Reality:  MPPs have acted as religious supremacists.

   On the previous page it was noted that Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the provinces absolute power over education.  As you will read on page 6, in 1987 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that, because of this absolute power, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to provinces in matters of education.  Ontario was therefore allowed to extend public funding to Roman Catholic high schools despite the fact that such a policy violates the Charter.

   In the same time period there were two court cases:   Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (1986) and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) v. Ontario Minister of Education & Elgin County (1988). 

   Each case claimed that Regulation 262, s. 28(1)  of the Ontario Education Act, which prescribed religious exercises in the opening and closing of each school day in the public schools of the province, infringes the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion in s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

   Both cases went to the Ontario Court of Appeal which ruled that the Regulation and the Curriculum contravene sections 2(a) and 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and are therefore unconstitutional. 

   As a result of these decisions, the Ministry of Education revised the regulations which became effective on January 1, 1991.  Some of these new regulations were interpreted as disallowing the Lord’s Prayer and Christmas concerts in public schools. 

   These revised regulations are outlined in Not Carved in Stone, page 37 reference #5 and restrict public schools to an absolute religious neutrality.

   Sections 2(a) and 15 of the Charter, the sections used to eliminate the Protestant imprint in the public schools, are the same sections the Supreme Court said were violated by the extension of public funds to Roman Catholic separate schools.  The Supreme Court then said that the Charter did not apply to the Province in matters of education.  Because of this the Provincial Legislature agreed to retain the Charter violation by keeping the discriminatory separate school system in place. 

   The Province also was free to exercise the same absolute power and, because the Charter does not apply to Ontario in matters of education, declare that the offending regulations which provided the Protestant imprint stay in place — whether they violated the Charter or not. 

   But the Province did not do this.  Why?

   Could it be because all three political parties support Roman Catholicism?  Do all three parties wish to see Roman Catholicism  strengthened by not allowing  Protestants to provide any religious instruction in the public schools? 

   A person who believes in the superiority of a race of people over all others is called a racial supremacist.  A person who believes in the superiority of one religion or religious denomination over all others is, by extension, called a religious supremacist.   

False perception:  To eliminate the RC separate school system would be political suicide

Reality:  All evidence suggests otherwise

    When asked an opinion on the abolition of separate-school funding, some have said they thought such a move would be political suicide for any government that tried it. Their reason seemed to be "because there are enough Roman Catholics in the province to throw out a govern­ment if one dared to do so."  However, all evidence leads to the opposite conclusion.

1)  A recent newspaper article stated that: “...while more than one billion people in the world are Roman Catholics, attendance at Sunday mass is less than 5 per cent in North America.”

2) Having a policy of supporting separate school funding did not get the Liberals or the NDP elected when Bill Davis was premier.

3) After Bill Davis made separate school funding part of the Pro­gressive Conservative platform in 1984, the next election reduced his party to a minority and the next election put the PCs in the political basement until 1995.

4) Going back further, despite intense lobbying by the Roman Catholic church, Wilfred Laurier, a Quebecer and a Roman Catholic, when in opposition, spoke against a remedial bill in the federal Par­liament to force Manitoba to re­instate the Roman Catholic sep­arate school system which Man­itoba abolished in 1890. The next year Laurier was Prime Minister.

5) Norman Sterling, a PC and the only MPP to speak against the Davis full-funding move was interviewed in August of 1996. His opinion was that if Ontario had a referendum to determine the mood for removing separate-school funding, the results would be 80% for abolition and 20% for the status quo. 

6) Despite an intense campaign by the Roman Catholic church in Newfoundland to defeat the proposed school reforms in a referendum, the vote in St. John's, with a majority of Roman Catholics, was more in favour of the reforms than the provincial average.

7) Despite an intense lobbying campaign by the Roman Catholic church of MPs, and despite a Roman Catholic Prime Minister, and despite a free vote, the con­stitutional changes for New­foundland were passed by an overwhelming vote of 171 to 41.

