[steveintoronto]

Only the legislature and Parliament would have to approve it.

This isn't provincial legislation or jurisdiction. It's left over from the British North America Act, now part of the Constitution.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adler_v_Ontario_(AG)

 

[Northern Light]

This isn't provincial legislation or jurisdiction. It's left over from the British North America Act, now part of the Constitution.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adler_v_Ontario_(AG)

Steve, I believe Bayer was saying nothing different.

He was indicating how Quebec and Newfoundland proceeded to amend the constitution in each of their cases to eliminate religious or denominational publicly funded schools.

That was, in both cases, affected by a unilateral request from the province in question, passed through their legislature, and then ratified by Parliament.

The amending formula for the constitution does not apply to this section of the Constitution, or rather allows for the lesser known system of the affected province and Ottawa agreeing to the amendment as it pertains to that province, and requiring no other provincial consent.

A history of this issue in Newfoundland can be found here: http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/society/collapse-denominational-education.php

 

[steveintoronto]

Steve, I believe Bayer was saying nothing different.

He was indicating how Quebec and Newfoundland proceeded to amend the constitution in each of their cases to eliminate religious or denominational publicly funded schools.

That was, in both cases, affected by a unilateral request from the province in question, passed through their legislature, and then ratified by Parliament.

The amending formula for the constitution does not apply to this section of the Constitution, or rather allows for the lesser known system of the affected province and Ottawa agreeing to the amendment as it pertains to that province, and requiring no other provincial consent.

A history of this issue in Newfoundland can be found here: http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/society/collapse-denominational-education.php

Newfoundland was never covered under the BNA Act. Only Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada, and Lower Canada (Quebec) was granted her own power over schools. Newfoundland entered The Dominion of Canada in 1949 with her school powers intact.

[...]
Continuing application of Constitutional settlement
The relevant provision for Ontario is s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 as originally enacted.[4] For Alberta and Saskatchewan, the relevant provision is s. 93(1), as amended by the Alberta Act[5] and the Saskatchewan Act,[6] respectively.

As held by the Supreme Court of Canada in Adler v. Ontario, the provincial education power under section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is plenary, and is not subject to Charter attack. As Iacobucci J. noted, it is the product of a historical compromise crucial to Confederation and forms a comprehensive code with respect to denominational school rights which cannot be enlarged through the operation of s. 2(a) of the Charter. It does not represent a guarantee of fundamental freedoms.

Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 only applies to provinces, not territories. Instead, the right to separate schools is protected in the three territories by the federal Acts of Parliament which establish those three territories. The Northwest Territories Act,[7] the Yukon Act[8] and the Nunavut Act[9] all provide that the territorial legislatures can legislate with respect to education, provided they respect the right of religious minorities (whether Protestant or Roman Catholic) to establish separate schools.

Ontario
School boards funded by the province consist of 29 English Catholic and 8 French Catholic boards, as well as 35 non-denominational public school boards (31 English public, 4 French public). There is one Protestant separate school jurisdiction in Ontario, the Burkevale Protestant Separate School, operated by the Penetanguishene Protestant Separate School Board. In Ontario, this determination was largely made throughout the province by the time of Confederation.

The public school system in the province was historically Protestant but was gradually transformed into a secular public system. Prayer in public schools was banned in the late 1980s.

Since the 19th century, funding for the Roman Catholic separate school system was provided up to Grade 10 under the British North America (BNA) Act. In 1984 the government of Premier William Davis extended full funding to include the last three (Grades 11–13 (OAC)) years of Roman Catholic secondary schools after having rejected that proposal fifteen years earlier. The first funded academic year occurred in 1985–86, as grade 11, and one grade was added in each of the next two years.

The right to have a publicly funded separate denominational school system continues to be guaranteed by Section 93 of the 1982 Constitution Act to Roman Catholics in Ontario.

A province-wide newspaper survey conducted between 1997 and 1999 in 45 dailies indicated that 79% of 7551 respondents in Ontario favoured a single public school system, but no widely supported movement to amend the Constitution has developed.

The issue of extending public funding to other religious schools was raised by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario in the Ontario general election, 2007; however they lost the election and the issue was not raised again in the subsequent election. [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_school#The_1867_Constitution

The parallel in Constitutional Law is not to be found in Canada, but in the UK, upon which the BNAct was founded, not surprisingly because it was an Act of the UK Parliament.

