Canada: Lobby group fights for religious neutrality in school system

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

Not true. In practice many non-Catholic children benefit from enrollment in Catholic schools in Ontario.

chosen people:

The following document would seem to indicate that Catholic school admission policies from junior kindergarten to grade 8 prevent the attendance of non-Catholics unless his parents or guardians are Catholics or the pupil is preparing to be Catholic.

1. How does your observation of separate school board policy refute my use of the term “In practice”?
2. How does your observation of separate school board policy relate to the Constitutional provisions for and protection of Catholic education in Canada?

 

[chosen_people]

1. How does your observation of separate school board policy refute my use of the term “In practice”?
2. How does your observation of separate school board policy relate to the Constitutional provisions for and protection of Catholic education in Canada?

I voiced no opinion as to whether seperate school education was benificial or whether I agree or disagree with your stand. My only comment was to point out that admission policy does infact discriminate between Catholics and non Catholics as the critics claim.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

chosen people:

My only comment was to point out that admission policy does infact discriminate between Catholics and non Catholics as the critics claim.

You quoted policy. My response was to place that policy in the context of practice.

To be fair, the critics in fact claim much more than just the premise that the policy is discriminatory. They claim that public funding should be removed from Catholic school boards altogether.

However our Constitution states that one person’s right cannot negate another person’s right in an absolute sense. Where two rights appear to conflict, then a proportional balance must be created so that both rights are respected. This is called the Principle of Proportionality which governs the manner in which our Constitution is applied.

What does this mean? It means that folks may promote what they believe to be their own rights, but they may neither reasonably nor legally promote the absolute negation of someone else’s right.

How does this work? If the Principle of Proportionality were to be strictly applied, it is highly probable that some religious groups may end up with 30 seconds a year of publically funded ‘separate’ education. (I exaggerate, of course.) And this legalism – if applied – would not really satisfy anyone, least of all minority religious groups. (See Third Option, supra)

Even if the provincial human rights courts had jurisdiction – which they do not – then the codes would have to be applied according to the Duty to Accommodate. The Duty to Accommodate does not operate to remove absolutely one person’s right in order to satisfy another person’s right. It operates to satisfy all person’s rights in a manner which does not impose Undue Hardship.

What does this mean? It means that, in practice, both the Constitution and the human rights codes in Canada agree that rights may not be taken away absolutely, but merely balanced. And so those folks who wish to take away the right of Catholics to separate education in Canada do not have a leg to stand on, according to the law.

However, our Constitution – as I have explained a couple of times before – trumps any consideration of discrimination, any human rights law, any human rights court which may normally consider cases of discrimination. Why?

1. Because the Canadian Doctrine of Paramountcy states that where there is a conflict between a provincial and federal law, then the federal law rules; and
2. Because the Constitution is federal and applied by the Supreme Court of Canada, while human rights codes are provincial and applied by the provincial courts, then the Constitution has paramountcy over the human rights codes.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The Canadian Constitution reflects historical realities at the time of its writing – as the constitutions of other countries do.

Note for example:

… In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country… (David Ben Gurion and others)

In policy, the Law of Return is extended by the State of Israel to Jews, but not to non-Jews.

Some folks take issue with this, claiming that it is a discriminatory immigration policy; such folks have even stooped to the lamentable level of denigrating Israel as an “apartheid state” because of her immigration policy.

In practice, however, many folks of many religions and cultural backgrounds are welcome in Israel; they prosper and earn themselves positions of responsibility and influence. That is not discriminatory, is it? In practice, a proportional balance has been struck in Israel, has it not?

The point is that this haggling between religious groups is not doing anyone but the secularists any good.

The Catholic Church is not interested in opposing other religious groups. We believe that we have much in common with folks who seek G-d in ways which differ from our own. And we wish to go forward in harmony and friendship to achieve peace and social justice.

It is in that spirit, that our new cardinal-elect, Tom Collins, Archbishop of Toronto gave his inaugural homily on seeking the New Jerusalem.

With the clarity of faith we can see the divine reality of the governing context of life on earth: the New Jerusalem, the fulfillment of the Kingdom of G-d. We can recognize the fact that Jacob’s ladder is pitched betwixt heaven and Yonge Street. That realization arising from faith fills us with hope, which gives us the irresistible energy to be effective witnesses on earth to the G-d who is love.

