The exclusive right to make laws with respect to education in the Province of Manitoba is assigned to the Provincial Legislature by the constitution of the province as a part of the Dominion (33 Vic. 3) with the restriction that nothing in any such law "shall prejudicially affect the rights or privileges with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons had by law or practice in the province at the union."
The words " or practice " are an addition to, and the only deviation from, the terms of section 92 sub-sec. I of the B. N. A. Act, under which the New Brunswick Public Schools Act was upheld.
Prior to the union the Roman Catholics of Manitoba had no schools established by law, but there were schools under the control of the church for the education of Catholic children.
In 1890 the legislature of Manitoba passed an act relating to schools (53 Vic. 38), by which the control of all matters relating to education and schools was vested in a department of education consisting of a committee of the Executive Council and advisory boards established as provided by the act; the schools of the province were to be free and non-sectarian and no religious exercises were to be had except as prescribed by the advisory boards; and the ratepayers of each municipality were to be indiscriminately taxed for their support.
A Catholic ratepayer moved to quash a by-law of the city of Winnipeg for collecting these school rates showing by affidavit the position of Catholic schools before the union, the practice of the church to control and regulate the education of Catholics and to have the doctrines of their church taught in the schools, and :-Sir W.
Bench Man. (1) holding the Public Schools Act (2) of the Province to be intra vires.
This was an ajiplication by the appellant, A ratepayer of the city of Winnipeg and a Roman Catholic, to quash by-laws numbers 480 and 483 of the city council passed to levy an assessment upon the real and personal property in the city for the year 1890 for municipal purposes and for the city schools. ground of the application was stated to be "because by the said by-laws the amounts to be levied for school purposes for the Protestant and Roman Catholic schools are united, and one rate levied upon Protestants and Roman Catholics alike for the whole sum." 1. The question at issue is whether the Manitoba Public School Act, 53 Vic. cap 38, is void, as offending against the following provision in the constitutional act of Manitoba, 33 Vic. ch. (D.) which assigns to the provincial legislature the exclusive right to make laws with respect to education: " Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons had by law or'practice in the province at the union."
. There is a similar provision in the B: N. A. Act, sec. 92 subsec. 1, under which the Public Schools Act New Brunswick was held intra vires; Ex parte Renaud, (1); but that provision does not contain the words " practice" which are found in the Manitoba Act. In support of the application to quash the by-laws an affidavit made by the Archbishop of St. Boniface was read as showing the position of Catholics in regard to education prior to the union and the doctrines of the church in respect thereto. The affidavit contained the following clauses:
Prior to the passage of the act of the Dominion Canada passed in the thirty-third year of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, ch. known as The Manitoba Act, and prior to the order in council issued in pursuance thereof, there existed in the territory now constituting the Province of Manitoba a number of effective schools for children.
These schools were denominational schools, some of them regulated and controlled by the Roman Catholic Church, and others by various Protestant denominations."
" The means necessary for the support of the Roman Catholic schools were supplied to some extent by school fees paid by some of the parents of the children who attended the schools, and the rest was paid out of the funds of the.church contributed by its members." " During the period referred to Roman Catholics had no interest in or control over the schools of the Protestant denominations, and the members of the Protestant denominations had no interest in or control over the schools of Roman Catholics. There were no public schools in the sense of state schools.
The members of the Roman Catholic Church supported the schools of their own church for the benefit of the Roman Catholic children, and were not under obligation to, and did not, contribute to the support of any other schools." " In the matter of education, therefore, during the period referred to Roman Catholics were, as a matter of custom and practice, separate from the rest of the community, and their schools were all conducted according to the distinctive views and beliefs of Roman Catholics as herein set forth."
" Roman Catholic schools have always formed an integral part of the work of the Roman Catholic
Church.
That church has always considered the education of the children of Roman Catholic parents as coming peculiarly within its jurisdiction. The school, in the view of the Roman Catholics, is in a large measure the 'Children's Church,' and wholly incomplete and largely abortive if religious exercises be excluded from it. The church has always insisted upon its children receiving their education in schools conducted under the supervision of the church, and upon their being trained in the doctrines and faith of the church.
In education the Roman Catholic Church attaches very great importance to the spiritual culture of the child, and regards all education unaccompanied by instruction in its religious aspect as possibly detrimental and not beneficial to children. With this regard the church requires that all teachers of children shall not only be members of the church but shall be thoroughly imbued with its principles and faith; shall recognize its spiritual authority and conform to its directions.
It also requires that such books be used in the schools with regard to certain subjects as shall combine religious instruction with those subjects, and this applies peculiarly to all history and philosophy.''
"The church regards the schools provided for by
'The Public Schools Act' being chapter 38 of the statutes passed in the reign of Her Majesty Queen
Victoria, in the fifty-third year of her reign, as unfit for the purpose of educating their children, and the children of Roman Catholic parents will not attend such schools.
Rather than countenance such schools, Roman Catholics will revert to the system in operation previous to the Manitoba Act, and will establish, sup- WIEG. port and maintain schools in accordance with their principles and faith as aforementioned."
The first legislation in Manitoba for the establishment of a public school system was passed in 1871 (34 Vic. ch. 12), whereby a board of education, composed of not less than ten nor more than fourteen, persons, was established, one-half of whom were Protestants and one-half Catholics.
Each section of the board had a separate superintendent and, amongst other powers, had under its control and management the " discipline " of the schools of the section and the prescribing of such books as had reference to religion or morals. The moneys appropriated by the legislature for common school education were, after deducting the expenses of the board and superintendent's salaries, to be appropriated to the support and maintenance of common schools, one moiety thereof to the support of the Protestant schools and the other moiety to the support of the Catholic schools.
By subsequent legislation,enactedat various times up to the passage.of the Public Schools Act (53 Vic. ch. 38), the powers of the Protestant and Catholic sections of the board of education were enlarged, whereby the entire control and -management of the schools, their general government and discipline, were delegated to the section of the board to which the school belonged. Each, section had power to select all the books, maps and globes to be used in the schools under its control, and to approve of the plans for the construction of school houses, " provided, however, that in the case of books having reference to religion and morals such selection by the Catholic section of the board shall be subject to the approval of the competent religious authority."
See Man. Stat., Vic. ch. 12; 36 Vic. ch. 22; 39 Vic. ch. 1; 42 Vic. ch. 2; 44 Vic. ch. 4.
By the act respecting the Department of Education (53 Vic. ch. 37), and by the Public Schools Act (53 Vic. ch. 38), all prior legislation as to schools and education in Manitoba was repealed and a Iepartment of Education created, to consist of the Executive
Council, or a committee thereof, which, with an advisory board to be elected in the manner prescribed by the act, practically replaced the old board of education. It was further provided that all public schools in the province were to be free schools (sec. 5), that all religious exercises in the public schools should be conducted according to the regulations of the advisory board (sec. 6), and that, except as above, no religious exercises would be allowed in the schools which were declared to be " entirely non-sectarian" (see.
It is contended that this latter act is ultra vires of the Provincial legislature as prejudicially affecting the rights and privileges with respect to their schools which Roman Catholics had in the province at the union.
The Court of Queen's Bench (Man.) Dubuc J. dissenting, held the act intra vires. From that decision an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada.
S. H. Blake Q.C. and Ewart Q. C. (Brophy with them)
for the appellant.
It is admitted that prior to the admission of Manitoba into the union Roman Catholics had entire control of the education of their children without any statutory enactment providing therefor, and had enjoyed such privilege for more than forty years. It is also admitted that the act passed in 1871, after the union, did not take away such right of control and was not objectionable to Catholics.
The act of 1871 did not interfere with the system by which the Roman Catholics had the entire control over their own schools, and it is admitted that the present act does away with such control.
Under it the schools in Manitoba areto be entirely non-sectarian, and the Roman Catholics will be obliged to support their own schools and to contribute to the support of Protestant schools, schools which they conscientiously believe to be not only negatively but positively injurious to the public good, or, as Lord Thesiger has said in reference to schools in which religious instruction has no place, that " the system means educating the people to be skilled villains instead of christians." The position of the Roman Catholic Church in respectto education is presented to the court in this case by Archbishop Tach6 in his affidavit.
He says " Roman Catholic schools have always formed an integral part of the work of the Roman Catholic Church. * * * The school, in the view of the Roman Catholics, is in a large measure the 'Children's Church,' and wholly incomplete and largely abortive if religious exercises could be excluded from it.
*
* In education, the Roman Catholic Church attaches great importance to the spiritual culture of the child, and regards all education unaccompanied by instruction in its religious aspect as possibly detrimental and net beneficial to children."
The affidavit also shows that Catholics, owing to the rules and doctrines of their church, cannot conscientiously send their children to the public schools established under the act in question in this case. When Manitoba became a part of the Dominion of Canada it was a part of the arrangement of union that Roman Catholics should be protected in the rights above outlined, which they claim have been swept away by this act. The sections of the constitutional act (33 Vic. ch. relating to education, are not precisely similar to the corresponding action of the British North America Act.
The latter act only ?E protects rights and privileges which any class of persons had by law, the Manitoba Act protects such rights as were had by law or practice. In New Brunswick it was held that Roman Catholics having had no schools established by law at confederation there were no rights to be affected.
It might be argued that the word law should not be construed narrowly as meaning statutory law, but in the wide sense of usage, habit, custom, &c.
Be that as it may we have in our act the words " or practice " so that we are not driven to this construction of the other word " law."
The wishes of parents are entitled to the first consideration.
This is the opinion of the Royal Commission on education appointed in England in 1886. It is argued that Catholics will still have a right to their own schools and are not obliged to send their children to the public schools. But the act does not protect them against the abolition of their rights. they have their own schools they will be taxed for the support of the public schools and will thus be " prejudicially affected " in their rights which the law does not allow.
This is an act which prejudicially affects this class of persons, as to their conscientious convictions, as. to their pockets, in their relation to their church, in the most important matter of secular and religious education of their young. It is in most marked contradiction to the spirit of conciliation displayed in the act which dealt with these rights and to the wise spirit of toleration which is displayed in the enactment that was in force for 20 years, and offends against the spirit and the letter of the act which defends the rights of these persons and therefore will be held unconstitutional by this court. The following cases were cited by the learned counsel : Bailey v. The Great Western Railway Company (1); Musgrave v. Inclosure Commisioners Barlow v. Ross Attorney General of Canada v. Attorney General of Ontario
Gormully Q.C. and Martin for the respondents. The words " by law or practice" as used in the act can only mean some binding rule or obligation to which the inhabitants of the province were committed at the time of the union ; Ex parte Renaud
There was no such rule or obligation here.
