A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I know it may seem redundant, but could you quote the text to which you are referring please? Makes for easier reading, particularly when I am using my other screen to track down the Scott Act. Thank you.I can see where making 93B identical to 93A might still leave in place some of these laws that existed prior to the Constitution - unlike in Quebec, where the protections and funding systems were extended to Lower Canada when the Constitution was enacted. But they could make 93B slightly more verbose to correct for that.
Sorry I’ve been away for a bit. I’ve been searching against all odds, it seems, for an e-link to the text of the preConfederation statutes (The First School Act for the Province of Upper Canada, the Tache Act, the Scott Act).
Forget about trying to find anything on the English law websites – unless you are a lawyer. And obviously the Canadian and Ontario law websites don’t have them.
Sheesh! The Ontario Ministry of Education referred me to the Education Act when I asked for pre-Confederation statutes. Makes you wonder if they even noticed that Canada had gained independence from England. And then the school board referred me to the planning department!
Yes. That is what I said about rights in place before or at the time of Confederation.I realize I’m coming at this from an American perspective, but my understanding is that what is in the Constitution is what goes. If you amend it, said amendment can alter or rescind previously granted rights.
You have to read the application of the policy. The Constitution reflects the rights in place at the time of the union.Your argument that the Constitution, including new amendments, does not have paramountcy over rights in place at the time of union does not seem to square with 93A, or with the rest of the Constitution that I’ve read.
I have provided it. And, as I said, am fervently searching for the preConfederation statutes. As soon as I have them, I will post them.I’m certainly open to correction on this, but I would think as sweeping a principle as this would have some documentation somewhere to support it and explain it in further detail.
I concede that from a legal perspective you are correct. But from a practical perspective, that is what will happen to Ontario unless Ontario Catholics wake up.And I don’t buy the idea that those who are protected by the rights have to give them away, though I can’t definitively refute it at the moment.
Catholics compromise the largest religious group in Canada. If Manitoba, Newfoundland, and Quebec Catholics lost their educational rights then there is something seriously wrong with the picture.
Lets remember that the date of their union with Canada was something around 1949 or thereabouts.When I get more time, I’ll try to find more detail on the Newfoundland issue. I can easily imagine that the Pentecostals were stripped of their educational funding over the wishes of the vast majority of them.
In Quebec the majority were Catholic preConfederation. It was minority rights that were protected there, not majority rights.Sorry to be contentious without providing more documentation, but I wanted to state my two or three main objections to your explanation, though I’ll have to dig around for supportive links tomorrow or the next day.
As it stands minority Catholic rights were won in Ontario essentially through the lobbying of the Quebec Catholic Church! Ironic, n’est-ce pas?