The Church wishes to engage secular science with a rational – not contentious – methodology which preserves charity and friendship. This desire is set out in Ex Corde Ecclesiae (items 7 and 17) which applies to universities but which imho begs to be extended into primary and secondary preparation.

a Catholic University’s task is to promote dialogue between faith and reason, so that it can be seen more profoundly how faith and reason bear harmonious witness to the unity of all truth.

Why not extend this dialogue to other religious groups? Preparation through the separate school system for this 3-prongued dialogue is the Third Option – an option which seeks to include and reconcile rather than exclude and alienate. There is already some interfaith preparation in Catholic schools, but it is still but a babe, imho.

Israel (I note that you are posting from Israel) has had a similar need to reconcile secularism and religious tradition among the Jewish Family. How has Israel approached this endeavour?
chosen people:

I voiced no opinion as to whether seperate school education was benificial or whether I agree or disagree with your stand.

What is your opinion on whether or not the Catholic separate school education is beneficial in Canada?

My stand? I have given links to Canadian constitutional law and explained how it is applied. That is not a stand. It is observation.

… end of post

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Brampton Guardian editorial:
Parents should be added to team

If Norbert Hartmann wants to continue to take positive steps with the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, we hope he makes intelligent choices when he selects two parent representatives to sit with him on the board management team… So the next step is: Who will be selected?

It’s our sincere hope Hartmann and provincial Education Minister Kathleen Wynne don’t use the appointments to reward political cronies… Find those who can look beyond a solution that might happen to be suitable for them, this moment, and instead can look at the big picture and try to do what’s best…
This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get the school board steered in the right direction. Let’s take full advantage.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

[Catholic Register has published an http://www.catholicregister.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&topic_id=11&page_id=2602”]article. Nothing new. letters to the editor: editor@catholicregister.org

Editorial from The Star:
Everyone’s a loser in school struggle

… Critics say the takeover is similar to one by the previous Conservative government, which in 2002 placed the Toronto District School Board under supervision for refusing to balance its budget, as required by law. Ironically, Education Minister Kathleen Wynne was a member of the Toronto school board at the time of the seizure…

The defiant trustees have styled themselves as staunch defenders of public education who would not do the government’s dirty work for it. But they refused to make hard choices other boards have already made. It is the only school board in the province that has not presented a balanced budget this year. The other 71 boards have somehow managed to do it… [with different funding formulae.]

At the same time, the government has failed to address long-standing problems in the way it funds schools. It can no longer ignore warnings that students are suffering because basic funding does not reflect the real cost of education, forcing school boards to cut too close to the bone…

With only eight months left before the next general election, McGuinty should finally make good on his promise to overhaul the funding formula

 

[chosen_people]

The Canadian Constitution reflects historical realities at the time of its writing – as the constitutions of other countries do.

Note for example:

In policy, the Law of Return is extended by the State of Israel to Jews, but not to non-Jews.

Some folks take issue with this, claiming that it is a discriminatory immigration policy; such folks have even stooped to the lamentable level of denigrating Israel as an “apartheid state” because of her immigration policy.

In practice, however, many folks of many religions and cultural backgrounds are welcome in Israel; they prosper and earn themselves positions of responsibility and influence. That is not discriminatory, is it? In practice, a proportional balance has been struck in Israel, has it not?

The point is that this haggling between religious groups is not doing anyone but the secularists any good.

The Catholic Church is not interested in opposing other religious groups. We believe that we have much in common with folks who seek G-d in ways which differ from our own. And we wish to go forward in harmony and friendship to achieve peace and social justice.

It is in that spirit, that our new cardinal-elect, Tom Collins, Archbishop of Toronto gave his inaugural homily on seeking the New Jerusalem.

The Church wishes to engage secular science with a rational – not contentious – methodology which preserves charity and friendship. This desire is set out in Ex Corde Ecclesiae (items 7 and 17) which applies to universities but which imho begs to be extended into primary and secondary preparation.

Why not extend this dialogue to other religious groups? Preparation through the separate school system for this 3-prongued dialogue is the Third Option – an option which seeks to include and reconcile rather than exclude and alienate. There is already some interfaith preparation in Catholic schools, but it is still but a babe, imho.

Israel (I note that you are posting from Israel) has had a similar need to reconcile secularism and religious tradition among the Jewish Family. How has Israel approached this endeavour?

What is your opinion on whether or not the Catholic separate school education is beneficial in Canada?

My stand? I have given links to Canadian constitutional law and explained how it is applied. That is not a stand. It is observation.