As to the meaning of the word "rights" in a statute see Austin on Jurisprudence (6), and of "privileges" And see Fearon v. Mitchell
According to Archbishop Tach6 the right or privilege enjoyed by Catholics at the union was to have denominational schools supported by fees from parents or by the funds of the church. With this the Public Schools Act in no way interferes.
If the contention against this act is to prevail it follows that the legislature of Manitoba cannot pass any effective act relating to education.
Sinclair v. Mulligan and The Duke of Newcastle v. Morris (10) were cited.
Sir W. J. C.J.- This is an application to quash two by-laws of the municipal corporation the city of Winnipeg. which were passed for levying a rate for municipal and school purposes in that city for the year 1890, and they assess all real and personal property in the city for such purpose.
It is asked that -these by-laws be quashed for illegality on the following among other grounds : That because by the said by-laws the amount to be levied for school purposes for the Protestant and Roman Catholic schools are united, and one rate levied upon Protestants and Roman Catholics alike for the whole sum.
It must be assumed that in legislating with reference to a constitution for Manitoba the Dominion Parliament was well acquainted with the-conditions of the country to which it was about to give a constitution, and they must have known full well that at that time there were no schools established by law, religious secular, public or sectarian.
In such a state affairs, and having reference to the condition of the population, and the deep interest felt and strong opinions entertained on the subject of separate schools, it cannot be supposed that the legislature had not its attention more particularly directed to the educational institutions of Manitoba, and more especially to the schools then in practical operation, their constitution, mode of support and peculiar character in matters of religious instruction.
To have overlooked considerations of this kind is to impute to parliament a degree -of short-sightedness and indifference which, in view of the discussions relating to separate schools which had taken place in the older provinces, or some of them, and to the extreme vigilance with which educational questions are scanned and the importance attached to them, more particularly by the Catholic Church as testified to by Monseigneur Tach6, cannot to my mind be for a moment entertained.
Read in the light of considerations such as these must we not conclude that the legislature well weighed its language and intended that every. word it used should have force and effect ?
The British North America Act confers on the local legislature the exclusive power to make laws in relation to education, provided nothing in such laws shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege, with respect to denominational schools, which any class of persons had by law in the province at the union, but the RitchieC.J. Manitoba Act goes much further and declares that nothing in such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons had by law or practice in the province at the union.
We are now practically asked to reject the words " or practice " and construe the statute as if they had not been used, and to read this restrictive clause out of the statute as being inapplicable to the existing state of things in Manitoba at the union, whereas on the contrary, I think, by the insertion of the words " or practice " it was made practically applicable to the condition at the time of the educational institutions, which were, unquestionably and solely as the evidence shows, of a denominational character. It is clear that at the time of the passing of the Manitoba Act no class of persons had by law any rights or privileges secured to them; so if we reject the words " or practice " as meaningless or inoperative we shall be practically expunging the whole of the restrictive clause from the statute. I know of no rule of construction to justify such a proceeding unless the clause is wholly unintelligible or incapable of any reasonable construction.
The words used, in my opinion, are of no doubtful import, but are, on the contrary, plain, certain and unambiguous, and must be read in their ordinary grammatical sense. Effect should be given to all the words in the statute, nothing adding thereto, nothing diminishing therefrom, as was said by Tindall C.J. in Everett v. Wells (1).
The legislature must be understood to mean what it has plainly expressed, and this excludes construction. See Rex v. Banbury
It is a settled canon of construction that no clause, VE sentence or word, shall be construed superfluous, void CIr or insignificant if it can be prevented.
See The Queen v. The Bishop of Oxfora
While it is quite clear that at the time of the passing of this act there were no denominational or other schools established and recognized by law, it is equally clear that there were at that time in actual operation practice a system of denominational schools in Manitoba well established and the de facto rights and privileges of which were enjoyed by a large class of persons. What then was there more reasonable than that the legislature should protect and preserve to such class of persons those rights and privileges they enjoyed in practice, though not theretofore secured to them by law, but which the Dominion Parliament appears to have deemed it just should not, after the coming into operation of the new provincial constitution, be prejudicially affected by the action of the local legislature ? I quite agree with the cases cited by the learned Chief Justice of Manitoba as to the rules by which the act should be construed.
I agree that the court must look not only at the words of the statute but at the cause of making it to ascertain the intent. When we find the parliament of Canada altering and adding to the language of the British North America Act by inserting a limitation not in the British North America Act. must we not conclude that it was done advisedly.? What absurdity, inconsistency, injustice, or contradiction is there in giving the words " or practice " a literal construction, more especially, as I have endeavoured to show, as the literal meaning is the only meaning the words are capable of and is entirely consistent with the manifest intention of the legislature, namely, to meet the exigencies of the country, and cover denominational schools of the class practically in use and operation ? If the literal meaning is not to prevail I have yet to hear what other meaning is to be attached to the words " or practice."
If the legislature intended to protect the classes of persons who had founded and were carrying on denominational schools of the character of those which existed at the time of the passing of the act I am at a loss to know what other words they could more aptly have used. They might, it is true, have said " which any class persons has by law or usage," but the words " prac tice " and " usage" are synonymous. I agree, also, that we should ascertain what the language of the legislature means, in other words, to suppose that parliament meant what parliament has clearly said.
It cannot be said that the words used do not harmonize with 'the subject of the enactment and the object which I think the legislature had in view. the legislature intended to recognize denominational schools how could they have used more expressive words to indicate their intention since the words used, read in their ordinary grammatical sense, admit but one meaning and therefore one construction ? And we should not speculate on the intention of the legislature that intention being clearly indicated by the language used in view -of the condition of, and the state of education in, that country.
The object the legislature must have had in view in using them was clearly to protect the rights and privileges with respect to denominational schools which any class or persons had by law or practice, that is to say, had by usage, at the time of the union.
I cannot read the language the act in any other sense.
The decision of the court of New Brunswick in the case of Ex parte Renaud (1) referred to in the. court below has no application in this case. That case turned entirely on the fact that The Parish School Act of New Brunswick, 21 Vic. ch. 9, conferred no legal rights on any class of persons with respect to denominational schools.
It was there RitchieC.J. simply determined that there were no legal rights with respect to denominational schools, and therefore no rights protected by the British North
America Act, a very different case from that we are now called on to determine. It may very well be that in view of the wording of the British North America Act and the peculiar state of educational matters in Manitoba the Dominion Parliament determined to enlarge the scope of the British North America Act, and protect not only denominational schools established by law but those existing in practice, for as I am reported to have said and no doubt did say, in Ex pare Renaud
(1) that in that case: "We must look to the law as it was at the time of the union and by that and, that alone be governed."
Now on the other hand, in this case, we must look to the practice with reference to the denominational schools as it existed at the time of the passing of the
Manitoba Act.
That this was the view taken by the legislature of
IMianitoba would seem to be indicated by thelegislation of that province up to the passing of the Public Schools
Act which very clearly recognized denominational schools and made provision for their maintenance and support, providing that support for Protestant schools should be taxed on Protestants and for Catholic schools should be taxed on Catholics, and conferring the management and control of Protestant schools on Protestants and the like management and control of Catholic schools on Catholics. This denominational system was most effectually wiped out by the Public Schools Act and not a vestige of the denominational character left in the school system of Manitoba.
ir. Justice Dubuc gives an accurate synopsis of the legislation prior to the passing of the Public Schools Act.
The only question, it strikes me, we are now called upon to consider is: Does this Public School Act prejudicially affect the class of persons who in practice enjoyed the rights and privileges of denominational schools at the time of the union ? Now, what were the provisions of the Public Schools Act ? Mr. Justice Dubuc likewise gives a synopsis of the Public Schools Act as follows:
[His Lordship here read that portion of the judgment of Dubuc J. and proceeded:]
But it is said that the Catholics as a class are not prejudicially affected by this act.
Does it not prejudicially, that is to say injuriously, disadvantageously, which is the meaning of the word " prejudicially," affect them when they are taxed to support schools of the benefit of which, by their religious belief and the rules and principles of their church, they cannot con-, scientiously avail themselves, and at the same time by compelling them to find means to support schools to which they can conscientiously send their children, in the event of their not being able to find sufficient means to do both to be compelled to allow their children to go without either religious or secular instruction?
In other words, I think the Catholics were directly prejudicially affected by such legislation, but whether directly or indirectly the local legislature was powerless to affect them prejudicially in the matter denominational schools, which they certainly did by practically depriving them of their denominational schools and compelling them to support schools the benefit of which Protestants alone can enjoy.
In my opinion the Public Schools Act is ultra vires and the by-laws of the city of Winnipeg, Nos. 480 and ~WINNIPEG. 483, should be quashed and this appeal allowed with costs.
J.-I have read the judgment prepared by the Chief Justice, and entirely concur in the conclusion at which he has arrived as well as in the reasons he has given therefor.
I have nothing to add to what he has said.
FOURNIER J.-C'est au moyen d'une demande pour faire annuler les r~glements Nos. 480 et 483 adopths par le Conseil Municipal de Winnipeg que 1'appelant a soulev6 dans cette cause l'importante question de la 16galite de l'acte 53 Vic., ch. 38, concernant les 6coles publiques de Manitoba.
Par les deux reglements adoptes en vertu du nouvel acte d'4cole et des dispositions de l'acte municipal une taxe de deux centins par dollar est impos6e sur la valeur de la proprit6 mobilibre et immobilibre dans la cit6 de Winnipeg. La proportion de cette taxe appropri6e aux 6coles est fix~e A 4 et un 6 de inille dans le dollar.
