REPORT: Religious Rights, Compilation of primary documents to assist in interpreting religious rights and issues in the Constitution Act, 1867 & Constitution Act, 1982

2025-06-24 Leave a Comment

Document Information

Date: 2025-06-23
By: PrimaryDocuments.ca
Citation: PrimaryDocuments.ca, Report on Religious Rights, A compilation of primary documents to assist in interpreting religious rights and issues in the Constitution Act, 1867 & Constitution Act, 1982.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).
Please Note: The PDF and HTML below will not always align. The PDF serves as a record in time, whereas the HTML will constantly be updated. The PDF will be updated occasionally and all former versions of the report will be available for download when a new version is uploaded. For now, the PDF contains the original version of the report.

Report on Religious Rights

A compilation of primary documents to assist in interpreting religious rights and issues in the

***Constitution Act, 1867* & *Constitution Act, 1982***

First Edition

June 2025

Endnotes

PART I: Religious Rights in Canada: Pre-Confederation Era

Pre-Confederation Statutes Relating to Religious Rights

Treaty of Paris (1763)

Quebec Act, 1774 (U.K., 1774)

Constitutional Act, 1791 (U.K., 1791)

Act to Grant Equal Rights and Privileges to Persons of the Jewish Religion (Lower Canada, 1832)

The Union Act, 1840 (U.K., 1840).

An Act to repeal so much of the Act of the Parliament of Great Britain passed.in the Thirty-first year of the Reign of King George the Third, and Chaptered Thirty-one, as relates to Rectories … (1851, Province of Canada)

Act for the Abolition of Feudal Rights and Duties in Lower Canada (Province of Canada, 1854)

The Seignorial Amendment Act of 1859 (Province of Canada, 1859).

Act to Restore Roman Catholics in Upper Canada Certain Rights in Respect to Separate Schools (Province of Canada, 1863).^[1]

PART II: Religious Rights During the Confederation Era and the Constitution Act, 1867

Note : The concept of religious rights was mostly intertwined with education, and the right, for example, for Catholics in Ontario, and Protestants in Quebec, to be able to provide schooling in their faith. This concept formed the dominant paradigm in which religious rights were discussed. Most of these discussions, thus, are relevant regarding the creation of Section 93, in the Constitution Act, 1867. This clause reads,

93 In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:

1. 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 in the Province at the Union;

2. All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec;

3. Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen’s Subjects in relation to Education;

4. In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.^[2]

The drafting history of this era is divided into four parts:

1. The Quebec Conference Drafts and Discussions
2. The Confederation Debates (1865-66)
3. The London Conference Drafts
4. The British North America Act, 1867 Drafts (Constitution Act, 1867)

1. The Quebec Conference Drafts and Discussions (1864)

Note: All transcripts of these drafts come from Charles Dumais (ed.), The Quebec Resolutions: Including Several Never-Published Preliminary Drafts by George Brown and John A. Macdonald & a Collection of All Previously-Published Primary Documents Relating to the Conference (CCF, 2025).

Drafts

October 12, 1864: Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, notes on the distribution of powers

[In the local column, a line reads:]

Education Reservation for protecting two minorities

(Source: George Brown Papers, Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, Notes on the Division of Powers, October 12th, 1864 (MG 24, B 40, Vol. 21, p. 3764-3766). Click HERE)

—–o0o—–

October 12, 1864: Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, notes on the distribution of powers with revisions

“Education – with reservation”

(Source: George Brown Papers, Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, George Brown Papers, Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, Notes on the Division of Powers, October 12th, 1864 (MG 24, B 40, Vol. 21, p. 3768-3769). Click HERE)

—–o0o—–

October 24, 1864: Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, amended distribution of powers (“local legislature”)

That it shall be competent for the local legislature to make laws respecting:

“Education”

(Source: George Brown Papers, Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, Amended Provincial Division of Powers, October 24th, 1864 (MG 24, B 40, Vol. 21, p. 3747). Click HERE)

—–o0o—–

October 26, 1864: Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, first working draft

That it shall be competent for the Local Legislatures to make Laws respecting: —

2. Education; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their Denominational Schools, at the time when the Constitutional Act goes into operation

(Source: John A. Macdonald, Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, first working draft, October 26th, 1864 (MG 26 A, Vol. 46, pp. 18164-18168). Click HERE)

—–o0o—–

October 26-27, 1864: Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, second working draft

That it shall be competent for the Local Legislatures to make Laws respecting:–

^{[renumbered to 6]} 2. Education; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their Denominational Schools, at the time when the Constitutional Act ^[Union] goes into operation.

(Source: John A. Macdonald, Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, second working draft, October 26th-27th, 1864 (MG 26 A, Vol. 46, pp. 18142-18155). Click HERE)

—–o0o—–

October 27, 1864: Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, third working draft

The Local Legislatures shall have power to make Laws respecting the following subjects:

[…]

Education; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their Denominational Schools, at the time when the Union goes into operation.

(Source: John A. Macdonald, Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, third working draft, October 27th, 1864 (MG 26 A, Vol. 46, pp. 18156-18158). Click HERE)

—–o0o—–

October 27, 1864: Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, fourth working draft

^[43.] That the Local Legislatures shall have power to make Laws respecting the following subjects:

[…]

^[6.] Education; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their Denominational Schools, at the time when the Union goes into operation.

(Source: John A. Macdonald, Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, fourth working draft, October 27th, 1864 (MG 26 A, Vol. 46, pp. 18136-18138). Click HERE)

—–o0o—–

March 14, 1865: Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, final version as debated and adopted in the legislature of the Province of Canada

43. The Local Legislature shall have power to make laws respecting the following subjects: —

6. Education; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their Denominational Schools, at the time when the Union goes into operation.

(Source: John A. Macdonald, Drafts of the Quebec Resolutions, Final Version, March 14, 1865 (MG 26 A, Vol. 46, 18210-18216). Click HERE)

—–o0o—–

Speeches Discussing Religious Rights (1864)

Note: The following speeches occurred after the Quebec Conference in defence of the Quebec Resolutions and British North American Union more broadly. These are extracts of those speeches, which touch on religious rights. For the whole speech, users can click the title of the speech, which is hyperlinked. All transcripts of these documents also come from Charles Dumais (ed.), The Quebec Resolutions: Including Several Never-Published Preliminary Drafts by George Brown and John A. Macdonald & a Collection of All Previously-Published Primary Documents Relating to the Conference (CCF, 2025).^[3]

October 29, 1864: Thomas D’Arcy McGee, “The Cause of the Quebec Conference,” Speech at Montreal

[…] They could say that in Canada religious bigotry was at a discount; and if they wished for illustration, he could point his finger and show where the bigot had withered on his stalk, and where once he had a great show of power and influence, now were “none so poor as do him reverence.” Bigots of all kinds, Catholic as well as Protestant; bigots of all classes, on all sides; bigots of race, who believed that no good could come out of the Nazareth of any other origin but their own,—their day of small things—God knew how small—had passed for ever in Canada. Every man was willing to respect every other man’s convictions. We had, at least, reached that degree of self-government, and shown ourselves to be in the best sense civil and religious freemen, fit for self-government, by allowing every man of every creed and sect and race to manage his own affairs in his own way, and to wash his own dirty linen in his own back-yard, so that it did not trouble the neighbours or disturb the peace of the community.

He thought their guests from below might assure their neighbours when they returned, that if they united with us they would find all that in Canada—religious combined with political liberty. He was sorry they had been so long confined in the political laboratory at Quebec that they would not have time before the necessities of the season compelled them to return to their homes to see what went to make up this great Province—great in resources, great in extent, but greater still in the promise it seemed to hold out, that here in British North America we should establish true freedom—not freedom fair without but foul within, but that true freedom that gave every man his private and personal rights, consistent with the private and personal rights of others. They might say to their constituents, that if Canada went into this union she went into it mainly with a view to promote the common prosperity, to secure the common safety, and to establish the common liberties of all British North America.

(Source: Thomas D’Arcy McGee, Speeches and Addresses Chiefly on the Subject of British-American Union (London: Chapman and Hall, 1865), 93-95. Click HERE)

—–o0o—–

November 23, 1864: Alexander Galt, Speech on the Proposed Union of the British North American Provinces…(1864)

THE SCHOOL LAWS IN LOWER CANADA.

