, my hon. friend will admit that the separate schools have been abolished
by
the North-west ordinance.
Mr. TARTE. My hon. friend says no. I will not try to make myself clearer to him Does not the
Act of 1875 mention Roman Catholic separate schools? I want to know if, since the
passage of the ordinance, there are any longer Roman Catholic separate schools in
the North-west. We are speaking here as men of good faith, and let us use words in
their ordinary signification.
Mr. DAVIN. There are Roman Catholic schools in the North-west.
Mr. TARTE. I will illustrate my idea in
a way which I hope my hon. friend will understand. Suppose that at the next session
of the Legislaturc of the province of Quebec
—it will never be done. I am only supposing
it—an hon. French member should copy, word
for word, the Ordinance of the North-west
Assembly and should propose to place under
the control of the Government, constituted
the Council of Public Instruction, all the
schools of the province, all the books—in a
word, everything connected with the schools—
I want to know from any reasonable man,
would not the Protestant separate schools of the Province of Quebec be thereby abolished?
We are here, not to play with words, but to speak to facts. And now, let me say,
with the utmost frankness, that in claiming our rights we are not acting under the
dictation of any Roman Catholic or ecclesiastical influence. We are accused, especially
by the 'Mail', of being driven and led as a lot of cattle by the Roman Catholic clergy.
With regard to the majority of the members of
this side of the House, they have been         fought by the clergy. I claim,
and I am proud to claim it, that the most enlightened part of the Roman Catholic
clergy are begining to realize where they are now. There is not an hon. member on
either side of the House who will not bear out this statement, that my hon. friend
the leader of the Opposition is leading, in the province of Quebec, a party which
has not received so far the full sympathy of the Roman Catholic clergy. And yet we
are accused by the Ontario organs of hon. gentlemen opposite of being directed by
the hierarchy. On the question of schools let it be well understood, that we are
prepared to discuss calmly and like business men the whole situation. We quite understand
that things may change: we quite realize that we cannot always remain stationary:
but our position, in regard to which we should have the sympathy of every Protestant
member of this Chamber, is this: We have made a bargain, an agreement, and, as one
of the parties to that agreement we do not want our rights to be taken from us, at
least without being consulted. If the English minority in the Province of Quebec.
which bears the same proportion to the French majority there, as the French minority
bears to the English majority in Manitoba, were treated as the French minority is
treated, the English majority of the Dominion would, if necessary, take up arms in
their defence. My statement will not be challenged, because Englishmen are fond of
liberty, and are not disposed to submit to being trampled upon. Is it surprising that
we have the very same feeling? But we don't go any further. So far as I am concerned,
I always sign my articles. I speak here before the representatives of the whole
Dominion, and I challenge any one to quote one single sentence of mine in which I
have either threatened or attacked the rights of the English minority of Quebec. With
regard to the other part of the question put by my hon. friend, I want to know if
the minority of the Province of Manitoba and in the North-west do not suffer from
the deprivation of the very same rights
that the English minority enjoy in the province of Quebec. We had a right to our
language ; we had a right to our
separate schools, those rights have been
abolished. Hon. gentlemen will say that
they have been legally abolished. Every one
of us has known in his experience many
good cases which have been lost in the
173 [MARCH 21, 1894] 174
courts of justice ; but, in my experience of
history I have never yet known the case of a people being deprived of their political
rights through the courts of justice. That is the reason why we insist so much that
this Government should have a policy on this matter. I do not know whether any of
the Ministers will condescend to answer me. I am not speaking in my own name alone.
I am speaking on a question which is to-day
exciting the attention of the whole Dominion. Would it not be better to have a full
discussion and the settlement of these grievances
in this House during this session, than to
let the agitation in the country be continued ?
