Is Canada being hypocritical?

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Here's a quote from the OP lik:

21. The Committee expresses concern about the State party’s responses relating to the
Committee’s Views in the case​
Waldman v. Canada (Communication No. 694/1996, Views
adopted on 3 November 1999), requesting that an effective remedy be granted to the author
eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion in the distribution of subsidies to schools

(arts. 2, 18 and 26).
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
They are equally recognized and also are able to receive money according to the funding formula... That last part is important in that $$ is allocated on a per student basis. If your neighborhood has a high Jewish population, the cash available from the educational system may be enough to justify building a school.. However, the school system can not afford to build individual schools fro small populations in that it will exceed the per-student allocations. The irony is that if they did build schools for individual religions/culture that had small populations, teh seperate and public systems would be discriminated against via not receiving the same $$ per student... Charter schools have bridged this gap, but the kicker is that the families of those students must make up the difference and no one wants to put their money where their mouth is.

Not quite. Under the current legislation in Ontario, the number of students is irrelevent. We have four school systems in Ontario: English secular, French secular, English Catholic, and French Catholic. I believe there is also an English Protestant in one district. The Liberal Party of Ontario, currently in power, claims that the constitution requires special status for Catholics and Protestants, as per the British North America Act. If so, then why did Canada sign onto the Convention? Also, can't the constitution change with time?

I know a case of one school where Catholics and secular students share the same building in one town. For them, the government will accommodate even if numbers don't warrant. It would not accommodate a Jewish school even if numbers warrant. This is well documented.

Essentially, that is what exists today in that the homeowner can allocate the portion of their property taxes to the system they want.

Again, not accurate. He can allocate for one of the established school systems I mentioned above, giving certain religious schools special status. Other denominaitonal schools don't have this right. The law is explicit in giving specific religious institutions a special privilege over others. It's in the law.





[/quote]
Like I said, I am going on AB law and experience and am assuming that the system in Ontario is similar. In the end, this issue could easily morph into a very complicated issue based on teh overwhelming number of variables that must be considered.[/quote]

So Ontario and Alberta Law are radically different then. In Ontario, the government defends the right to special privilege to Catholics, not granted to others, as per the British North America Act. I believe Alberta may have solved the problem by simply extending this right to all religious denominations, thereby conforming to UNHCR Article 26 and the British North America Act simultaneously.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
212
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Don't forget, Ontario, Quebec, NS and NB were all that made up Canada in 1867 and the populations were predominantly RC or Protestant in an era when the two weren't the best of friends.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Don't forget, Ontario, Quebec, NS and NB were all that made up Canada in 1867 and the populations were predominantly RC or Protestant.

That's fine, but the BNA isn't the Bible. Could we not update it to conform with the international Conventions to which Canada is a signatory, or alternatively withdraw our signature from those Conventions? What is stopping Canada to do either one other than the special interest lobby?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Sorry if I keep harking on this issue, but it just eats me up to no end that we should be sending troops abroad to tell other countries to do as we say, not as we do.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
No shyte! Do you recall the uproars last time someone messed with the BNA?

Fine. Then let's be honest about it and Canada should request that its name be removed from the Convention since it no longer intends to abide by its rules and insists on maintaing special preivileges for specific religious communities, instead of giving it lip service and then ignoring it anyway. Why don't our politicians show some guts on this matter. If I were an MP, I'd give Ontario the following ultimatum:

You have one year to conform your education policy to the UNHCR, after which, if it still doesn't conform, I'll push for the federal Government to withdraw its signature from the UNHCR.

Sure it would be embarrassing, but honesty would be less embarrassing thatn empty lip service.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Fine. Then let's be honest about it and Canada should request that its name be removed from the Convention since it no longer intends to abide by its rules and insists on maintaing special preivileges for specific religious communities, instead of giving it lip service and then ignoring it anyway. Why don't our politicians show some guts on this matter. If I were an MP, I'd give Ontario the following ultimatum:

You have one year to conform your education policy to the UNHCR, after which, if it still doesn't conform, I'll push for the federal Government to withdraw its signature from the UNHCR.

Sure it would be embarrassing, but honesty would be less embarrassing thatn empty lip service.


and the other provinces that have both Catholic and public school systems? Give them the same ultimatum?


By the way, all the Provinces have basically the same funding formulas.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
212
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Fine. Then let's be honest about it and Canada should request that its name be removed from the Convention since it no longer intends to abide by its rules and insists on maintaing special preivileges for specific religious communities, instead of giving it lip service and then ignoring it anyway. Why don't our politicians show some guts on this matter. If I were an MP, I'd give Ontario the following ultimatum:

You have one year to conform your education policy to the UNHCR, after which, if it still doesn't conform, I'll push for the federal Government to withdraw its signature from the UNHCR.

Sure it would be embarrassing, but honesty would be less embarrassing thatn empty lip service.

Where, exactly, is the violation? Everyone gets an education - free. There is no guarantee every little group will have their own religion taught in school. The RC exception was grandfathered in because it preceded BNA - and what mucky-much Anglican was going to allow little Johnny to sit through Catechism?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Actually, another point: If the UNHCR conflicts with the Canadian constitution, then could the Supreme Court of Canada not require the Federal Government to withdraw its signature to the UNHCR?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
and the other provinces that have both Catholic and public school systems? Give them the same ultimatum?


By the way, all the Provinces have basically the same funding formulas.

That depends. If they are in conformity with the UNHCR Article 27, then no. If in conflict, then yes.

This is another problem, the Federal government is the signatory, though the Provincial governments are responsible for education. This makes it a multi-governmental issue.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Where, exactly, is the violation? Everyone gets an education - free. There is no guarantee every little group will have their own religion taught in school. The RC exception was grandfathered in because it preceded BNA - and what mucky-much Anglican was going to allow little Johnny to sit through Catechism?


The violation is thus:

21. The Committee expresses concern about the State party’s responses relating to the
Committee’s Views in the case​
Waldman v. Canada (Communication No. 694/1996, Views
adopted on 3 November 1999), requesting that an effective remedy be granted to the author
eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion in the distribution of subsidies to schools

(arts. 2, 18 and 26).
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Oops, my mistake. The link in the OP is not the one I had in mind. The one I had in mind was a more detailed case. The one in the OP deals with Canada's general standing on human rights at the moment. It ists quite a few issues to deal with too besides just the Catholic school system, such as:

10. The Committee, while noting the responses provided by the State party in relation to the
preservation, revitalization and promotion of Aboriginal languages and cultures, remains
concerned about the reported decline of Aboriginal languages in Canada (art. 27).​
The State party should increase its efforts for the protection and promotion of
Aboriginal languages and cultures. It should provide the Committee with statistical
data or an assessment of the current situation, as well as with information on action
taken in the future to implement the recommendations of the Task Force on
Aboriginal Languages and on concrete results achieved.

And plenty of others. It's quite a long list.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
That depends. If they are in conformity with the UNHCR Article 27, then no. If in conflict, then yes.

This is another problem, the Federal government is the signatory, though the Provincial governments are responsible for education. This makes it a multi-governmental issue.


In other words....you really have no f*ckin idea what you are talking about. Just because the UNHCR "says" we are in contravention...... then you take their word for it and piss all over Canada. Meanwhile there are a HELL of alot worse REAL human rights violations all over the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DurkaDurka

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
"

1.1 The author of the communication is Mr. Arieh Hollis Waldman, a Canadian citizen residing in the province of Ontario. He claims to be a victim of a violation of articles 26, and articles 18(1), 18(4) and 27 taken in conjunction with article 2(1).*

1.2 The author is a father of two school-age children and a member of the Jewish faith who enrols his children in a private Jewish day school. In the province of Ontario Roman Catholic schools are the only non-secular schools receiving full and direct public funding. Other religious schools must fund through private sources, including the charging of tuition fees.
1.3 In 1994 Mr. Waldman paid $14,050 in tuition fees for his children to attend Bialik Hebrew Day School in Toronto, Ontario. This amount was reduced by a federal tax credit system to $10,810.89. These tuition fees were paid out of a net household income of $73,367.26. In addition, the author is required to pay local property taxes to fund a public school system he does not use.
"
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
The facts

2.1 The Ontario public school system offers free education to all Ontario residents without discrimination on the basis of religion or on any other ground. Public schools may not engage in any religious indoctrination. Individuals enjoy the freedom to establish private schools and to send their children to these schools instead of the public schools. The only statutory requirement for opening a private school in Ontario is the submission of a "notice of intention to operate a private school". Ontario private schools are neither licensed nor do they require any prior Government approval. As of 30 September 1989, there were 64,699 students attending 494 private schools in Ontario. Enrolment in private schools represents 3.3 percent of the total day school enrolment in Ontario.

2.2 The province of Ontario's system of separate school funding originates with provisions in Canada's 1867 constitution. In 1867 Catholics represented 17% of the population of Ontario, while Protestants represented 82%. All other religions combined represented .2% of the population. At the time of Confederation it was a matter of concern that the new province of Ontario would be controlled by a Protestant majority that might exercise its power over education to take away the rights of its Roman Catholic minority. The solution was to guarantee their rights to denominational education, and to define those rights by referring to the state of the law at the time of Confederation.

2.3 As a consequence, the 1867 Canadian constitution contains explicit guarantees of denominational school rights in section 93. Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 grants each province in Canada exclusive jurisdiction to enact laws regarding education, limited only by the denominational school rights granted in 1867. In Ontario, the section 93 power is exercised through the Education Act. Under the Education Act every separate school is entitled to full public funding. Separate schools are defined as Roman Catholic schools. The Education Act states: "1. (1) "separate school board" means a board that operates a school board for Roman Catholics;...122. (1) Every separate school shall share in the legislative grants in like manner as a public school". As a result, Roman Catholic schools are the only religious schools entitled to the same public funding as the public secular schools. [*The author was represented by Mr. Raj Anand from Scott and Aylen, a law firm in Toronto, Ontario, until 1998. ]

2.4 The Roman Catholic separate school system is not a private school system. Like the public school system it is funded through a publicly accountable, democratically elected board of education. Separate School Boards are elected by Roman Catholic ratepayers, and these school boards have the right to manage the denominational aspects of the separate schools. Unlike private schools, Roman Catholic separate schools are subject to all Ministry guidelines and regulations. Neither s.93 of the Constitution Act 1867 nor the Education Act provide for public funding to Roman Catholic private/independent schools. Ten private/independent Roman Catholic schools operate in Ontario and these schools receive no direct public financial support.

2.5 Private religious schools in Ontario receive financial aid in the form of (1) exemption from property taxes on non-profit private schools; (2) income tax deductions for tuition attributable to religious instruction; and (3) income tax deductions for charitable purposes. A 1985 report concluded that the level of public aid to Ontario private schools amounted to about one-sixth of the average total in cost per pupil enrolled in a private school. There is no province in Canada in which private schools receive funding on an equal basis to public schools. Direct funding of private schools ranges from 0% (Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Ontario) to 75% (Alberta).

2.6 The issue of public funding for non-Catholic religious schools in Ontario has been the subject of domestic litigation since 1978. The first case, brought 8 February 1978, sought to make religious instruction mandatory in specific schools, thereby integrating existing Hebrew schools into public schools. On 3 April 1978, affirmed 9 April 1979, Ontario courts found that mandatory religious instruction in public schools was not permitted.

2.7 In 1982 Canada's constitution was amended to include a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which contained an equality rights provision. In 1985 the Ontario government decided to amend the Education Act to extend public funding of Roman Catholic schools to include grades 11 to 13. Roman Catholic schools had been fully funded from kindergarten to grade 10 since the mid 1800's. The issue of the constitutionality of this law (Bill 30) in view of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was referred by the Ontario government to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1985.

2.8 On 25 June 1987 in the Bill 30 case the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the legislation which extended full funding to Roman Catholic schools. The majority opinion reasoned that section 93 of the Constitution Act 1867 and all the rights and privileges it afforded were immune from Charter scrutiny. Madam Justice Wilson, writing the majority opinion stated: "It was never intended ... that the Charter could be used to invalidate other provisions of the constitution, particularly a provision such as s.93 which represented a fundamental part of the Confederation compromise."

