The Federal government, through its deputation, offered the following terms to resolve the school issue (as given in the confidential memorandum): 1. In towns and villages where there are 25 residents of school age, or in cities where there are 50 such children, the board of trustees would arrange for a school house or room be put at their disposal « where they may be taught by a Roman Catholic teacher ». 2. 10 Roman Catholics may appeal to the provincial government from decisions of the Boards in respect to matters discussed under the clause above. 3. In schools where the majority of children are Catholics, they would be exempted from the requirements of the religious exercises under the regulations. 4. In Catholic schools, only textbooks that do not offend the views of the minority would be used. 5. Catholics would be provided representation on the Advisory Board. 6. Catholics would have representation on the Board of Examiners. 7. Assistance would be provided to Catholics for the maintenance of a normal school (teachers' training school). 8. The existing system of permits to non-qualified teachers in Catholic schools would be continued for a further two years, to enable them to qualify. 9. « In all other respects the schools at which Catholics attend to be public schools and subject to every provision of the Education Acts for the time being in force in Manitoba ». When the necessary legislation would be passed by Manitoba, the Remedial Bill would be withdrawn by the federal government.

Commenting in a letter to Mgr. Bégin about the present situation, Mgr. Langevin wrote: (translation) « Evidently the government has served us very badly; its protracted and frequent delays have hurt us as much as the opposition of the Liberals has - If, as one might expect, the Conference does not give us satisfaction and if the Remedial Bill is not passed in Ottawa I am of the opinion (I very much wish to know your opinion on this point) that we should remain neutral during the next elections - If we have not a law presently, it is the fault of the Liberals who have voted against the remedial bill - but it is also that of the Government - How can we defend it? » Langevin eventually changed his mind about this.

While not directly represented at the conference between the federal delegates and the Manitoba government, Langevin was kept fully appraised of the situation.

In a long memorandum, the government of Manitoba, represented by Clifford Sifton and J. D. Cameron, declared that « we regret that we are unable to accede to the terms of the proposition submitted to us. A study of its details reveals the fact that it involves much more than would appear at first sight ». They argued that the separate schools would be inferior, that they would be compulsory in districts that met the assigned quota of children, that in many cases it would be impossible to provide a separate building for them and that separation within the same building would be even worse, that the financial objections were serious, that the plan would be unworkable. Further, they objected to the legislature and the government being deprived of the control of the schools as to religious exercises and wondered what would happen to non-Catholic children in schools where the majority was Catholic. They were amenable, if other points were satisfactorily resolved, to discuss textbooks, representation on the Advisory Board, on the Board of Examiners and on the issue of teachers' permits. However, they rejected supporting the separate normal school and they demanded the withdrawing of the Remedial Bill as a precondition to their changing the school legislation. In any case, they pointed out that the legislature could not meet before April 16. In their judgment « it will be seen from the above remarks that the plan proposed involves the establishment of a state aided denominational system of separate schools, which in practical effect would carry with it the evils of the system which prevailed prior to 1890, and would also involve grave additional evils and difficulties of which we have not hitherto had experience ».

Their objections they summarized in the following manner: 1. « The statutory division of the people into separate denominational classes. 2. The necessary inferiority of the separate school. 3. Impairment of the efficiency of the public schools through division of school revenues. 4. The burdening of non-Catholic ratepayers by compelling them to maintain separate schools. 5. The according of special privileges to one denomination which could not on principle be denied to all others, but which in practice could not be granted to such others without entire destruction of the school system ».

What did the government of Manitoba have to offer to settle the issue? 1. To completely secularize the public schools by eliminating religious exercises and teaching during school hours. 2. Relegating religious exercises and teaching to between 3h.30 and 4h.00 in the afternoon if authorized by a resolution voted by the majority of the trustees of a district. 3. No child would be present at such religious teaching if the parents objected. 4. Where room would permit, for these religious exercises and teaching, the children could be physically divided into different rooms. The report concluded:« We believe that the foregoing proposals will remove any well-founded grievance. If the objection of the minority be that the schools are Protestant, as alleged in some of their petitions, than the objection can be fully and finally disposed of by complete secularization. If the real objection be the desire to have along with efficiency, secular education, proper religious training, than the second plan proposed offers an effective method of attaining the object desired. In fact it is difficult to conceive what better plan could be proposed even were we dealing with a system of schools entirely Catholic ».

Of all the bishops of Quebec, only Mgr. Émard thought that the Laurier-Greenway had some merit, although, even Mgr. Émard believed that the compromise was insufficient. Charles Fitzpatrick's comment that only six of the twenty-nine Canadian bishops had protested against the compromise, and which historian Blair Neatby approvingly quotes (see Laurier and a Liberal Quebec, p. 86), is not well taken. Several more condemned the compromise in the weeks following. Furthermore, it would be difficult to find any that truly supported it. At best, some believed it to be politically expedient. When, in December of 1896, there was a question of signing a joint Pastoral Letter of all the Roman Catholic bishops of Canada to condemn the Laurier-Greenway compromise, all of the bishops of the ecclesiastical provinces of Halifax, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa and St. Boniface were prepared to sign it. The bishops of Ontario, at least those outside of the archdiocese of Ottawa, brought the project to a halt. They shared the views of the other bishops on the unacceptability of the compromise; however, they feared the reaction of the Liberal Party in their province as their own schools depended on the continued support of the Liberals. They preferred to wait for the Papal encyclical before condemning the compromise. None of this indicated any serious support for the compromise within the hierarchy.

In this period of time, Tarte attacked on several occasions Mgr. Langevin who adamantly rejected the compromise; he accused him of inflexibility and prejudice. According to Tarte, Mgr. Langevin was a young man, without experience, who did not represent well the views of the Catholics of Manitoba.

The papal delegate, Mgr. Merry del Val, arrived in Quebec City. He was to have a difficult mission in Canada. In general, the Quebec bishops interpreted his arrival as potentially dangerous for them. They believed that his main task should be to investigate the Manitoba school question and demonstrate that the bishops had acted properly to defend Catholic interests, especially in condemning the Laurier-Greenway compromise. They hoped that he would support their view that Remedial legislation ought to be enacted. At the very least, they expected that the delegate would obtain further concessions from the governments of Canada and Manitoba. On the other side, the Laurier government thought that the main purpose of his presence in Canada was to investigate the « inappropriate » clerical interference into political affairs, and to bring an end to it. They hoped that he would see that the compromise was substantial, adequate, the best that could be obtained under the circumstances and preferable to a Remedial Act. Both sides besieged the delegate while he was in Canada. Merry del Val himself defined the purposes of his presence as follows: « My mission is a mission of peace, destined, if God permits it, to bring back union among the Catholics in Canada, to assure the prestige of the bishops, to firm up the obedience of the faithful and to obtain from the government an acceptable solution for all. »

It was on the occasion of the arrival of the delegate that Israel Tarte made public the letter signed by the 45 Quebec Members of Parliament. In the House, he declared: « This document speaks for itself. Not a word about the Manitoba school question is found in it. We have appealed to Rome about the attitude taken by some members of the Roman Catholic clergy, as we had a right to do. We have requested political freedom. » See the documentary section.