Sir, we often boast that we have a magnificent country . It is true. We often boast
of our desire to build up a nation on this
soil of British North America. That is
a legitimate desire. But. how can we
build up a nation if we are going to
quarrel with one another ? Is there a man
of brains who would think for a single
moment that the English majority of the
Dominion, strong as it is, could conduct
public affairs profitably by dictating to the French and the Catholic minority ? Nobody
imagines that. If we want to become a
nation and live as civilized men and
Christians should live, let us come to
some understanding. When we converse
with one another in this House we
are all of opinion that we should put a
stop to all appeals to prejudices and
bigotry. When it becomes a matter of
party politics we are driven into the abyss.
l have perhaps spoken too long, but the
question is one of very great importance. I hope I have dealt with it in a spirit
which is not offensive to any one. My great aim was to put before the House the question
as I honestly understand it, and nothing more.
Mr. DAVIN. I do not rise, I need hardly say, to oppose this motion, but to relieve the overwrought
feelings of this House, after the speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Tarte). I am sure
that the members of this House, particularly the French-Canadian members, who take
a deep interest in the French minority in the North-west, must have been deeply grieved
to hear the striking description of the differences existing among us in that country.
To know something of the grievances of the kind described by the hon. member for L'Islet
(Mr. Tarte), and of grievances of a similar character described from another point
of view, a North-west member has to come to this House. It must have struck any rational
man, on hearing the speech of my hon. friend, that my hon. friend has left us still
in the dark as to what really our grievances are. The speech of my hon. friend, if
he will excuse me, I will say was a vocal scrap-book. He gave us what Mr. Casgrain,
the Attorney General of Quebec, said. He gave us what 'Le Courrier du Canada' and
the Moniteur de Levis' and sundry other papers and people said ; but I
waited in vain to hear my hon. friend, who, I
believe, is a university man, and must have a more or less trained min, state the
case on which he asks this House to come to an opinion. He failed to state the issue
or the grievances which require remedy. I appeal to his own friends whether he has
up to this minute stated these grievances. I would ask him to do so now, and I am
sure the House will permit me to take my seat if my hon. friend describe the grievances
which he says are existing in the North-west. He has given us the opinion that no
Roman Catholic separate schools exist there. I say they do, and I say that not a single
Roman Catholic separate school has been suppressed by any legislation in the North-west.
Mr. TARTE. They are under the control
of a Protestant Board.
Mr. DAVIN. My hon. friend says they exist under the control of a Protestant Board. I will describe
to the House what has been done. It is a mere accident that the members of that board
are Protestant. I will read to the House what the arrangement is in regard to that.
Hon. gentlemen on one side and the other rise up and give the public outside the notion
that some portion of our people in the North-west is suffering under great grievance,
and hence these strident appeals, calculated to do harm to that country. It is not
extraordinary that my hon. friend could quote gentlemen in Quebec by the dozen as
to the existence of grievances in the North-west, and not be able to quote a single
Roman Catholic opinion in the North-west.
Mr. LAURIER. That is what he is moving for-for the petitions.
Mr. DAVIN. That is all right, and you will have the petitions. But I ask is it not extraordinary,
that, if there is such a sense of grievance in the North-west among the Catholic minority,
no speaker has said one word about these grievances ? What I want to point out is
this, that I have never myself heard any complaints against the Ordinances as they
exist. What I have heard is complaint against certain regulations. Now, I will show
to the House what actually exists. The Council of Public Instruction is composed as
follows. I am reading the Ordinance of 1892 :-
The members of the Executive Committee and four persons, two of whom shall be Protestants
and two Roman Catholics, appointed by the Lieutenant- Governor in Council shall constitute
a Council of Public Instruction, and one of the said Executive Committee, to be nominated
by the Lieutenant- Governor in Council, shall be chairman of the said Council of Public
Instruction. The appointed members shall have no vote and shall receive such remuneration
as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall provide.
As to separate schools, section 32 provides :
The minority of the ratepayers in any organized Public School district, whether Protestant
or
175
[COMMONS] 176
Roman Catholic, may establish a Separate School
therein, and in such case, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic
Separate
Schools shall be liable only to assessments of such
rates as they impose upon themselves in respect
thereof.
Well, certain regulations were made by that
Council of Public Instruction, and they were
objected to. I am not going to say whether
they were rightly or wrongly objected to.