2.9 At the same time the Supreme Court of Canada, in the majority opinion of Wilson, J. affirmed: "These educational rights, granted specifically to ... Roman Catholics in Ontario, make it impossible to treat all Canadians equally. The country was founded upon the recognition of special or unequal educational rights for specific religious groups in Ontario ..." In a concurring opinion in the Supreme Court, Estey J. conceded: "It is axiomatic (and many counsel before this court conceded the point) that if the Charter has any application to Bill 30, this Bill would be found discriminatory and in violation of ss. 2(a) and 15 of the Charter of Rights."

2.10 In a further case, Adler v. Ontario, individuals from the Calvinistic or Reformed Christian tradition, and members of the Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish faiths challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's Education Act, claiming a violation of the Charter's provisions on freedom of religion and equality. They argued that the Education Act, by requiring attendance at school, discriminated against those whose conscience or beliefs prevented them from sending their children to either the publicly funded secular or publicly funded Roman Catholic schools, because of the high costs associated with their children's religious education. A declaration was also sought stating that the applicants were entitled to funding equivalent to that of public and Roman Catholic schools. The Ontario Court of Appeal determined that the crux of Adler was an attempt to revisit the issue which the Supreme Court of Canada had already disposed of in the Bill 30 case. Chief Justice Dubin stated that the Bill 30 case was "really quite decisive of the discrimination issue in these appeals." They also rejected the argument based on freedom of religion.
2.11 On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada by judgement of 21 November 1996, confirmed that its decision in the Bill 30 case was determinative in the Adler litigation, and found that the funding of Roman Catholic separate schools could not give rise to an infringement of the Charter because the province of Ontario was constitutionally obligated to provide such funding.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
The complaint

3.1 The author contends that the legislative grant of power to fund Roman Catholic schools authorized by section 93 of the Constitution Act of Canada 1867, and carried out under sections 122 and 128 of the Education Act (Ontario) violates Article 26 of the Covenant. The author states that these provisions create a distinction or preference which is based on religion and which has the effect of impairing the enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of their religious rights and freedoms. He argues that the conferral of a benefit on a single religious group cannot be sustained. When a right to publicly financed religious education is recognized by a State party, no differentiation should be made among individuals on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs. The author maintains that the provision of full funding exclusively to Roman Catholic schools cannot be considered reasonable. The historical rationale for the Ontario government's discriminatory funding practice, that of protection of Roman Catholic minority rights from the Protestant majority, has now disappeared, and if anything has been transferred to other minority religious communities in Ontario. A 1991 census is quoted as indicating that 44% of the population is Protestant, 36% is Catholic, and 8% have other religious affiliations. It is also unreasonable in view of the fact that other Canadian provinces and territories do not discriminate on the basis of religion in allocating education funding.

3.2 The author also claims that Ontario's school funding practices violate Article 18(1) taken in conjunction with Article 2. The author states that he experiences financial hardship in order to provide his children with a Jewish education, a hardship which is not experienced by a Roman Catholic parent seeking to provide his children with a Roman Catholic education. The author claims that such hardship significantly impairs, in a discriminatory fashion, the enjoyment of the right to manifest one's religion, including the freedom to provide a religious education for one's children, or to establish religious schools.

3.3 The author further points out that this violation is not sustainable under the limitation provisions of article 18(3), which only permits those limitations which are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedom of others. According to the author, a limitation established to protect morals may not be based on a single tradition.

3.4 The author further asserts that when a right to publicly financed religious education is recognized by a State party, no differentiation should be made on the basis of religion. The full and direct public funding of Roman Catholic schools in Ontario does not equally respect the liberty of non-Roman Catholics to choose an education in conformity with a parent's religious convictions, contrary to Article 18(4) taken together with Article 2.
3.5 The author states that Article 27 recognizes that separate school systems are crucial to the practice of religion, that these schools form an essential link in preserving community identity and the survival of minority religious groups and that positive action may be required to ensure that the rights of religious minorities are protected. Since Roman Catholics are the only religious minority to receive full and direct funding for religious education from the government of Ontario, Article 27 has not been applied, as required by Article 2, without distinction on the basis of religion.