… end of post

I don’t know how we got on to Zionism and the law of return. I’ll do my best to answer directly. These are my personal views and not my views as a jurist.

Any and all private school/seperate school education carries with it problems of inequality and may forment elitism and social seperation. My own view is that I support seperate school/private school education as I support it regarding Jewish education.

As to admission policy, admittedly the very nature of a private/seperate school is restrictive. However it rankles to restrict people on the basis of religion. Such a policy may only be considered where a less restrictive policy would clearly prevent the goals of seperate school education and only if the admission policy was applied equally to all other groups. Where public funding is involved the problem is even more acute.

The main problem as I understand it is public funding. Why should the tax payer pay for a Catholic seperate school at all and if he does pay, why shouldn’t he have to pay equally for the Jewish Hebrew school? The only logical justification is an historical one. I’m not familiar enough with Canadian constitutional law to know whether the existing arrangement is to be viewed as exempt from constitutional review.

 

[chosen_people]

In the fight for continued public funding and support for Catholic seperate school education in Ontario let us not forget one of its most illustrious graduates- Hamilton born Father Charles Edward Coughlin!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

chosen people:

I don’t know how we got on to Zionism and the law of return.

I’ll explain why I mentioned it. I noticed that you are posting from Israel. That reminded me that I had posted previously on the machinations of anti-zionist groups at the Durbin Conference, various Palestinian “right of return” groups and so I was vaguely familiar with Israeli constitutional provisions.

The Israel document of Independence (she does not, I believe, have a written constitution) responded to historical realities, namely the diaspora, the pogroms, and the shoa – particularly the shoa.

While, to some folks’ eyes, that document may appear to give unwarranted “differential treatment based on a prohibited ground” to Jewish return over the immigration of other groups – in fact it was righting an enormous wrong to the Jewish family, which happened over centuries.

It occurred to me that the Israeli constitutional provisions bore some resemblance to Canadian constitutional provisions and therefore I offered the analogy.

I do not believe that the purpose of Article 93 was to right the wrongs which were perpetrated to Catholics in the Canadas. I believe the English made a deal which looked more attractive to Catholics than anything the Americans offered (the lesser of two evils).

However, I do believe that that deal inadvertantly went a long way to alleviating Catholic suffering and deaths which occurred over a long period of time in the Canadas.
chosen people:

I’ll do my best to answer directly. These are my personal views and not my views as a jurist.

Thank you. Your views are stimulating and help me to clarify in my own mind what concerns need to be addressed.
chosen people:

Any and all private school/seperate school education carries with it problems of inequality and may forment elitism and social seperation. My own view is that I support seperate school/private school education as I support it regarding Jewish education.

For example, do Jewish schools admit non-Jews as Catholic schools admit non-Catholics? How are Jewish schools funded?
chosen people:

As to admission policy, admittedly the very nature of a private/seperate school is restrictive. However it rankles to restrict people on the basis of religion.

For what reasons does it rankle?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

chosen people:

Such a policy may only be considered where a less restrictive policy would clearly prevent the goals of seperate school education and only if the admission policy was applied equally to all other groups.

Can you clarify, please? What would such an admission policy look like? Thank you.
chosen people:

Where public funding is involved the problem is even more acute.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Public funding brings with it problems of its own. Autonomy and integrity for example. One huge problem among Catholic universities in Canada is that, with a few exceptions, they are publically funded – in part.

Ordinances for Catholic universities (scroll down)

The actual situations of our Canadian Catholic universities vary considerably. Most are federated colleges within a large secular university…

In Rome, the Secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education is Archbishop Michael Miller, a Canadian Basilian. He understands the unique situation in Canada, where in almost all cases the Catholic institution is affiliated with a secular university, and where much of the funding comes from government sources…

The challenge is that you are usually dealing with an enormous secular university, much bigger than the Catholic university, and it is always a fight to maintain your unique identity. (Bishop Fabbro, London, Ontario)

One example is the struggle of Catholic colleges to have pro-life clubs which are generally banned by the secular universities in which the colleges find themselves.
chosen people:

The main problem as I understand it is public funding. Why should the tax payer pay for a Catholic seperate school at all…

It doesn’t happen that way in Ontario. Taxpayers have a choice. Each time taxpayers vote in Ontario, they choose which schools they wish their tax dollars to support: public or separate. Accordingly, they are given ballots which provide a box for either public or separate school board trustees. So a public school board supporter cannot vote for a separate school board trustee – or vice versa.
chosen people:

and if he does pay, why shouldn’t he have to pay equally for the Jewish Hebrew school?