The UK has re-examined her Catholic School funding:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Schools_(UK) and due to the legal commitment to funding Catholic Schools, and being in violation of the UN Charter, decided to fund all religious schools, which has come to grief: (Education in the UK is a national competence)

Taxpayers' cash should not be used to fund faith schools, say voters
Labour wants talks on teaching of religion as poll shows 58% of the public urge abolition or axing of state funds

Labour is calling for cross-party talks on how religious education is conducted and monitored in the state sector as a special poll for the Observer shows widespread concerns about the use of taxpayers' money to fund faith schools in a multicultural Britain.

The survey by Opinium shows that 58% of voters now believe faith schools, which can give priority to applications from pupils of their faith and are free to teach only about their own religion, should not be funded by the state or should be abolished.

Of those with concerns, 70% said the taxpayer should not be funding the promotion of religion in schools, 60% said such schools promoted division and segregation, and 41% said they were contrary to the promotion of a multicultural society. Fewer than one in three (30%) said they had no objections to faith schools being funded by the state.

Labour supports the continuation of state-funded faith schools and shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt said he saw them as "an important part of the educational landscape". But he said the recent controversy in Birmingham, where six non-faith schools have been put into special measures and a further five criticised following allegations of a plot by hardline Muslims to infiltrate them, had raised important questions about the relationship between education and religion in a multicultural society.[...]

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/14/taxpayers-should-not-fund-faith-schools

In Ontario's case, I've already cited the Supreme Court ruling. I wish it were otherwise, but as the Court ruling held, Ontario is bound by the BNA Act.

I'd posted the link to the Supreme Court ruling prior, but as is often the case, readers don't access linked reference, so I must post it in full text:

[...]
McLachlin J. stated that Section 93 is not a code ousting the operation of the Charter and was not intended to do more than guarantee school support for the Roman Catholic or Protestant minorities in Ontario and Quebec respectively. Provinces exercising their plenary powers to provide education services must, subject to this restriction, comply with the Charter. Otherwise, she considered the provisions in question to be constitutional.

L’Heureux‑Dubé J. declared that the only school support guaranteed by s. 93 is that required of Ontario and Quebec to their respective Roman Catholic and Protestant minorities. Provinces exercising their plenary powers to provide education must, subject to this requirement, comply with the Charter. The provisions survived a challenge under Section 2, but ought to fail under Section 15. [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adler_v_Ontario_(AG)

I repeat, since the BNA Act is now part of the Constitution, the Constitution of Canada, to change the chapters and sections mentioned in the SCC ruling would entail re-opening the Constitution of Canada.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I repeat, since the BNA Act is now part of the Constitution, the Constitution of Canada, to change the chapters and sections mentioned in the SCC ruling would entail re-opening the Constitution of Canada.

You want changing the Constitution to be a very difficult task. Otherwise, you have to accept those you don't like making changes you don't like, in addition to those you like making changing you support.

 

[Northern Light]

Newfoundland was never covered under the BNA Act. Only Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada, and Lower Canada (Quebec) was granted her own power over schools. Newfoundland entered The Dominion of Canada in 1949 with her school powers intact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_school#The_1867_Constitution

The parallel in Constitutional Law is not to be found in Canada, but in the UK, upon which the BNAct was founded, not surprisingly because it was an Act of the UK Parliament.

The UK has re-examined her Catholic School funding:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Schools_(UK) and due to the legal commitment to funding Catholic Schools, and being in violation of the UN Charter, decided to fund all religious schools, which has come to grief: (Education in the UK is a national competence)

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/14/taxpayers-should-not-fund-faith-schools

In Ontario's case, I've already cited the Supreme Court ruling. I wish it were otherwise, but as the Court ruling held, Ontario is bound by the BNA Act.

I'd posted the link to the Supreme Court ruling prior, but as is often the case, readers don't access linked reference, so I must post it in full text:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adler_v_Ontario_(AG)

I repeat, since the BNA Act is now part of the Constitution, the Constitution of Canada, to change the chapters and sections mentioned in the SCC ruling would entail re-opening the Constitution of Canada.

With the greatest respect Steve, you are taxing my patience.

I clearly explained in the post that what would be required IS a constitutional amendment.

However, that amendment only requires the approval of the affected province and Ottawa.

Period. Full Stop

I will not abide any further discussion here.

You are wrong.

You must learn to admit this.

I don't wish to block you as many others have; but you must learn to walk back your excess in statements.

This comes from not clearly reading the post of others; and/or overreaching your level of knowledge.

Stop.

We all want to debate opinions/preferences and share FACTS.