Le moyen de nullit6 invoqu6 est que par les reglements une seule taxe est pr6lev6e uniform6ment sur les catholiques et les protestants pour le soutien des 6coles. Ce moyen est 6nonc6 en ces termes:
Cette question a 6t soumise A 1'honorable juge Killam, qui a d6cid6 en faveur de la constitutionnalit6 de 1'acte et de la l6galit des by-lawos en question. Son jugement a t confirm6 par la majorit6 de la Cour Supr~me de Manitoba. C'est ce dernier jugement qui est maintenant soumis A la consid~ration de cette cour. Par cet acte, 53 Vic., ch. 38, le syst~me des 6coles separ6es, catholiques et protestantes, qui avait t 6tabli J. conform6ment A l'acte constitutionnel de Manitoba, Vie., ch. 3, a e compltement aboli aprbs avoir th force pendant dix-neuf ans.
Il est important pour la d6cision de cette question de se reporter aux circonstances qui out amen6 1'entr6e de cette province dans la conf~d6ration canadienne. On se souvient que c'est A la suite d'une r~bellion qui avait jet6 la population dans une profonde et violente agitation, soulev6 les passions religieuses et nationales, et caus6 de grands disordres qui avaient rendu n6cessaire l'intervention du gouvernement f6d&ral. C'est dans le but d'y r6tablir la paix publique et de concilier cette population .que le gouvernement f6dral leur accorda la constitution dont ils out joui jusqu'A pr6sent.
Le principe des 6coles s~par~es introduit dans l'acte de l'Ambrique Britannique du Nord par la section fut aussi introduit dans la constitution de Manitoba, et d6clar6 s'appliquer aux 6coles s~pardes qui existaient de fait dans ce territoire avant son organisation en province.
La population 6tait alors divis6e A peu prbs 6galement entre catholiques et protestants.
Tout en donnant A la province le pouvoir de 16gif6rer concernant 1'6ducation la sec. 22 ss. I ajoute A la restriction de la section 93 de I'acte de l'Am6rique Britannique du N ord de ne pr6judicier aucunement an droit et au privil&ge conf6r6 par la loi relativement aux coles s~par6es, celle de ne pr6judicier non plus aux 6coles s~par~es existantes par la coutume du pays (by practice). O'est sur cette extension de la prohibition de la section 93 qui prot6geait les 6coles s6pares, 6tablies par la coutume que la 16gislature de Manitoba s'est fond6e pour introduire le principe des 6coles s6parbes protestantes et catholiques dans le premier acte des 6coles
VE qu'elle a pass6 apris son organisation.
Dans but, il fut d6cid6 par cet acte que le lieutenant gouverneur en conseil aurait le pouvoir de nommer un bureau J. d'6ducation compos6 de pas moins de dix et pas plus de quatorse personnes dont une moiti6 serait catholiques et I'autre protestants et deux surintendants 1'un pour les 6coles protestantes et 1'autre pour les 6coles catholiques qui seraient les secr6taires con.joints du bureau.
Les devoirs des bureaux sont d6finis comme suit :- 10 de faire de temps en temps les riglements qu'ils jugeront convenables pour 1'organisation des 6coles communes; 2" de choisir les livres, mappes, globes pour l'usage des 6coles communes, en ayant le soin de choisir les livres anglais, mappes et globes pour les 6coles anglaises et des livres frangais pour les 6coles frangaises mais ce pouvoir ne devait pas s'etendre an choix des livres concernant la religion et la morale, ce choix
6tant r6gl6 par une clause subsequente; 3' de changer et de subdiviser avec la sanction du lieutenant gouverneur tout district d' cole 6tablie en vertu de cet acte.
La sous-sec. 12 donne an bureau le pouvoir de prescrire pour 1'usage des coles les livres concernant la religion et la morale; par la sous-sec. 13, les argents approprids par la kgislature pour l'ducation doivent
6tre divis~s 6galement une moiti6 pour le support des
6coles protestantes et l'autre pour celui des 6coles catholiques.
Le premier bureau nomm6 par le lieutenant gonverneur en conseil 6tait compose de l'Archev~que de
St. Boniface de 1'Ev~que de la terre de Rupert, de plusieurs pritres catholiques et de ministres protestants de diverses dinominations et d'une couple de laiques pour chaque section.
Ce statut a t6 amend de temps en temps pour satisfaire A de nouveaux besoins A mesure que les etablissements se d6veloppaient et que la population augmentait, mais toujours ei conservant le mme systeme d'avoir des 6coles s~par~es pour les catholiques et les pro- J testants.
Les seuls changements importants furent par I'acte de 1875 viz: l'augmentation du nombre des membres du bureau 1 21, douze protestants et neuf catholiques, et la division des argents vot6s par la lgistature entre les protestants et les catholiques en proportion du nombre d'enfants en Age de fr6quenter les 6coles dans chaque district catholique ou protestant.
A part de ces changements le systeme des 6coles s6par6es et 1'action ind~pendante des deux sections du bureau furent de plus en plus confirm~s par les statuts subs6quents.
La sec. 27 de l'acte de 1875 c. 27 dit que l'6tablissement dans un district d'une 6cole d'une d6nomination n'empchera pas
'6tablissement d'une 6cole d'une autre dinomination dans le mime district. Ce principe regoit une certaine extension et est mis en pratique par les secs. 39, 40 et 41 de l'acte de 1876 c. 1. Tel est 1'6tat de choses qui a exist6 sous le rapport de 1'6ducation depuis l'entr~e de la province de Manitoba dans la confederation.
C'est en vertu des dispositions de l'acte constitutionnel, confirm6 par un acte du Parlement imp6rial, que tons les actes de la province 6tablissant le systhme des 6coles s6pardes a t6 introduit et regularis6.
Bien qu'avant cette 6poque il n'y eiit pas A proprement parler de systeme d'ducation publique, les protestants et les catholiques 6taient depuis longtemps dans l'habitude de soutenir respectivement chacun pour son compte et A ses frais et d6pens, des 6coles qui, dans le fait 6taient des coles s6paries ol 1'enseignement se faisait suivant les principes de chaque d6nomination. Dans son affidavit A cet effet, produit au soutien des pr6tensions de l'appelant et dont les faits ne sont pas contest~s par la partie adverse, 1'Archev~que
Tach6 dGfinit l'etat de chose existant alors comme suit:
T. Avant 'acte de la Puissance du Canada pass6 dans la 33m. aninie dii rigne de Sa lajest6 la Reine Victoria, ch. 3, connu sous le nom de FActe de Manitoba, et avant 'ordre en conseil 6mis en vertu de cet Fournier J. acte it existait dans le territoire formant naintenant la Province de
Manitoba un nombre d'6coles effectives pour Finstruction des enfants.
3. Ces 6coles 6taient des 6coles sipardes (denominational) dont les unes
4taient rig16es et contr616es par P'glise catbolique et les autres par les diverses dinominations protestantes.
4. Les moyens n~cessaires pour le soutien des 6coles catholiques 6taient fournis en partie par des bonoraires dl'cole, payds par les parents des enfants qui fr6quentaient les
6coles, et le reste dtait pay6 par Nglise an moyen des contributions de ses membres.
5. Durant cette piriode, les catholiques n'avaient aucun intirft ni contr6le dans les 6coles protestantes et les protestants n'avaient non plus aucun intirit ni contr6le dans les 6coles catholiques.
n'y avait pas d'6coles publiques dans le sens d'coles soutenues par
PEtat. Les catholiques soutenaient les 6coles de leur 6glise pour l'avantage des enfants catholiques, et n'6taient pas oblig6s de contribuer au soutien d'aucune autre 6cole. En ce qui concerne 1'Pducation, pendant cette p6riode les catholiques 6taient par la coutune et la pratique s~pards du reste de la population et leurs 6coles 6taient conduites suivant les principes et les croyances de Pdglise catholique."
Dans le m~me affidavit l'Archev~que declare que
1'Eglise considere les 6coles tablies en vertu du "Public School Act" comme impropres A 1'6ducation des enfants catholiques et que les enfants ne les fr6quenteront pas : que plut6t que d'encourager ces 6coles, les catholiques pr6f~reront retourner au syst6me existant avant l'acte de Manitoba et qu'ils 6tabliront et maintiendront des 6coles conform6ment aux principes de leur foi ; que les protestants sont satisfaits du systeme d'6ducation 6tabli par le "Public School Act" parce que ces 6coles sont tout-A-fait semblables A celles qu'ils maintenaient avant la r6vocation des actes ant~rieurs admettant le systeme des ecoles s~par~es dont ils avaient le contr6le absolu.
Les affidavits en opposition A la motion tablissent que les 6coles existantes avant l'entr6e du Manitoba dans la Confid6ration- n'6taient que des 6coles privees, soumises & aucun contr6le de la part du public et n'en recevant aucun subside.
II n'y avait pas de taxes pereues par l'autorit6 pour cet objet et il n'y avait Fournier J. aucun moyen legal de forcer le public a contribuer au soutien de ces 6coles priv6es.
Les affidavits donn~s de part et d'autre ne se contredisent nullement et donnent une ide correcte de la situation des 6coles existantes dans le territoire qui a depuis form6 la province de Manitoba.
Il en r~sulte qu'il est clairement prouv6 que les 6coles alors existantes, quoique non 6tablies par aucune loi, 6taient de fait, et dans la pratique des 6coles s6par6es (denominational schools).
C'est cet 6tat de choses qui a 6t6 consacr6 par la 22, sec. de l'acte constitutionnel de Manitoba, par la d~claration que rien dans les lois qui seraient pass6es par la 1gislature ne devra pr6judicier A aucun droit on privilIge conf6, lors de 1'union par la loi ou par la coutume & aucune classe particulibre de personnes dans la province, relativement aux 6coles s~pares (denominational schools.)
Cette disposition est la source du pouvoir exere6 par la 16gislature du Manitoba en vertu de 1'acte 34 Vic., ch. 12, confirmant et approuvant le systeme des ecoles s6par6es existant auparavant.
On a vu par ses principales dispositions cities plus haut que le contrble exerc6 par les protestants et les catholiques, sur leur &coles respectives, leur avait
6 conserv6 par cette loi et par les suivantes adopt6es, .jusqu'd l'acte 53 Vic., ch. 38.
A la session de 1890, la 16gislature a pass6 deux actes au sujet de 1'instruction, le premier, ch. abolit le bureau d'6ducation ci-devant existant ainsi que la chargede surintendant de l'Nducationetcr6e un d6partement de 1'6ducation, form6 de l'ex6cutif on d'un comit6 pris dans son sein, nomme par le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil et d'un bureau d'aviseurs compos6 de sept membres, dont quatre nommbs par le d6partement de l'ducation, deux par les instituteurs de la province et un par le conseil de l'universit6.
Entre autres devoirs le bureau des aviseurs a le pouvoir d'examiner et auto- J. riser les livres de texte et de r6f6rence pour l'usage des
6coles et des bibliothaque d'6coles; de d6finir les qualifications des instituteurs et des inspecteurs des 6coles;
de nommer les personnes charg6es de pr6parer les programmes d'examen; de prescrire la forme des exercices religieux qui seront pratiqu6s dans les 6coles.
L'autre acte est le " Public School Act " ch. 38, dont la constitutionnalit6 est attaqu6e.
Il r6voque tous les statuts en force concernant l'6ducation et d6clare par la section 3 que tous les districts scolaires protestants et catholiques, ainsi que les 6lections et nominations A aucun office, contrats, cotisations, faits ci devant au sujet des 6coles catholiques et protestantes et en existence lors de sa mise en force seront sonmis aux dispositions de cet acte; la section 4 continue en office les syndics existants lors de sa mise en force comme s'ils avaient t 6lus en vertu -des dispositions de cet acte; section 5, toutes les 6coles publiques seront libres et tous les enfants de 1'age de *5 A 16 ans dans les municipaliths rurales, et de 6 6 16 ans dans les villes auront le droit de les fr6quenter.
Section 6. Les exercices religieux dans les 6coles publiques seront conduits conform6ment aux rglements du bureau des aviseurs.
Le temps pour ces exercices est fix6, et, si les parents ne d6sirent pas que leurs enfants y assistent alors ces derniers seront renvoy6s avant ces exercices. Par la sec. 7 les exercices religieux sont a l'option des syndics d'6coles pour le district et sur r6ception d'une autorisation 6crite des syndics, les instituteurs seront oblig~s de faire ces exercices religieux.
Les
6coles publiques ne seront pas des 6coles de sectaires et aucun exercice religieux n'y sera permis except6 qu'en la manisre ci-dessus prescrite.
L'acte pourvoit a l'6tablissement de districts so- WINNIPEG. laires dans les municipalit~s rurales et dans les villes Fournier J et villages, h l'61ection des syndics d'6coles et & l'imposition de taxes pour les fins scolaires.
La sec. 92 declare que
Le conseil municipal de toute cit6, ville et village pr016vera et collectera sur la propri~t6 imposable dans les limites de la municipalit6 et en la manibre prescrite par cet acte et par Pacte municipal et de cotisa- .
tion telles qui seront requises par les syndics pour les fins scolaires.
Sec. 108 contient au sujet de l'octroi 16gislatif pour les 6coles la disposition suivante
Toute 6cole qui ne sera pas conduite conformiment aux dispositions de cet acte, on de tout autre acte alors en force on confori6nment aux rbglements du d6partment de F'ducation ou du bureau des aviseurs, ne sera pas considir6 une icole publique suivant la loi et n'aura aucune part de 1'Qctroi ligislatif.
La sec. 143 statue qixeles instituteurs n'emploieront pas d'autres livres d'ecoles que ceux autorisbs par le bureau des aviseurs et aucune paTtie de l'octroi 16gislatif ne sera paye aux ecoles employant les livres non autoris6s.
Par la sec. 179 :
Dans les cas oii avant la mise en force de cet acte, des districts d'6coles catholiques out t
6tablis tel que mentionni dans la section precdente couvrant le territoire qu'un district protestant, tel district d'6cole catholique, de la nise force de cet acte cessera d'exister et tout Favoir de tel district avec son passif appartiendront au district d'6cole publique.
L'ensemble de ces dispositions a produit un changement complet dans le systime d'6ducation; le statut a fait disparaltre non seulement les clauses de la loi anthrieure 6tablissant les 6coles separees mais a meme proscrit jusqu'& l'usage des termes " denominations catholiques et protestantes."
La sec. 179 dans les cas oi un district catholique d'oole (ouvre le mime territoire qu'un district protestant, va jusqu'd la confiscation des biens du district catholique et transporte la propri6t6 an district protestant designs sons le nom
VHE d'6cole publique.
Par cette analyse des principales dispositions de 1'acte 53 Vic., ch. 38, on voit que la l6gislature du Mani- Fournier toba, apr~s avoir 6tabli conform6ment au pouvoir que lui en donnait sa constitution, un systhme d'6coles s~parbes, a compl~tement aboli ce syst~me et en a organis6 un autre directement en opposition au premier, dans lequel elle fait disparaitre le droit aux 6co!es separes tel qu'il avait exist6 jusqu'alors pour lui substituer un autre, fond6 sur le principe non sectarian, excluant 1enseignement religieux des &coles et laissant aux syndics d'ecoles le choix des livres concernant la religion et la morale qui seront en usage dans ces
6coles
Le syst~me ainsi 6tabli est tout-A-fait contraire aux id6es religieuses des catholiques et A la doctrine de
1'6glise catholique romaine, et leur enl~ve le droit reconnu par 1'acte du Manitoba, d'avoir des &coles s~parbes.
Cette 16gislation n'exchde-t-elle pas le pouvoir de la 16gislature ? N'est-elle pas directement en opposition A la section 22 de 1'acte du Manitoba et partant ultra vires ?
La section 93 de 1'acte de l'Am6rique Britannique du
Nord. donnant aux 16gislatures des provinces le ponvoir de 16giferer au sujet de 1'6ducation y met la restriction suiv ante:- Cette disposition a 6t6 introduite dans la ire s. s.
de la section 22 de 1'acte du- Manitoba, avec la seule diff&rence de l'addition des mots "or practice " ou par la coutume A la suite des mots "par la loi," de sorte que cette section s'y lit maintenant comme suit.privilge La solution de la question repose done entibrement dans 1'interpr~tation A donner aux mots " ou par la coutume " introduits dans la section 22, et qui ne se trouve pas dans la section 93 de l'Acte de 1'Am6rique Britannique du Nord.
Evidemment cette addition n'a pas 6t6 faite sans motifs, et l'on doit en trouver la signification par l'application des rigles concernant l'interpr~tation des statuts donnes par les autorites. Une des premibres rigles est que lorsque les termes d'un statut ne sont susceptibles que d'une seule signification la cour n'a pas le pouvoir de rechercher 1'intention de la 16gislature pour interprter un acte suivant ses propes notions de ce qu'il aurait dd statuer. Maxwell on Statutes
York 8 Midland Railway Company v The Queen
Lorsque le-langage est pr6cis et sans ambiguit6, mais en m~me temps incapable d'une signification raisonnable et qu'en consequence 1'acte n'est pas susceptible d'execution, une cour n'a pas le droit de donner aux mots sur de siinples conjectures, une signification qui ne leur appartient pas.
Maxwell on Statutes Cette regle ne s'applique qu'aux cas oi le langage est pr6cis et susceptible que d'une seule signification.
Les mots " on par la coutume " " or practice " ins6rbs dans la section 22 de l'acte du Manitoba n'ont pas a la v6rit6 une signification technique, quoique dans le langage ordinaire ils en aient une bien claire et peu susceptible d'ambiguit6.
On pretend cepeudant qu'ils signifient que les catholiques romains, quoique de contribuer au soutien des 6coles publiques, ont la permission de maintenir des 6coles s6pardes comme 6coles priv6es.
C'est une interpr6tation tris 6troite et en contradiction avec les termes de la sec. 22.
On pr6tend aussi qu'ils assurent 1'exemption de l'obligation d'assister aux 6coles publiques; mais l'interpr6tation la plus lib6rale et la plus sensbe est sans doute que les &coles s~parees existant de fait lors de l'Union, ces mots ont t introduits dans 1'acte du Manitoba pour leur donner une existence 16gale de fagon h empcher la 1gislature locale de 1gif6rer A leur d~triment.
Si les mots " par la coutume" on " by practice
6taientsusceptibles d'interpr6tationsdiffrentes on pourrait leur appliquer une ancienne regle d'interpr~tation qui dclare qu'une chose comprise dans la lettre du statut n'est cependant pas dans les limites du statut, si elle n'est pas conforme A 1'intention de la 16gislature
C'est done l'intention de la 16gislature qu'il faut rechercher pour se faire une id~e.juste de la signification des mots " practice."
Maxwell dit en outre (2) :
Cette r~gle a t enonc6e dans la cause de Heydon (3), d~cide sous le r~gne d'Elizabeth et a tonjours 6t6 suivie depuis.
faut souvent, pour trouver la v6ritable signification des mots employ6s dans un statut, remonter A l'histoire du sujet et examiner les circonstances particulibres qui ont port6 la 16gislature A adopter la disposition. TE
Dans la cause de River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, (1), Lord Blackburn dit A la page 763 :
I shall state precisely I can what I understand from the decided Fournier J. to be the principles on which the courts of law act in construing instruments writing, and a statute an instrument in writing. In all cases the object to see what is the intention expressed by the words used.
But from the interpretation of language, it is impossible to know what that intention without inquiring farther, and seeing what the circumstances were with reference to which the words were used, and that was the object appearing from the circumstances, which the person using them hai in view, for the meaning of words varies according to the circumstances with respect to which they were used. Dans I'interpr6tation des statuts dit Maxwell (2) au sujet de la cause de Gorham v. The Bishop of Exeter (3) : The interpreter in order to underAand the subject matter, and the scope and object of the enactment, must, in Coke's words, ascer!ain what was the mischief or defect for which the law had not provided, that he must call to his aid all those external or historical facts which are necessary for the purpose, and which led to the enactment, and for those he may consult temporary or other authentic works and writings.
In Atty. Gen. v. Sillem (4) Lord Brarwell dit: It may be a legitimate mode of determining the meaning of doubtful document to place those who have to expound it in the situation of those who made it, and perhaps, history may be referred to to show what facts existed bringing about statute, and what matters influenced men's minds when it was made.
Lord Turner dans la cause de Hawkins v. Gathercole (5):
In construing acts of Parliament the words which are used are not alone to be regarded.
Regard must also be had to the intent and meaning of the legislature. The rule upon the subject is well expressed in the of Stradling v. Morgan and also in Eyston v. Studd In determining the question before us, we have therefore to consider (1) App. Cas
H. et 0.
P. 30.
DeG. & 1, pp. 20-21. Rapport4e par Moore 462.
Plowd 204.
Plowd 467.
not merely the words of the Act of Parliament, but the intent of the legislature to be collected from the cause and necessity of the Act be- B ing made from a comparison of its several parts, and from foreign (meaning extraneous) circumstances, far as they can justly be conthrow light upon the
In Holme v. Guy (1), Jessel M. R. dit
Fournier J The court is not oblivious of the history of law and legislation. Although the court not at liberty to construe an Act of Parliament by the motives which influenced the legislature, yet when the history of law and legislation tells the court what the object of the legislature was, the court is to see whether the terms of the section are such as fairly to carry out that object and no other, and to read the section with a view to finding out what it means, and not with a viewof extending it to something that was not intended.
Pour 6tablir la v6ritable signification des mots " on par la coutixme" " by practice " ces autoritis nous justifient d'examiner les circonstauces et les motifs qui les out fait introduire dans le statut.
La 93e section de 1'acte de 1'A. B. N. donne , la 16gislature de chaque province le pouvoir exclusif de faire les lois concernant 1'ducation sujet toutefois A certaines restrictions dont la premidre est que rien dans ces lois ne portera pr6judice au droit on privilge qu'aucune classe de personnes posshde en vertu de la loi.
La Ire s.s. de la 22e section de l'acte du Manitoba ajoute A cette prohibition celle de pr6judicier aux droits confdres par la coutume A aucune classe de personnes aussi bien qu'A ceux conf6rbs par la loi.
Quelle a 6 la raison de l'introduction de cette restriction dans la sec. 93 et pour quels motifs a-t-elle 6t 6tendue an droit qui ne reposait que sur ]a coutume dans Manitoba lors de la passation de 1'Acte 33 Vic., ch. 3?
Lorsque. les provinces d'Ontario, Quebec, la Nouvelle- Ecosse et le Nouveau-Brunswick form~rent la conl6d& ration chacune avait un systame complet d'&coles (1) Ch.
189r publiques 6tablies par la loi.
Daus Ontario et Qu6bec la loi reconnaissait aux minorit6s d'une croyance diff6rente de celle de la le droit d'avoir des 6coles s6par~es. En tablissant ces ecoles ]es minorit6s 6taient exemptes de contribution an soutien des 6coles publiques et avaient droit A une proportion de 1'octroi 16gislatif.
Dans le Haut-Canada (Ontario) la question des 6coles s~pardes avait form6 le sujet de luttes vives et passionnes entre protestants et catholiques, mais avait t enfin r6gle par 1'acte des 6coles de 1863, qui avait r6tabli la paix et l'harmonie dans la province.
Dans la Nouvelle-Ecosse et le Nouveau-Brunswick il en 6tait autrement bien que de fait les catholiques y avaient leurs propres 6coles en vertu de la loi des 6coles communes ou 6coles de paroisses, mais ces 6coles n'taient pas reconnues comme 6coles s~par6es et les catholiques n'y avaient aucun droit ou privilIge A ce sujet par la loi.
Les auteurs de la conf6d6ration afin d'6viter le renouvellement de l'agitation qui avait exist6 & ce sujet dans 1'ancienne province du Canada entre les catholiques et les protestants, tout en reconnaissant aux provinces le droit de 16gif6rer au sujet de 1'6ducation adoptbrent sagement des dispositions pour la protection des droits et privileges des minoriths, en prohibant toute 16gislation qui porterait atteinte aux droits et privileges existant sur le sujet.
Cette restriction devait s'appliquer A toute nouvelle province qui entreraient plus tard dans la confd6ration aussi bien qu'd celles qui en firent partie originairement.
Une question concernant 1'etendue de cette restriction fut soulev6e dans le Nouvean-Brunswick. La loi en force A ce sujet hors de la conf6deration 6tait 1'acte des 6coles de paroisses de 1858.
En 1871 la 16gisla. ture passa un acte concernant les 6coles communes auquel les catholiques romains firent beaucoup d'objections.
Des p6titions furent adress6es an parlement
VHE du Canada pour en empicher la mise en force.
Enfin la question fut porthe devant la Cour Supreme du Nouveau-Brunswick et la cour dans un jugement tras Fournier J. Alabor6 prononc6 par Sir W. J. Ritchie, alors juge en chef de la Cour Suprme du Nouveau-Brunswick, d~cida que les catholiques du Nouveau-Brunswick n'avaient par la loi (by law) au temps de la confid~ration aucun droit on privilge concernant les 6coles s~parbes.
Dans le cours de ses observations 1'honorable juge chef s'exprime ainsi:
Et plus loin:
Cette d6cision fut plus tard confirm6e au Conseil
Priv4. Il est facile de voir par les raisonnements donns a l'appui de cette d6cision et par 1'importance donn6e A 1'expression " legal rights " que si les droits que les catholiques avaient par la coutume, eussent 6t0 sp6cialement mentionn6s, comme ceux existant par la loi, que la d6cision est t6 diff~rente.
M. Ewart, conseil de l'appelant, ayant fait la remarque que les mots "par la coutume " avaient t6 introduits dans 1'Acte du Manitoba pour prbvenir les difficult6s qui avaient en lieu au Nouveau-Brunswick, le procureur gen6ral, conseil de l'intimbe, fit remarquer que l'acte des 6coles avait t6 pass6 en 1871, un an V.E aprs l'acte du Manitoba; mais il aurait ajouter que ce projet de loi 6tait depuis longtemps devant la 16gislature et le public, et faisait le sujet de discussions tris anim6es.
L'honorable Geo. King avait introduit cette mesure en 1869 pour la premibre fois, et encore une seconde fois le 24 f6vrier 1870, lorsqu'elle fut r6f&6re A un comit6 de toute la chambre et discut6e les 22, 31 mars et le ler avril. Cette loi ne devait venir en force qu'un an aprbs son adoption.
L'acte du Manitoba pass6 par le Parlement de la Puissance n'est devenu loi que le 12 mai 1870, plus d'un mois apris la discussion de l'acte des 6coles du Nouveau-Brunswick et plus d'un an apres sa premiere introduction dans la 16gislature.
Y a-t-il rien d'6tonnant A ce que les discussions qui out eu lieu sur le sujet A diff~rentes 6poques aient t6 rapport6es et comment~es par le public, comme c'est ordinairement le cas, et soient parvenues A la connaissance des membres du Gouvernement f6ddral et de la Chambre des Communes ? O'est un fait que 1'agitation caus~e par ce bill 6tait connue de toute la Chamb-re des Communes, et nul doute que c'est pour pr6venir le retour de semblable agitation que les mots " par la coutume " out 6t0 ajout6s dans la 22e section de 1'Acte du Manitoba.
L'existence d'6coles s~parees dans le territoire du Manitoba avant l'organisation de la province 6tait connue, ainsi que le fait qu'il u'existait aucune loi pour prot6ger les minoritis catholiques on protestantes qui auraient voulu conserver leurs 6coles s6pardes. Ces faits, on doit le pr6sumer,6taient connus des 16gislateurs. Comme il n'y avait alors aucune concernant les 6coles s~par6es ni aucune autre esp~ce d'6cole, la 16re s.s. de la section 93, on son introduction dans l'acte du Minitoba n'eut produit aucun effet.
Les catholiques de cette province s'y fussent trouv6s dans une situation pire qu'au Nouveau-Brunswick, car l au moins ainsi qu'il est constat6 par le jugement dans l'affaire Renaud, les catholiques sans y avoir droit par la loi, faisait, cependant, enseigner leurs doctrines dans les 6coles J. existantes.
Les auteurs de l'acte du Manitoba ont dft 6tre frapp6s de cet 6tat de choses et c'est sans doute pour y rem6dier qu'ils ont ins6r6 dans la section 22 les mots par la coutume " by practice," qui ne se trouvent pas dans la section 93, dans le but d'assurer plus tard aux minorit6s catholiques ou protestantes le droit aux 6coles s6par6es dont elles jouissaient alors par la coutume " by practice." Aussi la 16gislature du Manitoba a-t-elle si bien compris 'intention qu'avait le parlement fed6ral en introduisant les mots " by practice " dans 1'acte du Manitoba, que par son premier acte concernant les 6coles, elle a 6tabli un systhme complet d'6coles s~paries catholiques et protestantes, qui a exist6 pendant dix-neuf ans. Son interpr6tation des mots " par la coutume " a kt conformed l'esprit de la 16gislation et aux r6gles d'interpr~tation.
Si la clause 22 n'efit contenue que les termes de la 1re s.s. de la section 93, elle n'eiht pas prot6g6 les droits des minorit~s parce que les termes " rights and privileges by law " n'auraient pu s'appliquer A 1'tat de choses au Manitoba of' les 6coles s6pardes n'avaient pas d'existence 16gale, mais 6taient 6tablies depuis longtemps par la pratiqup et la coutume du pays.
L'addition des termes par la coutume " by practice" 4tait indispensable pour rencontrer le cas auquel il s'agissait de pourvoir.
S'il est vrai que ces termes n'ont point une signification technique, il n'en est pas moins vrai que dans les circonstances ils out t employs ils out une signification claire et pr&cise et rendent exactement l'id6e qu'on a voulu exprimer d'une chose qui, sans cons6cration 16gale, existait de fait par 1'usage et les habior tudes du pays. C'est une expression de langage ordinaire et qui doit 6tre interpr&the daus sa signification Fouriier J. ordinaire et populaire.
Les termes " law " et " by practice " signifient &videment des choses diff~rentes et l'addition des mots " by practice " fait clairement voir que la 16gislature avait 1'intention d'etendre la prohibition afin de l'appliquer au cas particulier de la province.
Ces mots n'ont pas 6t6 mis accidentellement et sans but.
La position des 6coles s6parbes existantes de fait 6tait connue des auteurs de 1'acte au moins par les d616gubs qui avaient
6 envoyds pour r6gler les conditions de 1'entr6e de la province dans la conf6d6ration.
On a sans doute discut6 complatement la question et c'est pour la r~gler d6finitivement qu'on a ajout6 daus la sec. les mots " practice " de manibre 1. interdire toute 16gislation A leur pr6judice.
Il serait absurde de pr6tendre que le privilhge garanti aux catholiques par les mots " by practice " doit s'entendre de celui d'avoir des coles separees comme 6coles priv6es support6es par eux-mimes. Ce privilege existant de droit commun ne requ~rait aucune 16gislation et les expressions " by practice " scraient alors tout A fait inutiles et sans aucun signification. Tandis que le parlement f6d6ral, connaissant l'existence dans le territoire d'&oles s~par6es, et le fait qu'il n'y avait aucune loi les autorisant, a voulu en assurer l'existence 16gale apris 1'union, it comprenait que les dispositions seules de 1'Acte de l'Am6rique Britannique du Nord ne suffiraient pas pour cet objet. C'est sans doute pour ce motif que la section 93 a t modifibe par 1'addition des mots " by practice."
C'est alors..une disposition qui an lieu de n'avoir aucune signification comble sagement une lacune importante qui avait exist6 dans l'orgauisation de la province.
C'est ici d'appliquer la r~gle qui veut que lorsque le.
langage de la loi est susceptible de deux interpr6tations dont l'une serait absurde et I'autre raisonnable d'un effet salutaire on doit adopter la dernibre comme conforme A l'intention du 16gislatour.
Dans la cause de la Reine v. Monk Brett L. J. dit:
Lord Blackburn exprime la m~me opinion dans la cause de Rothes v. Kirkcaldy Water Works Commissioners (2) lorsqu'il dit:
Il n'est pas difficile de voir laquelle de ces deux interpr6tations est la plus raisonnable et la plus juste. Si l'interpr6tation des mots " by practice " n'6tait pas suffisante pour leur donner droit de maintenir leurs 6coles s~par~es, les catholiques seraient tax6s pour des 6coles qu'ils ne pourraient fr6quenter et dont les protestants auraient seuls le b~n6fice.
Tandis qu'au contraire si
1'on donne aux mots " practice " leur v6ritable interprtation, les 6coles des catholiques seront reconnues par la loi.
Ces mots " by practice " n'ont sans doute
6t6 introduits dans l'acte du Manitoba que pour assurer i ceux qui le d6siraient le droit de maintenir leurs
&oles separ~es et pour en consacrer 1'existence 16gale..
Ces raisons me paraissent suffisantes pour dmontrer que la dout il s'agit constitue une infraction evidente A la disposition de la section 22, s. s. 16re de
1'acte du Manitoba qui prohibe toute 16gislation de nature & porter pr6judice aux 6coles s~par6es.
C'est encore une r gle d'interpr6tation qui veut que pour correctement interpr6ter une loi, nous devions la consid6rer dans son ensemble et en comparer diverses dispositions entre elles afin d'en saisir le v6ritable esprit.
L'acte du Manitoba ne comprend pas seulement la section 22 an sujet des 6coles s6par~es. Il y a encore plusieurs autres dispositions A ce sujet en partie prise dans la section 93 de 1'Acte de l'Amrique Britannique du Nord, dont le but 6vident est de prot6ger l'exercice du droit aux 6coles s6par6es accord6 par la section 1re.
La 2ibme sous-section de la section 22 accorde un appel an gouverneur g6nral en conseil de tout acte on d6cision d'aucune autorit6 provinciale affectant aucun des droits on privilages de la minorit6 protestante on catholique romaine des sujets de Sa Majest6 relativement A l'6ducation.
Par la sous-section 3
La 16re sous-section en parlant des 6coles s6par~es dit qu'il ne sera port6 aucun pr6judice an droit on privilege existant par la loi on la coutume, an sujet de ces &coles; la deuxime donne un droit d'appel detout acte on decision de la 16gislature on de toute autre autorit6 provinciale de nature A affecter les droits on privi- I6gas des minorit6s catholiques on protestantes an sujet de l'4ducation.
Si ces minorit6s out des droits on privilges an sujet de l'6ducation c'est sans doute ceux qui concernent leurs 6coles s~par6es.
C'est done qu'ils ont des droits et privilges ce sujet puisque la loi leur accorde un droit d'appel pour les prot6ger contre toute atteinte qui leur porterait pr6judice.
Pourquoi un appel leur aurait-il 6t0 accord6 s'ils n'avaient aucun droit aux eoles s6paries ? N'est-ce pas an contraire parce qu'ils 6taient dbjh en possession de ce droit, dans la pratique que le parlement en a consacr6 l'existence 14gale par cette disposition, de manibre A les prot6ger contre toute atteinte de la 16gislature on de toute autre autorit6 provinciale?
L'interpr6tation donn6e aux mots " by practice " trouve ainsi confirm6e par les autres. dispositions de la section 22 de manibre A ne laisser aucun doute sur leur signification.
En consequence je suis d'avis que l'acte 58 Vic. ch. 38 (Man.) concernant les 6coles publiques est ultra vires et que les deux riglements adopths en vertu de cet acte sont illgaux et doivent tre mis de c6toet l'appel accord avec d6pens.
J.-L'appelant dans la pr~sente instance attaque la constitutionnalit6 de l'Acte des Ecoles pass6 par la 16gislature de la province de Manitoba en 1890. Les proc6dures devant les cours provinciales et la forme sons laquelle la question nous est pr~sent~e out th an long d~crites par mes savants collkgues pr6opinants, et il serait oiseux de les redire. La question de droit ellememe qui nous est soumise est restreinte & un cadre assez 6troit, car, tant par l'intim6e et le procureur g~ndral de la province dans leui- factum et leur plaidoirie A 1'audience, que par les savants juges de Ia cour dont est appel dans leurs.jugements, il est admis que les catholiques de la province ne sont pas, et n'auraient pu 6tre, par le statut en question, priv~s du droit dont ius out toujours joui, d'avoir leurs 6coles s~parbes sans 6tre nullement oblig6s d'envoyer leurs enfants aux voe0er nat n &coles libres. Co'est uniquement sur les dispositions de ce statut qui soumettent les catholiques A l'imp6t pour l'entretien des 6coles libres qu'il y a litige.
La section 22 de 'acte organique de Manitoba de se lit comme suit dans la version frangaise, qui, il ne faut pas 1'oublier, fait loi tout comme la version anglaise:- A C'est textuellement la reproduction de la sec. 93 de 1'acte de l'Ambrique Britannique du Nord, avec la simple addition des mots " ou par la coutume." Ce sont done les droits et les privilges dont jouissaient par la coutume les catholiques de'cette region, lors de l'Union, relativement aux 6coles s6par~es (car de loi sur la matihre il n'en existait pas) auxquels la 16gislature ne peut porter prgjudice, et le pouvoir de 16gif6rer sur l'6ducation ne lui est confr6 qu'avec cette restriction. Ceci ne pouvait 6tre contest6, et le savant procureur g-ndral de la province n'est en lice que pour soutenir avec Pintimbe que 1'acte de la 16gislature, tout en obligeant l'appelant, et avec lui toute la population catholique de Manitoba, A contribuer au fonds des 6coles libres, ne pr6judicie pas par A aucun droit au privilhge que la coutume leur confrait.
nous faut done en premier lieu rechercher au dossier la preuve de la coutume en matiere d'6ducation dans cette partie du territoire avant 1'Union.
Sa Grandeur Monseigneur l'Archev~que de St. Boniface, daus un affidavit produit par l'appelant la d~crit dans les termes suivants:
Prior to the passage of the Act of the Dominion of Canada passed in the thirty-third year of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Chapter 3, known as The Manitoba Act, and prior to the order in council issued in pursuance thereof, there existed in the Territory now constituting the Province of Manitoba a number of effective schools for children. Cirv These schools were denominational schools, some of them regulated and controlled by the Roman Catholic Church, and others by various Taschereau Protestant denominations.
The means necessary for the support of the Roman Catholic Schools were supplied to some extent by school fees paid by some of the parents of the children who attended the schools, and the rest was paid out of the funds of the Church, contributed by its members. During the period referred to, Roman Catholics had no interest in or control over the schools of the Protestant denominations, and the members of the Protestant denominations had no interest in or control over the schools of Roman Catholics. There were no Public Schools in the sense of State Schools.
The members of the Roman Catholic Church supported the schools of their own Church for the benefit of the Roman Qatholic children, and were not under obligation to, and did not, contribute to the support of any other.schools.
In the matter of education, therefore, during the period referred to, Roman Catholics were as a matter of custom and practice separate from the rest of the community, and their schools were all conducted according to the distinctive views and beliefs of Roman Catholics as herein set forth.
Roman Catholic Schools have always formed an integral part of the work of the Roman Catholic Church.
That Church has always considered the education of the children of Roman Catholic parents as coming peculiarly within its jurisdiction.
The School, in the view of the Roman Catholics, is in a large measure the "Children's Church," and wholly incomplete and largely abortive if religious exercises be excluded from it. The Church has always insisted upon its children receiving their education in schools conducted under the supervision of the Church, and upon them being trained in the doctrines and faith of the Church.
In education, the Roman Catholic Church attaches very great importance to the spiritual culture of the child, and regards all education unaccompanied by instruction in its religious aspect as possibly detrimental and not beneficial to children. With this regard the Church requires that all teachers of children shall not only be members of the Church, but shall be thoroughly imbued with its principles and faith; shall recognise its spiritual authority and conform to its disections.
It also requires that such books be used in the schools with regaid to certain subjects as shall combine religious instruction with those subjects, and this applies peculiarly to all history and phi- losophy.
Sa Grice, plus loin, jure que
The Church regards the schools provided for by ' The Public Schl s Act" and being chapter 38 of the Statutes passed in the reign of Her Taschereau Majesty Queen Victoria, in the fifty-third year of Her reign, as unfit J.
for the purpose of educating their children, and the children of Roman Catholic parents will not attend such schools. Rather than counteilance such schools, Roman Catholics will revert to the system of operation previous to the Manitoba Act, and will establish, support and maintain schools in accordance with their principles and faith as aforementioned.
Protestants are satisfied with the system of education provided for by the said Act, "The Public Schools Act," and are perfectly willing to send their children to the schools established and provided for by the said Act.
