Civil Rights in Public Education www.CRIPEweb.org

The false perception:  Roman Catholics pay for their own separate school system

Reality:  We all pay for the Roman Catholic separate school system

   There is a perception by some that local school taxes pay for the school system; that the taxes collected from Roman Catholic school supporters pay for the Roman Catholic separate school system; that both public schools and separate schools have their own tax base for funding their own operations.  NO.  This is not the case today, and never has been.

   The authorities for what follows are comprised of  Ministry of Education documents, phone calls to the treasurer of the City of Pembroke, calls to the Renfrew County District School Board, a call to the Ministry of Education, reference to the Ministry web site, and a paid advertisement inserted in the Ottawa Citizen by the Ottawa Carleton Catholic School Board.

   Before 1998, and also at present, local property taxes provided a  portion of the operating budget for school boards, and tax dollars are still  collected for English Public, English Separate, French Public and French Separate boards, but the mill rates are now the same for all four sectors (no  longer set by the school boards).

     Mill rates are now the same for all four school  systems in one municipality, but change across the province depending on the muni-cipality.  Local tax dollars collected for educational purposes are passed on to the appropriate board, and this amount is topped up, if necessary by provincial money so that it meets the amount determined by what is called the  Basic Foundation Grant.  

   Large cities, like Metro Toronto, may collect more in education  property taxes than the province allots to the Metro School Board.  This is possibly where some get the idea that each board funds itself through local taxes.  In any case, this would be the exception.

    Taxpayers in rich cities still pay provincial taxes which support grants for all other school boards in the province that can’t raise the necessary dollars locally.

   Local education tax dollars are augmented through substantial  provincial grants.  In the early 1990s, public elementary schools received around 35% of their funding from the province while the separate received around 70%.  Public secondary schools received about 30% from the province while the separate secondary received about 60%. 

   Provincial dollars to provide  grants for school boards come from provincial taxpayers who do not have the opportunity to choose which schools their provincial tax dollars are directed  toward.  Tax dollars from everyone, including PST reven-ues, go into a central pot of money from which these public dollars are then disbursed. 

   Tax dollars from citizens who are not Roman Catholic end up paying a large portion of the costs for Roman Catholic separate  schools.

   From the web site of the Toronto District School Board: “Public schools are funded through your property taxes collected by the provincial government and sent back through specific funding formulas to  school boards.”  

   A Foundation Grant provides every school board with a base level of funding, the same amount per student to all school boards – public and separate. School boards then receive additional funding through ten special purpose grants, which respond to costs or needs that are specific to some boards and students. 

   Each year, the Ottawa Carleton Roman Catholic school board places an  ad in the Ottawa Citizen to advise that:

   “Your education taxes, at a rate mandated by the Province, are now pooled with those from all taxpayers in the Province.  The money is then redistributed equally on a per pupil basis to all school boards in Ontario.

    “When you designate yourself as a separate school supporter, there is no longer a financial benefit to our Board.  Rather, your designation guarantees a strong political voice through your elected representatives (Trustees) in ensuring your rights to a Catholic education…”

Misconception:  Public funding for Roman Catholic schools is a “minority right”

Reality:  Public funding is a “majority privilege”

   Any discussion of the separate school issue and what to do about it today must take into account the origin of separate schools, over 150 years ago.  At that time, yes, Roman Catholic citizens represented a minority in Ontario (Upper Canada) whereas Protestants and other citizens represented minorities in Quebec (Lower Canada).

   To accommodate this situation, each province introduced provisions to protect minority beliefs in the education of children. 

   In 1841, when Ontario and Quebec were joined together in a legislative union known as the United Province of Canada, the Day Act provided that "any number of Inhabitants of any Township or Parish professing a religious faith different from that of the majority of Inhabitants of such Township or Parish" may "dissent from the regu­lations" and set up their own school.

   At a time when religious intoler­ance was widespread, provision for a religious minority to "dissent from the regulations" and therefore from the religious majority, was a solution that suited the time.

   The intent, then, of the original legislation, was to establish social harmony by allowing antagonistic faith groups to separate in different schools. The original intent was not to elevate any one faith group into a position of privilege.

   Despite the above, subsequent legislation made it easier to estab­lish separate schools for Roman Catholics but more difficult to es­tablish them for others.

   One piece of such legislation, the Tache Act of 1855, applied only to Ontario, but was intro­duced into the Legislature by a member from Quebec, and was passed on the strength of Que­bec votes.

   Similarly, the Scott Act of 1863, which turned out to be the basis of today's separate schools, applied only to Ontario, but was again passed on the strength of Quebec (Roman Catholic) votes.

   These two acts demonstrate that Roman Catholic legislators of the United Province of Canada, being a majority, voted into law, a privilege for the Ro­man Catholic citizens of Ontario.

   And so it came about that Ro­man Catholics were allowed their own government-funded system of schools in Ontario, a privilege enjoyed by no other group.

   This was done in a demo­cratic manner, that is, by the rule of the majority.  Likewise, a majority of legislators in Ontario to­day may vote to remove this same privilege.  (See pages 2 & 3.) This is what democracy is all about.

   What was not foreseen at the time, was that the majority, attending public schools with a Protestant religious imprint, had no protection for religious privilege written into the various Acts.  

RIGHTS & PRIVILEGES

   Despite the fact that Roman Catholic citizens represent about a third of Ontario’s total, some separate school supporters still lean on the term "minority rights" as if the Roman Catholic population still represented a disadvantaged minority.  It stretches the imagina­tion to view the largest religious organization in the province as a "minority." The "minorities" are more properly Presbyterian, Jew, United, Muslim, Angli­can, etc. and they, as religious minorities, have no privileges.

   Politically, a "right" is an enti­tlement enjoyed by all citizens as outlined in charters of rights. A "privilege" is an advantage (or immunity) enjoyed by an individ­ual citizen or group of citizens.

   Roman Catholic education "rights" are really privileges, advantages enjoyed by a group.

THE REASON

   The reason that supporters of Roman Catholic privilege insist on being called a “minority” is probably because section 93(3) of the Constitution allows only the “Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen’s Subjects…” to appeal against a law that affects their privilege.  In school districts of the province where Roman Catholics are now a majority over Protestants, there would be no opportunity to appeal against a unilateral abolition of “any Right or Privilege” accorded them because of their previous minority status.

ET  CETERA

Deception by MPs about the binding nature of International law.

   When questioned about Canada’s violation of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Members of Parliament may tell you that the terms of the Covenant are not “legally binding”.

   “Human rights Fact Sheet No. 2”, published by the “Citizens’ Participation Directorate, Department of Canadian Heritage” says: “...the Covenants, by their nature as multilateral conventions, are legally binding only to those States which have accepted them by ratification or accession.”  Canada acceded to the Covenant on May 19, 1976.

Deception by MPs about a human rights issue.

   When questioned, Members of Parliament may brush you off, when you complain to them that the public funding of separate schools is a violation of the above Covenant.  They will say that you are complaining about an education issue, and education is a provincial responsibility. 

Page 3 of 3

<Previous page