Civil Rights in Public Education

I have had an interesting series of correspondence with an employee at the Ontario Human Rights Commission with regard to the public funding of Roman Catholic separate schools. The following letters are mostly self-explanatory, but I have inserted some comments between letters. If anyone wishes the CRIPE and government letterheads to appear with the text to authenticate the correspondence, I’ll send you a copy on request in Acrobat.

The series of letters was prompted by a letter from the former Minister of External Affairs, Pierre Pettigrew, who stated to me that provincial legislation offers protection from religious discrimination in the separate school case. This letter follows and is an answer to the two questions I posed to him in a previous 3-page letter. The questions were:

How do you reconcile the statements: "The promotion and protection of human rights is a fundamental part of Canadian foreign and domestic policies. Canada attaches great importance to advancing human rights through the multilateral system of the United Nations." with the fact that Canada defended the charge of religious discrimination in Tadman which subsequently, through Waldman, resulted in a condemnation of Canada for a violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

Please tell me why the federal government refuses to honour the promise made to me, to all citizens of Canada, as well as to the United Nations, to "adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant." The Canadian Heritage publication "Human Rights Fact Sheet No. 2" states that: "...the Covenants, by their nature as multilateral conventions, are legally binding ... on those States which have accepted them by ratification or accession."

To check Pettigrew’s answer in the letter below, I wrote to then Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Keith Norton, to ask him about it. From there I went to Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant. I will start this series off with the letter I received from Pettigrew. This series of letters will follow the correspondence with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. A previous series of letters followed the correspondence with the office of the Attorney General of Ontario.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your letter of November 12, 2004, regarding Canada's foreign policy with respect to human rights, which was further to my response of November 1, 2004 to your letter of May 5, 2004.

With respect to your first question, Canada responds to individual communications before the United Nations human rights treaty bodies on the merits of each admissible case.

In the Tadman communication, in which the complainants, supported by your organization, sought the elimination of public funding for the Roman Catholic separate school system and the creation of a single public school system, the Human Rights Committee agreed with Canada that the communication was inadmissible because the authors had not shown that they were the victims of any violation of their rights.

Canada defended the Waldman communication on similar grounds, namely that there was no violation of any rights - in that case, because a differentiation in treatment based on reasonable and objective criteria does not amount to prohibited discrimination. The Roman Catholic separate school system in Ontario is, like the public school system, subject to all Ontario Ministry of Education guidelines and regulations and is funded through a publicly accountable, democratically-elected board of education. Private schools are not. Ontario does not fund any private schools - religious or secular.

Canada's position in defending cases in which, in Canada's view, no case for a violation is made out, is fully consistent with its foreign policy on the promotion of human rights through the United Nations.

In regard to your second question, Canada has adopted the necessary legislative measures to give effect to the rights recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These measures include the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, federal and provincial human rights legislation, as well as numerous other laws. While Canada gives careful consideration to the views of the Human Rights Committee, they are not legally binding.

In recognition of provincial jurisdiction to implement Canada's international obligations in certain areas, the federal government seeks provincial support before becoming a party to international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocol.

As matters of education fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces, after the Human Rights Committee issued its views in the Waldman communication in November 1999, the Government of Canada reminded the Government of Ontario that it had supported Canada's accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol, and encouraged the Government of Ontario to give consideration to the comments of the Committee.

To check out whether Mr. Pettigrew was correct in saying that there is provincial legislation in place which indicates that: “…Canada has adopted the necessary legislative measures to give effect to the rights recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” and that they “…include the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , federal and provincial human rights legislation, as well as numerous other laws.” I wrote to whom I thought would be the person up on such things – the Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission – then Keith Norton. My letter to Keith Norton follows.