8) With regard to Brian Tobin’s Newfoundland referendum which was 80% in favour of abolishing church control of Newfoundland’s schools, Tobin was asked: "Did you check with the RC church on this?" Tobin's reply went something like this: “I am a Roman Catholic and so are my two colleagues, but we all supported the reform of the Newfoundland school system.”

9) Our own newspaper poll, completed in 1999, revealed that 80%, or 5,408 of 6,794 respondents, favoured “...a public school system where all children, regardless of their religious affiliation, attend the same schools…”

10) In Essex County statistics show that there are 1,200 students from homes of separate school supporters who attend the public high schools. There are 700 students from public-support homes who attend separate high schools.

11) A Vector Research poll found that 53% of respondents chose a school based on the quality of the teaching staff, 18% on the proximity of the school to the home, and 17 % on the range of courses  and programs.  Only 6% made a choice on the availability of religious instruction.

12) The vote and the resulting reform of the schools in Newfoundland to reduce the control of the churches was openly feared by many of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, hence the intense lobbying. They know that Newfoundland represents a clear precedent for change.

13) Through submissions to the Estates General in Quebec re abolition of the denominational system, 67% of Quebecois agreed and 88% want community schools notwithstanding the religion of the parents. The Association of Quebec Bishops agrees it is time for change.

14) Following other provinces which give more freedom to their citizens, and acceding to a condemnation from the United Nations Human Rights Committee cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, be considered to be "political suicide".

The false perception:  Supreme Court decisions cannot be questioned.

Reality:  Many have questioned the regressive Bill 30 decision.

   Bill Davis, Premier of Ontario in 1984, for whatever reason, decided on his own, that is, not by a decision of his party or his Cabinet, that the supply of public funds for the Roman Catholic separate school system should be extended to cover the costs of Roman Catholic high schools.

   This betrayal of supporters brought down the Progressive Conservative government, so it was the Liberals that introduced enabling legislation, Bill 30.  This Bill raised such a howl of protest that the government was forced to refer a question on the legality of the Bill to the courts.  Upheld by the Ontario Court of appeal, a further appeal was made to the Supreme Court of Canada.

   The Court acknowledged that Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, gives absolute power over education to the provinces. 

  The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, introduced in 1982, forbids discrimination on the grounds of religion.   The Court also acknowledged, because  the terms of Bill 30 give special privileges to Roman Catholic citizens, that the Bill violates the Charter.

  The Supreme Court then faced two sections of the constitution which appeared to contradict each other; the tenuous Section 93, and the protection from discrimination in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

   In June, 1987 the Supreme Court ultimately upheld Bill 30 through the following devious procedures.

   The Court decision was written by Justice Estey and Madam Justice Wilson, the other justices concurring.

   Justice Estey stated that:  “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 s. 2(a) and s. 15 of the Charter of Rights.” 

   So Justice Estey said that the Charter did not apply to the question under consideration.  In other words he threw out the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which comprises all of Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

   Estey’s statement contradicts what the Charter itself says in Section 32(1):

   “This Charter applies (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.”  The Court threw this out too. 

   The present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Rt. Hon. Beverley McLachlin, publicly stated that: “...the constitution binds everybody, and cannot be avoided.”  The obvious conclusion is that the constitution “binds everybody” when it suits the Court, and when it doesn’t suit, the Court throws it out. 

      The Court’s decision also flies in the face of orthodox principles of legislative interpretation in that newer laws, the Charter, automatically repeal inconsistent earlier ones, Section 93.

   Another principle which the Supreme Court conveniently ignored is the influence of international law.  From 1925 to 1990, 184 court cases have made reference, and given credence to, international human rights law.  The Supreme Court can be excused for ignoring international law which does not affect Canada, but to ignore, in this case, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada acceded to in May of 1976, is inexcusable.  It probably wasn’t mentioned because Canada is in violation of Article 26 of this Covenant precisely because of Ontario’s discriminatory separate school system.