He would now endeavour to speak somewhat fully as to one of the most important questions, perhaps the most important—that could be confided to the Legislature—the question of Education. This was a question in which, in Lower Canada, they must all feel the greatest interest, and in respect to which more, apprehension might be supposed to exist in the minds at any rate of the Protestant population, than in regard to anything else connected with the whole scheme of federation. It must be clear that a measure would not he favorably entertained by the minority of Lower Canada which would place the education of their children and the provision for their schools wholly in the hands of a majority of a different faith. It was clear that in confiding the general subject of education to the Local Legislatures it was absolutely necessary it should be accompanied with such restrictions as would prevent injustice in any respect from being done to the minority.—(Hear, hear.)

Now this applied to Lower Canada, but it also applied, and with equal force, to Upper Canada and the other Provinces; for in Lower Canada there was a Protestant minority, and in the other Provinces a Roman Catholic minority. The same privileges belonged to the one of right here, as belonged to the other of right elsewhere. There could be no greater injustice to a population than to compel them to have their children educated in a manner contrary to their own religious belief. It had been stipulated that the question was to be made subject to the rights and privileges which the minorities might have as to their separate and denominational schools. There had been grave difficulties surrounding the separate school question in Upper Canada, but they were all settled now, and with regard to the separate school system of Lower Canada he was authorised by his colleagues to say that it was the determination of the Government to bring down a measure for the amendment of the school laws before the Confederation was allowed to go into force. (Loud cheers.)

He made this statement because, as the clause was worded in the printed resolutions, it would appear that the school law, as it at present existed, was to be continued. Attention had however been drawn in Conference to the fact that the school law, as it existed in Lower Canada, required amendment, but no action was taken there as to its alteration, because he hardly felt himself competent to draw up the amendments required; and it was far better that the mind of the British population of Lower Canada should be brought to bear on the subject, and that the Government might hear what they had to say, so that all the amendments required in the law might be made in a bill to be submitted to Parliament; and he would add that the Government would be very glad to have amendments suggested by those, who, from their intelligence or position, were best able to propose them. (Hear.)

It was clear that injustice could not be done to an important class in the country, such as the Protestants of Lower Canada or the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada, without sowing the seeds of discord in the community, to an extent which would bear fatal fruit in the course of a very few years. (Hear.)

The question of Education was put in generally,—the clause covering both superior and common school education, although the two were to a certain extent distinct. This was not the place, nor had he the time or ability to enlarge upon the subject; but he might observe that common school education was that which we were called upon to give to the whole of the people, but that superior education was different; in that, we aimed at something higher; we took the finest minds of the country, the best talent that was growing up around us, and endeavored to enable our youth, educated at our Universities, to hold their own position and be an honor to their country in any part of the world; to fill up our Bench, to supply our Bar, to be the ornaments of our church, to be distinguished in the medical profession. He hoped and believed when the question came up in Parliament for disposal, the Legislature would rescue the Lower Canadian institutions for Superior Education from the difficulties in which they now stood; and this remark applied both to Roman Catholic and Protestant institutions. (Hear.)

[…]

THE POSITION OF BRITISH LOWER CANADIANS.

He must apologize to the meeting for having detained them so long, but would only keep them a few minutes longer while closing the remarks to which he had invited them to listen. He had gone over the principal points which were arranged by the Conference at Quebec, and what he now felt called upon to advert to was the mode in which those proceedings were likely to affect our respective populations. It was quite plain that, to secure the support of the community at large to any scheme of this kind, it was necessary they should be satisfied that no injustice would be done by the mode in which it was to be worked out. It was perhaps impossible to argue against or to meet mere vague apprehensions. But at the same time we must feel that there were certain subjects, the dealing with which either by the General or the Local Governments might be supposed to bring some danger to the institutions which we individually and locally might feel most interested in. He referred of course generally to the position, first, of our French Canadian friends in Lower Canada, and then of the British population of Lower Canada. For, in reality, the difficulty of dealing with this question was to be found in the fears and apprehensions of these two populations.—And it was a fortunate thing, as we were obliged to meet a difficulty of that kind, that we bad for so many years got on with so much harmony together—that, if apprehensions existed they could not be shewn to be founded on acts of hostility by one part of our community against another part—that, if there was an apprehension, it was an apprehension of wrong in the future, not a bitter recollection of wrong in the past.

For over twenty-five years harmony had reigned in Lower Canada, and the British and French Canadian populations had felt they could go hand in hand in promoting the common interests of the country. What was wanted now was to maintain that feeling of confidence, to show that no wrong was thought of by one or the other. The truth was that while the French Canadian population must look to our support in the General Legislature for the protection of their rights—while they must look to us as Lower Canadians, to stand shoulder by shoulder with them for the protection of their rights in the General Legislature—we in the Local Legislature should demand that no wrong should be attempted against us. If it should be otherwise, the result would be most disastrous to those who attempted it. A minority so large as the French minority would be in the General Legislature could not be affronted without danger, and such a minority as the British minority of Lower Canada, conspicuous for its wealth and intelligence, though not so much for its numbers, could not be outraged without important results following that would bring their own remedy with them.

He therefore felt that, in taking his position in the Conference, he was charged, not altogether with the simple duty of a representative of the British portion of the population of Lower Canada, but he felt that he equally represented his French Canadian friends; and his conviction was that, instead of there being any clashing and division of interests, they would be found in the future more closely bound together than ever before. It would be found that the effect of the combination of all the Provinces would be to benefit Lower Canada,—not French Lower Canada, or British Lower Canada—but the whole of Lower Canada—by giving it the position of being the commercial heart of the country—that that position we should share together, and that anything which tended to damage that position would be fatal to the interests both of the one and of the other. (Hear, hear.)

He thought our material interests would have to govern us in this respect. He felt that those interests respecting which apprehensions existed on the part of his countrymen, could not be assailed by the French Canadian population, if they should be so unwise as to think of such a thing, without retribution falling upon them in consequence of the action taken by the outraged population on other matters in the General Legislature or even in the local Legislatures. It could not be. Their interests could not be severed. They would live together, as they now did in this town of Sherbrooke, happily and well. They had done so, and he hoped they would continue to do so, by taking special care that they should not outrage each other’s feelings. In this way he hoped we should overcome any apprehensions which might exist. But at the same time it was well that, so far as might be, we should make provision against the possibility of wrong. If security were taken that wrong could not be done on the one side or the other, then there was less chance of its being attempted. Instead of having to remedy an injury, we should prevent it.

And to speak more particularly with regard to the British population of Lower Canada, he would remark that, in the General Government they could have nothing to fear. Their race would of course be the dominant race in the General Parliament, and, consequently, he might say, in the General Government. Their interests would be safe there—The interests of trade and commerce, those in which they felt more particularly concerned, which concerned the merchants of Montreal and Quebec, would be in the hands of a body where they could have no fear that any adverse race or creed could affect them. Ail those subjects would be taken out of the category of local questions, would be taken away from the control of those who might he under the influence of sectional feelings animated either by race or religion, and would be placed in the hands of a body where, if the interests of any class could be expected to be secure, surely it would be those of the British population of Lower Canada.—(Hear, hear.)

[…]

THE EDUCATIONAL QUESTION AGAIN.

He would now again briefly allude to the question of education. He believed he had said enough on that, to remove any apprehensions that might have been felt. He did hope that what he had said to-day with reference to the measure to be introduced by the Government would reach the eyes or the ears of those who were more immediately connected with the question of education, and that the result would he that they would put in some succinct and intelligible form the changes which it might be desirable to make in the present law; and he would take this opportunity of saving—and it was due to his French Canadian colleagues in the Government that he should thus publicly make the statement, that so far as the whole of them were concerned,—Sir Etienne Tache, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Chapais, and Mr. Langevin,—throughout the whole of the negotiations, there was not a single instance when there was evidence on their part of the slightest disposition to withhold from the British of Lower Canada anything that they claimed for their French Canadian countrymen. [Cheers]

They acted wisely in taking the course they did, for certainly it encouraged himself and others to stand up for the rights of their French Canadian friends. (Hear, hear.)