I suppose every one who knows me is aware
that there is probably not a man on the continent of America so free from dogmatic
prejudices, though they exist among so many of
my fellow-countrymen of opposing opinions,
as I am. Yet I speak with some earnestness
on this subject, and for this reason: I say that
it is more than one's patience can very well
endure, to sit here, as I have for years past,
even before my hon. friend (Mr. Tarte) was
a member of this House, and hear hon.
members, who know absolutely nothing of
the North-west, speaking as though this or
that section were being trampled under foot.
My hon. friend refers to the newspapers.
I never read long articles from newspapers to
this House myself—I know their value. But I
have read articles in one of the best written
papers in the Dominion of Canada—the
Toronto 'Mail '-from which one would suppose that Mr. Royal, while Lieutenant-Governor,
was like a czar driving his political car
over the Protestant sentiment of the Northwest. It is not necessary to assure this
House that there was nothing of that kind.
It would be simply impossible. What actually happened was this : Mr. Royal, when he
first came among us, went beyond the powers
given him by the Dominion Act in handing
over everything to the Assembly. The late
Sir John Macdonald saw what he was doing.
and reminded him that he must act within
the Dominion statute. When Mr. Royal
tried to hark back, and get within the Dominion Act, he seemed to be taking back
Something he had given, but he was only declaring that he had no power to give that
which he had assumed to give. Subsequently, legislation took place that practically
gave
the Legislative Assembly all the powers of
a Provincial Assembly, with two or three
points excepted, and the North-west at the
present minute is practically in the position
of a province, save these two or three exceptions, and the fact that instead of getting
a subsidy as the other provinces do, we get
a grant in bulk but for specific purposes.
Mr. DAVIN. We cannot charter insurance companies and we cannot borrow money.
Mr. DALY. Cannot charter railway companies.
Mr. DAVIN. Railway companies also.
Now, Sir, I have read these ordinances. Let
me repeat that I have no brief here for the
existing state of things, or any possible state
of things. The issue I have with my hon.
friend from L'Islet (Mr. Tarte), and the issue
I have had with my hon. friends on the Ministerial side, when they have described
a
state of things which does not exist in the
North-west, is plain. Certain regulations relating to the separate schools were passed,
and these regulations were objected to. Now,
what did this Executive Council which my
hon. friend (Mr. Tarte) described as a Protestant council, do ? My friend Mr. Haultain—who
is described as premier, but who
as he is a sensible man, laughs at that description of himself—has taken steps to
meet
the criticisms of his acts with reference to
these questions, upon which he will have to
appear before the people at no distant day.
Here, I may say, are the modifications of the
regulations, signed by Mr. James Brown, who
is Secretary of the Council of Public Instruction :
In reply to inquiries respecting 'Readers' and
examinations for promotion in Roman Catholic
schools—
You see. the schools are there.
Mr. DAVIN. My hon. friend says, " Hear.
hear." He knows this to be the fact. But
will any man who has listened to him, not
agree with me, that the impression conveyed
by his speech was that the Catholic schools
were done away with ?
Mr. TARTE. The words are there, but the
thing is gone.
Mr. DAVIN. Here is the modification that
was made :
In reply to inquiries respecting ' Readers ' and
examinations for promotion in Roman Catholic
schools, I am directed to forward the following
minutes passed by the Council of Public Instruction the l3th of January, 1893 :—
The regulations of the Council of Public Instruction mailed to all schools on or about
16th
August last govern all examinations held under the
direction of the Council.
The following Readers are authorized for use in
Roman Catholic Schools in Standards I. and II.,
and become compulsory after lst January, 1894,
viz. :—
Protestant Readers ? No.
The Dominion Series (Sadlier's Catholic Readers) Parts I. and II. and the Second Reader;
or
"The Ontario Readers " Parts I. and II. and the
Second Reader.
In school districts where French is the vernacular the school trustees may, upon obtaining
the
consent of an Inspector, in writing, use the Ontario
Series of bilingual readers, Parts I. and II. and the
Second Reader, instead of the Dominion Series or
the Ontario Reader. In all standards above the
Second the Ontario Readers are prescribed after lst
January, 1894.