We do not want people making up their own facts, which happen to be spurious.

PS, Quebec was Lower Canada, it no longer has publicly funded religious education and that adjustment was made as I described.

 

[steveintoronto]

With the greatest respect Steve, you are taxing my patience.

Hey...then quote some reference. I've been closely following this and Constitutional matters for years.

Quote *one* official reference to make your point. Have you any idea of what's involved in re-opening the Constitution? Does the term "Amending Formula" ring any bells?

If it was as easy as a province alone bidding for change, as Beez points out, what's the use of a Constitution to begin with? I don't agree with the outcome of the decision, but I certainly do in the process, "Notwithstanding Clause" besides.

I suggest one more time that you actually read the links posted. Upper Canada's historical legislation precludes exemption from the founding Act of the nation:

Continues, at length, examining the Court's decision and the minutia of same.

http://religionanddiversity.ca/medi...he_provinces_of_quebec_and_ontario_report.pdf

Perhaps this is easier to understand?

Dismiss challenge of Ontario Catholic school funding, government lawyers ask court

Lawyers for the Ontario government are asking a court to dismiss a Toronto woman’s challenge against Catholic school funding

By Allison JonesThe Canadian Press
Wed., Oct. 17, 2012
[...]
Arguing Wednesday in Ontario’s Superior Court, the lawyers say the case has already been decided, as the Supreme Court of Canada has heard four similar cases.

The woman is asking the court to order Ontario to stop funding Catholic schools on the grounds that, as a taxpayer who doesn’t share the church’s beliefs, it infringes upon her freedom of religion.

The government is arguing the case should be dismissed both because the Supreme Court has already decided the issue and because the woman doesn’t have standing.

Reva Landau argues she does have standing because some of the money she pays in taxes funds Catholic schools.

Ontario’s lawyers say there has to be a more direct link between a person challenging a law and the law itself, otherwise every taxpayer could challenge every law.

The Roman Catholic school system gets about one-third of Ontario’s $24-billion education budget, but only 23 per cent of electors direct their education taxes to separate schools.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is intervening in the challenge and is supporting Landau.

The idea for Landau’s constitutional challenge first came in 2007, when during that provincial election campaign then-Progressive Conservative leader John Tory proposed extending public funding to schools of other faiths.

“I disagree with that, as I said I’m a public schools supporter, but at least he was trying to be fair,” Landau, a retired non-practising lawyer, said Tuesday before the court case.

“He was trying to be egalitarian to at least a limited extent. . . . The more I thought about it the more it just seemed unfair.”

Public funding of Catholic schools infringes upon the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Landau says, but first the court must find that the Charter even applies to the funding formula.

A section of the Constitution states that no law can affect the rights of denominational schools and that has been interpreted as making it immune from Charter challenges, Landau argues.

It contradicts the Charter and was never intended to confer privilege on Roman Catholic education, she says.

“The only way to reconcile this difference is to interpret (the section) as narrowly as possible so it guarantees the separate school system only those rights which clearly existed at the time of Confederation,” she wrote in her challenge.

The section was meant, in 1867, to protect rights of a Catholic minority in a largely Protestant schools system, the civil liberties group says.

Interpreting it today to shield separate school funding from Charter scrutiny “only serves to erode those very principles,” the group wrote.

She is asking the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to order that the government stop funding Catholic high schools and fund Catholic only elementary schools to the extent they were funded in 1867 at the time of Confederation.

That would amount to being funded with “only property taxes from Catholics who declare themselves to be separate school supporters and who live within three miles of a separate school, and property taxes from wholly Catholic-owned businesses,” Landau wrote in her challenge.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ool_funding_government_lawyers_ask_court.html

 

[Northern Light]

Hey...then quote some reference. I've been closely following this and Constitutional matters for years.

Quote *one* official reference to make your point. Have you any idea of what's involved in re-opening the Constitution? Does the term "Amending Formula" ring any bells?

If it was as easy as a province alone bidding for change, as Beez points out, what's the use of a Constitution to begin with? I don't agree with the outcome of the decision, but I certainly do in the process, "Notwithstanding Clause" besides.

I suggest one more time that you actually read the links posted. Upper Canada's historical legislation precludes exemption from the founding Act of the nation:
View attachment 104638

Continues, at length, examining the Court's decision and the minutia of same.

I suggest you read it, get help if you have to, and don't call me names.

http://religionanddiversity.ca/medi...he_provinces_of_quebec_and_ontario_report.pdf

I didn't call you names.