The opponents of the measure had tried to excite apprehensions in the minds of the British of Lower Canada on the one hand, and in the minds of the French Canadians on the other, by representing to one and to the other that they were to be sacrificed. This in fact was the best evidence that the measure had been wisely framed and that it was not to give power or dominance to one over the other. If this were to be its effect, it must fail from its manifest injustice. The only way in which they could expect it to be carried out, was by its being found on examination that no just cause of apprehension existed on the part of any considerable class of the community. [Hear.]

[…]

INCORPORATION OF RELIGIOUS BODIES.

There was another point on which he might make some remarks, although he would not detain them long. It was the right of the local Legislatures to incorporate bodies such as ecclesiastical corporations. Now, he thought there was no necessity for his hearers to distress themselves much about this; he, for his part, had no objection to let each religious body deal with its own affairs in the way it liked best—to give it the greatest possible degree of freedom. But he believed the same degree of intelligence that had been displayed in France and in England in reference to the incorporation of religious associations would always be displayed in Canada too. The Roman Catholic mind in Lower Canada was quite as well awakened as that of the Protestant part of the community to the evils of tying up lands in mortmain, and thus placing the population of the country in a less independent position that they at present occupied. The intelligent Roman Catholic community quite kept pace with Protestant society in this respect, and there was no reason to fear that any step in the wrong direction would be taken by them in this respect. [Hear.] […]

(Source: Alexander Galt, Speech on the Proposed Union of the British North American Provinces (Montreal: Longmore & Co, Printing House, 1864). Click HERE)

—–o0o—–

December 22, 1864: Thomas D’Arcy McGee, Speech in Compton

[…]

RIGHTS OF MINORITIES.

I am, as you are, interested in the due protection of the rights of the minority, not only as an English-speaking member in Lower Canada, but as interested naturally and reasonably for my co-religionists, who form the minority in Upper Canada. (Hear, hear.)

I am persuaded as regards both minorities, that they can have abundant guarantees, sacred beyond the reach of sectarian or sectional domination—for all their rights, civil and religious. (Hear, hear and cheers.)

If we had failed to secure every possible constitutional guarantee for our minorities, east and west, I am sure the gentleman who may be considered your special representative at the Conference— (Hon. Mr. GALT)—and I am equally sure, that I myself, could have been no party, to the conclusions of the late Conference. (Loud cheers.)

But we both believed—and all our Canadian colleagues went with us in this belief—that in securing the power of disallowance, under circumstances which might warrant it, to the General Government, in giving the appointment of Judges and Local Governors to the General Government, and in expressly providing in the Constitution for the educational rights of the minority, we had taken every guarantee, legislative, judicial and educational, against the oppression of a sectional minority by the sectional majority. (Cheers.)

You will have for your guarantee the Queen’s name,—which I think the case of Ottawa has shown is not without power in Canada; you will have the subordination of the local to the general authority, provided in the constitutional charter itself, and you will have, besides, the great material guarantee, that in the General Government you will be two-thirds of the whole told by language, and a clear majority counted by creed; and if with these odds you cannot protect your own interests, it will be the first time you ever failed to do so. (Cheers.)

The Protestant minority in Lower Canada and the Catholic minority in Upper Canada may depend upon it the General Government will never see them oppressed—even if there were any disposition to oppress them—which I hope there is not in Upper Canada; which I am pretty sure there is not in Lower Canada. (Cheers.)

No General Government could stand for a single session under the new arrangements without Catholic as well as Protestant support; in fact, one great good to be expected from the larger interest with which that Government will have to deal will be, that local prejudices, and all other prejudices, will fall more and more into contempt, while our statesmen will rise more and more superior to such low and pitiful politics. (Loud cheers.)

What would be the effect of any set of men, in any subdivision of the Union, attempting for example, the religious ascendancy of any race or creed? Why, the direct effect would be to condemn themselves and their principles to insignificance in the General Government. Neither you here, nor the Catholic minority in Upper Canada will owe your local rights and liberties to the forbearance or good will of the neighboring majority; neither of you will tolerate being tolerated; but all your special institutions, religious and educational, as well as all your general and common franchises and rights, will be secured under the broad seal of the empire, which the strong arm of the General Government will suffer no bigot to break, and no province to lay its finger on, should any one be foolish enough to attempt it. (Cheers.) […]

(Source: Thomas D’Arcy McGee, Two Speeches on the Union of the Provinces (Quebec: Hunter, Rose, & Co., 1865), 3-12. Click HERE)

2. The Confederation Debates (1865-66)

Note: Debates over religious protections are found in the Confederation Debates. For these debates we have worked on an extensive index. Excerpts related to religion in this index have been added into this report. All entries are clickable.

How to use the index: For references to pp. 1-1032, those refer to the original page numbers from the 1865 Confederation Debates. If ever, there’s a page number with an asterisk, such as “p. 32*” that means that is from the 1866 debates. This helps distinguish identical page numbers found in 1865 and 1866. Sometimes, we just wrote the debate day such as [LA, Aug. 8, 1865]. That’s because that particular debate didn’t have an original page number. It’s from a newspaper and is most likely from the summer session of 1865. There are also other newspaper entries from other dates—such as January and March, 1865. The name following the page number in brackets indicates who spoke on the issue cited.

Act to Grant Equal Rights and Privileges to Persons of the Jewish Religion (Lower Canada, 1832): 183 (Belleau); 236 (Taché); 432 (A. Mackenzie).

Act to Restore Roman Catholics in Upper Canada Certain Rights in Respect to Separate Schools (Province of Canada, 1863): 81 (Alexander); 95 (Brown); 144 (McGee); 341 (Campbell); 590 (Perrault); 679 (H. Mackenzie); 695 (A.A. Dorion); 808 (Walsh); 882, 883 (Biggar); 924 (Dufresne); [LA, Sep. 7, 1865] (Bown).

Catholics:

British North America, number in: 382 (Langevin); 74* (Perrault).

Clergy: see Clergy (Catholic)

Conservative party: 847 (Laframboise).

Divorce: 389 (Langevin); 691 (A.A. Dorion); 776 (Geoffrion); 785 (Rémillard); 834 (Harwood); 846, 848 (Laframboise); 878 (Denis); 911 (Scoble).

Education: see Education

Ultramontanism: [LA, Jan. 23, 1865] (Haultain); 796 (O’Halloran).

Upper Canada: see Minorities and Minority Rights

Clergy, Catholic:

American Revolution: 57 (Cartier); 838 (Harwood).

Confederation: 61 (Cartier); 338 (Price); 618 (Perrault); 778 (Geoffrion); 838 (Harwood); 842 (Laframboise); 872 (Denis); 896 (Taschereau); 926 (Dufresne); 952 (De Niverville).

Divorce: 776 (Geoffrion); 786 (Rémillard); 842, 846 (Laframboise).

Education: 640 (Haultain); 843 (Laframboise); 75* (J.S. Macdonald)

Intolerance: 641 (Haultain).

Rebellion of 1837: 618 (Perrault); 926 (Dufresne).

Education:

Catholic clergy: 641 (Haultain); 843 (Laframboise).

Common Schools: 45*, 46* (Cartier), 67*-70* (Langevin, A. Mackenzie) 74*, 75* (Cartier).

Dissentient schools: 410 (Rose); 411 (Rose, Holton, Cartier); 412 (Rose, Cartier, Pope, J.S. Macdonald, Alleyn); 45*, 46* (Cartier); 67*-70* (Langevin, A.A. Dorion, J.A. Macdonald, A. Mackenzie, McDougall, Dunkin, Rankin, J.H. Cameron, D. Macdonald, Laframboise, Howland, Scatcherd); 74* (Bell, McGee, Brown, Howland, Ferguson, A. Mackenzie, McDougall, Powell, A.A. Dorion, Perrault, Rankin, Cartier, J.H. Cameron); 75* (Cartier); 79* (J.A. Macdonald, Galt); 80* (Galt, J.S. Macdonald, Cauchon, Pope, Dunkin, A.A. Dorion, Brown, McGee, M.C. Cameron).

Equal privileges urged: 45* (J.S. Macdonald); 67*-70* (A.A. Dorion, J.A. Macdonald, McDougall); 72* (McGee, Bell), 73* (M.C. Cameron); 74* (McGee, Bell, A.A. Dorion, Perrault, Rankin, Cartier); 75* (Cartier); 79* (J.A. Macdonald); 80* (McGee).