Now, there were some details of such a character that upon these, probably, there
was
177 [MARCH 21, 1894] 178
ground of complaint, though I understand this ground has been removed. As a fact,
at this moment the Roman Catholic schools
there are taught, in some cases by Roman
Catholic ladies with vow,. and the schools
are in existence precisely as they were before this ordinance was passed. We get a
grant of something less than $200,000 all
told. What was the use, Mr. Speaker, of
having a dual inspection ? As now arranged
they have a Protestant inspector and a
Catholic inspector. At one time the Catholic inspector goes over the district previously
travelled by the Protestant inspector, and,
at another, the Protestant takes the ground
previously travelled by his Catholic colleague.
Is it to be supposed, when they fix on the
readers and the character of the instruction
to be given in the schools that either inspector cannot be trusted to see that the
system is carried out effectively ? I have
heard, as I say, from one or two friends in
conversation, complaints against some of the
regulations. I cannot say that I have heard
complaints against the enactment. My hon.
friend stands here to support the Roman
Catholic schools for the North-west. He
may be surprised when I tell him that no
greater enemy—though he does not mean it—
—no greater enemy of Roman Catholic.
schools in the Territories exists in the Dominion of Canada than my hon. friend. The
speech my hon. friend has made here to-day
and every such speech, let me tell him. is
a blow struck at Roman Catholic schools as
they exist in the North-west. I am dealing
simply with the question of schools in the
North-west, and not with any question outside of that. Sir. let me tell you that the
people of the North-west, Catholic and Protestant, have, if possible a stronger sentiment
of provincial autonomy—because it is
nascent—than the people of any province
in the Dominion of Canada where the sentiment is matured. The sentiment that they
ought to be accorded all the rights and
all the privileges of a province, is strong
all over the North-west ; and men who
have no more prejudice against Roman
Catholic separate schools than my hon.
friend, if the Government had disallowed that Ordinance, would have been agitating
all over the. country. I said to one gentleman, who is, I believe a friend of
my hon. friend on my right, who is a French-
Canadian, and takes a deep interest in this
question : What do you want ? Could you
succeed in having the Federal Government
disallow that Ordinance. you know well the
result would be that agitation would never
cease until we had in the North-west a
Martin Bill. Those are the exact words I
used.
Mr. DAVIN. Yes. Yellow Martin. Another incident showing the utter ignorance
that prevails as to the state of opinion in
the North-west was the Speech of Mr. Casgrain. Mr. Casgrain, like my hon. friend,
never stated the grievance. It would be very
hard, I think, for my hon. friend, after reading over that Ordinance, to say that
separate
schools do not exist there still ; I will be
very glad if he will show me from that
Ordinance where his grievance is. If there
is a grievance, or any of his friends feel
that there is a grievance, in regard to that
Ordinance, it is his duty to point it out. Now.
I have seen the statement in the papers.
Mr. Casgrain mentioned it, and my hon.
friend quoted it, that perhaps the Lieutenant-Governor of the North-west and Mr.
Haultain, were going to fix this thing up.
and they would tell the Legislative Assembly what to do. Sir, we have not yet got
party Government in the North-west Territories, and there is no one in the Local
Assembly with what is called a following
in the sense that Mr. Mowat, for instance,
has a following in Ontario, or the right hon.
gentleman who leads the Government, or
the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, has a following in this House. There
is no man in local politics that has such a
following, and if Mr. Haultain were foolish
enough to make any such suggestion, the
Assembly would simply go on their way
without minding the suggestion. There is,
I repeat, a strong sentiment in favour of
provincial autonomy in the North-west, and
I am perfectly certain that it would be a
pretty dangerous thing for Mr. Haultain to
go to the country if he attempted to take
any such course as Mr. Casgrain thinks he
ought to take. What would be the use of it ?
Mr. MULOCK. Perhaps you had better explain some of the changes.
Mr. DAVIN. The alleged grievances have
not been very clearly explained. One of the
grievances—and it is one that I certainly
condemned myself, but I am under the impression that it has been remedied—was that
Mr. Goggin, the Educational Superintendent,
laid down that the ladies who taught in Roman Catholic schools, or the ladies about
to
take vows for the purpose of teaching. should
go and be examined either at Calgary or at
Regina, unless they were already qualified.