I’m with ya there. So far we have two options as far as public funding goes: public schools or separate (Catholic) schools. I believe there needs to be a Third Option, something along these lines:

As part of the Separate School system:

– a mandatory core academic curriculum taught by teachers who are trained in cross-religious education.

– a mandatory religious education curriculum for each faith group, taught by religious leaders.

– a mandatory encounter curriculum which teaches all separate students how to create and conduct interfaith dialogue and which engages all such students in interfaith action for peace and social justice, taught by specialists in this field.

If folks do not like the mandatory clause, then they are free to enroll in public (non-religious) schools.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I’ll ask this, however: do practising Jews in Ontario even want public funding for Jewish education? Or would they rather be autonomous? Are poor Jews subsidized? I believe there are options for poor Jews, but I am wondering if those options are universally available for all poor Jews – or just as many as can be accommodated?

This could be on the Bnai Brith site, but I haven’t had time to check over there yet.
chosen people:

The only logical justification is an historical one.

Yes, the concept of righting a major historical wrong.
chosen people:

I’m not familiar enough with Canadian constitutional law to know whether the existing arrangement is to be viewed as exempt from constitutional review.

It is exempt.

Reference re Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148

The basic compact of Confederation with respect to education was that rights and privileges already acquired by law at the time of Confederation would be preserved and provincial legislatures could bestow additional rights and privileges in response to changing conditions…

So we see here, once again, a further entrenchment of the concept that rights may not be taken away but they may be added.

In other words, if other religious groups feel that public funding for Catholic education is unfair, then the province has the authority to grant public funding for education in other religious contexts. However the province does not have the authority to remove public funding from Catholic education.

Now there is a nonsensical qualification to this concept which occured here: Bill 160 ruled constitutional

Under s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the province has exclusive jurisdiction to legislate with respect to education, but it cannot prejudicially affect a right or privilege affecting denominational schools enjoyed by a particular class of person by law in effect at the time of Confederation. … s. 93(1) only protects the right to funding, not the specific mechanism through which funding is delivered. The Scott Act established local taxation and provincial grants as two funding mechanisms. The province is generally free to alter the funding allocation between these sources as it sees fit, provided that the source relied on delivers sufficient funds to operate a denominational education system equivalent to the public education system.

It is nonsensical because anything which affects education within the context of delivery to a religious denomination also affects the denominational “aspect” of that education. In other words, the province has tried to separate “education” from “denominational education.” That cannot logically be done.

You can see that, in the Dufferin Peel case, the province has withheld adequate funding and has, under Bill 160, usurped the authority of the trustees and replaced them with the province’s minions. The Scott Act forbids the province from taking this action. In 2007, it won’t just be Dufferin Peel in financial trouble, it will be most of the separate school boards in Ontario.

Reference re Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148

The Scott Act

gave separate school trustees the same powers and duties as common school trustees. The exercise of these rights was not a mere practice tolerated by the educational authorities. An adequate level of funding was required for this right to be meaningful and the Scott Act provided for proportionate funding…

I haven’t been able to find a link to the Scott Act yet. Anyone?

… end of post

 

[Ani_Ibi]

In the fight for continued public funding and support for Catholic seperate school education in Ontario let us not forget one of its most illustrious graduates- Hamilton born Father Charles Edward Coughlin!

That would be the subject of another thread. His activities were mainly in the United States and had nothing to do with the fight for Catholic separate school education in Ontario. As you will note, his activities got him into trouble with the Vatican and therefore do not represent the views of the Church.
:ehh:

 

[Digitonomy]

What I actually

said was that neither the international human rights courts… have jurisdiction in this particular case.The Human Rights Committee may not have enforcement power, but it has competence on this issue, which was granted by Parliament. Is there a way in which the courts can declare that Parliament had no authority to submit the nation to the HRC?
Ani Ibi:

How it has appeared to you is one thing. The case I have actually

made – and now clarified – is one under Canadian law not one under the court of public opinion. As evidence of my claim, please note the abundance of reference links I have provided. Those links are to law not public opinion.You said that Mr Baak’s statement about fairness was untrue, which I assumed was your opinion rather than a matter of settled law. On the other hand, contesting the point that only Catholics are guaranteed access to both systems would seem to rely more on fact and law. Can you point to where in your avalanche of links I can find a refutation of the statement by Mr Baak’s claim that the law is unfair, or a refutation that only Catholics are guaranteed access to both systems?

 

[Digitonomy]

Can you provide any insight into the Dissentient Schools discussed in the Constitution’s Section 93 (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:

Were both Protestants and Catholics equally classified as Dissentients, and what Protestant denominations had their own school systems?

Finally, what was the impetus for, and result of, the 1997 amendment 93A, which exempted Quebec from Section 93?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Digitonomy:

The Human Rights Committee may not have enforcement power, but it has competence on this issue, which was granted by Parliament.

The hrc’s have no jurisdiction. Using terminology such as “competence” won’t change the fact that the hrc’s have no jurisdiction. I have already explained this and given references. It is jurisdiction which is relevant.

Digitonomy:

Is there a way in which the courts can declare that Parliament had no authority to submit the nation to the HRC?

It’s up to the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court is limited by the decisions it has already made. I’ve already provided excerpts from and links to the relevant decisions.

Notable are: the Doctrine of Paramountcy which says that, where a conflict exists between federal and provincial law then the federal law rules; and Bill 30 which states that rights accorded at the time of Confederation may not be taken away, notwithstanding any provision of subsequent law.

So there you have it: the highest law of the land says that the right of Catholics to separate education cannot be taken away.

Now, the provinces have the authority and jurisdiction to accord (or recognize) more denominational education rights – for example to other religious groups.

But that is not what the critics are asking for. The critics are asking that Catholic right to publicly funded separate education be taken away.

The critics are asking for ONE SCHOOL SYSTEM. And that one school system would serve the interests of secularism. It would not serve the interests of Catholicism nor would it serve the interests of any other religion, although Catholics and other religious groups would be required to attend.

Secularists already have their own school system. It is called the public school system.

Secularists cannot justify taking away the educational rights of Catholics, yet they persist in their anti-Catholicism.

Digitonomy:

You said that Mr Baak’s statement about fairness was untrue, which I assumed was your opinion rather than a matter of settled law.

I have shown that it is a matter of settled law.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

On the other hand, contesting the point that only Catholics are guaranteed access to both systems would seem to rely more on fact and law.

Again, it is not a matter of policy but of practice. The policy can say that the moon is made of green cheese, but it is the actual practice which counts. The actual practice is that non-Catholics are enrolled in Catholic schools.

Even if human rights law were to apply – which it does not – the Catholic separate school boards can easily show that they have – through their practice – fulfilled their duty to accommodate (under human rights law) by enrolling non-Catholic students. And therefore no discrimination has occurred.

Now the duty to accommodate is limited by undue hardship. That is if the Catholic school boards can show that it is an undue hardship to enroll non-Catholic students then the duty to accommodate non-Catholic students no longer exists. And again no discrimination will have occurred.

Since the Catholic school boards have been enrolling non-Catholic students, then any further undue hardship which may occur would be solely the result of – what?

Underfunding, of course!

And therefore, if non-Catholics are unable to enroll in Catholic schools, then it is the fault of the province which is responsible for educational funding.

It is not the fault of the Catholic schools.

And that is what the Catholic schools have been saying!

1. that the province has been underfunding them; and
2. that the province has been underfunding them in violation of the Scott Act.

Why would people who want to shut down Catholic schools want a “guarantee” of access to enrollment in those same Catholic schools? That doesn’t make sense. It is arguing for the sake of arguing.

Why? Because such a guarantee does not address the real desire of religious groups for publicly funded education in their own religions.

In response to that desire, I have set out a proposal for the Third Option (above). And I have also pointed out that the province has the authority under law to expand denominational education for religious groups.

What the province does not have the authority to do is to subtract from the provisions for Catholic education already in place in 1867.

The groups lobbying to shut down public funding for Catholic schools wish to violate settled law.

They do not wish to add educational rights, so that each religious group may access publicly funded denominational education for their own children.

They wish to take away educational rights, so that Catholics may no longer access publicly funded denominational education for their own children.

Digitonomy:

Can you point to where in your avalanche of links I can find a refutation of the statement by Mr Baak’s claim that the law is unfair, or a refutation that only Catholics are guaranteed access to both systems?

I suggest that you read through the links – yourself. I have addressed your questions several times over. I have clarified; given links to references; given excerpts from those references. The truth is out there.

… end of post

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Can you provide any insight into the Dissentient Schools discussed in the Constitution’s Section 93 (2):Were both Protestants and Catholics equally classified as Dissentients, and what Protestant denominations had their own school systems?

Finally, what was the impetus for, and result of, the 1997 amendment 93A, which exempted Quebec from Section 93?

At the time of Confederation, the majority in Quebec were francophone Catholics and the minority were anglophone Protestants. For the most part. School boards were organized on the basis of religion.

In more recent years, Quebec became decreasingly invested in Catholicism, but increasingly more invested in language rights which they believe are fundamental to the continuance of Quebec culture (or nationhood). Quebec wished school boards to be organized, therefore, on the basis of language.

Remember that the English agreed to preserve the language and religion of Quebekers. The religion of Quebekers is no longer Catholicism, but the language is more than ever French.

The Dufferin Peel situation is not happening in Quebec, however. It is happening in Ontario.

Resolution to Amend Constitution Act

WHEREAS the Government intends to institute linguistic school boards as soon as possible;

WHEREAS it is desirable, for that purpose, to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, so that Québec may recover its full capacity to act in matters of education;

WHEREAS such amendment in no way constitutes recognition by the National Assembly of the Constitution Act, 1982, which was adopted without its consent;

WHEREAS undertakings were given by the Federal Government to proceed rapidly with such amendment, through bilateral action and with the agreement of the National Assembly and of the Federal Parliament;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
THAT the National Assembly authorizes the amendment to the Constitution of Canada by proclamation of His Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada, in accordance with the following text:

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867

1. The Constitution Act, 1867, is amended by inserting the following after section 93:
   “93A. Subsections 93(1) to (4) do not apply to Québec.”.

Constitution Act

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…

(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the 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 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.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I asked a friend of mine who lived in Quebec about what happened with 93A. She says that Quebec Catholics voluntarily gave up their right to Catholic schooling because they felt that dividing schools up between French and English would better serve to preserve Quebec culture (or nationhood).

So the right to denominational education was not taken away in Quebec. It was given up.

 

[Digitonomy]

Thanks for that explanation on Section 93A. I’m still intrigued by the use of the term “dissentient” in the main body of 93. I think the term generally refers to those who refuse to attend services of the state religion, especially the Church of England. This would particularly apply to Catholics. But the section also specifically mentions Dissentient Schools of Protestant subjects. Are there, and were there, separate school systems of Methodists, or Quakers, or Lutherans, etc, established by law?

Would I be correct in guessing that the movement to exempt Quebec from Section 93 was not a unanimous one among Catholics? And that even widespread Catholic opposition would only have mattered politically, not legally? I.e, so long as the Constitution is duly amended, these rights may be taken away against the will of those protected?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Digitonomy:

Thanks for that explanation on Section 93A. I’m still intrigued by the use of the term “dissentient” in the main body of 93. I think the term generally refers to those who refuse to attend services of the state religion, especially the Church of England. This would particularly apply to Catholics. But the section also specifically mentions Dissentient Schools of Protestant subjects.

I am not deeply knowledgeable about Quebec matters. But my impression is that, at the time of Confederation, the situation in Quebec was a mirror image of that in Ontario.

So a dissentient school in Ontario would have been a Catholic school, because the majority population there was Protestant.

And a dissentient school in Quebec would have been a Protestant school, because the majority population there was Catholic.

There was no state religion. But there was something far more insidious: The Family Compact / Chateau Clique.

The Upper Canadian elite (Family Compact) used its power to preserve the Anglican Church as the dominant Protestant Church despite the fact that the majority was Methodist. In Lower Canada the problem was less religious and more ethnic. The Chateau Clique, the English speaking elite in Lower Canada, controlled business and used its political connections to dominate the French majority.

(The Family Compact in Ontario narrowed economic and political power into the hands of a few English families. The Chateau Clique in Quebec used its economic and political power to assimilate francophones into the anglophone world.)

Are there, and were there, separate school systems of Methodists, or Quakers, or Lutherans, etc, established by law?

No. However, those folks are free to establish private schools which are not publicly funded.

Would I be correct in guessing that the movement to exempt Quebec from Section 93 was not a unanimous one among Catholics?

Well, not unanimous in the sense that clergy – at least – would have voted for retention of the Catholic school boards. But I can’t say for sure.

And that even widespread Catholic opposition would only have mattered politically, not legally?

I’m not sure I understand the question. Can you clarify please? Thank you.

I.e, so long as the Constitution is duly amended, these rights may be taken away against the will of those protected?

No. Those rights accorded at the time of Constitution cannot be taken away. They can, it seems if we are to take Quebec and Newfoundland as examples, be given away by the holders of those rights.