Funding: [LC, Sep. 15, 1865] (Currie); [LA, Sep. 7, 1865] (Ferguson, Holton, Galt, Brown, J.S. Macdonald, A. Mackenzie, Scatcherd, Scoble, Carling); 67*-70* (Langevin).

Growth since 1840: 587 (Perrault).

Incorporated companies, school taxes of: 411 (Cartier).

Local government, jurisdiction: 4 (Address to the Queen); 18 (Address to the Queen, J.A. Macdonald); 95 (Brown); 177 (Olivier); 189 (Letellier de St. Just); 215 (Christie); 248, 264 (A.A. Dorion); 311 (Olivier); 341 (Currie); 346 (Address to the Queen); 368, 373 (Langevin); 490 (Dunkin); 640 (Haultain); 680 (H. Mackenzie); 794 (O’Halloran); 925 (Dufresne); 1025 (J.S. Macdonald); 1030 (Address to the Queen).

Lower Canada:

apprehension of minorities: 18 (J.A. Macdonald); 123 (Sanborn); 144 (McGee); 191 (Bureau); 250 (A.A. Dorion); 335 (Ryan); 411 (Cartier); 640 (Haultain); 876 (Denis);

common schools question: 79 (John Ross); 81 (Alexander); 95 (Brown); 320 (Flint); 341 (Currie); 410 (Rose); 680 (H. Mackenzie); 693 (A.A. Dorion); 45*, 46* (Cartier); 67*-70* (A. Mackenzie); 74*, 75* (Cartier);

cost: 791 (Paquet); 67*-70* (Langevin);

dissentient schools: 410 (Rose); 411 (Rose, Holton, Cartier); 412 (Rose, Cartier, Pope, J.S. Macdonald, Alleyn); 45*, 46* (Cartier); 67*-70* (A. Mackenzie, McDougall, A.A. Dorion, Dunkin, Pope, Laframboise, Howland); 74* (McGee, Brown, A.A. Dorion, Perrault, Cartier); 75* (Cartier); 79 * (J.A. Macdonald, Galt); 80* (Galt, Cauchon, Pope, Dunkin, A.A. Dorion, McGee);

Education Act, amendment to: 17 (Holton); 643 (Haultain); 660 (Holton);

more sectarian: 67*-70* (McDougall);

number of schools in 1840 and 1865: 386 (Langevin);

Protestant rights: see School Bills below

protection of minority rights, less than Upper Canada: 46*, 74*, 75* (Cartier).

School Bills: 272 (Currie); [LA, Aug. 16, 1865] (Galt, Cartier, A.A. Dorion); 23* (Galt, Scoble); 67-70* (Langevin, A.A. Dorion, J.A. Macdonald, A. Mackenzie, McDougall, Dunkin, Rankin, J.H. Cameron, Pope, D. Macdonald, Laframboise, Howland, Scatcherd); 72* (Bell); 74* (Bell, McGee, Dorion, Perrault, Rankin, Cartier); 75* (Cartier); 79* (J.A. Macdonald, Galt); 80* (Galt, J.S. Macdonald, Cauchon, Pope, Dunkin, A.A. Dorion, Brown, McGee, M.C. Cameron); (89* (A.A. Dorion, McDougall, Brown, J.S. Macdonald, Cartier)

Corrupt deal for Confederation: [LA, Mar. 18, 1865] (Holton); [LA, Aug. 9, 1865] (A.A. Dorion); [LA, Aug. 16, 1865] (A.A. Dorion); 67*-70* (Laframboise); 80* (Pope, A.A. Dorion); 89* (A.A. Dorion)

Denials of: [LA, Mar. 18, 1865] (Brown, Cartier); [LA, Aug. 9, 1865] (Galt); [LA, Aug. 16, 1865] (Cartier, Galt); 89* (McDougall, Brown);

Failure to pass: 79* (J.A. Macdonald, Galt); 80* (Galt, J.S. Macdonald, Cauchon, Pope, Dunkin, A.A. Dorion, Brown, McGee, M.C. Cameron); 89* (A.A. Dorion, J.S. Macdonald);

See also Galt, Alexander: Resignation

Protection of Catholic rights in L.C.: 67*-70* (Dunkin, Pope, Laframboise);

Protection of Catholic rights in U.C.:

Equal rights urged: 67*-70* (A.A. Dorion, J.A. Macdonald, McDougall, J.S. Macdonald); 72* (Bell); 74* (Bell, McGee, Bell, Dorion, Perrault, Rankin, Cartier); 75* (Cartier); 79* (J.A. Macdonald); 80* (A.A. Dorion, McGee);

Against: 67-70* (A. Mackenzie, Dunkin, D. Macdonald, Scatcherd); 74* (Howland, Ferguson, Mackenzie, McDougall, Alleyn, Powell, J.H. Cameron); 80* (Brown);

already protected: 67-70* (McDougall);

imposition on U.C.: 67*-70* (A. Mackenzie);

not the same situation: 67*-70* (McDougall, Dunkin); 80* (Dunkin);

Protection of Protestant rights in L.C.: [LA, Aug. 16, 1865] (Cartier); 67*-70* (McDougall, Dunkin, J.H. Cameron, Laframboise, Howland); 89* (Cartier); 74*, 75* (Cartier); 79* (J.A. Macdonald, Galt); 80* (Galt, Pope, Dunkin, A.A. Dorion, McGee, M.C. Cameron).

Sectarian schools: 95 (Brown); 144 (McGee); 189 (Letellier de St. Just); 191 (Bureau); 264 (A.A. Dorion); 311 (Olivier); 320 (Flint); 335 (Ryan); 351 (Joly); 411, 412 (Cartier); 420 (J.S. Macdonald); 590 (Perrault); 680 (H. Mackenzie); 961 (Ferguson); 67*-70* (Langevin, A.A. Dorion, J.A. Macdonald, A. Mackenzie, McDougall, Dunkin, Rankin, J.H. Cameron, D. Macdonald, Laframboise, Howland, Scatcherd); 74* (Bell, McGee, Brown, Howland, Ferguson, A. Mackenzie, McDougall, Powell, A.A. Dorion, Perrault, Rankin, Cartier, J.H. Cameron); 75* (Cartier); 79* (J.A. Macdonald, Galt); 80* (Galt, J.S. Macdonald, Cauchon, Pope, Dunkin, A.A. Dorion, Brown, McGee, M.C. Cameron).

Upper Canada:

Dr. Ryerson: 883 (Biggar); 961 (Ferguson);

Separate schools for Catholics: 18 (Wallbridge); 95 (Brown); 144 (McGee); 191 (Bureau); 335 (Ryan); 351 (Joly); 411, 412 (Cartier, J.S. Macdonald); 420 (J.S. Macdonald); 590 (Perrault); 666 (J.A. Macdonald); 680 (H. Mackenzie); 808 (Walsh); 924 (Dufresne); 961 (Ferguson); 1025 (J.S. Macdonald); 67*-70* (A. Mackenzie, McDougall, Dunkin, Rankin, D. Macdonald, Howland, Scatcherd); 72* (Bell); 74* (McGee, Bell, Brown, Howland, Ferguson, A. Mackenzie, McDougall, Powell, A.A. Dorion, Perrault, Rankin, Cartier, J.H. Cameron); 75* (Cartier); 79* (J.A. Macdonald, Galt); 80* (Galt, J.S. Macdonald, Cauchon, A.A. Dorion, Brown, McGee, M.C. Cameron).

Jews:

Emancipation by Lower Canada: 183 (Belleau); 236 (Taché); 432 (A. Mackenzie); 672 (Alleyn).

Great Britain: 833 (Harwood).

Oppression: 673 (Alleyn).

Minorities and Minority Rights:

Catholics in Upper Canada, protection: 52 (Currie); 173 (Olivier); 237 (Taché); 311 (Olivier); 341 (Currie); 345 (Taché); 1025 (J.S. Macdonald); 67*-70 * (A. Mackenzie, McDougall, Dunkin, Rankin, D. Macdonald, Howland, Scatcherd); 72* (Bell); 74* (Bell, McGee, A.A. Dorion, Perrault, Rankin, Cartier); 75* (Cartier); 79* (J.A. Macdonald); 80* (A.A. Dorion, McGee)

equal rights in education: 67*-70* (A.A. Dorion, J.A. Macdonald, McDougall, J.S. Macdonald); 72* (Bell); 74* (Bell, McGee, A.A. Dorion, Perrault, Rankin, Cartier); 75* (Cartier); 79* (J.A. Macdonald); 80* (A.A. Dorion, McGee);

majority against education rights: 67-70* (A. Mackenzie); 74* (McDougall); 80* (Brown).