Well, I considered that that was not necessary, and that it would be well to adopt
the
plan followed in Manitoba some years ago,
namely, that the examiner should go and examine those ladies and see that they came
up
to the standard required by the Council of
Public Instruction. It is, however, not a
practical question at present, as all the ladies
teaching or desiring to teach in Catholic
schools are qualified. Now, Sir. I hope
that my hon. friend will not think that it
is rude on my part to say that I do
not think he understood this question, although I am sure he must understand it
now, if he did not before. I think I have
shown the House how the legislation stands ;
I have shown the House how the Council
of Public Instruction is formed, and I think
I have shown the House where the shoe
pinches, if there is any pinch. It was un
179
[COMMONS] 180
derstood that a kind of informal arrangement had been come to so that the Ordinance
would work, and I am very sorry if any
hitch has occurred. Sir, I repeat that there
never was a more mistaken course taken by
any one who is a friend of separate schools,
than the course of objecting to the state of
things that exists at present. If you agitate
it the result will be that a sentiment, partly
provincial—and I won't say that there is not
another sentiment of a warmer character
than provincial—might be raised, and the
results would be inimical to the very cause
my hon. friend has at heart. Now, Sir. my
hon. friend speaks of the "dear province of
Quebec." Dear that province is, not only to
him, but to us all. But does he not suppose
that the people of the North-west can say :
" Dear Territories of the North-west " ?
Mr. TARTE. We do not abolish separate
schools in the province of Quebec.
Mr. DAVIN No, you do not ; but what you
are contending is that something has taken
place in the Territories that causes a great
grievance to you. That is the point. Why,
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends talk about the
French minority in the North-west Territories. I cannot speak the French language
as my hon friend does ; I cannot appreciate
all the fine and delicate ' nuances ' of expression that belong to that magnificent
tongue,
as my hon. friend does ; but I can, to a great
extent, appreciate that language, and I need
hardly say that I have no prejudice against
the French language or against French people. But if you are going to talk about the
French minority in the territories, what are
you going to do with the German minority ?
Why, the German minority is of consequence
to-day, and at the rate they are growing, they
will soon compete with the English inhabitants in the North-west Territories. What
are you going to do in regard to them ? I
am not aware of any French-Canadian in
the North-west Territories who complains
of any grievance. I am aware that gentlemen in high authority have objected to the
regulations in regard to separate schools ;
and I am aware that on the part of my hon.
friend, on the part of the hon. member for
Simcoe, and on the part of several other hon.
gentlemen, there is a hallucination prevailing as to the dual language question in
the
North-west Territories ; a perfect hallucination. The bee buzzes as loudly and as
nonsensically in the head of my hon. friend
as he buzzes in the heads of others. Sir,
there are some other things that I would
like to say on this question, but as the
House is about to adjourn I will defer saying them now, as I will have another opportunity
of speaking before my hon. friend's
motion finally passes.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I would like to
make a suggestion as to the course of public
business. This order cannot be resumed this
evening as public Bills and Orders will come
up after Government Orders, and I think it
would be convenient, therefore, that this
debate should stand adjourned. Tonight,
according to the Order of the House given the
day before yesterday, when the House adjourns it will stand adjourned until Tuesday
next, and inasmuch as a large number of
members desire to take the night trains for
the east and west, I think it would not be
well for us to begin anything like the Budget
business to-night, more especially as the Finance Minister, if he took four or five
hours
to deliver his Budget Speech, would have no
time to reply to any comments on his speech.
I may say that my colleague is perfectly
ready, if it is the wish of the House, to go
on with the business of this evening. What
I would propose, however, is that we should
adjourn this debate and then adjourn the
House.
Mr. DAVIN moved the adjournment of the
debate.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The hon. gentleman has the floor. Before moving the adjournment, I ask to have it
agreed that the
debate on the Budget, which I suppose will
begin on Tuesday, shall be continued ' de die
in diem' when it reaches the Committee
stage.
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Does the
Finance Minister definitely decide to make
his financial statement on Tuesday ?
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Motion agreed to; and the House adjourned at 6.10 pm.
This individual participated in:
