The author's obviously never been in a Catholic school in Ontario. I got news, if you are Catholic and you want your children to have a Catholic education, you gotta send them to a private school also! :lol:.
And I got news for you. I went to a public Catholic school in Ontario as a child. It was totally covered by the Ontario government. My parents did not have to pay one cent other than through taxes. So you are totally wrong on that point. If you send your child to Catholic school, you have a clear economic advantage over the guy who wants to send his child to a Muslim school.
Still, my understanding is that there is a constitutional basis for Catholic education..
There is not constitutional basis for it. McGuinty tried to pull that one off, but when challenged, he could not comment on what part of the consitution he could defend this discrimination. It is unconstitutional, yet somehow manages to stick. Go figure.
t's discriminatory on the surface, but there's a reason for it. Just like Natives not paying income taxes. It's not really a discrimination, it's more of a concession. A deal was made. We're honoring it.[/quote]
It's discriminatory on the surface, and discriminatory at heart!
It's different from the native case. The treaties with the natives were international treaties, equal to, let's say, a treaty between Canada and the USA. With the Catholics, there is no such treaty. If o then please dig it up. Anglos may have given this as a concession to Franophones to maintain peace, but there was no signed treaty or agreement of any kind. Now it's just a blind discriminatory, unconstitution policy in violation of international law.