Protestants in L.C., protection: 67*-70* (Langevin, A. Mackenzie, McDougall, A.A. Dorion, Dunkin, Pope, Laframboise, Howland); 79* (J.A. Macdonald, Galt); 80* (Galt, Pope, Dunkin, A.A. Dorion, McGee, M.C. Cameron).

Protestant dissenters in Lower Canada, right to keep registers of civil status: 236 (Taché).

The Confederation Debates (1866)^[4]

Just prior to Confederation, there was an attempt to strengthen Protestant dissentient schools in Lower Canada. Finance Minister Alexander Galt (himself an Anglo-Quebecker) had promised such a bill to the Anglo-Protestant members from Lower Canada. And in turn, they supported Confederation’s passage. However, in the summer of 1866, with Confederation poised to soon occur, the bill for protecting these rights had to be brought forward at this time. The bill attempted to provide the English-speaking protestants of Lower Canada with permanent protection, not the mere privilege of having their own separate schools in that province. Unlike Upper Canada, Lower Canada’s public school system since 1863 was Catholic, not non-sectarian. Protestants in Lower Canada had the privilege of dissentient schools, but considered it now threatened by a French speaking majority of Catholics in the new proposed legislature of Quebec. The English-speaking minority now wished to have their privileges protected in a statute before Confederation would put them at the mercy of a French-speaking majority.

On August 3, agitation ensued when a private member’s bill for the constituency of Russell in Canada West (by Mr. Robert Bell) asked for the same protections for the Catholic minority in Upper Canada. Sectarian conflict once again risked undermining the bill for Protestant dissentient schools in Lower Canada. Furthermore, for George Brown and the Reformers, both (Bell’s and Galt’s) bills risked undermining the non-sectarian public school system in Upper Canada. The controversies exposed divisions not only within the coalition cabinet (between Galt and McGee as well as others) but also risked rendering confederation itself more difficult. This presented Brown with another opportunity to defeat the Coalition Ministry. Brown would have succeeded if the Ministry, now embroiled in another ministerial crisis, did not withdraw the Protestant minority bill. It did so on August 7 and survived the session. But the decision had its costs: the ministry lost its second cabinet minister with the resignation of the Finance Minister Alexander Galt. One week later, the parliamentary session was prorogued, and in November, a small Canadian delegation was sent to London. As Macdonald said at the conclusion of the session, “These were not like ordinary bills; if passed they would have been a fundamental part of the constitution of the country”.

Some interesting debates from that period can be found here:

July 31, 1866
August 2, 1866
August 3, 1866
August 7, 1866
July 31, 1866
August 2, 1866
August 3, 1866
August 7, 1866 ^[5]

Essentially, Macdonald’s government did not want to enter Confederation with Quebec MLAs (mostly Catholic) voting for permanent education policy in Ontario, while Ontario MLAs (mostly Protestant) voting for Quebec policy. He called this a “double minority” and would have affronted both majorities in each province. So for national unity, the government shelved it. Despite the failure to pass legislation, some religious education rights would still be inserted at the end of the drafting process (London Resolutions drafts in 1866 and British North America Act drafts in 1867). Furthermore, users are also encouraged to view the following report: Minority Rights in the Constitution Act, 1867.^[6]

3. The London Conference Drafts (1866)

Note: These drafts are still tentatively dated. Recently, our team uncovered the fourth draft and the penultimate draft alongside several post-London Conference drafts. These have not been dated yet and are listed as [n.d.]. All these drafts would be from sometime in December, 1866. The post-Conference drafts may have carried into January, 1867, but since the clause doesn’t change in any of those versions from the Final Version, it has been left out of this report. To access the entirety of the London drafts, users can click HERE.

December 4, 1866: Version No. 1, Copy 1

43. The Local Legislatures shall have power to make Laws respecting the following subjects:

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the London Resolutions – Version No. 1, Copy 1, December 4th, 1866 (MG 26 A, Vol. 46, pp. 18184-18190). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

December 13-14, 1866: Version No. 2, Copy 1

43. The Local Legislature shall have power to make laws respecting the following subjects:—

6. Education—saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their Denominational Schools, at the time when the Union goes into operation.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the London Resolutions – Version No. 2, Copy 1, December 13-14th (MG 26 A, Vol. 46, pp.18176-18183). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

December 14, 1866: Version No. 3, Copy 1

43. The Local Legislatures shall have power to make laws respecting the following subjects:—

6. Education—saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas they possess as to their denominational schools, at the time when the Union goes into operation.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the London Resolutions – Version No. 3, Copy 1, December 14th, 1866 (MG 26 A, Vol. 46, pp. 18197-18209). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

December [?], 1866: Version No. 4, Copy 1

42. The Local Legislatures shall have power to make laws respecting the following subjects:—

6. Education; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority ^{[in both Canadas]} may possess as to denominational schools at the time when the Union goes into operation.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the London Resolutions – Version No. 4, Copy 1, December, 1866 (MG 26 A, Vol. 46, pp. 18197-18209). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

December [?], 1866: Penultimate Version

41. The Local Legislatures shall have power to make laws respecting the following subjects:—

7. Education; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas ^{[any Province]} may possess ^{[have by law]} as to denominational schools at the time when the Union goes into operation^{. [And in any Province where a system of separate or dissentient schools by law obtains, or where the Local Legislature may hereafter adopt a system of separate or dissentient schools, an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council of the General Government, from the acts and decisions of the Local Authorities which may affect the rights or privileges of the Protestant or Catholic minority in the matter of education; and the General Parliament shall have power in the last resort to legislate on the subject.]}

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the London Resolutions – Penultimate Version, December, 1866 (MG 26 A, Vol. 46, pp. 18197-18209). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

December 28, 1866: Final Version

41. The Local Legislatures shall have power to make laws respecting the following subjects :—

7. Education; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in any Province may have by law as to denominational schools at the time when the Union goes into operation. And in any Province where a system of separate or dissentient schools by law obtains, or where the Local Legislature may hereafter adopt a system of separate or dissentient schools, an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council of the General Government, from the acts and decisions of the Local Authorities which may affect the rights or privileges of the Protestant or Catholic minority in the matter of education ; and the General Parliament shall have power in the last resort to legislate on the subject.

(Source: London Resolutions as found in Joseph Pope (ed), Confederation: Being a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Documents Bearing on the British North America Act (Toronto: Carswell Co. Ltd., 1895) at 98-110. Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

4. The British North America Act, 1867 Drafts (Constitution Act, 1867)

Note: The following are drafts of the British North America Act. The Local Constitution packages are currently listed as not having a date [n.d.]. However, we do have a date for the early package, which is January 11, 1867. The rest are probably from around that date as well.

Please also note that, for now, for the various versions, we have prioritized including drafts that have been marked up by the drafters. Some drafts simply contain the base text with no amendments. These will be incorporated into later versions of this report. For the full set of British North America drafts please click HERE.

Local Constitutions Package

January 11, 1867: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – Local Constitutions Drafts Package

6. The Local Legislatures shall have power to make laws respecting the following subjects:—

[…]

7. Education; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in any Province may have by law as to denominational schools at the time when the Union goes into operation. And in any Province where a system of separate or dissentient schools by law obtains, or where the Local Legislature may hereafter adopt a system of separate or dissentient schools, an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council of the General Government, from the acts and decisions of the Local Authorities which may affect the rights or privileges of the Protestant or Catholic minority in the matter of education; and the General Parliament shall have power in the last resort to legislate on the subject.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – Local Constitutions Drafts Package, January 11th, 1867 (MG 26, A, Vol. 47, pp. 18374-18413). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

[n.d.]: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – Local Constitutions Drafts Package with Reilly’s Notes

^[94] 107.—In each Province the Lieutenant-Governor ^{[Legislature]} may, by and with the consent of the Legislative Assembly, make Laws in relation to Education in the Province, subject and according to the following provisions:—

(1.) 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 in the Province at the Union.