I did assert you are simply wrong, that has been explained to you at some length by multiple posters, and you have simply gone on as if they said nothing or were ill informed.

I read the paper (and had previously before posting)

Nothing in it contradicts what I have said, or supports what you have said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Quebec#Religion_in_schools

The Quebec Education Act of 1988 provided a change to linguistic school boards. In 1997, a unanimous vote by the National Assembly of Quebec allowed for Quebec to request that the Government of Canada exempt the province from Article 93 of the Constitution Act. This request was passed by the federal parliament, resulting in Royal Assent being granted to the Constitutional Amendment, 1997, (Quebec).

Note that this 'reopening'of the constitution required no other provinces to consent.

***

Further

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Canada

If a constitutional amendment affects only one province, however, only the assent of Parliament and of that province's legislature is required. Seven of the eleven amendments passed so far have been of this nature, four being passed by and for Newfoundland and Labrador, one for New Brunswick, one for Prince Edward Island and one for Quebec. This formula is contained in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

************

Finally..........

I'm right.

There are your references.

My degrees cover this knowledge, as do my interests.

I previously told you off in a different thread for questioning me w/o just cause and not having properly read my posts or applicable articles.

This remains an issue.

I don't post fallacies.

There are few things I despise more than being embarrassed. As such I know my facts, and I check my facts BEFORE I post.

When I do sprinkle opinions in, I make clear that they are that, and not facts.

 

[kEiThZ]

Finally..........

I'm right.

There are your references.

My degrees cover this knowledge, as do my interests.

I previously told you off in a different thread for questioning me w/o just cause and not having properly read my posts or applicable articles.

This remains an issue.

Don't you know? Steve is an expert on everything from trains to constitutional law to project management to Guelph...well the last one might be legit.

 

[christiesplits]

I don't see it happening. It's too much of a political hot potato. Catholic schools are an integral part of the Italian and Portuguese communities, and increasingly, Filipino and Caribbean communities. All are huge voting blocs that represent swing areas of the GTA.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Promoting the existence of the supernatural in any manner is wrong.
Doing it in the context of "educating" children is wrong.
Using public tax dollars to do it is really wrong.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Promoting the existence of the supernatural in any manner is wrong.
Doing it in the context of "educating" children is wrong.
Using public tax dollars to do it is really wrong.

Better start with the anthem, God keep our land glorious and free!

If you want to remove church from state, start at the top, not with the schoolkids.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Better start with the anthem, God keep our land glorious and free!

If you want to remove church from state, start at the top, not with the schoolkids.

No...indoctrinating children is how almost everyone becomes a member. I'm more concerned about lying to children then I am song lyrics.

 

[steveintoronto]

So much for the "simple case of amending it":

[...] Section 33 is a kind of third rail of Canadian politics. The federal government has never invoked it and former prime minister Paul Martin once promised to amend the Constitution so that Ottawa could not use the clause. The Parti Québécois recently urged Quebec’s Liberal government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override court rulings throwing out criminal charges over unreasonable delay. The government refused.

“The fear is that the integrity of the Charter itself could be undermined if it becomes a regular occurrence,” said Kathleen Mahoney, a law professor at the University of Calgary.

Carla Beck, the Saskatchewan NDP’s education critic, said the Premier is threatening to use the clause to distract from other issues, such as funding cuts to schools. “Even talk of the notwithstanding clause … is not something that should be used for political gain,” she said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...over-catholic-school-funding/article34866278/

 

[gabe]

Yes. Keep religion out all schools and includes Islam. Public schools shouldn't make accommodations for religious students. Tell the kids to pray at home not in school. Religions like Islam are full of hatred & bigotry and have no place in the public school system.

Brampton Mayor Supports Accommodation for Muslim Prayers at School

https://www.inbrampton.com/brampton-mayor-supports-accommodation-for-muslim-prayers-at-school

 

[prosperegal]

Nothing wrong with religious schools if you pay for them. While I DID go to a Catholic school under the Catholic board for a few years, I finished high school at BSS. I quite enjoyed going to chapel daily - it was a great way to reflect and start the day (here is a glimpse of one of our stained glass windows). There were girls of all faiths there when I was a student in the 90s - and it at BSS that I first met Muslim girls who wore hijabs. At the same time, is BSS REALLY a "religious school" in the sense even SOME Catholic schools are "religious?" We went to chapel, sure, but the school's main focus is on academics and preparing the girls for university entrance.