Canada under British Rule 1760-1900 by Sir John George Bourinot
page 280 of 398 (70%)
page 280 of 398 (70%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
The ultimate result of this reference was a judgment of the judicial
committee to the effect that the appeal was well founded and that the governor-in-council had jurisdiction in the premises, but the committee added that "the particular course to be pursued must be determined by the authorities to whom it has been committed by the statute." The third subsection of the twenty-second section of the Manitoba act--a repetition of the provision of the British North America act with respect to denominational schools in the old provinces--provides not only for the action of the governor-in-council in case a remedy is not supplied by the proper provincial authority for the removal of a grievance on the part of a religious minority, but also for the making of "remedial laws" by the parliament of Canada for the "due execution" of the provision protecting denominational schools. In accordance with this provision Sir Mackenzie Bowell's government passed an order-in-council on the 21st March, 1895, calling upon the government of Manitoba to take the necessary measures to restore to the Roman Catholic minority such rights and privileges as were declared by the highest court of the empire to have been taken away from them. The Manitoba government not only refused to move in the matter but expressed its determination "to resist unitedly by every constitutional means any such attempt to interfere with their provincial autonomy." The result was the introduction of a remedial bill by Mr. Dickey, minister of justice, in the house of commons during the session of 1896; but it met from the outset very determined opposition during the most protracted sittings--one of them lasting continuously for a week--ever known in the history of the Canadian or any other legislature of the empire. On several divisions the bill was supported by majorities ranging from 24 to 18--several French members of the opposition having voted for it and several Conservative Protestant members against its passage. The bill was introduced on the 11th February, and the motion for its second |
|