(2.) All the powers, privileges, and duties by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada, at the time of the Union, on the separate Schools and School Trustees of The Queen’s Roman Catholic subjects, shall be extended to the Dissentient Schools of The Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in Lower Canada

(3.) Where in any Province a system of separate or Dissentient Schools by Law obtains or is hereafter established by the Legislature thereof, an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or decision of any Provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Catholic minority in relation to Education.

(4.) In case any such Provincial Law as from time to time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that behalf, then and in every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case require, the Parliament of Canada shall have power to make remedial Laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any such decision of the Governor General in Council.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – Local Constitutions Drafts Package with Reilly’s Notes, n.d. (MG 26, A, Vol. 49/2, pp. 19462-19480). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

[n.d.] John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – Local Constitutions Drafts Revised Package

107.—In each Province the ^{[Legislature]} Lieutenant-Governor may, by and with the consent of the Legislative Assembly, make Laws in relation to Education in the Province, subject and according to the following provisions:—

(1.) 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 in the Province at the Union.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – Local Constitutions Drafts Revised Package, n.d. (MG 26, A, Vol. 49/2, pp. 19500-19518). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

[n.d.] John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – Local Constitutions Drafts Revised Package, Copy 4

107.—In each Province the Lieutenant-Governor may, by and with the consent of the Legislative Assembly, make Laws in relation to Education in the Province, subject and according to the following provisions:—

^[Checkmark] (1.) 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 in the Province at the Union.

^[Checkmark] (2.) All the powers, privileges, and duties by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada, at the time of the Union, on the separate Schools and School Trustees of The Queen’s Roman Catholic subjects, shall be extended to the Dissentient Schools of The Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in Lower Canada.

^[Checkmark] (3.) Where in any Province a system of separate or Dissentient Schools by Law obtains or is hereafter established by the Legislature thereof, an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or decision of any Provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Catholic minority in relation to Education.

^[X] (4.) In case any such Provincial Law as from time to time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that behalf, then and in every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case require, the Parliament of Canada shall have power to make remedial Laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any such decision of the Governor General in Council.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – Local Constitutions Drafts Revised Package, Copy 4, n.d. (MG 26, A, Vol. 49/2, pp. 19576-19594). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

[n.d.] John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – Local Constitutions Drafts Revised Package, H.B. Morse’s Copy

(1.) 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 in the Province at the Union.

^[Checkmark] (4.) In case any such Provincial Law as from time to time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that behalf, then and in every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case require, the Parliament of Canada shall have power to make remedial Laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any such decision of the Governor General in Council.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – Local Constitutions Drafts Revised Package, H.B. Morse’s Copy, n.d. (MG 26, A, Vol. 49/2, pp. 19595-19613). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

Drafts of the British North America Act

n.d. (probably early January, 1867): Rough Draft

42. The Legislature shall have exclusive power to make laws respecting the following subjects, with the exception of Agriculture and Immigration, in regard to which Parliament shall have concurrent jurisdiction.

[…]

7. Education — saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority in any Province at the time when this Act comes into operation, and in any Province where a system of separate or dissentient schools by law obtains, or where the Legislature may thereafter adopt a system of separate or dissentient schools, an appeal shall lie to the Governor-General from the acts and decisions of the Local Authorities which affect the rights and privileges of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority in the matter of education, and the Parliament shall have power, in the last resort, to legislate on the subject.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – Rough Draft, n.d. (MG 26, A, Vol. 48, pp. 18768-18793). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

January 23, 1867: 23rd January Draft, J.W. Ritchie’s Copy

39. In each Province the Superintendent may, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Provincial Assembly, make Ordinances in relation to Education in the Province, subject and according to the following Provisions;

(1.) Nothing in any such Ordinance shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class or Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union;

(2.) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties ^[for the Time being^{] [at first]} by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of Her Majesty’s Roman Catholic Subjects shall from Time to Time be extended to the Schools of Her Majesty’s Protestant and Roman Catholic Dissentient Subjects in Lower Canada;

(3.) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools for the Time being exists by Law, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of any Class of Persons in relation to Education;

(4.) In case any such Provincial Ordinance as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the prepare Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Power of the Parliament of the United Colony to make Laws in relation to Education shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, be unrestricted.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – 23rd January Draft, J.W. Ritchie’s Copy, January 23rd, 1867 (MG 26, A, Vol. 48, pp. 18971-18988). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

January 30, 1867: 1^st Draft

Only a partial copy survives of this draft, consisting of the first twenty sections of the draft Bill. Therefore, the wording of the relevant section in this draft is unknown.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – 1st Draft, January 30th, 1867 (MG 26 A, Vol. 48, pp. 19017-19021. Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

January 31, 1867: 2^nd Draft with Handwritten Provisions and Notes

^{[67. In each Province the Lieutenant Governor may by and with the Consent of the Legislative Assembly, make laws in relation to education in the Province, subject and according to the following Provinces.]}

Education in the Province subject and according to the following Provisions:

(1.) Nothing in any such Ordinance ^[Law] shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:

(2.) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties for the time being ^{[at the Union]} by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of Her Majesty’s ^{[the Queen’s]} Roman Catholic Subjects shall from Time to Time, be extended to the ^{[dissentient]} Schools of Her Majesty’s ^{[the Queen’s]} Protestant and Roman Catholic Dissentient Subjects in Lower Canada:

(3.) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools for the Time being exists by Law ^{[obtains or is hereafter enabled by the legislature thereof]}^, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of ^{[the Protestant or Catholic ILLEGIBLE]} any Class of Persons in relation to Education:

(4.) In case any such Provincial Ordinances ^[laws] as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far [only] as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Power of the Parliament of the United Colony to ^{[Canada shall have]} make ^[remedial] Laws ^{[for the due execution of the province of Section and of any such decision of the Governor General in Council]} in relation to Education shall, not withstanding anything in this Act, be unrestricted.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – 2nd Draft with Handwritten Provisions and Notes, January 31st, 1867 (MG 26, A, Vol. 48, pp. 19040-19082). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

February 2, 1867: 3^rd Draft, Revised Copy

67. In each Province the Lieutenant-Governor may, by and with the consent of the Legislative Assembly, make Laws in relation to Education in the Province, subject and according to the following provisions:—

(1.) 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 in the ^[Illegible] Province at the Union.

(2.) All the powers, privileges, and duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada ^{[at the time of the union]} on the separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic subjects, shall be extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in Lower Canada.

[O] (4.) In case any such Provincial Law as from time to time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that behalf, then and in every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case require, the Parliament of Canada shall have power to make remedial Laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any such decision of the Governor General in Council.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – 3rd Draft, Revised, February 2nd, 1867 (MG 26, A, Vol. 48, pp. 19125-19148). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

n.d. (1867): 4^th Draft, Early Version

Not mentioned in this draft.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – 4th Draft, Early Version, n.d. (MG 26, A, Vol. 49/1, pp. 19150-19181). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

n.d. (1867): 4^th Draft, Later Version

Not mentioned in this draft.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – 4th Draft, Later Version, n.d. (MG 26, A, Vol. 49/1, pp. 19337-19367). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

n.d. (1867): 4^th Draft, Later Version, Revised Copy

94^[1]^.—In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Education in the Province, subject and according to the following provisions:—

(1.) 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 in the Province at the Union.

(4.) In case any such Provincial Law as from time to time seems to the Governor general in Council requisite for the due execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that behalf, then and in every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case require, the Parliament of Canada shall have power to make remedial Laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any such decision of the Governor General in Council.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – 4th Draft, Later Version, Revised Copy, n.d. (MG 26, A, Vol. 49/1, pp. 19399-19450). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

n.d. (1867): 4^th Draft, Final Version

91.—In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Education in the Province, subject and according to the following provisions:—

(1.) 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 in the Province at the Union.

(4.) In case any such Provincial Law as from time to time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in the behalf, then and in every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case require, the Parliament of Canada shall have power to make remedial Laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any such decision of the Governor General in Council.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – 4th Draft, Final Version, n.d. (MG 26, A, Vol. 49/2, pp. 19614-19664). Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

n.d. (1867): House of Lords Bill

93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:—

(1.) 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 in the Province at the Union:

(2.) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec

(3.) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen’s Subjects in relation to Education.

(4.) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.

(Source: John A. Macdonald Fonds, Drafts of the British North America Act, 1867 – H.L. Bill (Floor), n.d. (MG 26 A, Vol. 49/2, pp. 19665-19711. Click HERE.)

—–o0o—–

PART III: Charter Protections of Religious Rights—Constitution Act, 1982

Note: The Charter period involves several clauses, which touch on religious rights and freedoms—some directly, some indirectly. Some issues, such as denominational schools and abortion rights are listed as distinct topics in this report. For the Charter period, the report will be divided into six parts:

1. Denominational/Religious Schools
2. Preamble/”Supremacy of God”
3. Section 1—Limits to Religious Rights Through Reasonable Limits Clause
4. Section 2—Freedom of Religion and Conscience
5. Section 15—Non-Discrimination Rights
6. Abortion

It is our hope not merely to add to these parts in future reports, but to explore other elements of the Charter that touch upon religious rights, such as Section 33, The Notwithstanding Clause.

1. Denominational/Religious Schools

House of Commons

November 23, 1981
[See, for example, pp. 13145-46]

Special Joint Committee

November 20, 1981 [Issue 9]
[See, for example, pp. 86-87]

November 24, 1980 [Issue 11]
[See, for example, pp. 7-9, 23-24]

December 4, 1980 [Issue 19]
[See, for example, pp. 6-24, 29]

December 18, 1980 [Issue 29]
[See, for example, pp. 66-77]

December 19, 1980 [Issue 30]
[See, for example, pp. 15-16]

January 7, 1981 [Issue 33]
[See, for example, pp. 59-60, 65-69, 74-77, 81-83, 114-115]

January 8, 1981 [Issue 34]
[See, for example, pp. 96, 156]

January 9, 1981 [Issue 35]
[See, for example, pp. 69-71]

January 15, 1981 [Issue 38]
[See for example, pp. 51-55]

Denominational Schools (Newfoundland System)

November 7, 1980 [Issue 2]
[See, for example, pp. 39-40]

November 12, 1980 [Issue 3]
[See, for example, pp. 13-14]

November 20, 1980 [Issue 9]
[See, for example, pp. 77-78, 86-87, 95-96]

December 4, 1980 [Issue 19]
[See, for example, pp. 9-10, 19]

December 18, 1980 [Issue 29]
[See, for example, pp. 72-73]

January 9, 1981 [Issue 35]
[See, for example, pp. 50-55, 61-74, & APPENDIX “CCC-12” BRIEF to the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada from The Joint Executive of The Denominational Education Committee of Newfoundland]

January 15, 1981 [Issue 38]
[See, for example, pp. 55-56]

January 20, 1981 [Issue 41]
[See, for example, pp. 101, 124-125]

January 29, 1981 [Issue 48]
[See, for example, pp. 127-130]

February 4, 1981 [Issue 53]
[See, for example, pp. 40-47]

[In future versions of this report, we will add the following: the repeal of Section 9, subsections 1-4 by Quebec (1997), Newfoundland’s establishment [Term 17] and termination of denomination schools (1997), and other provincial protections of religious schooling.]

—–o0o—–

2. Preamble/”Supremacy of God”

Precursor: Bill of Rights (1960)

Phase I: Drafting History From July, 1980-September, 1980

Summary: Prior to the October 2 Resolution to Parliament, where the clause was omitted, there were discussions as to what to include in the preamble. There were numerous proposals, which dealt with many themes including God, language, peoples, the provinces, institutions, etc. However, as is mentioned in a memo from Fred Gibson to the Prime Minister on January 21, 1981, “There would never be agreement on the underlying principles anymore than there was on those for the constitution last summer.”

Documents

June 6, 1980: A Statement of Principles for a New Constitution

July 14-18, 1980: Report of the Committee of Officials on the Preamble/Principles of a Constitution

July 24, 1980: Report on the Preamble/Principles of a Constitution

August 13, 1980: Preamble and Fundamental Aims of the Constitution

August 26-29, 1980: CCMC, A Preamble to the Constitution, Federal Proposals

August 26-29, 1980: First Ministers’ Conference, Indians and the Current Constitutional Discussions

August 30, 1980: Memorandum for the Prime Minister, Preamble to the Constitution

September 8-12, 1980: Federal-Provincial Conference of First Ministers, Report of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution to First Ministers, The Preamble

September 13, 1980: Government of Quebec, “A Proposal for a Common Stand of the Provinces”

—–o0o—–

Phase II: Preamble and “Supremacy of God” re-introduced in the Special Joint Committee: January, 1981

Summary: After a long absence, the preamble is brought up again as a Progressive Conservative amendment to Section 1 of the Charter. The amendment, put forward on January 20, 1981, would read thus,

“1. Affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free individuals and free institutions.

Affirming also that individuals and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law…”[7]

This amendment would be rejected 14-10 on January 22, 1981.

Special Joint Committee:

January 7, 1981 [Issue 33]
[See, for example, pp. 44-46–discussion re “Supremacy of God”]

January 19, 1981 [Issue 40]
[p. 32–discussion on adding “family” to the preamble]

January 20, 1981 [Issue 41]
[pp. 7-12–discussion re “Supremacy of God”]

January 21, 1981 [Issue 42]
[pp. 36-45–discussion re “Supremacy of God”]

January 22, 1981 [Issue 43]
[pp. 13-21–discussion re “Supremacy of God”]

Government Memoranda

January 21, 1981
[Recommendation against accepting Conservative amendment in SJC]

Phase III: Reconsidering the Preamble/Supremacy of God clause: February-April, 1981

Summary: The clause would be re-appear after the Special Joint Committee had finished. As a result, it is debated in the House of Commons rather than in the committee. It is eventually passed and included in the April 24, 1981 version of the Constitution. It would never change after that.

Government Memoranda

February 23, 1981 [Discussion of including in new Resolution]

February 25, 1981 [Discussion of including in new Resolution]

House of Commons Debates on the Preamble/Supremacy of God:

March 11, 1981 [p. 8139]

Incorporated into: April 24, 1981 version of the Constitution. It would never change after that.

June 15, 1981

November 30, 1981 [p. 13511]

—–o0o—–

3. Section 1—Limits to Religious Rights Through Reasonable Limits Clause

Special Joint Committee

November 18, 1980 [Issue 7]
[See, for example, p. 10]

November 20, 1980 [Issue 9]
[See, for example, pp. 86-87]

November 27, 1980 [Issue 14]
[See, for example, pp. 20-21]

January 7, 1981 [Issue 33]
[See, for example, pp. 71-73]

January 21, 1981 [Issue 42]
[See, for example, p. 32]

—–o0o—–

4. Section 2—Freedom of Religion and Conscience^[8]

Freedom of Religion

House of Commons

February 23, 1981
[See, for example, p. 7594]

March 10, 1981
[See, for example, pp. 8089-8090]

Special Joint Committee

November 18, 1980 [Issue 7]
[See, for example, p. 10]

November 20, 1980 [Issue 9]
[See, for example, p. 86]

November 27, 1980 [Issue 14]
[See, for example, pp. 20-21]

December 9, 1980 [Issue 22]
[See, for example, pp. 117-118]

January 6, 1981 [Issue 32]
[See, for example, pp. 33, 37-38]

January 8, 1981 [Issue 34]
[See, for example, pp. 156-157]

January 9, 1981 [Issue 35]
[See, for example, pp. 69-71, 76]

January 15, 1981 [Issue 38]
[See, for example, pp. 51-55]

January 21, 1981 [Issue 42]
[See, for example, p. 41]

—–o0o—–

Freedom of Conscience

Special Joint Committee

November 25, 1980 [Issue 12]
[See, for example, pp. 46-56]

November 27, 1980 [Issue 14]
[See, for example, pp. 7, 13]

December 9, 1980 [Issue 22]
[See, for example, pp. 41-42, 117-118]

December 11, 1980 [Issue 24]
[See, for example, p. 107]

January 8, 1981 [Issue 34]
[See, for example, p. 156]

—–o0o—–

5. Section 15—Non-Discrimination Rights^[9]

Special Joint Committee:

December 16, 1980 [Issue 27]
[See, for example, pp. 31-32]

December 18, 1980 [Issue 29]
[See, for example, pp. 8-14, 66-67]