Such schools are in fact similar in all respects to the schools maintained by the Protestants under the legislation in force immediately prior to the passage of the said Act.
The main and fundamental difference between Protestants and. Catholics, with reference to education, is that while many Protestants would like education to be of a more distinctly religious character than that provided for by the said Act, yet they are content with that which is so provided and have no conscientious scruples against such a system, I lie Catholics on the other hand insist and have always insisted upon education being thoroughly permeated with religion and religious aspects. That causes and effects in science, history, philosophy and aught else should be constantly attributed to the Deity and not taught merely as causes and effects.
The effect of " The Public Schools Act " will be to establish public schools in every part of Manitoba where the population is sufficient for the purpose of a school and to supply in this manner education to children free of charge to them or their parents further than their share, in common with other members of the community, of the amounts levied under and by virtue of the provisions contained in the Act.
In case Roman Catholics revert to the system in operation previous to the Manitoba Act, they will be brought in direct competition with the said public schools; owing to the fact that the public schools will be maintained at.public expense, and the Roman Catholic schools by school fees and private subscription the latter will labor under serious disadvantage. They will be unable to afford inducements and benefits to children to attend such schools equal to those afforded by public 41-2
John Sutherland et Alexander Polson, dans deux affidavits produits par 1'intimbe sur son opposition produite en r~ponse A ]a requdte de l'appelant disent aussi, sur l'6tat des 6coles dans ]a province avant l'Union
1 ressort clairement, comme fait, de ces affidavits, qui constituent l'unique preuve au dossier, que, avant
1'Union, par la coutume, les catholiques de ce territoire jouissaient non seulement du privilIge d'avoir leurs
6coles, mais aussi n~gativement, comme corollaire partie essentielle de 6e privilge, de celui de ne pas contribuer A aucun autre syst~me d'6ducation.
De fait, c'6tait de ne pas tre oblig6s de contribuer A d'autres
6coles que les leurs, qui v6ritablement constituait pour eux un privilige. Le privilige seul d'avoir leurs propres 6coles aurait t6 illusoire, on plut~t, n'aurait pu tre appelk un privilige; avoir des 6eoles volontaires, c'est de droit commun ; ce n'est pas un privilige:
une coutume, qui leur est fait soutenir et les leurs celles des autres, aurait t pour eux un singulier privilIge.
Le privilkge en somme aurait th celui des autres.
C'est bien li cependant, il me semble, le seul que l'intim6e dans 1'instance voudrait conc6der maintenant A la minorit6 catholique dans la province.
La loi de 1891, dit 1'intim6e, oblige bien, il est vrai, les catholiques de contribuer aux 6coles libres, mais elle ne les oblige pas d'y envoyer leurs enfants. Elle ne leur defend pas non plus d'avoir leurs 6coles separ6s, done elle ne pr6judicie en rien a aucun des droits et privikges que leur conferait la coutume avant l'union, done, elle est intra vires. Je crois ce raisonnement tout , fait errone.
De fait, j'aurais t6 port6 L ne pas le croire s6rieux, s'il n'avait pas reu la sanction du tribunal provincial. A quoi, en effet, se r6sume-t-il ? A faire dire par larmajoritO non-catholique A laminorite catholique:
Vous avez le privilege d'avoir vos 6coles; nous vous le laissons, pourvu que vous nous aidiez A maintenir les n6tres
Vous ne pouvez envoyer vos enfants A nos 6coles; mais nous ne vous y obligeons pas, tout ce que nous vous demandons, c'est de payer pour instruire les n6tres."
Je cherche en vain an dossier la preuve que c'6tait la coutume avant 1'Union.
J'y trouve tout le contraire.
Et peut-on d'ailleurs, imaginer un systime semblable A celui que 1'intimbe voudrait faire pr6valoir dans Manitoba, et en mime temps reconnaitre & la minorit6 le droit A ses 6coles s~par6es, dvoit que l'intim6e ne pouvait nier en face de la section 22 de 1'acte organique de 1870.
Il est patent que le 16gislateur, par cette section, pr~voyant que, n~cessairement, dans l'avenir, 1'une on l'autre des deux classes, protestante on catholique, devra dominer par le nombre dans la province projet6e, d~crete pour 1'un et 1'autre de ces cas. Elles 6taient alors A pen pros 6galement divis~es, si 1'on en juge par la premiere 16gislation de la nouvelle province sur la matibre, en 1871, oA il apparalt que le bureau d'6ducation fut 6galement compos de catholiques et de protestants, avec un surintendant pour chacune de ces deux classes et partage 6gal entre elles de la subvention nationale.
Dans cet 6tat de choses, le parlement, par cette section 22 de l'acte, pourvoit A l'une et h 1'autre de ces 6ventualit~s.
La sons-section premiere. que j'ai cit6e au long, assure h la ninorit , soit catholique, soit protestante. les droits que la coutume lui avait conf6rbs jusqu'alors, et la sous-section seconde lui donne le droit d'appel au Gouverneur g6n6ral en conseil de toute 16gislation affectant aucun de ses droits sur la matiere. S'il 6tait arriv6 que la population protestante ffit en minorit6, elle n'aurait pu 6tre contrainte de contribueu an maintien des 6coles catholiques.
Elle aurait r6elam 1'exercice de son droit ses kcoles, tel que ses co-religionnaires en jouissent dans la province de Qu6bec, dans toute sa pl6nitude et sans entraves, c'est-h-dire aveo exemption de taxes pour les 6coles catholiques. Aujourd'hui, les catholiques qui composent la minorit6 ne r6clament que le m~me droit, et le libre exercice de droit. Je suis d'opinion que leur T6Clamation est bien fond6e. out droit A leur syst6me d'6coles, tel que leurs co-religionnaires en jouissent dans Ontario, on sur le mime principe.
C'est dans ce but, et dans ce but senl, du moins je n'en puis voir d'autre, qu'a t ins6r6e dans 1'acte organique de 1870 cette disposition sp6ciale relative aux (coles s~pares, reproduite de 1'Acte de l'Ambrique Britannique du Nord, en y ajoutant les mots " par la coutume," mots rendus n6cessaires, je 1'ai dit, pour compl6ter la pens~e du lgislateur et assurer l'ex6cution de- ses volout6s par le fait bien connu qu'il n'existait alors sur la matiere, .dans ces r~gions, aucune loi, et que le tout y etait rigi par la coutume, et par la coutume seule.
La corporation intimbe et le procureur g6n6ral tout en reconnaissant 5 la minorit6 le droit abstrait d'avoir ses 6coles, voudraient en g-ner le libre exercice. Par le statut en question, en effet, toite la subvention de 1'Etat pour l'6ducation est appropri6e aux 6coles publiques, on 6coles libres; toute allocation aux 6coles de la minorit6 est refusse; sec. 108. Cette subvention, cependant, est prise sur le revenu public auquel la minorit6 a dfxment contribu6 sa quote-part. Et c'est tout ce dont sa Grandeur Monseigneur I'Archev~que de St.-Boniface se plaint dans le par. 11 de son affidavit, qu'on a quelque part mal interpr6t6.
Sa Grandeur ne craint pas pour les 6coles catholiques la comp6tition des 6coles publiques si la 16gislature vent bien metire les deux sur le m~me pied devant la loi. Ce que Sa Grandeur dit, c'est qu'en maintenant les 6coles publiques aux frais de l'Etat, tout en laissant les 6coles catholiques A la merci de contributions volontaires, celles-ci se trouveront dans une position des plus d6favorables.
Et il n'est pas ncessaire, il me semble, d'arguments pour le d6montrer.
Mais nonseulement, je le r6pite, le statut en question donne aux 6coles publiques seules le total de la subvention provinciale, mais il soumet les catholiques A la taxe directe pour leur maintien.
Et plus encore: non-seulement la propri6t6 priv6e de chaque contribuable catholique. mais chaque maison catholique, et toutes proprit&s affectbes pour les fins de 1'6ducation de leurs enfants, par les catholiques, sont imposables pour le maintien des 6coles libres.
Le statut va mime par la section 179 jusqu'A la confiscation au profit des 6coles libres, en certain cas, de la propri6t6 scolaire de la minorite catholique.
Je suis d'opinion que cette 16gislation est pr6judiciable aux droits et privil&ges dont jouissait cette minorit6 avant l'Union, et par coas6quent iltra vites. L'intimbe a cru trouver une r6ponse a la requte de 1'appelant dans l'argument suivant: " Il est possible, dit-elle, que cette 1gislation puisse pr6judicier aux droits de la minorit6, et que malgr6 cela, elle entre parfaitement dans le cadre des attributions de la l6gislature de Manitoba, comme par exemple, une taxe municipale ou autre peut bien indirectement, plus on moins, priver les catholiques des fonds n6cessaires pour le maintien de leurs 6coles, et, cependant, il leur faut bien s'y sounmettre."
Ce raisonnement, il me semble, porte A faux.
D'abord c'est dans ses lois sur l'6ducation que la 1gislature ne peut, d'aprbs la section 22 de l'acte f6d6ral de .1870, pr~judicier aux droits de la minorit6. Il ne s'agit pas de lois sur aucune autre matibre. Puis, dans le cas d'une taxe municipale, la minorit6 est sur un pied de parfaite 6galit6 avec la majorit6 et regoit, comme elle, 1'6quivalent de ce qu'elle tcontribue en participant, comme elle, aux b6n6fices de cette taxe.
Tandis qu'ici, l'appelant se dit parce qu'il est contraint A payer pour les autres, A contribuer au soutien d'&coles dont il ne bhnificiera jamais. C'est tout ce dont il se plaint. On lui laisse bien, en thborie, son systime d'6coles, mais on met des entraves A 1'exercice de son droit. On ne lui en laisse qu'un simulacre.
Si 1'Etat pr61kve sur cette minorit6 soit $20,000, aucun montant quelconque pour le soutien des &coles libres, c'est bien, il me paralt 6vident, antant de ressource dont elle est priv6e pour le soutien de ses propres
6coles.
Or, mettre des entraves A 1'exeroice d'un droit, l'obstruer on lui nuire, c'est bien, il me semble, porter pr6judice A ce droit. Et c'est IA, ce qu'en termes non
6quivoques, la 16islature de Manitoba. par I'acte d'o-h elle puise exclusivement ses pouvoirs, n'a pu faire.