January 6, 1981 [Issue 32]
[See, for example, pp. 33, 37-38]

January 7, 1981 [Issue 33]
[See, for example, pp. 71-73, 85-86]

January 16, 1981 [Issue 39]
[See, for example, pp. 18-19]

January 29, 1981 [Issue 48]
[See, for example, pp. 29-30]

Tax Exempt Status

December 9, 1980 [Issue 22]
[See, for example, pp. 32-33]

December 18, 1980 [Issue 29]
[See, for example, p. 15]

—–o0o—–

6. Abortion^[10]

House of Commons

March 5, 1981
[See, for example, pp. 7967-7969]

March 12, 1981
[See, for example, pp. 8160-8161]

March 12, 1981
[See, for example, p. 8174]

March 23, 1981

April 2, 1981
[See, for example, p. 8875]

April 23, 1981
[See, for example, p. 9462]

November 23, 1981
[See, for example, p. 13140]

Special Joint Committee

November 18, 1980 [Issue 7]
[See, for example, p. 17]

November 20, 1980 [Issue 9]
[See, for example, pp. 144-45]

December 9, 1980 [Issue 22]
[See, for example, pp. 25-30, 34-49]

December 11, 1980 [Issue 24]
[See, for example, pp. 99-110, 113-116]

December 18, 1980 [Issue 29]
[See, for example, pp. 9-14, 37-49, 86]

January 7, 1981 [Issue 33]
[See, for example, pp. 58-59, 63-65, 73-74, 86]

January 8, 1981 [Issue 34]
[See, for example, pp. 119-121, 123, 124-130]

January 20, 1981 [Issue 41]
[See, for example, pp. 101]

January 22, 1981 [Issue 43]
[See, for example, pp. 46-52]

January 30, 1981 [Issue 49]
[See, for example, pp. 13-26]

Government Memoranda

—–o0o—–

ENDNOTES

^[2] Subsections 1-4 no longer apply to Quebec, as they were repealed by constitutional amendment in 1997.

[3] The paragraphs in some documents are divided for readability as no paragraph divisions exist in the originals. Please consult the volume for more information.

^[4] Most of the text for the next two paragraphs come from our book The Confederation Debates in the Province of Canada (CCF, 2022). Slight alterations were made by Michael Scott to conform to this report.

^[5] In order to understand the Galt resignation, it is worth seeing the debates over Galt’s alleged promises to Lower Canadian Protestants in exchange for support on Confederation. Debates over this including the alleged promises can be found HERE. Note that this document has not yet been published and will be included in an upcoming version of The Confederation Debates in the Province of Canada, (publication date to be determined). The first edition of the book The Confederation Debates in the Province of Canada (CCF, 2022) can be found on PrimaryDocuments.ca.

^[6] Michael J. Scott, “Minority Rights in the Constitution Act, 1867,” Second ed. (June 2025), PrimaryDocuments.ca.

[7] The rest of Section 1, unchanged, would follow this wording.

^[8] The drafting history of Section 2 is available and has been pulled from Michael Scott’s table, “Drafting Period Appendices—A Clause by Clause Progression of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Appendix 3: Charter Progression Tables—Sections 2-33, 35, 52(1), Property Rights, and the Preamble,” which is set to feature in an upcoming academic journal article by Michael Scott and Charles Dumais, tentatively titled “The Drafting History of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The 1980-1982 Drafting Period.” (formerly, “A New Drafting History of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The 1980-1982 Drafting Period”) Please note that this drafting table may also be updated in the near future. The element regarding “religion” and “conscience” doesn’t change throughout the drafting history.

^[9] The drafting history portion of Section 15 is available and has been pulled from Michael Scott’s table, “Drafting Period Appendices—A Clause by Clause Progression of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Appendix 3: Charter Progression Tables—Sections 2-33, 35, 52(1), Property Rights, and the Preamble,” which is set to feature in an upcoming academic journal article by Michael Scott and Charles Dumais, tentatively titled “The Drafting History of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The 1980-1982 Drafting Period.” (formerly, “A New Drafting History of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The 1980-1982 Drafting Period”) Please note that this drafting table may also be updated in the near future.

^[10] See also our report, “Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person”, Section 7 of the Constitution Act, 1982”. Abortion rights are often discussed in connection with this clause.

Reports

PrimaryDocuments.ca

REPORT: Religious Rights, Compilation of primary documents to assist in interpreting religious rights and issues in the Constitution Act, 1867 & Constitution Act, 1982

Report on Religious Rights

A compilation of primary documents to assist in interpreting religious rights and issues in the

***Constitution Act, 1867* & *Constitution Act, 1982***

First Edition

June 2025

Table of Contents

Part I Religious Rights in Canada: The Pre-Confederation Era

Part II Religious Rights During the Confederation Era

Part III Charter Protections of Religious Rights—Constitution Act, 1982

Endnotes

PART I: Religious Rights in Canada: Pre-Confederation Era

Pre-Confederation Statutes Relating to Religious Rights

PART II: Religious Rights During the Confederation Era and the Constitution Act, 1867

1. The Quebec Conference Drafts and Discussions (1864)

Drafts

Speeches Discussing Religious Rights (1864)

2. The Confederation Debates (1865-66)

The Confederation Debates (1866)^[4]

3. The London Conference Drafts (1866)

4. The British North America Act, 1867 Drafts (Constitution Act, 1867)

Local Constitutions Package

Drafts of the British North America Act

PART III: Charter Protections of Religious Rights—Constitution Act, 1982

1. Denominational/Religious Schools

Denominational Schools (Newfoundland System)

2. Preamble/”Supremacy of God”

Phase I: Drafting History From July, 1980-September, 1980

Phase II: Preamble and “Supremacy of God” re-introduced in the Special Joint Committee: January, 1981

Phase III: Reconsidering the Preamble/Supremacy of God clause: February-April, 1981

3. Section 1—Limits to Religious Rights Through Reasonable Limits Clause

4. Section 2—Freedom of Religion and Conscience^[8]

Freedom of Religion

Freedom of Conscience

5. Section 15—Non-Discrimination Rights^[9]

6. Abortion^[10]

ENDNOTES

Like this:

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

REPORT: Religious Rights, Compilation of primary documents to assist in interpreting religious rights and issues in the Constitution Act, 1867 & Constitution Act, 1982

Report on Religious Rights

A compilation of primary documents to assist in interpreting religious rights and issues in the

Constitution Act, 1867 & Constitution Act, 1982

First Edition

June 2025

Table of Contents

Part I Religious Rights in Canada: The Pre-Confederation Era

Part II Religious Rights During the Confederation Era

Part III Charter Protections of Religious Rights—Constitution Act, 1982

Endnotes

PART I: Religious Rights in Canada: Pre-Confederation Era

Pre-Confederation Statutes Relating to Religious Rights

PART II: Religious Rights During the Confederation Era and the Constitution Act, 1867

1. The Quebec Conference Drafts and Discussions (1864)

Drafts

Speeches Discussing Religious Rights (1864)

2. The Confederation Debates (1865-66)

The Confederation Debates (1866)[4]

3. The London Conference Drafts (1866)

4. The British North America Act, 1867 Drafts (Constitution Act, 1867)

Local Constitutions Package

Drafts of the British North America Act

PART III: Charter Protections of Religious Rights—Constitution Act, 1982

1. Denominational/Religious Schools

Denominational Schools (Newfoundland System)

2. Preamble/”Supremacy of God”

Phase I: Drafting History From July, 1980-September, 1980

Phase II: Preamble and “Supremacy of God” re-introduced in the Special Joint Committee: January, 1981

Phase III: Reconsidering the Preamble/Supremacy of God clause: February-April, 1981

3. Section 1—Limits to Religious Rights Through Reasonable Limits Clause

4. Section 2—Freedom of Religion and Conscience[8]

Freedom of Religion

Freedom of Conscience

5. Section 15—Non-Discrimination Rights[9]

6. Abortion[10]

ENDNOTES

Share this:

Like this:

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Discover more from PrimaryDocuments.ca

***Constitution Act, 1867* & *Constitution Act, 1982***

The Confederation Debates (1866)^[4]

4. Section 2—Freedom of Religion and Conscience^[8]

5. Section 15—Non-Discrimination Rights^[9]

6. Abortion^[10]