Je suis d'avis d'alloner l'appel.
J.-The statute of Canada which gave its constitution to the Province of Manitoba declares, in section 22, that in and for the Province of
Manitoba the legislature "may exclusively make laws in relation to education subject and according to the following provision:- "Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have, by law practice at the union."
"Law " here evidently means statute law. basis of the constitution given to the new province (1) wINNIPEG.
was the British North America Act, 1867. It is de- Patterson J. clared that the act shall apply to the province exceptting, amongst other things, such provisions as are varied by the Manitoba Act.
Section 93 of the British'North America Act, which dealt with the subject of provincial legislation respecting education, was not intended to be applied to Manitoba without some variations. It was therefore re-written to form section 22 of the Manitoba Act, the original language being adhered to wherever no variation of the provisions was intended.
In this way I suppose it was that section 22 happens to refer to rights and privileges with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons had in the province by law, when there was no statute touching such schools that affected Manitoba. The reference in section was to statutory rights and privileges existing in some of the provinces entering into confederation.
In sec. 22 it meant nothing.
If that section, which is a transcript of section 93 with the interpolation of the words " or practice," had not introduced those words it would have been inoperative for want of something to operate on. It is not an example of very precise accurate drafting.
The first question for us to decide is what the added words
" or practice" mean, whether they also mean nothing.
" Which any class of persons have by law or practice "-in grammatical effect " have by law or by practice."
What is meant by having by practice?
To have by law here means to have under some statutory provision, the preposition " by " pointing to the law or statute as the means or instrument by which B^ITT the right or privilege was acquired.
Are we obliged to understand the term " by practice " as intended to signify acquired by practice or user, involving some idea of prescription?
It is arguable, and has in effect been argued, that that is the proper understanding the term; that the word " by " must have the same force when understood in the one place as when expressed in the other; leading to the conclusion that, inasmuch as no rights or privileges in respect of denominational schools had been acquired in the territory in that manner, the clause in question is wholly inoperative.
The construction thus contended for may be capable of being supported by strict reasoning from rules grammar or rhetoric, but it is not, in my judgment, appropriate to this clause.
We have seen that precision and accuracy are not characteristics of the clause as a whole, and we cannot properly single out these particular words "by practice" for very critical and pedantic treatment.
We must credit the legislature with having intended that these words, which were added to those taken from section 93, should have some effect.
I take the meaning of the clause to be that rights and privileges in respect of denominational schools existing by statute, if any such there had been, and rights actually exercised in practice at the time of the union, were not to be prejudicially affected by provincial legislation.
There were denominational schools maintained by different classes of persons, some by the Roman Catholic church others by Protestants. The right to establish and maintain such schools was not derived from statutory law. It was incident to the freedom
British subjects, and was independent of and anterior to legislation.
The Manitoba Act did not assume to preserve that right merely as an abstract and theoretical right, but it did so in favour of such classes of persons as at the union were practically exercising it. If this construction seems to do any violence to the Patterson J.language or the clause it is only by treating the word " by " where it is understood before the word " practice," as not having precisely the same force as when expressed before the word "law." But, as once remarked by one of the most eminent English judges, Lord Stowell, when Sir W. Scott- Dicta to the same effect, as well as examples of their application, abound in the books. Thus in a recent case, Salmon v. Duncombe (2) we find it laid down in the judgment of the judicial committee that when the main object and intention of the statute are clear it must not be reduced to a nullity by the draftman's unskilfulness or ignorance of law, except in the case of necessity or the absolute intractability of the language used.
In my opinion the Roman Catholics are a class of persons who bad, within .the meaning of the statute, rights and privileges with respect to denominational schools in the Province of Manitoba at the union. The rights and privileges preserved by the statute were only those peculiar to schools as denominational schools, or which gave the schools that character. Chiefly they were the education of their children under the control and direction of the church and the maintenance of their schools for that purpose.
A point is made in the affidavit on which these proceedings are founded upon the fact that the schools of the Roman Catholic church were maintained by the Catholics by contributions in some form, as fees for J tuition or as contributions to the general funds of the church, or possibly, though we are not told that it was so, as subscriptions for school purposes, and the schools of the Protestants were maintained by Protestants, neither body contributing or being liable to contribute to maintain the schools of the other. The fact is not without importance from a point of view which
I shall presently notice, but I am not prepared to hold that the immunity enjoyed from liability to support schools of another denomination, at a time when taxation for school purposes was unknown in the territory, was a privilege in respect of denominational schools.
The provincial statute of 1890 which is attacked as ul/ra vires renders every taxpayer liable to assessment for the support of the public schools.
These schools are not denominational, and they are objectionable to the Roman Catholic church which insists upon the supervision of the education of the children of its members. The effect of the new statute and the grounds of objection to it are explained in the affidavit of Archbishop Tach6.
I refer particularly to paragraphs and 11.
Rather than countenance the public schools, he tells us in the 8th paragraph, Roman Catholics will revert to the system in operation previous to the Manitoba Act, and will establish, support and maintain schools in accordance with their principles and faith.
In other words they will assert and act upon the privilege or right in respect of denominational schools which, as I construe section 22, they had as a class at the union.
It is thus in effect asserted on the part of the applicant that the right or privilege has not been destroyed by the Public Schools Act of 1890.
The same assertion is made on the part of the respondents who make it one of their grounds in support of the by-laws which are Patterson J. attacked, or rather in support of the provincial statute. But the right or privilege may continue to exist and yet be injuriously affected.
It is not the cancelling annulling of the right that is forbidden.
The question is: Does the statute of 1890 injuriously affect the right? That it does so appears to me free from serious doubt. In one form or another the members of the church supported the schools of the church.
As a class of people they bore the burden.
We are not concerned to inquire how the burden was distributed among the individual members, or whether each one bore some part of it. The privilege in question appertained to the class people and the burden was borne by the class. bearing of the burden was essential to the enjoyment of the privilege. It is the maintenance of a school that is of value to the community or class, rather than the abstract or theoretical right to maintain it. In other words the value of the right depends upon the practical use that can be made of it.
Whatever throws an obstacle in the way of that practical use prejudicially affects the right. It is not conceivable that in any community, and notably among the settlers in a region like Manitoba, a burden of taxation for the support of public schools can be imposed on the people of any religious denomination without rendering it less easy for the same people to maintain denominational schools. The degree of interference is immaterial. it occurs to any extent the right to maintain the denominational school is injuriously affected.
It has been objected that the argument against the public school tax on the ground of its making the people less able to support their denominational schools involves the denial of the right to impose ordinary municipal taxes, because those taxes also absorb their share of the means of the taxpayers.
The CIry objection is aside from the issue.
The provision the statute relates only to legislation respecting edu-PattersonJ. cation, and the restriction is upon the power to make laws on that subject.
It is not, however, merely a question of pecuniary ability to do one's share in supporting a denominational school in addition to paying the public school tax.
Assuming the ability in the case of every individual belonging to the denomination, which is an extravagant assumption, we must remember that one payment is compulsory and the other voluntary. When a man has under compulsion paid his money for the support of the public school it is natural that he should be less willing to avail himself of the privilege of paying for the support of the other, though his right to pay as well as his ability remain. The contest is over the' right or privilege not of the individual but of the class of persons.
We are familiar with the expression "injuriously affected"
as used in the compensation clauses of the railway acts and in the English Lands Clauses Act.
It would be labour lost to cite cases turning upon the application of the provisions for compensating persons whose lands are injuriously affected by works done under sanction of law. They are very numerous, and the English cases will be found collected in Cripps
Compensation (1) and several other treatises. The claim to compensation failed in many of the cases in which lands were injuriously affected for reasons arising the statutes under which the claim was made, as e. g.
because the injury was caused by an act that would not have given a right of action at common law, or because it was caused by the operation only and not by the construction of the work; but all the cases agree in recognising as something that injuriously affects a man's property whatever interferes with his convenience in the enjoyment of it or of any right in Patterson J. respect of it, or prevents him from enjoying it to the best advantage, and whether the injury happens to be permanent or only temporary.
The same principle makes it imperative to hold that the right of a class of persons with respect to denominational schools is injuriously affected if the effect of a law passed on the subject of education is to render it more difficult or less convenient to exercise the right to the best advantage. I mean the direct effect of the law, and I regard the prejudice to the denominational schools which is worked by making those to whom it looks for support pay the school tax as a direct effect of the statute. There may be indirect results by which the denominational school may suffer in its prestige or prosperity yet which cannot be taken to bring the statute under censure of section 22.
One of these, viz., the conipetition of the public schools, is alluded to in the eleventh paragraph of His Grace the Archbishop's affidavit. am not quite sure that I fully understand that paragraph. I am not sure whether the objection it indicates extends to the establishment of any schools at the public expense, or only to the assessment of Roman Catholics for the support of public schools. I shall therefore merely say that, according to my present opinion, a public school may, by reason of superior equipment or of other advantages, compete with a denominational school to the disadvanitage of the latter without thereby affording just cause for complaint.
Upon the grounds which I have thus discussed I am of opinion that the act of 1890 transgresses the limits of the power given by the 22nd section of the Manitoba Act, and that the assessment which the appellant is resisting is illegal.
~rT It may not be out of place to remark, though it is scarcely necessary to do so, that there is no general or prohibition of legislation which shall affect denominational schools. The prohibition relates only to the Pattersoii J. rights and privileges of classes of persons, and to legislation which injuriously affects such rights. There is, therefore, room for legislative regulation on many subjects, as, for example, compulsory attendance of scholars, the sanatory condition of school houses, the imposition and collection of rates for the support denominational schools, and sundry other matters which may be dealt with without interfering with the denominational characteristics of the school, and which, I suppose, were dealt with in the statutes of the province that were repealed in 1890 to make way for the system now complained of.
I am of the opinion that the appeal should be allowed and the by-laws of the city of Winnipeg, Nos.
480 and 483, quashed, the appellant having his costs of the appeal and also of all proceedings in the courts below.
Appeal allowed with costs.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- section 92
- section 93
- section 3
- section 4
- section 5
- Section 6
- section 22
- section 179
- Section 93 of the British'North America Act
- section 22 of the Manitoba Act